Archive for Wednesday, September 28, 2011

City commissioners delay decision on utility policy

September 28, 2011


Lawrence city commissioners at their Tuesday meeting said they wanted more time to consider a policy that would give the city more authority to transfer dollars paid by city rate payers into the city’s general fund.

Commissioners heard an objection to a policy that would allow — among other things — the city to require its own water and sewer utility to make a payment in lieu of taxes to the city’s general fund, even though state law says publicly owned utilities are not required to pay property taxes. In 2012, the payment would involve transferring about $1 million in rate payer dollars to the city’s general fund.

A representative with the Lawrence Home Builders Association said such a transfer would create questions about what rate payer dollars are actually funding.

“It feels like a bit of a shell game,” said Bobbie Flory, executive director of the home builders association.

Commissioners said they wanted more information on the policy, but did not set a date to discuss the item again.


bearded_gnome 6 years, 2 months ago

I sincerely hope the commissioners scrap this, and will avoid the shell game. Ms. Flory is right. this makes the city leaders and officials look that much more dishonest.

also, we don't need some additional rationale for raising water/utility/sewer/trash rates, please!

stopped watering my lawn years ago because of increased cost of water.

*I have to laugh: the leftists say they care so much for poor, and fixed income americans. always claiming to have the corner on compassion.

yet their policies like this, Mr. Obama's increased energy prices and weakened dollar hit us the worst. gee thanks a bunch dudes.

George Lippencott 6 years, 2 months ago

It would seem to me that our utilities should pay for goods and services received from other city departments in the same manner as they pay for goods and services form outside contractors – and should have the option to choose between the two alternatives. I frankly do not understand why we are making this a tax issue. Perhaps the costs of paying for city services would be less (maybe considerable less) than this phony tax issue might generate. I hope I just misunderstand!?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.