City of Newark’s Bid to Rip Off Water Customers

Filed in Delaware by on February 19, 2009

Like many municipalities, the City of Newark runs its own water utility to serve its residents.  As a municipality, the city is answerable to their voters for excessive fees, taxes or rates.  Also like many municipalities, the city of Newark provides water service to non-city residents in neighborhoods adjacent to the city.  This is where it gets sticky.

The city of Newark has decided that they are going to raise water rates for city water customers.  If you live in the city, you will be hit with a 15% increase.  However, if you live outside the city, but within the Newark Municipal water supply area, your rates will rise 30%.  After this increase, non-resident city water customers will pay 50% more than residents.  Over 2,000 homes fall into this category.

This is essentially taxation without representation.  One could also call it an unfair monopoly, as it is not subject to Public Service Commission review, as non-municipal utilities (like Artesian) are.  Incidentally, these water customers do not get any other city services like trash removal, plowing, police protection or electric service (city electric rates are going down).  However, these non-residents are being forced to balance the city’s budget.

On Monday, February 23rd at 7:30PM the city council will be meeting at the Municipal building on Elkton Rd. Rep. Kowalko, Sen. Peterson and Rep. Ramone are asking that everyone that is affected by this change come to the meeting to register their displeasure.  There will be an opportunity for public discussion, but just being there will speak loud and clear.

Tags:

About the Author ()

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. nemski says:

    Water. Isn’t that what future wars will be fought over?

  2. arthur says:

    one could call it needing to pay for the huge lawsuit they lost.

  3. h. says:

    I thought you lefties didn’t mind paying taxes.

  4. Dorian Gray says:

    As a resident of Windy Hills (just like Kowalko) I’ll be there. I don’t mind the increase per se, but why am I subsidizing residents inside the corporate limits when I get no vote (they do), no trash pick-up (they do), no recycling pick-up (ditto), no snow removal (same), no Newark police service… Come to think of it I’ll pass on the services of Newark’s “finest” but the point still stands.

  5. Phantom says:

    How do you know if you are affected?

  6. nemski says:

    How do you know if you are affected?

    You start arguing with Mike Matthews incessantly.

  7. anon says:

    DG you are also not paying any city taxes but you are using the town’s parks and other infrastructure. I really don’t know how they justified this.
    Elections?

  8. liberalgeek says:

    That’s the thing, DG doesn’t get to vote for the city officials who have the only say in the matter.

    You are affected by this if:

    a) You pay the City of Newark for your water.

    and

    b) The county cops show up when you have a loud party, not the Newark police.

  9. John Kowalko says:

    Let’s count the ways you are affected by this if you live in:
    Christine Manor
    Chanterelle
    Chapel Hill
    Delaplane Manor
    Middle Run Manor
    Newkirk Estates
    Nonantum Mills
    Old Mill Manor
    Red Mill Farms
    Roseville Park
    Sycamore Gardens
    Windy Hills
    Woodrose Court
    Woods at Middle Run

    Newark’s property tax set at $362 per year on an average (assessed value $68,000) home owned by people that can vote their councilmen and Mayor out of office is proposed to be increased by $.20 which would bring that figure to $498.00 an increase of $136 per year for the average homeowner (who receives leaf and grass pickup, electric service, snow removal, police service and many other services). This number needed to balance the proposed budget is approved at $377 per year an increase of only $15 per year. The City’s electric rate (provided to those same voting eligible residents) is reduced on the PPCA ( Purchase Power Cost Agreement) from 2.4 cents (.024000) per KWh to .5 cents (.00500) per KWhr resulting in bill reductions of approximately $9.5o per 500KWh a month.(also only benefiting in-city residents). Looks like a budget deficit looming doesn’t it?
    Not so fast, how about a $210+ yearly increase in Water Rates applicable to those Out of City Residents whose water is provided by the City of Newark and who have no options or alternatives to that monopoly. If they did, any rate increase request by private water purveyors would have to be submitted to the Public Service Commission and require substantial and substantive justification (such as increase in delivery costs, operating expenses, infrastructural maintenance and/or improvements etc.) and that would by no means guarantee approval of the rate increase request. Not so the case with Newark’s imposed rate increase. And by the by all of these discussions and requests would have to be vetted and discussed at public meetings with public comment (before being voted on). So where does this leave the poor un-represented and powerless Out of City Water Customer? Bring a box of tea to the Newark City Council (it’s closer than Boston Harbor) meeting scheduled for Monday February 23rd at 7:30 PM in the Newark municipal bldg. and join 100+ of those unfortunates, Rep. John Kowalko, Rep. Mike Ramone and Sen. Karen Peterson and some media types and let’s retire “taxation without representation and justification” once and for all.
    Tune in to the Mascitti show (guest hosted by John Flaherty) on Monday morning at 9AM and discuss the matter with John and Rep. Kowalko on the air.

  10. Dorian Gray says:

    anon – that’s my real desire… again I don’t necessarily mind an increase… but I’d like to hear the rationale behind me (outside the town limits) getting hammered whilst the townie chavs only see a 15% bump… I really want to see JK get some justification…

  11. anon says:

    yup, so would I, DG.
    LG I think that elections are the rationale. City elections. You and JK etc aren’t a threat.
    JK is correct in demanding their justification for this.

  12. Nooneimportant says:

    Do we know if all of the councilmen are in agreement with this? I’ve noticed a lot of votes that have one nay vote and it’s usually Councilman Temko… Has anyone talked to him or contacted any of the others? It would be interesting to see if any of them are willing to come forward before the meeting… (I mean interesting, but not likely)

  13. Phantom says:

    What about Scottfield? Is that affected?

  14. Roy Munson says:

    John, thanks for the informative post. Since I live only a couple of houses down from you, I’ll plan on being at that meeting to get some kind of justification for this increase. But really, if they want to screw us over and increase the rates, what recourse do we have at this time?

  15. liberalgeek says:

    Roy – I think John has discussed the possibility of legislation that would force rate changes like this through the PSC.

  16. Roy Munson says:

    you mean it would be fine for them to raise rates for newark residents, but if they wanted to raise the rates of those outside city limits, they’d need to OK it with PSC, right? Which sounds good to me.

  17. liberalgeek says:

    Yes. That is exactly what he has mentioned.