Alec Schaffer
aschaff3@uwyo.edu
City council approved the second reading of a municipal ordinance designed to achieve 2.5 percent revenue increase for the city of Laramie’s water fund.
“A typical household that consumes five thousand gallons would see a $1.03 difference in your bill between 2016 and 2017,” Earl Smith, Public Works Director said.
The base rate or monthly delivery charge would increase by this difference, however,the typical commodity charge would not change. Additionally, some changes to minor commodity charges were made for multi-family, commercial and irrigation, Smith said.
This increase is intended to help the city recover the cost of services associated with the utilities infrastructure. The city of Laramie does not have to pay for its water, but the infrastructure required to transport that water to residence, commercial building and irrigation facilities, does have a cost associated with it.
Six years ago, the city had a fixed rate plan and did not raise utility cost, leaving the city in a situation where they lacked the necessary funds to maintain and update the infrastructure. This, in-turn, led to infrastructure problems where neglected and overused pipes were breaking on a frequent basis, Klaus Hanson, city councilor, said.
“We have come to a plateau where increases are moderate,” Klaus Hanson said. “They use to be much higher. Right now we’re just keeping everything in balance to prevent it from getting out of whack. Replacement of infrastructure is no longer eating us alive.”
There is still a need for increases to keep up with maintenance and inflation.
“When you make improvements to your house, if you’re looking long term, once you complete one set of improvements you look at what’s next,” councilor Paul Weaver said, “It’s the reality of maintaining infrastructure and it’s tough.”
While the necessity of raising rates in order to maintain infrastructure is not disputed, some believe the rate system Laramie is considering adopting disproportionately impacts people of lower incomes.
Councilors Bryan Shuster and Joe Vitale opposed the amendment to the ordinance.
The increase could pose a burden to those on fixed income or of lower incomes, Vitale said.
Vitale and Shuster did not give reasons for their opposition to the ordinance on the Dec. 7 city council meeting.
