I have been questioning the water rates in Millcreek from SLC due to
Jeff Silvistrini mentioning them and Sen. Bramble and I discussing SLC
taxes versus fees just before that (I was asking for the Legislature
to limit the ability to raise fees/taxes to 30% a year.).  So then I
asked the Mayors and DA about it.  These are the big responses.  I
have asked the SLCO DA to confirm that the Interlocal agreement allows
SLC to charge Millcreek Fire Improvement District residents more than
SLC residents for water.  I was involved in the Fire District because
I was afraid of SLC's historical high taxes.

The Mayor sent a response from SLC on the water rates SLC
charges and I got another email from Jim Lewis in SLC about it
but....it raises other questions.  It depends on the interlocal
agreement.

Jim Lewis/SLC is saying "Millcreek water users receive their water
either under old established agreements that provide for payment based
on the rates that City residents pay or under their individual
agreements with the City when they sign up for water service."

Does the Interlocal agreement say that or...   Only the DA can figure
out the legalities.  It doesn't need fast action - just a low priority
to do action item for the DA.

I have two emails but more questions.  The emails are below:

From: Ralph Chamness <RChamness@slco.org>
Date: October 17, 2012 12:28:18 PM MDT
To: "Peter M. Corroon" <PeterMCorroon@slco.org>
Cc: Sim Gill <SGill@slco.org>, Nichole Dunn <NDunn@slco.org>
Subject: Re: Salt Lake City Water Fees
Mayor,

Brad Johnson called Rusty Vetter in the City Attorney's Office to
discuss this issue.  Rusty is currently working on this same question
from the same individual and is preparing a detailed answer.  The
short version is that Salt Lake City water is not a district, but is
apparently a corporation which is wholly owned by the City.  Each
County resident who receives water service from Salt Lake City has an
individual contractual relationship with the City.  The difficulty,
from a resident's perspective, is that the resident does not have a
choice in who provides the service.  That is, if these residents want
water, they have to contract with the City.  Rusty indicated that
non-City residents pay 130% of the rate which CIty residents pay.
I'll send you what we get from the City, but we really may not have a
good answer for Mr. Chapman.

On a side note, I do not think this situation would change if
Millcreek were to incorporate.

Thanks,

Ralph

Lewis, Jim
<jim.lewis@slcgov.com> Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:17 PM To:
"gechapman2@gmail.com" <gechapman2@gmail.com> Cc: "Christensen, Kay"
<kay.christensen@slcgov.com>, Mayor <Mayor@slcgov.com> Reply | Reply
to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
Dear Mr. Chapman:

Millcreek water users receive their water either under old established
agreements that provide for payment based on the rates that City
residents pay or under their individual agreements with the City when
they sign up for water service.  Under the second case, the customers
are charged at our current county rates, which are 1.35 times higher
than City rates.  These rates are set by the Salt Lake City Council.
Our current rate structure is established by a rate study by an
outside consultant in 2008, which explains the justification for
charging County customers more than the City customers.

The City offers water service to various parts of the County (outside
of the City’s boundaries), but it is not a core municipal service
provided by the City to its County customers.  The City is not
required to provide water service to its County customers.  In
addition, County residents are not required to take water from the
City if some other source is available.    The City and its County
customers enter into voluntary agreements for the City to provide
water to a particular customer.    Because of this contractual
arrangement, we do not believe that the question of our fee-raising
authority is applicable.

When you are referring to recent legislation concerning only elected
officials being able to approve a tax/fee increase, we assume you are
referring to HB 226 passed in 2011.  We believe this bill was directly
at the County’s Unified Police Department and only applies to law
enforcement and emergency services.  The bill does not apply to water
related services.

Hopefully, this information is helpful to you.  If you have any
further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Jim Lewis


So again, finally, Roger Dudley asked me to let you know what I am
doing and he said you know more about water rates/fight with SLC.

George Chapman