Council To Consider Water, Sewer Rate Hikes
Village of Mackinaw City
By Paul Gingras

Council members, residents, and representatives of the business community discussed water and sewer rate hikes at a public hearing Thursday, February 7, at Mackinaw City Village Hall and heard two plans that would charge higher per-gallon rates to heavier users.

The plans led to debate about how much of the cost of the water system should fall to the largest hotel owners and how much should be borne by the comparatively small year-around population of the city.

Village Manager Jeff Lawson presented his plans for a new water and sewer rate structure, and Village President Ronald Wallin presented an alternative plan that would shift more of the costs to large users. Mr. Wallin reminded the public that anyone can present plans at public hearings. The council could choose to change its plan at any time, he added.

The council held its first reading of ordinance amendments needed to pave the way for new water and sewer rates at its Thursday, February 21, meeting. Both of the plans presented put the highest cost on the heaviest water users.

Mr. Lawson's plan was explained in detail in The St. Ignace News January 31. For water use, his new plan eliminates the flatrate system for businesses and residents used in the past. For wastewater treatment, his plan eliminates the two-rate structure for businesses and residents.

The proposed plan does not differentiate between businesses and residents. The proposal creates three categories, with fees based on the amount of water used and wastewater produced.

Under Mr. Lawson's plan, consumers who draw the most water, and produce the most wastewater, would pay about 20¢ more per 1,000 gallons of water, and 56¢ more per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated, than those who use the least amount of water and produce the least wastewater.

Under Mr. Wallin's plan, the heaviest users would pay 75¢ more per 1,000 gallons of water, and 90¢ more per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated.

Quarterly in 2008, under Mr. Lawson's plan, customers in a zeroto 100,000-gallon bracket would pay $2.41 per 1,000 gallons of water and $4.58 per 1,000 gallons for wastewater treated. Customers using 101,000 to 200,000 gallons of water would pay $2.51 per 1,000 gallons of water and $4.94 per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated. Customers using more than 200,000 gallons would pay $2.61 per 1,000 gallons of water and $5.14 per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated.

After 2008, both plans propose to increase rates 3% a year through 2012.

Mr. Wallin's plan divides water rates into four categories, rather than three, and calls for the largest water consumers to pay more than they would under Mr. Lawson's plan. The idea, he said, is to reduce rates for small users, notably struggling families and elderly citizens, and to charge businesses more that use large quantities of water. More volume used means these businesses are doing well and can afford to pay higher rates, he suggested.

Quarterly, in 2008, Mr. Wallin's plan would lower rates for residents or businesses using zero to 50,000 gallons of water. Currently, users pay $2.32 per thousand gallons of water. Mr. Wallin wants to reduce this to $2.25, and charge residents in this category $4.40 per 1,000 gallons of sewage treated. Customers using 51,000 to 150,000 gallons would pay $2.50 per 1,000 gallons and $4.80 per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated. Customers using 151,000 to 350,000 gallons of water would pay $2.75 per 1,000 gallons of water and $5.10 per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated. Customers using 351,000 gallons of water or more would pay $3 per 1,000 gallons of water and $5.30 per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated.

Mr. Wallin's plan drew sharp criticism from hotel owners, who said they paid for massive expansions of the water and sewer infra- structure in the village through hook-up fees and taxes incurred when their facilities were built. They objected to being charged significantly more than low-volume users.

Mr. Wallin countered that Mackinaw City is in a unique situation because its infrastructure must be large enough to accommodate the influx of summer visitors, which enriches large-volume users, however, the year-around resident population has remained low for decades, and since low-volume users tax the system less, the village should keep their rates as low as possible.

A second reading Thursday, March 6, will precede a vote on the amendments and rate changes.