Report Inappropriate Comments

Patientman question: "Are you saying that the first sewers installed were at no cost to the residents that received the sewer access?" No I didn't say that. Those residents who were part of the first sewer projects from the orginal $130 million bond were assessed a construction cost and they paid the principal cost on those projects. Some of the interest on those bonds may have been paid by all Warwick citizens since the bonds were general obligation. .

Years later additional borrowing was authorized using revenue bonds. This means that the cost of the swer projects should have been paid 100% by the property owners receiving the sewers. That didn't happen. The WSA being incompentence or for politicial reasons failed to increase the asseessment fee for those projects. As a result about $10 million in project costs were not paid by the property owners who received the sewers.

The WSA passed that cost onto every property owner connected to the system. Anyone else in the city that is not connected to the sewers is not paying this cost.

My disagreement with you is that I do not agree that everyone in the city should pay to fund these projects.

For example if a new development decides that all the electrical lines are going to be buried under ground at a substantial higher cost then putting the lines on poles as is currently in older Warwick neighborhoods, should all the other electrical users in the city have to pay for this additional cost? No!

The same holds for the cost of new sewer projects. If property owners near the water want sewers and it cost $20,000 to $30,000 per property they should pay 100% the cost of sewer construction.

The question is should the WSA even be proposing these projects? Is there a less expansive alternative? Is the WSA as in the past going to under assess the project and thus pass the cost on to every existing customer?

From: Sewers: It’s all a matter of money

Please explain the inappropriate content below.