Something I said at a recent city council meeting was paraphrased incorrectly in a letter to the editor published last week (Dec. 19, 'SC rates need citizen input"). The statement was reported as "without development, the city could make the necessary improvements to the sewer system over time without a rate increase." This statement is incorrect and implies that ratepayers are somehow subsidizing development for sewer improvements. Ratepayers are not subsidizing development in any way, yet rate increases are needed. The city cannot continue to comply with state law without a rate increase. Having development pressure does not change the fact that our treatment plant is nearing the end of its life. In addition, regulatory oversight will always remain vigilant (as it should) for treatment plants, collection systems and storage/disposal systems and this oversight will likely increase our costs over time.
With development, our selection of the range and type of improvements that may be possible is increased. These may not be the options that we would choose without development subsidizing some of our costs and our earlier staff reports tried to capture a "with development" and "without development" cost projection. Because that report yielded shocking rate increases in the "without development" scenario, we also analyzed a scaled down version of these improvements that keeps rate increases more manageable for ratepayers. It is this scaled-down scenario and related discussion that may be the root of the misunderstanding reported in last week's letter.