Dec 18 2006
Pre-filed Bill S. 0085 municipal utilities
This bill will requires any rate increase that a municipal utility would like to impose on customers outside of the municipality’s corporate limits must be approved by the Public Service Commission. This would put all utilities operated by municipalities serving customers outside the boundaries under the jurisdiction of the PSC.
In ’04 I cosponsored legislation that would guarantee equal rates for all customers. After nearly 2 years of negotiations with city representatives, I decided to try a different angle.
In my district, I have constituents that purchase water from the City of Anderson that live outside the city limits. They are charged higher rates than the residents living within the city limits. Some cry “taxation without representation”. Are these rates justifiable? That’s debatable, but the PSC has a proven record of fairness.
This legislation would apply to all utilities owned by municipalities serving customers outside of the political boundary.http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/85.htm
The attached documents reveal a promise made that was not kept. Back in 2001, when the city was trying to purchase the system from Duke power, they gave us the promise that there would be no dual rates.
Dec 24, 2006 @ 20:09:00
Our sub-division is charged a monthly fee per hydrant. This fee does not cover cost for insuring hydrants work properly; but is charged in case an auto accident or other accident causes damage to the hydrant.Auto insurance would probably pay for the property damage to the hydrant. As far as being annexed into the city; if I wanted to live inside city limits I would have moved inside the city limits. I just moved in August 2006 and also learned that if I did not sign the “contract” to use Electric City Utilities water, of which I had no choice, they would could automatically use power of attorney to sign it anyway; see http://www.citywaterscam.com for additional information. I guess the “poorless fortunate persons will get it from all levels of government; be it local, state, or federal.I thank Sen. Bryant for helping us attempt to get this and many more “projects” completed.
Dec 20, 2006 @ 11:02:00
I’ve added some information to this post. I’ve been talking with representatives from the city for awhile. My view on this issue is not new to them.
Dec 20, 2006 @ 10:02:00
As a City of Anderson resident, I wish you had discussed this matter with local leaders instead of trying to find a solution all by yourself. This problem needs a cure not a band aid. I wish you would devote your leadership to faciliatating an agreement within our county to fix these revenue problems.
As for you not trusting governement, you are right. If leaders continue to act like Mr. Dunaway and don’t negotiate and cooperate like you did, then our government is doomed.
Dec 20, 2006 @ 07:09:00
Kevin,
stay the course!
Dec 19, 2006 @ 20:52:00
you were on the radio this morning. you said you don’t trust government
a politician say “I don’t trust government”? thanks for your stand on principle!
Dec 19, 2006 @ 20:46:00
when duke owned the system they would give you an adjustment during the summer when for irrigation. now the city does not, but you can get a 2nd meter. Is it true that the city charges $800 to get a 2nd meter?
Dec 19, 2006 @ 20:12:00
Senator,
I’m a city resident and I voted not to aquire the waterworks. I knew it was not sound and that the city only saw a money maker. Can the PSC oversee the entire utility?
Dec 19, 2006 @ 13:51:00
Senator Bryant — Thank you for taking charge on this. The Anderson paper had an article today of a councilman calling you “gutless.” Please don’t let their immaturity dissuade you from doing what is right for taxpayers. These obscene water bills are definitely “taxation without representation.”
Don — Silver Leaf Resident