Sound Politics: Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

February 17, 2009

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

A taxpayer I know sent the following letter to members of the Seattle City Council.

Dear Council Member

I am puzzled over legislation that the City Council is to vote on today. News reports have stated that a court decision ruled fire hydrant costs were inappropriately paid by water rate payers and should have been paid from the general fund...a rebate is now required. The news also says that this rebate cost to the city is to be repaid by the water rate payers through a surcharge. This is the essence of today's proposal as I understand it.

Please explain why this strategy wouldn't also be illegal and why this proposal does not subject the city to further litigation. It appears the water rate payers are still paying for the fire hydrant costs cited in the lawsuit. If a cat eats a rat that ate the cheese, didn't the cat also consume the cheese? Are not water rate payers still paying for the fire hydrant costs in question? I don't see how a rebate in between somehow changes that. I hope your committee has adequately vetted this proposal with the city attorney's office. On the surface this legislative action seems very suspect and not worthy of an affirmative vote if any question of legality exists.

Posted by warrenpeterson at February 17, 2009 01:19 PM | Email This

Comments

1. I'm not a lawyer, nor play one on TV, but I think the difference is how the city made the charge for fire hydrants. It is OK to base rates upon actual usage; it wasn't OK to make a flat charge for that purpose under state law.

Posted by: Bob Chapman on February 17, 2009 02:03 PM

2. If I had to guess I would say that the surcharge is just a tax that goes to the general fund whereas the money for the hydrates were coming out of the rates paid for the water.

It would be the difference between having say the post office us the money that comes to it for stamps to invest in aerospace research and putting a tax on stamps to do the same.

In one case its the money being paid for services (mailing, water, etc) and in the other its a tax on the services themselves.

Posted by: giffy on February 17, 2009 02:11 PM

3. Bob, I would have to agree with you, unless Warren's taxpayer friend is correct in that the court ruling specifically stated that the hydrants were to be paid exclusively by the general fund. If that's the case, then it would still be illegal to charge through surcharges. However, I am also not familiar with the ruling.

Posted by: Brad on February 17, 2009 02:11 PM

4. Add to this that the "cost" of the reimbursement to the ratepayers that they will be paying, is greater than what they're being reimbursed - because significant legal fees have to be paid as well - millions.

This one is nuts.

Posted by: BA on February 17, 2009 03:11 PM

5. Hydrants, Reimbursements, Lawyers, Surcharges is all a mix of game-plays for an excuse to reach deeper into the tax payer's pockets. Governments have long ago surpassed the dividing point of serving itself more than serving the people. Governments have reached the level of corruption that it is now, more of a Criminal Organization than, a Government for the People and by the People.

Posted by: Daniel on February 17, 2009 03:53 PM

6. Nice. This little bit of Seattle government's "screw you" attitude toward the citizens actually made Boing Boing: Seattle water company to pay its overbilling fines with a surcharge on water bills

Posted by: The Tim on February 17, 2009 07:21 PM

7. I found the post very confusing.

Fire hydrants have traditionally been a water department responsibility including yearly testing and inspection by those capable- the water department.

So, even though I understand billing codes, I don't even understand how this got to a judge in the first place.

Posted by: swatter on February 18, 2009 07:56 AM