Can a City Council Socialize Ambulance Fee Losses?

[adjusterjack]

I seem to remember that the Phoenix city council put in place a halt on issuing new building permits because of the water and power issues that it is starting to experience, but that the city couldn't revoke any of the hundreds of permits it already issued. Perhaps it was some other southwest city. But whichever city it is, that kind of action shows just how dire things are starting to get.

It wasn't the Phoenix City Council, it was the Governor putting the kibosh on development in outlying communities due to groundwater issues.

These articles explain what happened in June of this year.

Arizona limits new housing around Phoenix because of dwindling water supply (nbcnews.com)

Arizona announces new limits on construction in Phoenix area as groundwater disappears | CNN

 

[Tax Counsel]

It wasn't the Phoenix City Council, it was the Governor putting the kibosh on development in outlying communities due to groundwater issues.

Thanks. I read an article about it briefly and obviously didn't get some of the facts right. But I was at least on the target even if I didn't get the bull's eye shot.

 

[Brian in Oklahoma]

Here's a link to the ordinance and the preamble: https://brokenarrow.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

Note that this fee was previously by subscription, but people continued to opt out. Meanwhile, they never reformed the ambulance service. So they have a $180,000 budget shortfall and intend to make all water utility customers pay for it. In fact, they are going to receive in excess of the shortfall by charging every water customer $5.45 per utility bill. Assuming 41,786 households (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/brokenarrowcityoklahoma/PST045222), that is $227000 per year.

Now, this all sets a precedent. If they get away with it, then anytime the city runs amok of its budget, they'll just tack on another fee. No need to raise taxes, just add a fee. Mayor wants a new highrise building? Sure, just tack on a fee. Costs too much to house and school all of the illegal immigrants? Tack on a fee, but only to those responsible enough to have a monthly water bill.

I'm thinking maybe I can start a campain with flyers that explain how to file a complaint with the State Attorney. Maybe that will pressure them into reconsidering their charging citizens for services not rendered?

 

[Zigner]

Maybe that will pressure them into reconsidering their charging citizens for services not rendered?

You're misunderstanding something fundamental. The charge isn't for "services not rendered." The charge is for the greater public good of having the service available to those who do need it.

 

[welkin]

The charge is for the greater public good of having the service available to those who do need it.

The charge should not be in the water utility budget or its fee structure. I explained why in previous posts.

If the council wants to charge a fee for ambulance service then they should pass an ordinance creating the fee and make it mandatory for all properties in their jurisdiction. Then add new budget accounts for ambulance service (separate from the fire dept. budget) revenues and expenditures.

The council will then have to pay the piper when the residence vote at their next council election.

 

[welkin]

Here's a link to the ordinance and the preamble: https://brokenarrow.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

How about giving us the file number. I'm not going to read every item in the agenda for the last several months to find the fee you are speaking about.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I'm thinking maybe I can start a campain with flyers that explain how to file a complaint with the State Attorney. Maybe that will pressure them into reconsidering their charging citizens for services not rendered?

The complaints ought to go to the city council and your city's representatives in the state legislature. There isn't much the State Attorney can do about it unless you know of some state law that the city is violating that comes under the jurisdiction of the State Attorney's office.

 

[welkin]

The complaint should be sent to the State Auditor and Inspector.

 

[Tax Counsel]

The complaint should be sent to the State Auditor and Inspector.

The problem I see with that is that the section you linked refers to protests of ad valorem (property) taxes. The OP's complaint is not about property taxes, but rather about the added fee for water service. As a result, I don't see OP making much headway citing that section of the state law. Even if it did apply, the protest had to be made within 15 days of when the budget was submitted by the local government to the State Auditor and after that no protests may be made unless the local government amends the budget or submits a new one to the State Auditor, thus triggering a new 15 day period. The short time allowed for this protest may well have passed already and it may be some time before another window opens allowing for new protests.

 

[welkin]

As a result, I don't see OP making much headway citing that section of the state law.

You may be correct.

After all the discussion in this thread, I finally found the justification for the fee increase in (of all places) the water utility section of the city's code of ordinances.

In all my years of being involved in municipal governments and reading probably thousands of ordinances, I have never seen an ordinance like this:

Scroll to #4

• Sec. 24-28. - Basis for calculating water service costs.
  
  Water bills will be calculated using a base charge and per 1,000 gallon charge which are defined as follows:
  (a) Base charge. This charge shall include:
  (1)
  Meter replacement charge: The amortized cost of meter replacement at the end of its useful life.
  (2)
  Meter reading charge: The monthly cost to read a meter.
  (3)
  Billing charge: The monthly administrative cost to bill and collect for water service.
  
  
• (b)
  Per 1,000 gallon charge. This charge shall include:
  
  (1)
  Systems operation & maintenance: The cost per 1,000 gallons to purchase treated water, treat water, pump water, and maintain the water system.
  (2)
  System replacement charge: The cost per 1,000 gallons to replace or upgrade (if required by ODEQ), any portion of the existing water system.
  (3)
  System development charge: The cost per 1,000 gallons to develop replacement water sources, construct new distribution mains, construct plant expansion, and pay plant expansion components of purchased water.
  (4)
  Other charges: The charge per 1,000 gallons assessed by the city council for other requirements. This element of the charge is at the sole discretion of the city council and does not necessarily reflect any cost in the water system.
  
  (Code 1977, § 24-28; Ord. No. 2224, § I, 7-19-1999)

Emphasis and color added.
I guess we're done here.
Municode Library

 

[Tax Counsel]

You may be correct.In all my years of being involved in municipal governments and reading probably thousands of ordinances, I have never seen an ordinance like this:

I've not seen anything that open ended about charges for water service before either. But with thousands of municipalities out there, there are probably a variety of odd-ball ordinances around the country. I would guess most of those would be found in smaller towns/counties.