City's stand on leak is wrong

The lake that vanished Š

Picture this, late December 2007 to Jan. 20, 2008, way up front on my property by Highway 95, an obnoxious hidden object blew and leaked more than 600,000 gallons of water. This much water should have created a lake. Had it been visible, I could have converted it into a skating rink.

But “humor” aside, the city of Sandpoint utility department sent me a bill claiming that the “culprit” leaked 682,071 gallons and charged me $2,559.87, payable with regular the payment cycle. I requested my case be heard by the Public Works committee at the Feb. 6 meeting.

I wrote a letter to the department, briefly outlining my personal circumstances, with copies to the mayor, one council member and to state Sen. Shawn Keough.

The city had no policy to deal with a disaster such as mine. The policy finally created resulted in billing me at the lowest rate of $2.81, amounting to $1,939.62. A payment plan, not to exceed five years, was suggested. The proposed policy went to the City Council on Feb. 20. One member requested special requirements be added. To qualify, these documents were needed:

1. Copies of the last two years federal income tax forms.

2. Last six months of bank statements, including canceled checks or copies thereof.

3. Interest at U.S. prime rate in effect at time of leak (in my case, 7.25 percent). This is ridiculous. The leak happened now, not two years ago.

In closing, will the person who siphoned off my 682,071 gallons of water kindly return it to the city of Sandpoint as they are in dire need of moisture.

MARGARETE FALLAT

Ponderay