Existing ratepayers paying for growth

Responding to Carrie Logan’s rebuttal of my earlier letter, I will accept her word that she was not reading from the minutes of last September’s meeting.

As for the rest of her letter, it seems to be a typical politician’s letter. Cherry-picking the things she wanted to respond to, used bureaucratic language as straightforward as a plate of spaghetti, and in the end, said little.

In essence, what little she did say was that developers pay an “impact fee” used for construction and/or improvement of infrastructure. The question, still remains: Why are “we” paying high utility rates if these impact fees are repaying the bond debt? Because, Carrie ends her letter saying, it is for increased future capacity. Yes, increased need because of development. That’s my point.

So, as I understand, we are paying higher rates because the impact fees don’t cover everything, but they don’t have to cover everything because we have a current user bond to pay off, so that we can pay for part of the new development, but they don’t have to pay for it all because of the bond, so …

MIKE JOHNSON

Sandpoint