OCR Text |
Show But Summit Park residents still voice anger at company's doubling of monthly bill Many Summit Park residents are grumbling in the wake of the Public Service Commission's ( PSC ) , interim decision to double their monthly water rates. "There is a great deal of disappointment around here today," to-day," Dale Baldwin, a past resident of the Summit Park Homeowners' Association, said Wednesday. , "We just heard of the commission's ruling yesterday yester-day and we think the rate increase is too high," Ken Mawhinnie, newly-elected president of the association, agreed. "There is an awful lot of disappointment concerning the rate increase. We're particularly disappointed about having to pay the company's debt." The Summit Park Water Co. had not sought a rate increase since 1979 and then asked its rates be increased from a minimum monthly payment of $13.29 to $82.90. The company also is asking the customers to absorb the debt it incurred during that time, including includ-ing $170,000 in accrued but unpaid interest. But that issue will be decided after full hearings are held on the request. "If the company had kept up with its rate requests, kept pace with inflation, we wouldn't have the problem we're having today," he said. "Nobody minds paying a fair price for water and we are willing to pay it, but we're generally unhappy about the amount of money, especially in view of the poor service we've been receiving." 1 "Their disappointment is justified, justi-fied, said Evelyn Sanders, an attorney representing the homeowners' home-owners' group. "Those people were without water for eight to 12 weeks and yet they still had to pay their monthly bills even though they didn't receive any service." "We were hoping that the increase wouldn't be any more than $24, but the judge refused to take into consideration the poor service last winter," she said. "Perhaps he didn't because a separate hearing will be held on that issue in September." The quality of service may have been a separate issue in the mind of Administrative Law Judge A. Robert Thurman, but to Summit Park residents, it's a real bone of contention. "Things being the way they 4 are, we all expect business costs to rise," said Baldwin. "As long as the rates are reasonable, we don't mind paying if we get decent service." "The relationship between the residents and the water company is very poor. I would think the company would want to improve it," he said. "They can start by improving the service." While the interim increase has disappointed and angered Summit Sum-mit Park customers, the story has not yet ended. The next chapter is opened on Aug. 27 when the PSC holds a hearing to consider the water company's request for an $82.90 overall increase. As with the June 6 fact-finding hearing, Summit Park residents will again be out in force, Mawhinnie saxl. |