Monthly Archives: February 2014

Blasting is over, I-17 climbing lane project moves to next phase

Posted on by

ADOT Photo

ADOT Photo

ADOT project to ease congestion along southbound uphill stretch near Camp Verde

PHOENIX – One of the most visible projects on Interstate 17 is moving onto the final phase of construction.

Since the January 2013 start of the $11.8 million safety improvement project south of Camp Verde, the Arizona Department of Transportation has moved approximately 350,000 tons of dirt and boulders from Copper Canyon to clear a path for the construction of the first-ever climbing lane (and third travel lane) on southbound I-17.

When complete, the additional southbound lane through the final two miles to the top of Copper Canyon will make it easier for motorists to pass large trucks and slow-moving vehicles whose speed drops because of the sustained grades along this stretch of highway (mileposts 280-282), which is the primary travel route linking Phoenix and Flagstaff.

Since early 2013, motorists traveling late at night on I-17 (primarily between 11:30 p.m. and 3:30 a.m.) have had to plan ahead to avoid more than 70 planned one-hour closures required to safely remove the rock material from the mountainside of Copper Canyon. Those restrictions ended with the final overnight blasting closure on Feb. 18, but additional lane restrictions are anticipated in the future as crews move to pave the new lane.

Southbound I-17 climbing laneWith the blasting phase of the project completed on Copper Canyon and the project 80 percent finished, crews have already begun building the subgrade for the new pavement on the climbing lane, which will add a third travel lane for motorists to climb to the top of the steep Copper Canyon.

ADOT will start final paving operations for the project in early summer when temperatures are ideal for this type of work.

In addition to the climbing lane, ADOT is also building a two-mile-long merging lane between the State Route 260 junction and General Crook Trail traffic interchange (mileposts 285-287), which is located just before the approach to Copper Canyon. The merging lane will allow larger vehicles to gain speed before merging onto I-17 while also providing more room for passenger vehicles traveling past slower traffic.

I-15 bridge improvement work progresses in Virgin River Gorge

Posted on by

virginriverbridgeMotorists reminded to plan ahead for delays; traffic switch to begin on March 3

PHOENIX — Construction work on a series of bridge rehabilitation projects along the Interstate 15 Virgin River Gorge corridor in Arizona is underway, and motorists traveling between Mesquite, Nevada, and St. George, Utah, should plan ahead for delays in both directions through the work zones, according to the Arizona Department of Transportation.

On Monday and Tuesday, March 3-4, northbound and southbound traffic is scheduled to be switched to the northbound lanes at Virgin River Bridge No. 2 and Bridge No. 3 (both at milepost 13, approximately 15 miles north of Mesquite, Nevada) and Bridge No. 7 (milepost 22, approximately 15 miles south of St. George, Utah) to allow work on the southbound bridge deck surfaces to begin.

I-15 will be narrowed to one lane in each direction at each of the bridge locations and delays are expected. Anticipated completion for this $2.8 million improvement project is this summer.

Drivers should allow 15 minutes extra travel time weekdays from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Additional delays may occur on weekends due to heavier traffic volumes and special events — including spring break from mid-March through late April.

Next month, ADOT is expected to start the reconstruction of Virgin River Bridge No. 6 (milepost 16, approximately 21 miles south of St. George, Utah). This significant $27 million rehabilitation project will include the replacement of the bridge’s superstructure (girders, deck and railings), as well as widening the roadway through the narrow passage of the gorge.

With limited alternate routes due to the remote location of the I-15 Virgin River Gorge corridor, ADOT urges drivers to plan ahead, allow extra travel time, slow down and drive carefully through the work zone, and be alert for construction equipment and personnel.

ADOT works to inform the public about planned highway restrictions. Unscheduled restrictions or closures may occur, and construction schedules are subject to change.

Other business problems in general.

Posted on by

OPINION

At the council meeting on February 27th, various business issues concerning Williams were raised.

One was the issue of sales tax. Sean Casey noted that Williams is among the highest in the country. The Williams city council voted to remove sales tax on the sale of groceries which was a tremendous step. The point was raised that more attractions had the potential to keep sales taxes down.

There used to be a bowling alley in the building behind Goldie’s Laundry, which was used by Rosa’s Cantina. A few years ago long-time Williams resident Marv Mason attempted a movie theater, but was denied by the council. The city also attempted an outdoor ice skating rink which failed due to weather conditions.

Another attraction that is probably not marketed as well is the new Veteran’s Memorial at the Memorial park on the west end of town near Family Dollar. In that same area, the city allowed a swap meet for years to support the scholarship efforts of the Kiwanis Club. Last year they made the decision not to allow people to stay over night near their set up which caused most of the people to avoid the swap meet. Rumor has it that the city will rescind that order.

The city also had a big attraction with Rendezvous Days which brought in thousands of people over the Memorial Day weekend. It included a parade which is no longer held. Over time it was brought down. Some of that was due to weather conditions which moved the Rendezvous to the Bob Dean Rodeo grounds. In the mid-90s, they used to close off up to four blocks of downtown for vendors which attracted a lot of foot traffic. The original owner of the Grand Canyon Coffee and Cafe complained that food vendors would hurt his business before one of the Rendezvous Days events. About midway through the event he had to close because he ran out of food.

The repeated noise complaints brought to light that there is no noise ordinance in Williams. The Canyon Club and Sultana routinely turn their jute boxes up to full volume. Adjacent businesses have complained that the noise has actually diverted customers away. The Canyon Club left its outside speakers on all night on one occasion disturbing customers at the Red Garter Bed and Breakfast. Recently they seem to have lowered the volume on the outdoor speakers. The Canyon Club also has Karaoke, the volume of which affects the Grand Canyon Hotel and other residents in the area. Pancho’s and the Italian Bistro have competing outdoor speakers.

The Williams city council, of course, is in the precarious position of having to balance between business concerns, the codes intended to maintain the Historic District, and the voter.

One more step for the Zip Line

Posted on by

20140227 001aWILLIAMS –The Williams City Council chambers were packed as the Soaring Eagles Zip Line ride passed another hurdle to approval. The Council voted unanimously to approve the special use permit to keep the Zip Line ride in its current location with certain conditions.

Logan Checketts gave his presentation complete with a video from their YouTube channel. Before the video he stated that he has had calls from people who say that they are coming to Williams for the Zip Line ride. He also expressed his desire to be a productive business in the community.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The public participation started with Daniel Robert Watt, co-owner of South Rim Wine Garage, saying with the initial costs of the Zip Line behind, the operating costs would be lower. He said that he understood how difficult it is for new business in the city. He has kept his doors open during the winter to support the community. He also noted that his grandchildren rode the ride and loved it.

Dennis Nelson

Dennis Nelson

Dennis Nelson, who was involved in the construction of the stage, said that he agreed with many that are not opposed to the Zip Line itself, but are opposed to its current location. He said that there are businesses in town who like the look of downtown and understand complying with the rules to maintain the historic look of downtown Williams.

“Having said that, I don’t think there’s anything you can do with the Zip Line to make it consistent with the look of what the historic district should be and I think it’s very important to think about as you make this decision,” Nelson said. “It’s not just about the Zip Line now. It’s what you want downtown Williams to look like five, ten, fifteen, twenty-years from now.”

Checketts has repeatedly mentioned the amount of money put into Route 66 theme with the garage look, classic car and antiques. He has not had to theme any of his other rides.

Nelson also noted that whether the Zip Line is taken down this year or later that the city should ensure that funds are available to make repairs to the parking lot and area of the towers.

Dan La Paglia

Dan La Paglia

Dan La Paglia of Canyon View Realty spoke at length about the problems of the location. He said that he, “…dotted every ‘i’ and crossed every ‘t’ down to the very last in order to comply with what this community, and the fathers of this community state, and the Historical Society, that a historical district should look like.”

He was concerned from the beginning when the Zip Line went up without any consultation. He also said that he did not believe it complies with the intent of the historic district. The noise is a concern to La Paglia because it is difficult for him to consult with clients. He complained about the parking situation. He did say that Checketts has been cooperative about the noise by turning the music down and the parking by asking his employees to park elsewhere. When the Zip Line is in operation, however, he has no parking because of the customers.

His other concern was about liability. He said he is not knowledgable about the weather and what would happen if lightning struck the Zip Line with someone on it, but he had to go and ask them to shut it down during a thunderstorm. He said a lady told him the same thing as he was on his way to the site. La Paglia also noted that the chair was occasionally placed over Grand Canyon Boulevard and it could be a distraction to drivers. He said that if he were to sell his property, he would have to disclose about the noise. He also noted that the council was originally only going going to allow it in its present location for one-year and was surprised to learn of the efforts to keep it.

“I believe these guys are cooperative. I believe the city ought to do it. I do not believe that it should remain where it is,” he said ending his comments.

Sean Casey of Bearizona spoke to the council saying that in the 1980s, this town was dying. “The historic district was no such thing. It was storefronts.” What brought it back, he said, was attractions—somehing to do.

“That saved downtown,” he said. “I think we all agree that downtown would not be historic and pretty without an attraction.”

Casey pointed out that we have less than 1.5 day stays in the Williams hotels. “Where I come from there’s fifty attractions and our average stay is four-days or 4-and-a-half.” He said that the Zip Line needs to be where it is for foot traffic.

As for that section being historic, “I think Holst has a nice building. Pancho’s. The Realtor has at least kept up. But in-between there it looks semi-ghettoish and has for apparently a long time.”

He mentioned the Williams Aquatic Center and Dollar General which does not fit into the historic district.

The Grand Canyon attracts 4 million people compared to 2.5 at Mount Rushmore, he noted. He complained about taxes in the city which are among the highest in the country. There are other problems which make business difficult in Williams, such as water and buy-in fees.

John Holst of the Red Garter Bed and Bakery spoke next and stated that after a year of operation it was apparent that this was not going to be a $270,000 a year income to the city. He said that it is interesting that it has split the community. He said that while it may draw some people into Williams, the majority of the riders of the Zip Line are people who are already here. He disagreed with Sean about the ability of the historic district to draw people to this community.

He also said it was a good thing, but in the wrong location. He said it is an impact on the historic downtown. But he did say that a compromise would be to allow one more year to allow them to recoup some more on their investment with a definite ending date in which they would have to move the attraction to another location.

“When the railroad was looking at getting going again, it was the efforts of the efforts in the downtown area, the restoration of the buildings, the sidewalks coming back…, that really encouraged the railroad, I think, to say, ‘Yea. We’re going to sixty-million dollars to be neighbors to this historic district’,” Holst said.

Speaking next, Thomas Ross of I-40 Fleet Rentals said that three people spoke against the project because of its location. He said, though, that he agrees with Casey that it needs to be in that location to be an attraction for foot traffic. He noted that the Zip Line pays a lot of rent to the city and it does not take water. He said that he read a lot of the minutes from the City Council meetings and they generally approve things approved by the Planning and Zoning commission.

He told Dan that he has a lot of pictures of properties for sale, but no one wants to pass to look because of the “ghetto” between where the hooker is in the window and his property. “Nobody wants to walk past there,” he said. He claims that the traffic goes to the Zip Line and then goes back. He added that his kids like to ride.

“That’s [the Zip Line] always going to be just that one other thing. Maybe someday we’ll have a skating rink. Or a movie theater. Or a bowling alley. Or a nice park with a gazebo … and trees. Maybe someday we’ll have something like that, but right now we don’t.”

20140227 005a
COUNCIL SESSION

Logan Checketts then faced the council for questions.

Council man Frank McNelly asked about the liability insurance. Checketts said that the insurance was a million-dollar per occurrence and a million-dollars aggregate which is standard throughout the Zip Line industry. There were no injuries or incidents during the operation last year. He said he worked with City Manager Brandon Buchanan on the amount.

McNelly also asked, at the recommendation of Planning and Zoning, that there be a surety bond to ensure that if the Zip Line failed that there would be money to make the repairs on the parking lot and tower area.

Logan said that he felt that the $25,000 that he pays the city before he can open the ride would be surety enough to fix the areas. Later in the session, McNelly said that he was not satisfied with the answer and wanted a separate bond to cover expenses. Logan agreed to a separate bond but City Building Inspector Tim Pettit estimated that the cost of potential repairs would be around $2,000.

Councilman Dr. Jim Wurgler asked about the upfront payment to the city of $25,000. Logan explained that with the $25,000 and the 3% sales tax, the Zip Line paid just over $30,000 to the city. He later explained that the goal this year is to reach $100,000 and grow from there.

Councilman Lee Payne clarified that the Zip Line, according to Checketts, wanted a three-year term contract so that he would not have to go through this process every year. If they cannot arrange a longer-term contract, however, he would be satisfied with another year and re-visit the issue later. He eventually asked for the initial $25,000 plus another $25,000 on top of the sales tax revenues. Checketts said that would be possible.

Payne said, “It was not the cities intent to lease that parking lot.” He said that he supports the work that the Historic Commission did to create the historic district and the parking lot is a big part of that effort. He said that from what he was hearing the only way to determine if the ride would be successful is to remain in that location for a longer period of time.

Logan replied that the longer term contract was best for his business, but he would take a one-year term and go forward from there.

Vice Mayor Don Dent pointed out that the original intent was to give one year to get the attraction going and then move it east to BNSF railroad property that was leased by the city. Dent said because Checketts went to BNSF first, that deal fell through. His issue is the ride takes up room vehicles used to turn around.

Councilman Payne made the motion to approve a special use permit for a term not to exceed two years. This would allow him to operate next year without going through the permitting process if the venue is successful this year. The council unanimously approved the special use permit. For the record, Mayor John Moore said his vote would have been yes.

The city must now negotiate a new lease for approval at a future council meeting.

Two neighborhood watch programs scheduled for Flagstaff.

Posted on by

neighborhoodwatchFLAGSTAFF – Two neighborhood watch meetings are scheduled for the first week of March in the Flagstaff area. The first is at Timberline/Fernwood on March 4. The second will be in Doney Park on March 6.

The Timberline/Fernwood meeting will be from 5:30 to 8:00 pm at Summit Fire Station #33 located at 6050 Firehouse Lane, off of North Highway 89. Chief Deputy Jim Driscoll of the Coconino County Sheriff’s office and County Supervisor Liz Archuleta will be in attendance. Members of the Sheriff’s Office staff will be at the meeting to share information and encourage continued neighborhood participation.

At the request of participants who attended the February meeting a Master Gardener from Coconino County will speak to the group about seasonal gardening and plant species that thrive in Coconino County. The speaker will also identify types of noxious weeds and plants found in Coconino County.

Deputy Driscoll and County Supervisor Mandy Metzger will be at the Doney Park Neighborhood Watch Meeting from 6 to 8 p.m. at Summit Fire District Station 32 and Administrative Offices located at 8905 Koch Field Road Flagstaff, AZ.

Chief Deputy Jim Driscoll will be at the meeting to encourage continued neighborhood participation and to share information. Doney Park Community Deputies will be available to answer questions and provide support to this partnership between law abiding citizens, law enforcement and county government.

At the request of participants during the February meeting, Ruthanne Penn who is the Assistant to the Coconino County Emergency Manager will give a presentation on Preparedness for Natural Disasters and Emergencies. Ms. Penn will give instructions on how to build a “Go Bag” which contains items required for an evacuation out of the residence lasting up to 72 hours. Participants will also be given instructions how to build a “Home Emergency Kit” that will sustain a family for up to 72 hours in the event they are required to “Shelter in Place.”

Neighborhood Watch is similar to the Block Watch program commonly conducted in urban areas and goes back to the concept of “neighbors looking out for neighbors” that many people remember from 30 years ago. It is one of the most effective ways to prevent and deter criminal activity, attend to home and personal security, address the safety of our children and the elderly, and to alleviate fear and isolation. Residents learn how to observe and report suspicious activity and reduce the risk of becoming a victim of crime.

For more information about the Neighborhood Watch program and the meeting schedule, please call the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office at (928) 226-5089.

Governor Brewer vetoes S.B. 1062

Posted on by

300px_JanBrewer_CityBckgrd_2013_MDPHOENIX – Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, announced her decision to veto the controversial Arizona S.B. 1062.

In her statement released on the Governor’s web site, she wrote:

I took the time necessary to make the RIGHT decision. I met or spoke with my attorneys, lawmakers and citizens supporting and opposing this legislation.

…

As Governor, I have protected religious freedoms when there is a specific and present concern that exists in OUR state.

And I have the record to prove it.

She said that the bill does not address specific current concerns of the State. “I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated,” she said. In her veto letter, she wrote:

The concerns raised by the proponents of this bill are not unfounded. As a result of actions taken by the Obama Administration, as well as some federal and out-of-state courts, I am increasingly concerned about government’s encroachment upon our religious freedom.

In a later paragraph she notes,

Senate Bill 1062, however, does not seek to address a specific and present concern related to Arizona businesses. The out-of-state examples cited by proponents of the bill, while concerning, are issues not currently existing in Arizona.

She stated that she recognizes that religious belief about marriage is being challenged as never before. The Senate bill, she feels, had the potential to create more problems than it would solve.

On Religious Liberty, Arizona Gets it Right and NY Times Gets it Wrong Again

Posted on by

The headline reads “A License to Discriminate.” And the New York Times editorial board goes on to claim that Arizona has just passed “noxious measures to give businesses and individuals the broad right to deny services to same-sex couples in the name of protecting religious liberty.” The Times got it wrong. The proposed legislation never even mentions same-sex couples; it simply clarifies and improves existing state protections for religious liberty. And as the multitude of lawsuits against the coercive HHS mandate and the cases of photographers, florists and bakers show, we need protection for religious liberty now more than ever.

In 1993, overwhelming bipartisan majorities of both houses of congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Act states that the federal government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless it can demonstrate that such a burden “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest.”

In 1999 the state of Arizona passed similar legislation that prevents the state government from similarly burdening the free exercise of religion. The bill that the Arizona legislature just passed is an amendment to the 1999 state RFRA clarifying that the protections extend to any “state action” and would apply to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.” In other words, it protects all citizens and the associations they form from undue burdens by the government on their religious liberty or from private lawsuits that would have the same result.

Respecting religious liberty for all those in the marketplace is particularly important. After all, as first lady Michelle Obama put it, religious faith “isn’t just about showing up on Sunday for a good sermon and good music and a good meal. It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well.”

Read more at The Foundry

Fate of the Zip Line in the hands of the City Council this Thursday.

Posted on by

ZiplineWILLIAMS — The fate of the Zipline, located in the Central Business District of Williams, moves to the Williams City Council to decide their fate (PDF notice). The Planning and Zoning Committee recommended approved the special use permit for the attraction with an added stipulation. Planning and Zoning recommended a bond in the event that the Zip Line fails.

BACKGROUND

When the Zip Line was initially approved, Logan Checketts took the matter to the City Council bypassing the Historic Committee and P&Z.

In April of 2013, the Williams City Council approved 4-3 to approve the signing of a one-year lease with Soaring Eagles Zip Line at their current location.

In November, John Holst of the Red Garter Bed & Bakery—located across from the attraction—at a Council meeting commented that the owners did not follow appropriate protocol bypassing the Historic Commission and P&Z. Checketts admitted at the meeting that the ride did not meet his expectations because of weather conditions that left the ride dormant much of the season. July and August is when Williams generally gets the most rain and thunderstorms which renders the ride inoperable. Mr. Checketts also stated that he could have done more marketing for the ride. The Council declined to renew the contract by a vote of 4-2.

Logan renewed efforts to retain the event by submitting a special use permit following the procedures.

At the February 11 Historic Committee meeting, the committee voted 5-0 to not allow the Zip Line to continue despite support for the attraction.

PLANNING AND ZONING

The support at the P&Z meeting on February 20th came mostly from business owners with one resident speaking for the project. There was one resident against the project because of the noise and John Holst tried to argue some technical matters.

Owner Logan Checketts spoke first concerning the background of the Zip Line. Last year, he explained, he went directly to the council to get approval. When he went this year to get permission, they council denied that permission recommending he go through the Historic Commission and Planning and Zoning.

As for the code, he claims that 12-17.06 of the City Code allows for the permit. (a) 1 of that code states, “Any use permitted by the existing zones over which historic district zoning is superimposed shall be allowed.”

He went on to say, “From the business perspective of it, and from the neighboring businesses, I’ve personally taken an interest in going out and visiting with many of the next door neighbors” to see how the structure has impacted their businesses after a year. He said that all of them except one were in favor of the ride. He added that if it was a simple majority, the city would probably vote for it, but he was grateful that the code was clear on the subject.

Checketts explained that Soaring Eagles Zip Line pays a percentage of the gross to the city for rental which came to around $30,000 last year. He pointed out that it also provided employment for about fifteen young adults over the summer.

He also pointed out the great expense that they put into giving the Zip Line a route 66 theme. At his other locations they have not themed their Zip Lines according to the area.

P&Z Chairman “Buck” Williams then opened the floor for questions after pointing out that he was in possession of seven letters—six of which were in favor of the attraction.

Williams resident Fred Reese asked if the project was making any profits. Checketts said yes and in response to further questioning said that the agreement is to pay 18% of gross plus a 3% sales tax making it 21% of gross going to the city.

Patty Williams said that it was her understanding that the ride was to come all the way to the ground so that it would be handicap accessible, but there are steps to climb to get to the ride. Logan admitted that it was not handicap accessible.

John Holst, the owner of Red Garter, said that the special use permit was supposed to have a narrative which explains the special use and the time period. He argued that without a time period it is no longer a special use.

City Building Inspector Tim Pettit interrupted to ask where he got this information and Holst replied that he obtained it from the City of Williams web site. Pettit admitted that it was on the web site, but not written in the code. According to Pettit, the code does not specify a time period for a special use permit, so theoretically a special use permit could be good for five-, ten- or even twenty-years if approved.

They went on to argue over whether or not the ride is a permanent or temporary structure. Pettit claims it is temporary.

Resident Jerry Anthony spoke in favor of the Zip Line asking more about the financial end and asking if the company would consider upping the percentage to Williams to as much as 35% of the gross since the initial install costs were already made.

Checketts explained that the total install cost was around $600,000.

Thomas Ross of I-40 Fleet Rentals and Sean Casey of Bearizona spoke in favor of the attraction. Mr. Ross mentioned other attractions such as Cadallac Ranch and the World’s Largest Ball of Twine, but these items are privately owned attractions.

The Zip Line issue will be settled by the Williams City Council this Thursday.

Level 4 water restrictions in effect in Williams

Posted on by

20131206_152034WILLIAMS – As if to become the poster child for global warming, while two-thirds of the nation are under snow and ice northern Arizona has been experiencing summer-like weather. Recently some have complained about allergies as if spring were here.

There are slight chances of rain this week including a 100% chance Friday with slight chances of snow continuing into next week. The moisture moving into the area, however, does not appear likely to stay the Level 4 water restrictions that the City of Williams has already had to impose. This could chance as conditions change.

The Santa Fe reservoir has been virtually ice-free since December which is totally uncharacteristic for this time of the year. In addition the water level has dropped to dangerously low levels.

The notice from the City of Williams web site is as follows:

URGENT NOTICE EFFECTIVE: February 25, 2014 (unless otherwise noted)

Due to the extremely dry winter the City’s water reservoir levels are at critically low levels. To protect the City’s ability to provide water for our most basic needs, according to Title 8 – Article 4.08 of the City Code, the City must enact immediately the following Water Conservation Measure:

Resource Status Level 4: Water Crisis.
(i) The following water uses are restricted or prohibited. No person shall:

(1) Do any of the acts prescribed in previous status level restrictions.
(washing vehicles, washing outdoor areas, refilling swimming pools, etc.)
(2) Use potable or raw water for irrigation.
(3) Use potable or raw water for any purpose other than public health or emergency purposes.
(4) Use potable or raw water in violation of any other restriction deemed necessary by the City Council. (none at this time)
(5) No new building permits will be issued (those currently in the pipeline excluded)
(6) All commercial water hauling is stopped except for residential purposes.

While these are the most severe restrictions possible under City Code, they have been deemed necessary to ensure our ability to continue meeting the basic water needs of our community. Given the severity of the situation, Resource Status Level 4: Water Crisis includes, but is not limited to, the following penalties for violations of restrictions:

1. Excessive Water Consumption Rates: During Resource Status Level 3 and Resource Status Level 4, Single Family Residential rates shall increase to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the established rate for any water consumption between fifteen thousand (15,000) and twenty thousand (20,000) gallons.

Rate shall increase to two hundred percent (200%) of the established rate for any water consumption greater than twenty thousand (20,000) gallons per billing cycle. Rate increases shall take effect with the current billing cycle, which began immediately following the date of your last meter read (indicated on your enclosed bill).

2. Violation Surcharges and Appeals: When a violation of the Water Restrictions is observed…the following surcharges will apply to all violations…
(3)A surcharge of one hundred dollars ($100.00) shall be assessed to the account of record for a violation of Resource Status Level 4.
(4) Surcharges shall double for every repeat violation.

Restrictions on Business and Industrial Uses include:

All businesses and industries using City water shall be restricted to the use of the amount of water used by the business or industry during the corresponding month of the year preceding the effective date hereof.

The City is working to identify any possible measures to ease the situation on several fronts. These include identifying possible new sources of water that can be used by the City. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation with this very difficult situation.

Supreme Court skeptical of greenhouse gas permits

Posted on by

Justices appear to be leaning toward a ruling that would eliminate just one method the Environmental Protection Agency uses to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources

1372376433000-ourviewWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday appeared headed toward restricting the federal government’s authority to require permits for major emitters of greenhouse gases.

Such a ruling from the court’s conservative wing wouldn’t affect an effort by the Obama administration to regulate the sources of global warming, but it would eliminate one method of doing so.

At issue is the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to change the threshold in the Clean Air Act for the amount of emissions from a power plant, refinery or other stationary source that requires a permit. Liberal justices said it was a reasonable move to avoid an absurd over-regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, but conservatives said it went too far.

Read more at USA Today.