Arnold sewage bills
For many years, sewage in Arnold was billed at a flat rate per household and paid along with the taxes on that house. It was a bargain for large families, but not for small or single households.
In the interest of fairness — and a large debt to the Municipal Sewage Authority of New Kensington — Arnold revamped the payment system and contracted a billing agent.
We now pay $102 for the first 750 cubic feet of sewage, plus $6.22 per 100 cubic feet over that per quarter.
After repeated billing problems, I checked how Lower Burrell and New Kensington handle their sewage billing, as all the water and sewage come from and end up in the same place and the water is all the same price. To my surprise, Arnold residents pay 12 percent more than Lower Burrell. New Kensington residents pay a $111 minimum, but that's for 1,500 cubic feet of sewage, twice the volume for Arnold residents.
Why is there such a price difference?
This is a fair question and the public has a right to know the answer. I'm neither complaining nor picking on public officials in Arnold or any agency. I just want the residents of Arnold to get the data needed to understand the rates we now pay.
Have questions on sewage bills, rates, the new garbage collection contract or other city business? The next Arnold Council meeting is Tuesday, April 9.
I also want to compliment to the new Arnold administration. Keep up the good work — I'm sure it must be a tough and thankless job.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Gross in 45th
- White House not playing to win
- Unworthy of high office
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Watson in 33rd