[Mpls] A little media disagreement

[David Brauer]

Conflicting info on storm water fees from yours truly and Nick Coleman.

In my editorial in the new SW Journal, I wrote:

"For homeowners the pain isn=92t huge =97 despite what you may hear, a =
bill=20
can=92t go up by more than $10.60 a month, or $127 a year. (Almost all=20=

increases are smaller, and because of other offsetting rate cuts, many=20=

homeowners will actually pay less.)"

I wrote those words Wednesday. Today, in Nick's column, he wrote:

"What else can you call it when a homeowner suddenly finds himself=20
dunned $37 a month for the rain that falls on his yard? This gives the=20=

word 'soaking' a new meaning. In Neuwirth's case, Minneapolis plans to=20=

soak him $444 a year -- the equivalent of about 45 haircuts at his=20
going rate of $10 a head -- for something called a "storm water utility=20=

fee."

One of us is clearly wrong. I'm prepared to admit it's me - but not=20
quite yet.

According to our reporting, the highest of the three homeowner storm=20
water rates is $10.60 a month - so there's no way a homeowner can get a=20=

$37 a month bump. (It's different for businesses and institutions, but=20=

Nick and I both clearly refer to homeowners.)

Can anyone in the know reconcile the disparity between my reporting and=20=

Nick's? One of us needs to correct the record publicly.

David Brauer
Kingfield
Editor, Skyway News & Southwest Journal=