|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 256
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
The State Department of Health's water conservation mandate that went into effect last year has come up again, as Sam Taylor at the Herald is reminding us the City of Bellingham has until July 1 to decide how to pay for installation of meters on non-metered homes. At the moment, there are 15,883 homes that are charged a flat rate for their water service, and these homes must be metered by 2017, a transition that will cost around $8.5 million. According to Sam, Dick McKinley (Public Works Director) has presented City Council with a number of options to consider. I suspect this will generate some interesting discussion around the city. I don't have a strong sense yet, what I prefer as the solution to this problem, but here are the options as McKinley's staff has presented them: Sam Taylor, BHam Herald wrote:“The real issue isn’t how you get everyone metered,” said City Public Works Director Dick McKinley. “The issue is how do you pay for it?”
McKinley’s staff have given options to City Council:
Charge all city water customers between $2 and $3 monthly to collect the money.
Have only nonmetered, flat-rate customers pay a $5 monthly charge on their bills.
Purchase revenue bonds to pay the costs.
An “aggressive approach” for metering, where newly constructed homes would be charged for the meters as part of closing costs, continuing the existing voluntary metering program and replacing meters as water mains are replaced.
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/14/2008
Posts: 14
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
I proposed the following in my Zonemaven blog last April as a partial solution to the financing of water meter installation. (City administrators and the city council were made aware of the contents of the proposal but I never heard back from any city official.)
"Can We Talk Equity and Fairness?
While the talks continue about the merger with the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, our City Council is voicing its concern over fairness to city customers.
The Herald article quoted Council Member-at-Large Louise Bjornson as saying “I think, all in all, if we could aim at it not costing the city ratepayers, (that) is very important… “For me it would make sense for district customers not to be subsidized by city ratepayers.” The Herald piece went on to say, “Public Works Director Dick McKinley said his goal was to focus discussion about rates not on taxes but on changing district rates to parity with city customers."
“All well and good.”, says the Zonemaven, however, he has heard nothing from the city on his proposal to charge full cost for installation of Bellingham’s city water meters for owners of income producing, single family properties, i.e., rentals.
Not too loud, as somebody might hear......but a reminder to Zonemaven readers (including the City Council) that the live-in property owners are subsidizing each installation of a meter on these rentals to the tune of $300 to $600. That’s about 15,000 installations. Do the math and you will find this subsidy is not chump change - and you, the single family, live-in property owner are paying it, while the rental owner is taking the savings to the bank.
The Zonemaven has yet to hear anything from the council on his modest proposal for fairness by striking equity into the heart of water meter installation in Bellingham. 'Sauce for the goose...' "
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 12/13/2007
Posts: 103
Location: Bellingham
|
The Zonemaven wrote:“All well and good.”, says the Zonemaven, however, he has heard nothing from the city on his proposal to charge full cost for installation of Bellingham’s city water meters for owners of income producing, single family properties, i.e., rentals.
Not too loud, as somebody might hear......but a reminder to Zonemaven readers (including the City Council) that the live-in property owners are subsidizing each installation of a meter on these rentals to the tune of $300 to $600. That’s about 15,000 installations. Do the math and you will find this subsidy is not chump change - and you, the single family, live-in property owner are paying it, while the rental owner is taking the savings to the bank. Can you elaborate on your plan? I'm not sure I follow.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/14/2008
Posts: 14
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Here is a quote from one of my blog entries on the proposal which should clear up my idea:
" There is a voluntary program sponsored by the city whereby a homeowner can have a meter installed by the city for $150. As of 2006 about 75 single family homeowners had signed up for the program. Perhaps more have signed up since then but overall it is not promising for reaching 100% participation by 2017. The cost for the voluntary metering program is heavily subsidized by the city (that means you taxpayers). The real cost of placement of these meters is around $300 to $600 or 100-400% more than the cost to the homeowner. However, since about half of the unmetered single family homes (15,000 flat rate customers) are putative rentals, that means that the city (again, you as a taxpayer) is subsidizing those properties which are being used as money generating entities by landlords, some of whom do not even live in the city. If the city charged all rental property owners the full rate for meter installation, it would receive at least $2,250,000 at the low end ($300 per installation). High end ($600 per meter) would bring in considerably more. Furthermore, after meter installation the true water consumption costs would be passed on to the consumer, i.e., the renters."
.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 30
Location: Bellingham
|
OK, so the earlier reference you made that landlords can "pocket the savings" refers to the City portion of the water meter cost... somewhere between $150 and $450 according to your figures. But it still doesn't resolve what the motivation anyone, landlord or not, would have to do this. I mean, on the one hand, you can have all the flat rate water you want at no additional cost, or on the other hand you could PAY $150 to buy a meter and be charged more for all the water you use. Am I missing something here? Or were the 75 people out of 15,000 just the ones that flunked the City's "Stupid Test"?
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/14/2008
Posts: 14
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
For the reasons you have rightly stated, very few would opt to have a meter installed unless, perhaps, you were a single person in a single family home and never watered your lawn. The point is that the city has a state mandate to do this meter installation and is trying to spread the cost amongst all single family home owners in some perverse form of fairness. I think their plans are unfair in that half of those homes are money making ventures. Why should I subsidize their profit making entity?
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/14/2008
Posts: 14
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
The City Council will again look at water meter installation in the city at tonight's council meeting. I made the following comment to the editorial in today's Herald. You can read the Herald piece here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/315/story/489997.html">http:// http://www.bellinghamherald.com/315/story/489997.htmlHere is my reply: The City Council is about to hand the citizens of Bellingham another expensive "gift" with am extremely thin veneer of "fairness". Unfortunately, the Herald has not taken a close look at the proposal to install meters in single family homes and is nodding its head in agreement. I made the following statement to the city council during the public comments session on 21 July: "I would like to ask the council to consider a water meter installation program in which fairness is the basis and taxpayers are not asked to subsidize landlords, many of whom do not even live in Bellingham. As reported by the city staff, the cost of placement of these meters is around $220 to $525. Since about half of the 15,800 unmetered single family homes are putative rentals, that means that the taxpayers would be subsidizing meter installation on approximately 8,000 homes which are being used as money generating entities by landlords. If the city charged all landlords of single family homes the full rate for meter installation, it would a minimum of $1,760,000 at the low end. Since there are homes whose installation costs will be at the high end, around $525 per meter, the total would probably reach between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000. Why should taxpayers subsidize landlords in their income producing pursuits?" I also spoke to the issue in my blog last April. You can read that at: http://zonemaven.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-subsidize-rental-propety-water.html">http:// http://zonemaven.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-subsidize-rental-propety-water.htmlThe figures used in the blog entry were the latest available at the time. I heard nary a word from the City Council or the city managers after my original proposal in April. At the 21 July council meeting the discussion of the water meter installation program continued as if I had never addressed the issue. The city has had years to put together a program for meter installation but dawdled. Now it is behind the power curve and is seeking the most expeditious means which, unfortunately, the live-in homeowners will pay for.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/14/2008
Posts: 14
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
While Bellingham slept last Monday evening, the City Council agreed to spend about $8million of your money to install water meters. Nearly half of that will pay for meters in single family homes which are rentals, that is, for which the owners make money on a monthly basis. Many of these landlords do not even live here. All this under the guise of equity.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/14/2008
Posts: 15
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
I'm guessing if we had made landlords pay for their own meter installation it would have been a tax deduction for them anyways, so many probably wouldn't even care. I wonder why your proposal wasn't even considered?
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/14/2008
Posts: 14
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Yes, the meter installation costs would likely be a tax deduction. That is the way it works for businesses. However, the deduction is not a dollar for dollar write off. Perhaps the owner would get $50 or $100 deduction from taxes from the government on the $300-600 installation fee.
Let's say all non-industrial businesses downtown were yet to be metered. Would the council propose to meter them all at the expense of homeowners?
As for the reason for which my proposal was not considered, I have no idea. From what I have seen so far in the single family zoning issue, live-in single family homeowners are not priority constituents.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 12/13/2007
Posts: 103
Location: Bellingham
|
Just last week I heard a small group of disgruntled taxpayers discussing a literal "Bellingham Tea Party." Our taxation in Bellingham has gotten out of control.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/15/2008
Posts: 7
Location: Lettered Streets, Bellingham
|
My household found this helpful in calculating our water: http://www.cob.org/services/utilities/water-calculator.aspxThere are only two of us, and we have taken several water-saving measures. It is encouraging to find that we will save $150 in less than two years.
|
|
|
Guest |
