News

Water billing changes explained

Hudson-Catskill Newspapers

HUDSON — Hudson Mayor Rick Scalera, Common Council President Richard Perry Jr. and Treasurer Eileen Halloran met with the Register-Star editorial board Thursday to explain the recent resolution regarding the city’s water billing.

The meeting was in direct response to the Department of Public Works Committee meeting Monday. During the DPW meeting, Hudson residents protested a new resolution which would require property owners to pay a water bill for every unit in their building, regardless of whether it is vacant or occupied.

Under the resolution, owners who do not want to pay a water bill on a vacant building would have the option of turning it off at the sidewalk. Objections came from two men who each own two-unit buildings with one vacant unit.

The committee reacted by recommending the Common Council suspend the resolution. The Common Council, which recently approved the resolution unanimously, has an informal meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday and will discuss this matter.

As Scalera, Perry and Halloran explained, the motivation for the resolution was simple: To raise revenue to cover mounting water and sewer costs.

“We’ve built a $10 million water treatment plant and now have a huge debt service,” explained Scalera. “On top of that we have huge operating costs for the new plant. The current rates are not cutting it.”

Scalera said that in 2009 the city will spend $5 million to $7 million on a new sewer treatment plant. “Best case scenario is $2 million in grant money,” he said. The city is looking for sources of revenue to cover the remaining expense.

“We have issues of how to afford our water and our sewage,” said Scalera. “We already have a shortfall in water, and we will have a larger shortfall if we don’t do something about water rates now.”

“Of 3,748 units only 2,876 are currently being billed,” said Scalera. “We learned earlier this year that there were a substantial amount of units that weren’t paying for water. We learned that there was an honor system.”

Under the system, Scalera said that landlords could pick up the phone and say they were going on vacation and should not be billed. They could do the same when an apartment they owned became vacant. Many took advantage of the system, failing to report when units became occupied again.

“I can’t imagine that of the 800 apartments, there is not a great deal of dishonor of our honor system,” said Perry.

“We have two choices — we can look at a substantial increase to the water rates of people who are currently paying the bill, or we can spread it out amongst those units that have never historically paid for water,” said Scalera.

“If we keep this resolution intact there will be no cost increase, but if we don’t there will be an increase of $50 for water and $50 for sewer this year, with the understanding that next year it will be higher yet,” Scalera said.

Both Scalera and Perry referred to Hudson landlords “choosing” to keep their buildings vacant. Each feel that the demand for affordable housing in Hudson points to no shortage of possible tenants.

“Most of the time these vacancies are because the owners don’t want anyone there,” said Scalera. “Well, we don’t have that luxury anymore. We have to pay for the new water service and we are trying to have it equally distributed throughout the city.

“If you chose to have a vacant building, and you don’t want to pay for the water, you can pay a onetime fee of $50 and have the water turned off at the sidewalk,” said Scalera. “If you have any water going in, you will pay for all of the units in your building.”

“When we created this budget it was with 400 non-paying units in mind,” said Perry. “It wasn’t until after we performed a complete audit, that it was revealed that [400] was actually half of the real number.

“Now, the budget was made with the 400 in mind. So there’s $140,000 in funds now that will go to projects. If the Common Council wants to forge ahead and revoke the resolution there will be direct fiscal consequences that they will have to remedy immediately,” said Perry

“It costs us what it costs us to run the plant and to build the new plant,” said Halloran. “The cost doesn’t decrease because these places aren’t occupied. It was good while we could do it,” she said, referring to the honor system. “We are probably a couple years past the time when we could.”

At Monday’s DPW committee meeting, Senior DPW Account Clerk Melissa Finn brought up the issue of vacant buildings with internal sprinkler systems. She was concerned that these structures could pose a fire hazard if owners opted to turn the water off at the curb in order to save money.

“In this instance, the city would offer a reduced rate of $25 per quarter for the connection,” said Scalera. He explained that any landlord who chooses to turn it off completely would have to sign a document stating that he or she accepts all liability arising from a possible fire. “I don’t know how they are going to be insured,” he added.

Another issue discussed at the DPW committee meeting was that, in some cases, more than one building is connected to a single water main at the sidewalk.

“If someone wants to separate their building from others that are fed by the same main, they can do so at their own expense,” said Scalera who estimates the cost to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,500.

According to Scalera, water meters, which were suggested at the DPW committee meeting, are not the short-term solution. He cited the cost of installation, as well as having to create an entire infrastructure as reasons. “How do you get an accurate reading if you don’t have a separate service?” he added.

According to Perry, the pay-for-use model can hit lower income residents the hardest.

“Metering is actually a form of regressive tax,” he said. “Historically, individuals on the lowest end of the income spectrum have the lowest level of attentive landlords. So if they have leaky faucets they are less likely to get them repaired. Obviously, we want to encourage conservation, but we can’t do it at the expense of lowest income families in the city.”

Scalera said that Hudson’s water and sewer rates are low when compared with other areas .“Greenport rates are three times ours,” he said. Scalera said that when he met with a U.S. Department of Agriculture representative to discuss possible grant money for Hudson, “the USDA [representative] said you are giving away your water.”

“The council voted unanimously to approve this resolution,” said Scalera. “Two people showed up at a [DPW] meeting and they backed down a little. But if there are alternatives, fine, find us the money some other way.”

“We will talk about it in the informal meeting and will be happy to discuss options and alternatives.” said Perry. “But, there have been a lot of people who have not been paying for a long time.”

Reader Comments

Submit a Comment