News

Water billing changes stick

Hudson-Catskill Newspapers

HUDSON — It’s official, Hudson property owners should prepare to pay a water bill for each unit that they own.

There was much debate in recent weeks regarding the latest resolution to the city of Hudson’s water billing, which states that all property owners will be billed for every unit they own unless they have their water service turned off at the sidewalk. But no formal proposal was put forward, and the resolution will not be rescinded or altered in any way.

Al Cook, a lifelong Hudson resident, was the one who made the Public Works Committee aware of potential problems with the resolution. Cook owns a two-unit building, with one empty unit, and felt that being billed for water he wasn’t using was unfair. His case moved members of the DPW, who made a recommendation to the Common Council to suspend the resolution until it could come up with a possible solution.

But after a detailed explanation from Hudson Mayor Rick Scelara and Common Council President Robert Perry Jr., members of the Common Council were convinced to let it stand.

During discussions Alderman Christopher Wagoner, D-3rd Ward, criticized the way that the water billing was being handled. “The groundwork has not been laid,” he said. Wagoner compared billing every unit for water without first investigating water meters to Hudson’s practice of ticketing people for parking without putting up parking signs.

Wagoner said he’d been getting a lot of e-mail from people in the 3rd Ward who were doing everything they could to save water, such as purchasing low flow toilets, and that those people would much prefer to have meters.

Perry said that although he had nothing against the idea of meters, “we are not in a position to do that anytime in the near future.”

Perry said that the issue had been discussed at length the previous week and that he had personally come away with the idea that, “if I have any questions, I should call (Code Enforcement Officer) Pete Wurster.”

Alderman Ellen Thurston, D-3rd Ward, said she still had some concerns about the new billing system.

“What I think came out of the DPW meeting was that we would suspend (the resolution) so that we could clarify things, like how does Al Cook get his water (to his vacant unit) shut off? We weren’t saying that everyone shouldn’t pay,” she said. “And I still am a little unclear, how does he make that not a legal apartment?”

Council members suggested that Cook remove the stove in his vacant unit, and then have it inspected by Wurster, in order to have his building declared a single unit.

Alderman Sheila Ramsey, D-4th Ward, said that she had been “floored and horrified’ when Cook first explained his situation at the DPW meeting. But now she felt that Cook could go see Wurster and work it out. “I hope you do that,” she said.

Cook wasn’t happy, but ultimately agreed to follow through with Wurster.

“However it turns out, Al Cook will find a way,” he said as he sat down, earning laughs from the audience.

But a call to Wurster revealed that it isn’t quite that simple.

“You can’t just pull out a stove and say, this isn’t a two family unit,” he said.

Since the meeting, Wurster has already been out to Cook’s house to do an inspection. The verdict?

“Technically, Al has a two unit. If he chooses not to rent that upstairs unit that’s his prerogative. But technically I cannot say that it’s a single unit,” he said.

Wurster explained that if an apartment has its own separate means of egress, it is its own separate entity. When asked about the inhabitability of Al’s unit, Wurster replied, “I’m sorry Al. I love you man, but his (unit) could be moved into tomorrow.”

He said that on the other hand, he had inspected a building on Warren Street where the two upstairs units were in such bad shape that he declared them uninhabitable.

Wurster said he has been getting lot of calls as a direct result of the new water resolution.

“I’ve had a couple dozen calls already and I imagine it’s going to continue,” he said. “I would hope that people do reach out if they have a question.”

In other news from Tuesday’s meeting:

n The Council approved a proposal to put out a request for proposals for 158 light poles, pointing out that the city is not locked in to purchasing this exact number of poles.

n Aldermen also approved a proposal to put out a request for proposals for 100 junction boxes to be installed in place of the 100 street lights the city plans to remove on Warren Street.

Reader Comments

Submit a Comment