Let me begin by emphasizing that the fairest method for utility billing of our citizens is a…
My last article on Utility Billing Dec. 6, 2022 identified three distinct water usage customers in our city. Each of the three customer categories has a unique billing problem centered around the water and sewer Service Availability Fee (SAF) paid by some city residences, but not others in our community. The first Category concerned hotels and motels. The second concerned Salem housing units for low-income and handicapped family members. The third included large complexes and trailer courts occupied by individual families. If we remove the hotel and motel facilities from the list, we will have approximately 332 family units supplied with water using only 11 water meters. This means that the city collects (11 meters X $12.00 = $132.00 per month). If each of these 332 family units were individual homes, they would each have a meter and the city would collect (332 meters X $12.00 = $3,984.00 per month). The difference in collected revenue is substantial and, in my opinion, needs to be addressed if the city is to have fair utility billing.
The first category is an easy fix, accomplished by applying a SAF based on meter size, as mentioned in my first article. For example, our city could charge a SAF of $125.00/month for a 6-inch meter, $75.00 for a 4-inch meter, $50.00 for a 3-inch meter, $25.00 for a 2-inch meter, $17.00 for a 1-inch meter, and $6.00, our present fee for ⅝ & ¾-inch meters. However, the hotels and motels serviced by large meters would not be changed a SAF. Cities around us have been using this method of billing for years and we need to join them! I believe this is fair for several reasons which I will explain. The people using hotels and motels are not Salem residents, they are visitors with short stays. As guests in our city, they may spend money at a number of our stores, restaurants, and gas stations. We should do everything possible to encourage the owners of these facilities to create a visitor return policy, not burden them with a room SAF.
The other two categories involve individuals and families living in Salem. The 11 meters servicing these 332 units are presently not paying the SAF. These facilities still need to pay the large meter rates mentioned above, but the individuals occupying these units also need to be involved in supporting the expenses of the water and sewer departments. If these units were treated as individual homes they would generate $3,984.00 per month. ($6.00 for water and $6.00 for sewer per month) An amount that our present homeowners are required to pay. True, there are no meters at these units, but the SAF the 2,700 homeowners must pay is not being applied to the above-mentioned units. Yet the expenses the water and sewer departments incur each year, apply to all Salem users, including these 332 units. Many of the residents in these units, which I have talked with, feel that they also have a responsibility to support our utility departments. How do we apply a fair fee since there are no meters supplying water to each of these units? I would like to suggest a Water/Sewer User Fee (WSUF) fee attached to the electric meter since all of these units have their own electric meter. This fee will go to the water and sewer departments, not the electric department. When this WSUF is attached to the electric meter it will only be applied to the occupied units, which may vary from month to month. The WSUF will be less than our SAF since each unit does not have a water meter, but will reflect all the other expenses associated with running these departments.
Let me present some arguments supporting this WSUF. What if you lived in a trailer court or apartment complex having 40 units fed by one water meter? Let's say you are a single conservative person but many of your neighbors have children, maybe many children, and also, other neighbors which have no regard concerning their consumption of water. Your landlord gets his/her water and sewer bill, sees the water consumption, plus other monthly expenses, and calculates each unit's monthly rent. This rent does not reflect each unit's consumption or the city’s cost to supply water and sewer services to these units. Some of the renters, unknowingly, are paying for part of their neighbor's usage. This doesn’t seem fair, but they have no argument because they have no individual water meters! This may be the reasoning behind our city's original ordinance mentioned in my first article, which states that there must be one water meter for each user. How might the WSUF avoid this indifference to water usage? Will, if each unit resident is paying this fee, the facility owner and all homeowners might see a decrease in the water and sewer volume rate fee due to the city’s increased revenue.
For example, let's say this fee is $6.00 per month for these 332 units. That is (332 X $6.00 = $1,992.00/month; $3.00 for each water and sewer) or $23,904.00/year. Maybe this can be used to lower the water rate fee a little for everyone, including the facility owners. More importantly, the cost of running these departments is now shared by all residents using our water, not just those homeowners and renters having water meters!
Readers may have other concerns and need to voice them before the committee makes its final decision.
