FLUSHING FOR DOLLARS Houston’s City Council voted 12-3 yesterday to hike water and sewer rates for single-family homes by 27.7 percent, with the first increases beginning June 1: “Water rates for apartments will go up nearly 24 percent and businesses will see a nearly nine percent hike. However, single families will have gradual increases over three years until they are paying the full 100 percent cost of use, whereas apartments and business have to start paying that full cost right away.” [abc13]
Sign up for the Newsletter
I’m against any new taxes, but if this rate increase is truly tied to cost to provide the service, then I’m perfectly fine with it.
City rates are far below what many people pay in utility districts all around the city.
For me, %27 increase will make my bill about $18-$19 versus just under $15. Many utility district customers pay $30-$40 a month for a preset amount of water and your bill goes up if you exceed that amount.
Hey – if it’s yellow, let it mellow. Right?
kjb,
I pay $50.06 every month and I’ve always wondered why it was the same. It would make much more sense for the UD to actually bill for usage.
Thinking those rain barrels might be a good idea, lest I will let my lawn die a slow, painful death during the heat of the summer.
hollykate,
Much of the utility district water bill actually goes to making bond payments for the infrastructure in the district and the maintain the facility. This is on top of your MUD taxes
The districts realizes that not everyone will utilized their minimum allotted amounts. On top of that, the actually process of treating water to make it potable is pretty cheap. Maintaining the treatment facility and infrastructure is where the big cost lie.
Sounds good to me. It costs what it costs. I don’t want the City making a profit and using it to fund other projects. I also don’t want to subsidize it with other taxes. I don’t want the City wasting money, but I have no insight in their expenditures to determine how efficiently they run their ship.
In the grand scheme of things it’s pretty darn amazing to live in a world where a few hours work at minimum wage is enough to purchase a months worth of clean, clear, sanitary, drinking water available right in your home at the twist of a tap.
What about all the slow, lazy, over paid, disrespectful employees with over blown benefits this rate increase is really going to pay for. Not only does the city make a HUGE profit, it goes to encourage a culture of less service for more money.
Apartment owners will be totally unaffected since most bill for water usage on various bases, some allowed by the PUC and some not allowed by the PUC, and those that don’t will simply raise the rents. Although not accordingly. Most will probably add a little here and there to make a little extra profit. Something all but three city councilmembers didn’t really think about.
But tenants really don’t matter to the city as every tenant who has ever reported a slum landlord to the city can attest to.
This is not something that just came up suddenly. Although some would like to believe it did. Someone just wanted to be mayor. And apparently wanted to make sure someone else didn’t become governor.
More suprises to follow no doubt. Suffice it to say HPD will be earning its keep with quotas that don’t exist although everyone should make sure not to run red lights and make illegal turns or drive 2 mph over the speed limit and to slam on the brakes for the 2 second yellow lights.
Gotta make some money for the city finally so the city doesn’t have to keep borrowing to balance the books. Which ain’t balanced and haven’t been for some time.
Matt,
When the apartment complex sees a 24% jump in the total water bill, they won’t be able just raise rents to offset that cost unless the renters are on a weekly or monthly basis.
They’ll jack up the water cost on the monthly shared bill that many complexes utilize.
If your water is included in rent, then the apartment complex will have to make the adjustment when the renter contracts are due.
There isn’t anything messed up in this.
@ MattMystery: I gather from your claim that City’s books are imbalanced that you’re not an accountant. The problem with that statement is…it’s unsupported by any evidence to date. The City’s books (and financial statements, which is what you really meant to refer to) get audited annually, and they do balance. Imbalanced books result from an error in double-entry bookkeeping and should prevent the books from being closed, which would prevent them from generating financial statements.
.
The problem that you thought that you were referring to is indicated by data contained in the books and financial statements, but has nothing inherently to do with them. The City is able to source money from one account or another to pay for liabilities as they come due. The problem has to do with where the money is coming from, and the sustainability of that practice…but it is an issue of financial management, not an accounting issue. There is no evidence of accounting impropriety.
Could someone please explain the following to me:
1) Why is the water rate increase immediate for apartments, but phased in for single family residences?
2) How does the water rate increase not violate city charter provisions?
3) Is it not more than a bit perverse that one of the justifications given for the water rate increase is that consumers were using less water than was expected?
4) How can the City of Houston reasonably justify charging for water at a rate well in excess of that which is charged by cities that are located in deserts?
Is there anyway to recall the Mayor? I’d like to have my (2nd) vote back.
Ah yes, the mark of the true conspiracy theorist. The claim that the City has been reducing yellow light times deliberately in order to increase revenue from red light cameras.
Also…some food for thought (or water for drinking, if you prefer):
Houston gets an average of 50 inches of rain a year. Rain which, because the city has incompetent engineers who apparently believe that every rain event constitutes a “100 year flood event”, ends up flooding the heck out of most roads, but I digress…..
1 inch of rain falling on 1 acre of land equals roughly 27,154 gallons of water.
The City of Houston is roughly 600 square miles, or 384,000 acres (as there are 640 acres in 1 square mile).
So 1 inch of rain on the City of Houston gives about 10,427,136,000 gallons of water.
With 50 inches of annual rainfall, that comes out to 521,356,800,000 gallons of water a year. All of it freely provided by the heavens.
The City of Houston has 2.2 million people.
So each person essentially gets 236,980 gallons of “free” rainfall a year.
And here the City wants to charge its residents an extortionate amount for using the very same water that, more often than not, ends up disrupting their lives because the very same City is completely incapable of properly constructing sewers and drains?
Just give me a catchment tank and a UV light bulb….and a new mayor.
Random Poster,
Please stop before you ignorance shine brighter than the sun.
Your comment on flooding show complete lack of knowledge of anything to do with roadway design in our region.
Also, Houston does capture a lot of the water from rain for drinking purposes. It’s called Lake Conroe and Lake Houston. These two are Houston and much of the region’s primary drinking water source. Pretty much all ground water sourced systems in the region are being converted to surface water (Lake Houston).
Do you know the process of how to treat water to make it potable? Proper flocculation to lower the turbidity level and then sand filtration are critical components. A shift from chlorination to UV bacteria treatment is expensive but worth it to limit the levels of chlorine we are exposed to. That water bill also goes to the maintenance of treatment facilities.
Even with the increase, our water bill will be quite low.
Also, what desert city/cities are you referring to regarding haven’t cheaper rates?
CORRECTION:
Also, what desert city/cities are you referring to regarding having cheaper rates?
I’d love to know which desert cities you are thinking of Random Poster. Compared to when I lived in Los Angeles my water bill is between 1/4 and 1/8 of its size dependent on the season. And I am most likely using more water here given that my family size has grown. Of course the City also doesn’t have to benchmark its water rates agisnt anywhere else, it just has to benchmark them against its costs.
One thing that many desert cities do, including Los Angeles, is exponentially increase the rate per 1000 gallons once you go above a preset average usage. This is what used to hit me on my bill. From what I can see of the Houston rates this is not the case here. The rates for lower quantities are primarily driven by infrastructure costs rather than being volume driven and will therefore will be comparable anywhere in the country.
Random Poster, you are actually completely free to use a catchment tank and UV bulb to collect your own water. Just call the City up and have them cap off your meter. I’m not sure why you would expect the City to pay for your tank though. Of course you would also have to figure out what to do with your sewage and gray water. Would you be expecting the City to cough up for your septic system too?
From kjb434:
“Please stop before you ignorance shine brighter than the sun.”
Oh, dear. It hurts too much to laugh.
“Your comment on flooding show complete lack of knowledge of anything to do with roadway design in our region.”
Yes, I bow before your complete superiority in all things.
But, do tell me please, why is it, for example, that the left-most southbound lane of Post Oak Boulevard just north of San Felipe floods when even a hint of rain appears on the horizon? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with roadway design, could it?
Jimbo:
Funny that you should mention Los Angeles.
From today’s Houston Chronicle article on the subject:
COSTS ACROSS U.S.
Monthly water-sewer rates in other major U.S. cities*:
San Antonio: $29
Miami: $34
Oakland: $43
Dallas: $46
Houston-Existing:
$47
Fort Worth: $48
Los Angeles: $56
St. Petersburg: $58
New Orleans: $60
Houston-After increase:
$60
Austin: $66
San Diego: $121
*For single-family homeowners using 6,000 gallons a month; figures were rounded and Houston increase will be implemented over three years
Source: City of Houston rate study
Also, a little bit of Googling revealed the following February 2, 2008, article from azcentral.com:
“PHOENIX – The Phoenix City Council this week voted to increase water and wastewater rates by 12 and 7 percent, respectively.
The rate hikes will take effect March 3.
The average water payment for Phoenix residents will increase to $48.79 a month from $44.41, said Kenneth Krosky of the city’s Water Department.
That’s an average increase of 9.9 percent.
An average single-family household uses about 11,000 gallons of water and wastewater a month, Krosky said.”
Seems, at least at first glance, like Houston’s water rate is well in excess of what Phoenix’s rate is. And I’m pretty sure that Phoenix is considered to be in a desert.
What’s the rate, not the total bill? Lawn irrigation is not typical for AZ, so that would make those bills seem high to me.
“But, do tell me please, why is it, for example, that the left-most southbound lane of Post Oak Boulevard just north of San Felipe floods when even a hint of rain appears on the horizon? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with roadway design, could it?”
It has nothing to do with the roadway design. That intersection has been torn up many of times due to other utility upgrades. Each time that happens, sections of the roadway get patched up. The original design cross slopes have not been maintained by the contractors replacing the concrete over time. It’s a culmination of many years of different projects having nothing to do with drainage and roadway design destroying the intersection. The recent intersection rebuilding was purely a roadway department project in tandem with the Uptown Management district. The money spent was limited due to the fact that METRO plans on coming in there in about 7-10 years to completely rebuild the entire boulevard. The city isn’t going wast money spending millions to ensure flooding that only last a few hours at a time is fixed. The complete drainage system for Post Oak will be adjusted and upgraded later under a METRO project. Ultimately the city will save money.
Cd is quite right regarding your water bill table RP.
No where in that table it discusses rates.
Homes in Phoenix use considerably less water than Houston (specifically in the summer months). Rates are a critical measure. It is also important to consider graduated rates which are common in water sensitive area such as Phoenix and the west coast. 6000 gallons per month may be nice comparison, but 6001 gallons could be substantially higher if the graduations kick in at that point.
The Chronicle likely picked one table out of the report that was the simplest to publish. That report likely has many other tables that compare water rate structures.
The link below is the San Antonio’s rate structure:
http://www.saws.org/service/rates/resident.shtml
It’s very much a graduated system that will get exponentially more expensive as use climbs.
Also, desert cities have made a concerted effort to get the public to use less water. Houston pretty much just has a paragraph in the bill that no one reads saying it’s good to conserve water. The reality is that Houston doesn’t have a water shortage issue, so the public uses what they want and when they want.
From kjb434:
“It has nothing to do with the roadway design. . . .”
I’m not referring to the Post Oak/San Felipe intersection. I’m referring to certain lanes just north of the intersection.
And, quite frankly, your explanation regarding the cause(s) of the flooding problem strikes me as, indeed, being a “roadway design” issue.
“The city isn’t going wast money spending millions to ensure flooding that only last a few hours at a time is fixed. The complete drainage system for Post Oak will be adjusted and upgraded later under a METRO project. Ultimately the city will save money.”
Well, that much is reasonably certain. The city would seemingly prefer to waste money on sports stadia and land deals with the allegedly religious, and make up any shortfalls through water rate hikes, health insurance premium increases, dubious safety programs, and the like.
But, hey, at least when it is all said and done, no worries about the routine flooding: At least the city will save money. Whether the city’s residents will save on any aggravation (or, for that matter, even save for their own retirement), well, that’s really no one’s concern, eh?
From kjb434:
“Cd is quite right regarding your water bill table RP.
No where in that table it discusses rates.
Homes in Phoenix use considerably less water than Houston (specifically in the summer months). Rates are a critical measure. It is also important to consider graduated rates which are common in water sensitive area such as Phoenix and the west coast. 6000 gallons per month may be nice comparison, but 6001 gallons could be substantially higher if the graduations kick in at that point.”
First, it isn’t “my” water bill table. It is what a webpage put out.
Second, if you want the water rates for the City of Phoenix, they aren’t hard to find:
http://phoenix.gov/WATER/watrates.pdf and
http://phoenix.gov/waterservices/customerservices/payment/rates/index.html should get you what you want.
Third, I assume that you noticed that the Chronicle’s table is based on water usage of 6,000 gallons a month, while the Phoenix article’s calculations is based on water (and wastewater) usage of 11,000 gallons a month.
Now, I’m not a math genius, but if I can use 11,000 gallons in Phoenix for around $48 a month, or 6,000 gallons in Houston for $60 a month, it sure seems to me like Phoenix is offering a better deal.
RandomPoster, don’t worry about it; they will raise their rates soon too. Your article is from 2008, so $47 < $48. Simple math. Also, $47 < $56; Los Angeles will raise their rates too.
Also, some of these other cities have better supply of reservoir water than Houston does (though admittedly, not Phoenix). Las Vegas: Lake Mead. Miami: The Everglades. San Antonio and Austin: several large reservoirs. Los Angeles: a giant pipeline from the Sierra Nevadas. Dallas: only about 30 million lakes in the area.
And you’re forgetting that Houston is pretty flat and doesn’t have the advantages of hydraulic grade that a lot of other cities have. Therefore, pumping costs are higher. New Orleanians pay an average of $60 per month for utilities. It doesn’t matter that they get 64″ of rain per year that’s free. They also have a lot of “free” wastewater and stormwater that they have to treat and pump back up to sea level.
Also, RandomPoster, the left turn lane of SB Post Oak at San Felipe? Really? This is failing to differentiate between two different types of “floods”, as you are calling them.
A flood, as defined by societies who like to build all their valuable assets in low-lying, rainy areas is when the total rainfall in a catchment area exceeds outflow in a certain time period, leading to a rise in the water level of water bodies, and overflowing to places that “aren’t supposed” to have any water. Basically, rivers and lakes in the watershed rise. This is where 100-year design rainfall rates come into play.
Then there’re local spots with poor drainage. Like a low spot in the grass or a pothole in the street. It doesn’t matter if this pothole is in an area 50 feet above the surrounding land or how little rainfall (or sprinkler water) this pothole gets. It is still going to accumulate water until the water infiltrates into the groundwater or evaporates. This is like the road example you gave; preventing standing water here has nothing to do with a 100-year return rate of rainfall.
RP,
Since you’re focusing on Phoenix. Is the $48/month based on low use months or high use months. According to your link the rates jump 60% per unit in the high use months.
Haven’t any of you learned that Kjb34’s knowledge and expertise knows no boundary?
Can you imagine what his partner must suffer through on any given day?
I’m waiting for his explanation on how Annise shimmies into her pantsuit and does the bossa nova before she enters the Council chambers.
LOL! Melanie!
Water/wastewater Treatment, Flood and Drainage, Roadway design are all part of Civil Engineering which is what I do for a living. I mostly do hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. When models are running, I have time to post and read.
Dealing with land development all the time has also kept met interested in real estate and development.
Also, I don’t talk about work with my partner because I know he’ll be bored to death. LOL!
Kjb434,
Well I’m still waitin’ on that explanation.
It’s got to involve hydraulics!
From kjb434:
“RP,
Since you’re focusing on Phoenix. Is the $48/month based on low use months or high use months. According to your link the rates jump 60% per unit in the high use months.”
I’m not “focusing” on Phoenix. It is simply a city that (i) is in a desert; (ii) posts its water rates online; and (iii) has lower water rates than Houston will (or does now).
That being said, I don’t know if the $48 figure is for low use months, high use months, or a monthly average for the entire year. I didn’t write the article.
I question whether the answer is really important, however, given that–as far as I can discern–the City of Houston charges the same for water every month regardless of whether the month is a summer one or a winter one.
Plus, “high use” months in Phoenix only last 4 months. So when you average it all out, and if you use your water with any sort of prudence (i.e., fill up your swimming pool during a low use month), I suspect that Phoenix still comes out ahead.
Houston charges the same year round since our usage doesn’t really fluctuate that much.
Major use fluctuations such as irrigation which can change with the season don’t happen here in Houston. It technically should, but few people change there irrigation pattern here.
There is no evidence of accounting impropriety.
________________
I’m sure there was no “evidence” of accounting impropriety at Enron either. Until the bottom fell out.
2) How does the water rate increase not violate city charter provisions?
_________________
Because the mayor got the city attorney to say it doesn’t?
Matt,
There was lots of evidence of accounting impropriety. That’s why Arthur Anderson was deeply involved as they were. They had to cook the books for Enron to make everything look rosie on the outside. The SEC and a whistle blower at Enron coming out made the stock fall and the company slide the point where it is today.
The water rate isn’t technically a tax as the city charter is concerned which means only a vote by the city council is needed. Property taxes would need a public vote to change if they go beyond what is allowed to be adjusted by the current rules.
Is there anyway to recall the Mayor? I’d like to have my (2nd) vote back.
_______________
Smart people aren’t admitting they voted for her. The 1st or the 2nd time.
There was lots of evidence of accounting impropriety. That’s why Arthur Anderson was deeply involved as they were. They had to cook the books for Enron to make everything look rosie on the outside.
___________
Well, you know, during the campaign both Bill White and Annise Parker said everythign was just hunky-dory. Maybe a little increase in the water rates. That’s all. Certainly nothing about a $130 million deficit in the upcoming budget. Maybe they didn’t know. Or maybe they just wanted everything to look “rosie on the outside?”
As for the minimal impact on tenants, it’s not so minimal in this economy. Whether the rate is immediate or in a year and you can make bet the landlords will be upping the “move-in specials” by at least $25 per month to cover the $15 a month increase per tenant. Using the $15 a month increase as an example.
Borrowing money to balance the books is not balancing the books. Some might consider it “cooking the books” which most real
“fiscal conservatives” do particularly when there is a $130 million deficit no one mentioned. Until it had to be mentioned.
As for “improprieties” it should be pointed out that the accounting system Enron and Arthur Andersen used is the same accounting system the federal government uses. And most likely the municipal governments use as well. Makes it easier to make things look “rosie.” Until the bottom falls out.
And of course HCAD valuations are not what they used to be. And of course the county and the city will just “adjust” by raising taxes. So they can continue to waste the taxpayer money on things like lawsuits filed by developers after the mayors, both of them, made it clear the city charter didn’t matter. Seems to be a pattern. The city charter not mattering.
I completely agree with your view of the city’s financial health (or lack thereof).
Lee Brown and especially Bill White kicked the can down to Parker. Some kudos does go to Parker so far for admitting the problems in the city budget.
Bill White’s manipulation was out of the realm of the controller (Parker). This has been documented by various blogs who follow city hall closely versus the lack of coverage from the America’s worst big city daily (Chronicle) and the local TV news. Bill White took the financial mess and compartmentalized it in the administration’s office only giving the controller what they needed to complete the books. Technically it wasn’t illegal, but problem was never addressed..
Parker’s recent speeches came close to blaming White’s administration without saying it directly regarding the financial messes.
Politically, Parker and I are in two different worlds, but I’m not faulting her yet on the financial mess. She likely has a little over 5 more years left since there isn’t likely to be a good challenger to her in the midterms. I am impressed with some of her actions regarding METRO. Still waiting for that to shake out completely.
Another note about the water rates: They were planned by the department early on in White’s admin, but he wouldn’t bring it to a vote since politically it wasn’t popular. He had more important things like future political aspirations versus the city to worry about.
When Parker came in, the department brought it up again. Going this many years with no rate increase for costs alone isn’t valid. The big jump is partially to blame on this.
Some kudos does go to Parker so far for admitting the problems in the city budget.
_________________
Excuse me but she was controller for six years. And said nothing?
The politics aside, hard to put aside in Houston, the reality is that this is probably just the first of many increases in fees. Which will probably be followed by increases in taxes. Which will not be good for our already not-exactly-wonderful real estate market. A penny here, a dime there, $15 here, $100 there. It adds up. And in a bad economy that adds up to a lot to existing homeowners already stretched to the limit and adds up to a lot to those pondering their first home.
The reality is our city councilmembers don’t care about homeowners any more than they carea about tenants. They think we are all some sort of gigantic ATM that they can just make bigger withdrawals from. Until the ATM runs out of money. The ATM is already running out of money.
As for the politics, a controller does have a certain “fiscal responsibility” to at least warn everyone of looming disasters, real or potentials. This one apparently just wanted an endorsement to ensure she slid easily into the mayor’s office. And of course is now acting like she was just the bookkeeper and knew nothing. And giving an endorsement in return for the endorsement she didn’t get.
“I didn’t turn Houston into Detroit, Bill White did.”
She certainly didn’t do much to stop it.
When White came into office they were replacing roughly 1% of the water lines in the city on an annual basis. Keep in mind that water lines only last 30-40 years before the seepage and breaks get out of control. Do the math on that. Early in his administration the city issued several hundred million dollars in water and sewer bonds to increase funding for infrastructure replacement. The rate of replacement was increased to just over 3% on an annual basis, where it should be. In general, I’m guessing that most of the funds from the increase in rates will be used to continue to pay for infrastructure through increased rates rather than increased borrowing, which is cheaper (the rate increase) in the long run. The city is not allowed by law to make a profit, and they would have to decrease rates if it was determined they were making a profit. Of course, that will never happen, as the capital expenditure requirements far outstrip the available funds.
Lewis Black made an interesting observation on the priorities of Americans: many seem to be willing to pay a lot more for cable than for clean water.
http://online.wsj.com/video/lewis-black-i-dont-understand-the-tea-partiers/54F8F013-D077-4910-B5E3-99CCB8D47065.html
I couldn’t really care what the Chron said RP, the chron doesn’t get an LADWP water bill. All I know is that when I was living in LA my summer water bills were a hell of a lot higher than they are here. As I mentioned the graduated rates in other cities kick in at a fairly low level and jump pretty much exponentially. That’s why the Chron picked a useage of 6000 gallons for their article despite the fact that the average US home uses 11,000 gallons.
Phoenix is a bit of a misnomer. For one thing they actually have a relatively stable water supply despite being in a desert because a lot of their water is drawn from the Colorado river. Second the federal and state governments have fortified their infrastructure over the last 100 years or so through major investment projects. Without these projects, whose costs are not passed down through water bills, their situtation would be a lot more tenuous.
The cost of water in other cities really has nothing to do with the cost of water in Houston.
The cost of water in Houston, about to go up, has to do with the politicians and their
“Scarlett O’Hara” approach to governing.
“I’ll think about it tomorrow.”
Or after the next election.
Comparative water rates study, 50 major cities: http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/allstats.pdf