Fairfield Ledger

Mt. Pleasant News   Wash Journal
Neighbors Growing Together | Oct 17, 2017

Council debates water line mandate

By ANDY HALLMAN | Nov 14, 2013

The Fairfield City Council is pushing for duplexes and apartments to create separate water lines and meters for each tenant in the building.

City Administrator Kevin Flanagan and water superintendent Carl Chandler explained the city’s predicament to the council. If a duplex only has one meter and one of the occupants isn’t paying for water, the city can’t shut the water off to the house because it’s not fair to the other person who is paying for water.

The council passed the first reading of an ordinance Tuesday that would eliminate that problem, albeit with some resistance. Councilor John Revolinski voted against the ordinance because he believed it would force apartment owners to shoulder enormous construction costs.

The other five councilors present voted for ordinance. They were Michael Halley, Tony Hammes, Jessica Ledger-Kalen, Martha Rasmussen and Connie Boyer. Daryn Hamilton was absent.

Revolinski said he believed the expense of separating water lines could run several thousand dollars.

“To suddenly separate the water lines is a huge expense,” Revolinski said. “We’re talking about $5,000 to $10,000 for a house. We’re just legislating this that houses have to spend $10,000 because we don’t like how they pay their water bill?”

Flanagan said he did not believe the expense would be anywhere near $10,000.

Revolinski believed the ordinance would require landlords to rip out their whole service lines in some cases. He envisioned the landlord having to tear apart his front lawn and interior walls in order to reroute the plumbing. Flanagan disagreed and said nothing that dramatic would need to be done in most cases.

“I don’t think it’s going to be a huge, onerous or undoable burden to make these changes,” he said.

Revolinski said he preferred limiting the ordinance to apply to new construction or to property owners who were making changes to their building. Flanagan didn’t think that went far enough.

“What do we do when someone is not paying their bill and we can’t cut them off? It can cost [the city] $200 a month,” he said. “We have to take care of the taxpayers, and we’re powerless to do that.”

Revolinski said that problem could be solved by creating a separate water bill for these apartments. He said he would only support the ordinance if it included a grandfather clause that would exempt existing apartments.

Halley said he supported the ordinance and viewed the change as common sense.

“If you’re going to have separate dwellings in one building, they should have separate utilities,” he said. “It should have been this way all along.”

Revolinski said he agreed it should have been this way but he worried about the tenants who would have to pay much higher rents because of this mandate.

City Attorney John Morrissey said he did not like the idea of writing so many exceptions into the ordinance. If it proved to be especially onerous for a few landlords, he said the city administrator could request the council waive the ordinance in those instances.

Chandler said he had no problem requiring separate meters inside a home. He only worried about the city gaining access to those meters. For instance, in some cases all meters in an apartment may be located inside the tenant’s dwelling who is not paying the bill and refuses to let the city workers in.

Chandler said one solution that could avoid rerouting the water lines was to use only one meter at a dwelling, which would make the landlord responsible for the water and allow the landlord to decide how his tenants pay for their water.


Comments (2)
Posted by: Eric Koffman | Nov 14, 2013 20:03

I have lived in apartments where there was just one water meter. The property owner had the water in their name. Water service was included in rent. I'm thinking that is a silly idea. If I want to build a new building that would house multiple tenants, I believe I should have the right to have one meter, have the water bill in my name. If I don't pay the bill, I wouldn't have tenants for very long. I also believe the cost of separating lines would in fact be huge. I find this quite amusing. The water meter should be in the property owners name if there is only one meter in a multiple family building.

Posted by: Laura Miller | Nov 21, 2013 09:03

How big a problem is this? We need more details from the city. I agree with Eric in his post above. Put the meter in the owner's name and he will deal with it.

If you wish to comment, please login.