Drip…Drip…

Correspondent of the Day in the Times Dispatch:

Water rates target smaller users

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

You ran two Op/Ed columns on Richmond’s water rates. The column by Gloria LeRose, “Water’s worth the cost and effort,” explains that the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) does a needed job protecting our water quality, and what it spends to do so is worth it.

An earlier column by Scott Burger, “City proposes outrageous water rates,” relates to the amount of service charge DPU has in its rate structure, which results in a lower volumetric charge, which in turn discourages conserving water.

While both of these are valid concerns, the main issue with a high service charge is the inequality of cost for small consumers. Someone using 3 to 5 ccfs (1 ccf = 100 cubic feet) of water per month ends up paying about 79 percent of his total bill for service charge, while someone using 100 ccfs per month pays only about 11 percent. The purpose of the service charge is to recover certain fixed costs and should be recovered proportionally based on the amount each consumer uses. Lowering the service charge requires increasing the volumetric rate to compensate for the reduced revenue. There would be no less money for the DPU. There would be no lost revenue.

I raised this issue in 2006 with the DPU after a study recommended reducing the service charge. At that time the DPU indicated it agreed the service charge was disproportionate to the small user and planned to gradually reduce it and increase the volumetric rates. The DPU needs to renew this plan.

Robert Bedell.

Richmond.

Latest Draft of Richmond Riverfront Plan

Yesterday, the City’s Planning and Development Review announced and released “the Final Draft of the Richmond Riverfront Plan” (click here for large PDF).

Pages 26 to 29, the part of the Plan that deals with “Tredegar Green”, seem most applicable to Oregon Hill. I did not see anything about moving the Confederate White House.

The proposed 2nd Street Connector road is still in the plan, although many questions have still not been answered. More on this soon.

Virginia Water Environment Association Response on…Water?

This morning the Times Dispatch ran an editorial by Grace LeRose, the President of the Virginia Water Environment Association. I should note that I know Ms. LeRose, having met her personally during some of the hearings on the James River TDML. In particular, pet waste is one of our shared concerns in terms of water quality. Her editorial this morning continued on the water quality theme. But it seemed as if it was in response to a column that I had submitted earlier on City water rates. Her column begins-

Recently this paper published an opinion piece declaring the City of Richmond’s water fees to be “outrageous.” As president of the Virginia Water Environment Association (www.vwea.org), a nonprofit educational association of wastewater professionals dedicated to preserving Virginia’s water resources, I offer the following observations:

The water (and wastewater) industry has been called the single most important public health development in the past century, bringing clean water to our citizens while removing and treating wastewater in an efficient (oftentimes unseen) manner. The incidence of water-borne disease has almost been eradicated in our country. Funding for investment in water infrastructure came from many sources — rate payers, local governments (by selling bonds), state governments (matching grants or loans to communities that could not afford these improvements on their own) and finally, the federal government. Like the interstate highway system that helped the US grow after World War II, spending on water and wastewater systems brought health benefits and access to an expanding economic prosperity for all Americans.

The importance of water in our daily lives can hardly be overstated. Water industry professionals work tirelessly to protect public health, more than 3 million miles of rivers and streams, 40 million acres of lakes, 87,000 square miles of estuaries (including the Chesapeake Bay) and 95,000 miles of coastal waters. The infrastructure that supports this massive effort — 800,000 miles of water pipe and 600,000 miles of sewer pipe — lies below our feet every day. These systems have worked silently for years, in some cases more than a century, to deliver and remove water and wastewater. The water and wastewater utilities have done such a remarkable job of producing and delivering clean water out of the sight of the public that the public can be forgiven if they think water should be always available and always cheap. We are now learning that water may not always be available and will probably not be cheap.

Of course, none of this is wrong- however, LeRose begins this piece as if she is offering a rebuttal to my column, yet ignores the rate structure issue. LeRose is not addressing my column in which I criticized Richmond’s plan to hike the minimum water/sewer service charge to $49.40 per month. Deriving the lion’s share of the revenue for the city’s water works from the minimum service charge does not promote conservation. If I conserve this resource and got my water use to below 1 ccf, this month and yet my water/sewer bill is still $47.03 for 0 ccf of service (soon to be raised to $49.40). Richmond’s minimum service charge may be the highest of any city in the United States, and that allows the city to keep the volume rate artificially low. As a result, there is no financial incentive to conserve water in the Richmond.

In Hanover, the minimum service charge for the water/sewer bill is only $14.03 per month. This is less than a third of Richmond’s minimum monthly service charge. Hanover promotes conservation by giving a volume rate discount to those who use little water. Hanover offers a heavy discount for the first 4000 gallons of water volume, while the volume charge increases almost three fold for the next 11,000 gallons of water and increases again for over water volume in excess of 15,000 gallons. Richmond has this backward and offers a discount, not to those who use the least water, but to those who use the most volume: over 74,800 gallons of water.

Can we get the Virginia Water Environment Association and other groups to address this? The local Sierra Club is on board, but where is the N.A.A.C.P., James River Association, or the Richmond Crusade for Voters? What does it take for citizen concerns to gain attention and triumph over corporate control these days?

Charlies’ Letters

Neighbor Charles Pool’s letter got printed in the Times Dispatch today:

Proposed water and sewer hikes are outrageous

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

While commuters are protesting the proposed $1 monthly service charge for the E-ZPass, there is little notice as the city of Richmond quietly hikes the minimum monthly service charge for water and sewer to $49.40 per month.

How many cars would use the toll roads if those monthly service charges were raised to $49.40 a month? Unlike the toll roads, water service is a necessity and the city knows that no one will be digging a well in his backyard to avoid the rate hike.

We don’t have the option of turning off the water, but we can vote. Every candidate for city office in this election cycle should be challenged to explain why Richmond’s outrageous, minimum water and sewer bill is the highest in the country.

Charles Pool.

Richmond.

At least one other Charlie and City Council candidate is speaking up:

Let’s Reward Conservation of Our Resources
An opinion piece appeared in the Times Dispatch on May 24, 2012 addressing what we are charged for water and sewer in Richmond. After reading Scott Burger’s piece over many times, I tried to write a blog post in reference to the minimum fee method of charging us for the water we do or do not use. As I tried over and over, I realized that the only fair thing to do was to share the opinion piece with you, my supporters and potential supporters, in its original form.
It is simply unfair for a person who uses 1 CCF of water per month to pay an amount equal to or slightly less than the person who uses 10 CCF per month. People should be rewarded for their conservation, not punished for it.

Editor’s note: This does not constitute an endorsement of Diradour (…But what are other candidates saying?)

Concern Grows About Ord. 2012-74

C. Wayne Taylor has more City government news to share:

Ordinance 2012-74 is scheduled to go before Richmond City Council on June 11th. The ordinance would give the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) additional authority to grant exceptions to the city’s zoning regulations.

The ordinance was discussed at the Council’s informal meeting held on May 29th. Councilor Samuels stated that he was getting many phone calls about the ordinance. The administration was pushing very hard for Council to adopt the ordinance without delay.

The administration kept the preparation of the ordinance a secret and did not tell the Planning Commission about it until the Commission was asked to initiate a code amendment. One commissioner is recorded in the minutes as surprised by the request.

The administration gave the Planning Commission false and misleading information. For instance, the Commission was told that it takes 4 to 6 months to get a Special Use Permit approved by City Council. The actual time is closer to 2 months. Another example: the Commission was told that the BZA cannot grant a variance under the existing standard except under very extraordinary circumstances. Actually, about 20% of the BZA approvals are for variances.

The administration repeated the “4 to 6 month” claim to City Council on May 29th. The administration also told Council that the ordinance does nothing more than expand on existing provisions. In fact, it adds several totally new subsections.

The administration repeatedly told Council that the changes are no big deal. New sub-section 17 in the proposed ordinance gives the BZA control over building heights. The BZA would be given authority to allow a building of any height in all but a few districts. Given that the BZA approved 90% of the requests it considered it 2011, one should expect most requests for additional building height will be approved. (City Council approved a 160′ tall building at the Dominion Resources site along the riverfront. The BZA would certainly refer to that.)

The Council agreed to Mr. Samuels request for a delay. Mr. Samuels wants the administration to attend a neighborhood association meeting to address citizens’ concerns.

A brief summary of the May 29th meeting can be seen by clicking here.

Drip, drip, drip…here we go again.

I thought the message had already been sent, but I guess not. Hello Anti-Poverty Commission.

Excerpt from today’s Times Dispatch:

On an annual basis, Richmond’s minimum charge for water really puts a dent in the budget of a low-income resident. While in Norfolk the minimum annual cost per consumer for water/sewer service is only $12, in Henrico annually it is $195.24, and in Richmond annually it is a whopping $564.36!

This is a conservation issue: There is little incentive to conserve water in Richmond because the city finances the lion’s share of its water works through the minimum service charge. The cost per CCF of water is kept artificially low so you don’t feel much of a pinch when you use more water. It would encourage conservation if Richmond slashed the minimum service charge while raising the cost for each CCF of the resource.

This is a social justice issue: Richmond’s outrageous minimum water/sewer service charge shifts the burden of financing the city’s water supply disproportionally onto those who use the least water, and often unto those who can least afford it. For a senior citizen on fixed income, the water bill will often be the largest bill of the month, even if minimal water is used. It is unjust to require low-income residents of Richmond to pay a whopping $564.36 in minimum service fees annually just to be connected to the water supply. Water is a necessity that no one can do without.

Here is a revenue-neutral proposal. Let’s revamp Richmond’s water rates by lowering the minimum monthly charge for water and sewer service to $15 per month, while raising the cost per CCF of water in line with the neighboring counties. As sure as the spring showers, the summer droughts will follow. Richmond should have a price structure in place that encourages conservation of this important resource while giving those on fixed income a fair deal.

(Sorry if you are tired of editorials on this site this week. I did not have any control on when the TD piece would come out.)

Meanwhile In Northern Virginia…Move To Amend!

From announcement:

Here is the work that Northern Virginia MTA has done:

Resolutions on overturning Citizens United v. FEC and combating the undue influence of money in politics passed Saturday at the Virginia 8th and 11th Congressional District Democratic Conventions. The resolutions call for the Constitution to be amended to establish that: (1) Corporations should not be entitled to the same Constitutional rights in our elections as people and should have only the powers and rights granted to them in state and federal law; and (2) Money is not speech so federal and state governments have the power to fairly regulate, without infringing the freedom of the press, any political contribution or spending. NOVA MTA helped prepare the resolutions and strongly advocated their passage.

The resolutions will help build support for passing a similar resolution at the State Democratic Convention on June 2, 2012, which in turn will help build support for passing MTA resolutions in municipalities in northern Virginia and elsewhere across the Commonwealth.

The Move To Amend movement may start small here, but it has potential to join other states’ efforts and become a reckoning force in the next few election cycles.

Important, Nearby, Water Pollution Public Meeting This Wednesday

From Virginia Conservation Network announcement:

You may be aware that over 10,000 miles of Virginia’s rivers and streams are considered unhealthy. Virginia is required to ensure its streams and rivers are clean, and develop a clean-up plan for waters that don’t meet those standards. Recently Virginia has developed one of these plans and will host a meeting to get your input on Wednesday, May 23rd from 2 to 4 pm in Richmond

(ed. at VCU!)

Continue reading

Boards and Billboards

Supposedly, the following ordinance will be put up for vote at the City’s Planning Commission meeting on Monday:

Ord. No. 2012-74 (Patron: Mayor Jones) – To amend and reordain City Code §§ 114-402.2, concerning permitted accessory uses and structures, 114-620.5, concerning division of lots to accommodate existing dwelling units, and 114-1040.3 concerning additional exceptions granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, for the purpose of discouraging the use of the special use permit process by expanding the special exceptions available under the zoning ordinance.
(Planning Commission, Monday, May 21, 2012, 1:30 p.m.)

One interpretation of this is that Mayor Jones has introduced the ordinance to expand the authority of the Board of Zoning Appeals. It allows for additional sign height except for billboards. Will the next step be to add billboards?

This ordinance is one that caused blogger C Wayne Taylor concern in the past. Last year the BZA decided 32 cases and only denied 3.

Anyone following the latest proceedings in the illegal Mayo Island billboard saga?

Chicken Controversy Continues

I received this bit of political activism from Laurel Street neighbor Tommy Birchett:

Honorable Charles R. Samuels Councilman,

My name is Tommy Birchett and I spoke last night at City Council
during the public comments. I have been enrolled in courses on
backyard chickens at the William Byrd Community House. I initially
became interested in raising chickens when I was visiting a former
neighbor who moved to Charlottesville. He told me moving there allowed
him to raise chickens legally. He lives downtown near the train
station where city lots are similar in size to Richmond city lots.

The reason I’m writing to you specifically is to request your
assistance regarding some recent bad news for backyard chicken
advocates. Richard Hammack, a VCU Math professor and his family were
recently cited for keeping chickens in their backyard. They had the
chickens for a long time before a neighbor complained. He has not yet
removed them, but plans to follow the law and do so within the
allotted time frame. The underground backyard chicken movement is
growing. As Mr. Hammack says in the following article on NBC 12 news,
“There are lots of chickens throughout the city. You just don’t know
they are there.”

http://www.nbc12.com/story/17586022/neighbors-divided-over-chickens-as-pets-in-urban-areas

In light of the recent recommendations from the Mayor’s recent Food
Security Task Force I think Mr. Hammack should be allowed to keep his
chickens for now. Furthermore, I have never met or spoken to Mr.
Hammack, but I support backyard chickens and feel that it’s time for a
change and this is a good place to start.

Thank you for your time. You reply is appreciated.

As stated elsewhere, it looks like chickens will be a major upcoming political topic for City Council.

When he did attend a recent Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association meeting, Oregon Hill’s City Councilperson, Marty Jewell, did speak favorably towards changing the code regarding chickens.