Facts About the Mayor’s Proposed Water Rate Change

Please consider and share the following as City Council goes over the budget.

FACT SHEET: Richmond’s proposed $26.11 monthly water/sewer service charge

At $26.11, Richmond’s minimum monthly water/sewer service charge would still be one of the highest in the nation. It is a burden for every senior citizen getting by on Social Security and every other low income resident of the city to pay $313 annually just to be connected to the water supply.

1450 persons have signed a petition asking that Richmond reduce the minimum monthly service charge to $15 per month, which is line with other localities.

The city is using the utilities as a “cash cow” for the city’s general fund. Of the $12 million annually paid by the water and sewer utilities into the city’s general fund, $3 million is paid in lieu of FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, which no business pays to the city. Every customer’s monthly service charge could be reduced $4 each month if the payment in lieu of FEDERAL INCOME TAXES was removed.

Henrico’s service charge is about half of Richmond’s and Henrico gives a discount to those who use 3 or less units of water volume.

Water is a necessity that no one can do without. This is the most regressive means possible to fund the city through an outrageous service charge on this necessity. The city residents own the utility, which should provide an affordable base price for water service to those willing to conserve water.

The city’s water rate structure provides little financial incentive to conserve water because the large service charge is the same even if the customer uses little water.

In Norfolk, the minimum monthly service charge is $1; everyone’s bill is in proportion to the amount of water used.

The minimum water/sewer service charges are not even shown on the bill, so most residents are not aware that they are paying a high monthly service charge — even if they use no water.

If Richmond had fair water rates that provided a financial incentive to conserve water, there would be less need for more chemicals and water treatment facilities. Fewer pollutants would be released downstream. The city would be better prepared for periodic drought conditions.

By the way you can see from our list that the city’s proposed $26.11 base water/sewer service charge is still higher than most cities:

Henrico: $16.27
Chesterfield: $22.16
Norfolk: $1.00
Charlottesville: $8.00
Petersburg: $13.90
Hopewell: $25.39
Alexandria: $18.20
Roanoke: $20.75
Washington DC: $3.86
Charlotte: $4.92
Greensboro: $3.04
Raleigh: $5.81
Columbia,SC: $11.01
Macon,GA $15.75
Tallahassee,FL $24.86
Pittsburg: $16.59 (includes first 1000 gallons)
Knoxville: $24.75 (includes first 1,500 gallons)
Memphis: $10.82
Louisville Ky: $21.27
Little Rock AR: $20.72
Oklahoma City: $13.03
Kansas City Mo: $22.30
Milwaukee: $9.65
Lincoln Ne: $4.92
Bismarck ND: $12.20
Helena,MT: $6.97
New York City: $12.90 (includes 4 ccf)
New Orleans: $15.65
Phoenix: $5.36
Albuquerque: $15.32
Dallas: $8.30
San Francisco: $7.90
Atlanta: $13.12
Seattle: $23.93

5 thoughts on “Facts About the Mayor’s Proposed Water Rate Change

  1. The fix is in.

    http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/apr/22/dwight-jones/dwight-jones-says-his-budget-would-lower-water-bil/

    “So the mayor is correct that his plan cuts water and wastewater rates for half the city households. The unsaid part, of course, is that it raises rates for the other half — those billed monthly for using 500 cubic feet or more.

    We should note that the average residential household uses 600 cubic feet in water and wastewater each month, according to Raftelis Financial Consultants, a group that examined the Richmond’s utility pricing in a March 2013 report. Such customers will see their bill rise from $74.72 to $80.29 — a $5.57 increase.

    Our ruling

    The mayor said that under his plan, half of the city’s residences would see a drop in water bills.

    His carefully worded statement is accurate. The unspoken part is that 50 percent will see their bills increase. The mayor also omits that his proposal would lead to a modest rate hike for the average water user.”

  2. An estimated 50 percent of Richmond’s residential households will see a decrease in their water and wastewater OVERcharge.

    And despite our best efforts, the City of Richmond government is determined to not only continue to use the water utility as a cash cow, but actually increase its revenue under the guise of conservation.

    Given other measures considered now (including increases for gas, recycling), I expect the vast majority of utility bills to go up.

    This is why a lot of people who want to live in the city give up and move to the counties.

  3. As a registered voter who looks at Richmond’s lack of water conservation, regressive taxes on the poor, and deceptive general fund practices, it is no surprise that public transit, bike paths, and walk ability are also failing to meet basic needs. Unfortunately, the answer for me isn’t the counties but another city. As Richmond fails, from both internal and external causes, so will the counties despite their best attempts to become relevant.

  4. This is outrageous that the city utilities tack on a payment into the general fund in lieu of Federal Income Taxes.

  5. Pingback: Water Rate Debate ‘Takes Backseat’ ‹ Oregon Hill

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.