And no wonder - 13% of the 15% increase in dues for 2012 is directly linked to the Board's budgeted item of $70,000 to pay for water and sewer service for the coming year.
But what was also flying around the room, as it turns out, was a lot of bullshit about water, too. So, if you left the meeting a little bewildered by all the assertions, proposals, claims and counter-claims going around that evening, you're not alone. Many homeowners had difficulty making sense of it all. So, in an effort to help homeowners separate the water from the bullshit about water (Continued...)
the Glen Iris Blog decided to take a look into the matter using data provided by CMA as well as other sources.
As it turns out, much of the confusion surrounding the water issue could have been avoided had Stuart Sutherland simply been more committed to giving homeowners an impartial and unbiased presentation of the facts surrounding our water predicament. A better understanding of this issue starts with knowing what part of what Stuart said was true, what part wasn't and what parts were omitted -specifically:
As it turns out, much of the confusion surrounding the water issue could have been avoided had Stuart Sutherland simply been more committed to giving homeowners an impartial and unbiased presentation of the facts surrounding our water predicament. A better understanding of this issue starts with knowing what part of what Stuart said was true, what part wasn't and what parts were omitted -specifically:
DISINFORMATION ITEM 1: Stuart claimed that our water bills are estimated due to the fact that one of our meters had been paved over. Further, Stuart led everyone to believe that because the usage for the 640 building is estimated, the resultant billing is not based on usage. And, as such lower usage will not result in lower bills for the coming 2012 budget year.
FACT: Our investigation revealed that although one of the meters is, indeed, currently entombed in concrete, Stuart’s other claims were a good deal less than accurate.
The GIL water meter that is buried under concrete, and as such cannot accurately be read by the Atlanta Department of Watershed Management (DWM), is the meter for the 640 building (Phase II). The result of this problem is that the usage and associated charges for water and sewer for the 640 building is, and always has been, estimated (but ‘estimated’ does not mean calculated irrespective of usage – which we will get to in a moment). However, the meter for the 660 building (Phase I) is not estimated, nor has it been at any time in the past, with the possible exception of a month here or there when the DWM may have occasionally estimated a month's usage as they do with all customers.
While conveniently failing to mention that service for the 660 building is not estimated like that of the 640 building, Stuart likewise failed to mention that on August 5, 2011 the DWM replaced the meter for the 660 building to accurately match the size of the pipe it’s attached to. So the portion of our water and sewer expenses attributable to service for the 660 building that would have been only approximately 16% to 20% of the total billing when combined with the current estimated billing for the 640 building of $4,006 before the meter change, rose dramatically starting in August and now accounts for 31% of our total water and sewer charges (December 2011 water and sewer charges were $4,006 for the 640 building; December 2010 and December 2011 water and sewer charges for the 660 building were $931 and $1,768, respectively; not included in those figures is an additional nominal monthly service charge of approximately $15 that our Association incurs for our fire hydrant account). You can see the chart for the last two years of service for the 660 building, below.
660.Glen.iris.Water.consumption.2010 2011
With respect to the 640 building, any decrease in usage would certainly lead to lower estimated bills. How’s that possible if it’s estimated? Well, this part gets a little tricky, so hang tough. Although there is no way to read the meter that's ostensibly logging every gallon that flows through it because it's encased in concrete, the DWM can - and does - periodically spot measure the flow of water into the building. They then use those measurements as a basis for estimating the subsequent two or three months billing. And the usage and billing determined by that process has climbed a dramatic 32% over the twelve months - from $3,024 in January 2011 to $4,006 in December 2011.
Stuart's repeated claim that our water and sewer expenses could not be lowered beginning immediately by way of conservation is utterly and completely false. With respect to the 31% of our bill that comes from usage in the 660 building, the financial benefit of conservation could be immediate. And with respect to the remaining 69% of our water and sewer expenses that come from the 640 building, we could benefit from conservation as soon as in one or two months, depending on when the DWM next measures flow into the building. And, as Stuart himself stated at the meeting, the DWM has committed to installing a readable meter for the 640 building and may do so at any time. So, the financial benefits of conservation in the 640 building will only get more definitive when that happens - contrary to Stuart's claim that they will only be possible when that happens.
DISINFORMATION ITEM 2: Stuart maintained that any proposed sub-metering scheme would ultimately make no difference since the Association is still financially responsible, ultimately, for the service and such a plan may end up even costing the Association money if some homeowners don't pay their water bill.
However, with the proposed change to sub-metering, one could easily argue that consumption and its attendant cost would decline due to the introduction of a financial incentive for people to use less water than they do presently.
As far as the Association’s ability to collect the revenue for water use to, in turn, pay the aggregated water bill received monthly by the Association, one could also argue that sub-metering may actually enhance the amount of revenue collected by the Association given that, under a sub-metering system, the sub-metering company can easily interrupt service to anyone that doesn’t pay their bill. Under the current system, the legal issues surrounding the ability of the Association to turn off water service to a homeowner for non-payment of their monthly dues is far murkier and could raise liability issues that could adversely impact our Association far beyond any money saved by cutting off someone’s water.
While it’s true that our Association would ultimately end up paying for any water usage prior to disconnect for a handful of homeowners who ultimately may never end up paying their bill, that’s the case with the current system as well. Effectively, we all pay for the water service consumed by the handful of people that never pay for it because they stop paying their dues.
Accordingly, Stuart’s presentation of the sub-metering option as an expansion of financial risk for the Association is nothing more than artificial. In reality, sub-metering may, in fact, increase the likelihood that revenue for water service that's consumed is collected.
DISINFORMATION ITEM 3: The Blog also researched Stuart's claim that water and sewer rates were expected to rise over the coming year and, as such, warranted some additional 'breathing room' in the budget for 2012.
FACT: A representative from the DWM told the Blog that rates are not projected to rise for 2012 and pointed us in the direction of a copy of the July 2011 bill insert that's available on the DWM Web site. You can see the DWM bill insert and highlighted statement that clearly states that the increased rate used for the calculation of the July 2011 bill is the final increase to be implemented as a result of the department's four year plan, below.
2011 July Bill Insert Stating Final Increase Under Four Year Plan - Copy
CONCLUSION: Why Stuart would omit so many relevant facts from his presentation of the issue is a matter I will leave for homeowners to decide for themselves. In the Blog’s opinion – and it is just that, an opinion – Stuart would rather have homeowners pay what have been, and are sure to continue to be, ever increasing water and sewer bills resultant of the current method of allocating water costs that contains no financial incentive for anyone to conserve, than be bothered to put in a little up front effort to work with homeowners to find a solution to the problem.
Whether the solution means doing as our By-Laws prescribe and billing homeowners on a case-by-case basis for excessive water usage, implementing some creative conservation campaign that actually works, or means implementing a usage-based system of allocating costs, addressing one of the Association's largest expenditures - and the fastest growing one by far - simply ought to be more of a priority for the Sutherland Board than it is.
Everyone saw how efficiently Stuart shot down any and every proposal offered up by homeowners to address the growing problem of runaway budgets at the meeting. But did anyone notice that he offered up nothing in the way of solutions himself? Nothing, nothing at all - not so much as even lamely asking homeowners to make sure they don't have any leaky faucets or toilets. Zippo. And why would he? With the chokehold over our Association that Kit and Stuart have been tightening year after year, they don't have to come up with bothersome solutions to our silly little problems. It's simple - they get the bills, they add them all up and tell you what to pay and you will pay it - unless of course you'd like to lose your home.
If the Sutherlands spent half as much time trying to be effective managers of our business as they do sticking their nose into other people's business, patting themselves on the back for their tireless 'volunteerism', and, allegedly, tending to their own business at the expense of ours, we'd all probably be ringing in the new year with a monthly dues decrease.
On second thought, probably not. Anyone living here is statistically more likely to see a unicorn galloping across the pool deck than a dues decrease as long as cunning technocrats with no solutions can game the system and keep enough people turned against their neighbors, it's likely many homeowners will continue not to notice the totality of the vision and genuine leadership they don't bring to the table.
Word for the day - KITSCAM - v. - The act of deceiving your neighbors for your own financial gain without their knowledge, then threatening them with lawsuits and other bullying tactics when they question your unethical and most likely illegal actions.
ReplyDeleteWord for the day 1/4/2012 - Stushank - n - the act of being scammed and lied to by Stuart Sutherland. Ex: I was Stushanked at the HOA meeting by being given false information.
ReplyDelete