Vacation utility rate headed to dumpster?

After weeks of discussion of the city’s vacation utility rate, the final word may have came from city attorney Thom Graafrstra, at the Nov. 21 city council. In place for many years, the vacation utility rate allows people to leave town for months a time while paying just $17.82 per month for utilities. 

Graastra said he had only recently become aware of the vacation rate. 

“I said, where is that in code or in your fee resolution? To which the answer was, nowhere. That needs to be fixed if you are going to do a vacation rate. It needs to be in your fee resolution or in your code,” Graastra said. 

Any rate for utilities ... have to satisfy the same standards, which is they are fair and uniform and that one rate class does not subsidize another rate class, Graastra noted. 

“If you can justify a vacation rate standard, under that standard of being fair and uniform, one rate class not subsidizing another, go for it and we’ll fix in city code and fee resolution. If you can’t, get rid of it,” Graastra said. 

That was music to hears of Mayor Cheri Kelley Farivar who has been advocating to get rid of the vacation rate. “My opinion, especially after talking to Mr. Graafstra, I don’t think it is possible for us to justify that, since it truly is subsidy of the rate payers to someone not present in their home for a period of time,” Farivar said. 

Council members Margaret Neighbors and Elmer Larsen continued to argue for the rate, particularly Larsen. Neighbors said the city could justify it if there were no water use. 

Larsen said there is no water use, sewer use, no tipping fees. 

“There is a rationale to say they are not using services. Fire protection is one of the upsides. Their structure needs to be protected. If it is an open field with a garden, I think we need to look at a vacation rate. Turn off the water, then we cease on that. To say, they have a home, therefore, they’re going to pay full boat whether we pick up their garbage or not,” Larsen said. “If shoe is on the other foot, if you go south for the winter, do you want to be paying garbage?”

Farivar said she talked to a new neighbor who moved here from Redmond. She said they always go south for winter and were astonished there was any kind rate break for utilities. 

“I’ve been quizzing people around town. Out of the eight people I talked, eight of them said, why in the world should we rate payers subsidize anyone who is not here,” Farivar said. 

Councilwoman Mia Bretz said there is no justification for the rate because of the system in place in Leavenworth, which caters to a small population. Bretz said water and sewer improvements are happening, regardless of whether people come and go. 

“I think discounting people because they are not using is fair and equitable. Last year, we had major thing about vacationing in the Leavenworth residential area. Our community spoke loud and clear they do not want to subsidize people coming and going. They want to promote a community here in town,” Bretz said. “I think having a discounted rate for people that come and go doesn’t do that.”

Councilwoman Sharon Waters said those who live here year round are subsidizing those who do not by the tune of $34,000 per year. 

Farivar said that $34,000 does not count the staff time devoted to this either.                  

“Every time somebody wants to do the water turn off or vacation rate, they have to come in and talk to somebody at city hall and do the process. It takes say 15 minutes. Then, somebody has to go out and turn off the water,” Farivar said. “The same thing on the other. It takes at least an hour of somebody’s time and time is money. In a situation where we don’t have a huge staff, I think it is in excess of $34,000 when I start thinking about the cost to the city.”

There are 32 people taking advantage of this rate every month, Farivar said. 

“When you take it right down to the nickel. It is $34,000 plus the staff time to allow someone to pay less. I don’t see how you justify it. I don’t, personally. Of the eight people I’ve talked to, eight of them agree,” Farivar said. 

Councilman Clint Strand said he can understand if people are only thinking about water coming out of the faucet and saying “I’m not using that.”

“We’re not talking just about the water coming out of the faucet, we are talking about the ability to bring water to that faucet,” Strand said. “That is part and parcel of what we’re paying for. In that way, I fully agree that letting people have a vacation rate like this is subsidizing and other people are footing the bill. I don’t think that is equitable in any way.”

Farivar said there could also be potential liability to city, should the city not turn the water off at home, as instructed. That seemed to really infuriate Larsen. 

“I can’t go a shut my water off. Who the hell am I supposed to call? If you tell me, I can’t shut it off. I have to leave it on because I want to go south. That is ridiculous. I should have the option of turning off the water so I don’t have to worry about frozen pipes,” Larsen said, emphatically.  

The water can still be turned off, Bretz said. Neighbors said if the water is turned off, that doesn’t mean the homeowner will pay less. But will the city charge for turning off the water?, Neighbors asked. 

“There is a fee in the rate and fee schedule currently for turning on and off. We are looking at that fee because it is very low and doesn’t even cover the staff time it takes to perform that duty,” said City Finance Director Chantell Steiner. 

The $34k scares me, said Councilwoman Carolyn Wilson. 

“That is 34k less, but those utilities have to pay themselves. That bothers me because they are not paying for themselves because we’re out 34k,” Wilson said. 

Larsen said the city “should not be so damn greedy that city has to get every damn nickel.”

“I feel like we are browbeating all our neighbors to death. You can’t leave for a week because we’re going to charge you. I don’t think we’re so desperate that is somebody wants to turn off their water, they can’t just call,” Larsen said. “We already acknowledge they are not using services. Just say, there is no excuse to not pay your bill because you’re gone or there is an illness in the family or anything else.”

If you look at the amount of people using this, we are talking about second home owners, Strand said. 

“In a large amount of these situations, this is not a cost factor. This is not going to be a financial hardship to make this payment,” Strand said. “Elmer used the word ‘greedy’ and I’m going to use the word ‘equitable.’ Is that equitable here? I feel like amending this so everyone is paying a uniform amount is the equitable solution. How unique is this arrangement?”

Farivar said Mr. Graafstra is unaware of another city doing the same thing. 

“Because people have gotten used to this, they have benefitted by the city’s failure to ever bring this up or discuss it at city council. The council has not discussed previous to this, ever,” Farivar said. “

Many of us did not know such a rate existed until Chantell made us aware of it. Who knows when it was instituted. It was at least 20 years ago, maybe longer.”

When the city put in water meters, Larsen said, a lot of meters were on empty lots. At that time, you could turn off the water for $20. He felt it just evolved from there. 

“I think that is exactly where this problem came from. There was no conscience decision. There was no policy, no codification, no mention in the rate and fee chart. It is just something that has gone on unabated,” Farivar said. “The people who have done this have received a bonus. The bonus is over. That’s how I see it.”

The $17.82 is on the rate and fee schedule, but it’s just for water, Steiner said. 

“We are in violation of our code for the other utilities. If you read the code, it says when you hook up to utilities within city limits, you are required to be hooked up,” Steiner said. “By dropping the sewer, garbage and stormwater, we are violating our current code.”

Farivar said she hated to hear the word “greed” brought into this. 

“I don’t agree with your Elmer. We are not greedy. We are trying to keep the city equitable in the best way we know how, in accordance with the oath of office we all took,” Farivar said. “We now know we are out of compliance with state law. We now know we are out of compliance with our own code. We have to fix this.”

Farivar encouraged the council to speak to friends and neighbors about this. 

“If know some snowbirds, talk to them about it. See what they have to say. Maybe there will be some new information come forward. Thirty-two users on a monthly basis out of 832 users. It is a small percentage,” Farivar said. “Maybe we’re spending too much time on this issue. We just need to make a decision. We do need to come into compliance with state law and our own city ordinances.”

Bretz said, more importantly, talk to your neighbors who aren’t snowbirds. Waters said the city is trying to keep fees down for everybody, so that chunk of money would help out. 

“I have not found one person who felt it was fair. That might be how we pay for our water meters. That $34,000 would go a long way toward debt service. Since we have to do all these things, we do have to be equitable,” Farivar said. 

Ian Dunn can be reached at 548-5286 or editor@leavenworthecho.com.