Who should pay for water deposits
Editorial
Who should pay for water deposits
By Roger L. Thompson
When the Okemah Utility Authority met on September 16, they addressed an item on the agenda to raise the water deposit for renters to $300. There is an article in this edition of the Okemah News Leader highlighting the discussion between City Manager Kristi Lesley and the members of the Okemah Utility Authority. In the end after a tied vote to approve the $300 deposit for renters, the item was tabled.
This is not a new issue. There is no doubt the delivery of water to the residences of Okemah is expensive. I certainly appreciate the city manager looking for avenues to address the expensive cost of chemicals and the delivery of water. I appreciate her desire to balance cost and revenue. There is no doubt those who vacate rental property without paying their water bill causes a hardship on the city’s finances. The discussion during the September 16 meeting indicated that if rental deposits were raised to $300 that would be enough to offset the amount of revenue that is now being lost due to people vacating property without paying their final water bill.
Part of the discussion once again involved landlords. While the members of the Okemah Utility Authority did not directly address the landlords paying the water bills, it was part of the discussiosn. In the past, having the landlords be responsible for the water bill was actively discussed and was being pursued. So the question I’m asking, who should bear the burden of water deposits?
It is my belief that water consumption is directly tied to the tenants use of the property just like electricity and gas. The tenants are responsible for their day-to-day use. The cost of that day-to-day use is a reflection of their habits. Those habits could include having a garden, watering their lawn or filling a swimming pool. I agree with others who have made the point that by requiring landlords to pay the deposit we are shifting the financial responsibility away from those directly consuming the water. A lack of financial responsibility on the part of one should not impact the whole.
It was brought up during the meeting that 54% of the residences in Okemah are rental property. The cost of owning and maintaining rental property continues to increase. Mortgage rates are higher than they used to be. Insurance rates have certainly gone up over the last few years as well as taxes. Today, just simply replacing a hot water heater can cost around $1000. At the same time, landlords are not able to charge the rent to offset many of those expenses. So therefore the question must be asked: What would happened if some of the landlords decided that it is no longer profitable or expedient to own rental property? If Okemah is dependent on rental property for 54% of the residences, what happens if the inventory of rental property decreases?
I understand the city is trying to offset their losses. I get that. Like many business owners who have to factor in a certain amount for losses each year, the city should do the same. The state only budgets 95% of their anticipated revenue leaving a five percent cushion of loss. When the loss exceeds the five percent, then budgetary cuts are made to all agencies and departments based on the percentage of the loss. This cut is annualized. While painful at times, the budget is balanced.
There are many hardworking people in Okemah who rent their homes. They pay their rent on time, they pay their utility bills when they are due and they are a great asset to our community. To put all people into the same group because of bad actors is misstep that should not occur.