Quote:
Posted By BradP on 01/28/2012 9:07 AM
I would disagree, water usage will vary based upon the number of occupants and also on their consumption habits. 3 occupants who shower twice daily will use significantly more water than one occupant who showers once a day and travels a lot. While I do agree that installing meters may not be the solution, the consuption habits of people vary greatly.
OK, so unit 1 and unit 2 now use $50 of water per month combined and each unit now pays $25 for their combined water use. After you spend $500 for a meter on unit 1 and another $500 for unit 2 you find that unit 1 is using only $10 and unit 2 is using $40. So unit 1 will save $15 per month but the cost of the meter means it will be 33 months before he breaks even. Unit 2 nows pay more and will never break even.
Ah, but there is now an expense to read the meters, to prepare and send the water bills, to repair the meters, and deal with the inevitable billing disputes. If the meters belong to the association, these expenses will have to be paid for by all the association members. If it works out to $5 per month, then unit 1 will take longer to break even and unit 2 just gets one more expense.
If the meters belong to the city, then you have new monkey wrenches in the machinery: minimum usage charges, sewer fees, trash collection fees. Where I live if you have a residential water meter you have to pay for sewer and trash. But if you live in a building with more than 4 units, the city will not pick up the trash but you still have to pay for it. The minimum use fee means that you pay even if you do not use. Unit 1 and Unit 2 could end up paying the same because of the minimum use fee and both would be paying more with the city meter than they did with no meter.
There are so many problems with retrofitting individual water meters and so few benefits that I still think it is a bad idea.