|
Sacramento Report By Ron Kingston
Did you ever wonder how a simple
concept could become so complicated
that you just walk away from
the endeavor?
As introduced, AB 1975 (Fong) proposed
to require residential landlords to install a
separate water meter on existing and new
buildings when a new water service was
provided to the property.
The only two
apartment associations to take exception
to this requirement were the Apartment
Association of Orange County and ours.
Landlords who own existing buildings
that have master water meters would
have been forced to re-plumb entire
buildings upon sale, transfer, or change in
tenancy.
Luckily, the author and sponsors,
the Sierra Club, understood our argument
and agreed to amend the bill with our
language. Simply put, only new residential
and commercial structures for which the
first occupancy permit for a newly
constructed building would be required
to have individual meters or submeters as
a condition of new water service to that
property.
Does that sound OK to you? Well, if that is
where the bill ended many of us would
have been happy. That is not the case
however. Over 15 interest groups began to
get involved and as a consequence, the
bill is becoming more complicated.
Take
for example East Bay Municipal Utility
District (East Bay MUD). You would think
that the district named addresses issues
pertaining only to the operation, installation,
and billing of water in their
jurisdictional boundaries. That could not
be further from the truth.
They want to “strengthen” the bill by:
- requiring
billing standards for tenants even though
they will not bill the tenant
- create a
state law that establishes a “Tenant’s Bills
of Rights”
- precisely spell out how and
when we are to bill tenants
- ban billing
service fees
- require landlords to
maintain a toll-free number for customer
service and hours and days of service!
Now if the demands from East Bay MUD
were not enough, let’s look at a small
sample of the requirements from the
principal tenants organizations. Tenants’
rights groups are insisting the legislation
include:
- prohibition of a cost pass
through for billing the tenant for use of
water
- provide for a dispute resolution
process
- require landlords to disclose
the laws concerning tenants rights to
dispute water fees
- how tenants could
inspect the devices
- only meters could
be used and NO submeters would be
permitted which will add up to $20,000
per unit in construction costs and
increase the cost per unit of water
- give
rent control boards jurisdiction in water
fee issues
- provide for penalties if a
landlord overcharges for water usage
- require water districts to install and
maintain the meters
- provide an
extended grace period to pay water bills
Do you think the legislature will have time
to address literally dozens of complex and
highly-charged issues within the ensuing
months? Only time will tell.
On another water bill, SB 1035 Senator
Hancock had proposed to change existing state law as it pertains to East Bay Municipal
Utility District water and sewer billing practices.
Existing law prohibits municipal utility districts
from placing a lien on a property due to a tenant’s
failure to pay that bill. Further a district cannot
condition a new service connection for a subsequent
tenant until the unpaid water bill of a
former tenant is paid.
Prior to the first hearing we
informed the author’s office that we would oppose
the legislation should the district seek to strike
the landlord protections from existing law. The
only plea by the district representatives was they
were losing $2 million a year due to a tenant’s
failure to pay water bills. Our response: too bad!
Ultimately, the bill was amended to our satisfaction.
You may wonder why we got involved in a
bill that does not directly affect our members? If
East Bay MUD had been successful, other water
suppliers would have sponsored legislation that
would have given them a legal right to lien our
properties should a tenant fail to pay a water bill.
Ron may be reached at: Ron@CALPCG.com or you can call him at (916) 447-7229.
|