BELLE — During a special meeting on Oct. 3, Belle aldermen estimated the city could spend up to $53,360 on new meters and transmitters to assist local landlords in upgrading multiple residences that share one water meter.

Mayor James (Pudd) Mitchell opened the meeting with six members of the public present.

“The reason we are here tonight is to discuss water rates and meter installations,” Mitchell said. “This has been put off for several years. We are way behind and (Department of Natural Resources) DNR is telling us we have to do this and if we don’t we will be unable to apply for federal grants.”

Mitchell said the city’s rates are so low that DNR won’t consider awarding them grants because they can’t afford to maintain any new equipment if it did.

“The last water rate we had was in 1984,” Mitchell said. “That’s a water rate increase, not sewer.”

Last month the city billed an estimated $27,929 in water bills at the base rate of $36.04. The rate will increase in November to $45.20 for the first 1,000 gallons of water and 85 cents for every 500 gallons after. The increase goes a long way toward helping the city’s water program maintain itself.

That isn’t the only problem, though. An estimated 80 rentals in town have two or more units on one meter, thus allowing tenants and landlords to avoid multiple base rate fees.

“We’ve done a lot of lookin’ into this,” Mitchell began. “We don’t want to raise it, we understand that we’ve got a lot of citizens on a set income. But if we don’t do somethin’ we’re in trouble, bottom line.”

At least three landlords were present as Mitchell explained the problem.

“We’ve got quite a few places that has one meter and multiple connections. We’ve got one place that has one meter and it’s got 16 apartments on it. That bill is runnin’ $78, somethin’ like that.

It breaks down to where it’s only $7.90 per apartment per month for monthly use of water.”

Mitchell estimated each apartment should have a base rate of $40, about $640 a month in lost revenue for the city at that address.

Proposed ordinance 639 will require landlords to charge the city’s base rate, either through rent or by installing a meter per unit.

“There’s a lot of discussion about it and that’s why we’re having this tonight,” Mitchell said. “The cost of the meters — if a meter is in a basement, is about $499 a piece and the transmitters are about $168 apiece.”

Meters installed outside the residence are about $155 each.

Delmar Branson asked if the water rate increases will bring the city up to DNR’s standards.

“It will bring us to the bottom,” said Alderman Kevin Guffey. He added that the city is still not eligible for many grants based on the new rates.

“We got a $1 million grant, but it’s sitting on the governor’s desk to decide if we have to have a match or not,” Mitchell said.

The $1 million grant helps but won’t cover everything.

Guffey said the city is willing to share the cost of the meter installations with landlords, if that is the way they choose to go.

“Let’s say you got one waterline for a four-unit complex,” Guffey said. “The city’s willing to pay for the meters and the readers, but we will not be responsible for installing them. The landlord will have to take the responsibility for installing them because we don’t want to be responsible if it leaks down the road.”

However, the city’s Public Works Director or one of his employees must be present to oversee the installations.

“Or that landlord can say that the base rate on water and sewer per unit is going to be $47,” Guffey said as he presented option two. “You can increase rent for that base rate and pass it on to the renter. Basically, what DNR and everybody has said, every domicile needs to pay basic water and sewer rates.”

Guffey and Mitchell both said this problem has been years in the making.

“We’re the first council stepping up and going, ‘hey, you got 16 domiciles here in an apartment complex. Guess what? That person needs to be paying a minimum water and sewer rate.’”

James Craigmiles, a local landlord who purchased apartment complexes with a total of 30 units, said he thinks people understand the reasons behind what the board is trying to do.

“I think the problem is in the past two years it’s been gigantic sewer increases, remodel increases, if you have a new rental increases —,” he began.

Guffey interrupted and said they haven’t had a sewer rate increase since 2013.

“This whole thing that’s out in the community that everybody is going to raise rents because we are going to start inspecting property - it’s $25 dollars,” Guffey continued. “I was talking to a person today that said ‘well, I was going from $450 a month to $600 a month and my landlord says that’s because of what the city’s doin’.’ That’s absolutely false. Absolutely false. We want to inspect properties to make sure they are liveable. Our fees are minimal compared to raising their rate from $400 to $600 — which is pretty damn cheap yet. The landlord is using us as an excuse.”

Craigmiles said he agrees with what the board is doing, but the rate increases and new fees that the city is creating is compounding with increases for insurance rates and other higher costs.

“Most of us landlords don’t make a lot,” he said. “When you add up all these new fees together, we have to raise the rates. A lot of these tenants aren’t ‘eh, it’s no big deal.’ For a lot of them, they have to go to a cheaper unit somewhere else. Eventually, you are going to price them out.”

Guffey countered that Craigmiles had an 11-unit complex where each apartment had an electric bill. With the city’s assistance, he could have water meters installed for each of his units the same way. He could allow the tenants to pay the $50 fee to create a water account and pay their bill.

“What you are saying is you guys are giving us the equipment and we have it installed and no longer charge water in the rent?” Craigmiles asked. “I would be fine with that, because then if they get mad they can be mad at you.”

The catch is that the landlord could be responsible for the last water bill if they don’t inform the city within five days of the tenant moving out. Additionally, if the transmitter is damaged by the tenant, the landlord could be responsible.

City Treasurer Charro Reasor suggested the board include something in the ordinance about tampering with the city’s transmitter, as it is private property. It could be a criminal offense and the landlord may hold them liable with their deposit.

“Also, if the transmitter is messed with, we get an alarm,” Reasor added.

Craigmiles asked what the difference was between a five-bedroom house and five one-bedroom units.

“We are treating the two the same when they are drastically different,” he said, adding it is a lot of money to invest.

Mitchell said the landlords aren’t paying for the equipment, the city is.

“Yeah, but I gotta pay to install them and all the other fees,” Craigmiles said. “It’s a lot and the numbers are scarin’ me.”

Alderman Jeanette Struemph agreed the pricing sometimes seems skewed.

“It’s not easy,” Guffey said. “But at the end of the day, I think we’ve come up with a good solution. We’re going to provide the meter and the reader and you install it. Or you pay the minimum sewer and water rate per domicile.”

Struemph said the cost of the meters and readers will be a tremendous cost to the city, but they expect the return to come back two-fold.

Rebecca Withouse asked the board if they knew how much it would cost the city to purchase the meters and transmitters.

“Not yet, Rebecca,” Guffey said. “I could throw some numbers out there and it would be false and I know you like to tell the newspaper everything. I should keep my mouth shut.”

The board chuckled.

“The newspaper is here,” Withouse said. “I don’t have to tell them anything.”

Guffey continued without stopping, “Everything we’ve looked at, what we spend, if we take what our cost is and what the basic rate would be, we are probably a year-and-a-half to two years to pay that investment out. We also know that investment is going to be forever. The cost that the city is going to invest, Rebecca, should be paid out in about 18 to 20 months. Even though it is an 18 to 24-month payback, we’re not doing this for a return on 18-24 months. We’re doing this to take us into the next freakin’ century, that should’ve been done years ago. We’re looking at this long term, we’re not looking at this for a return on our investment right now.”

Withouse said she was asking for herself.

“I thought this was the whole point of this special discussion meeting, was to share information,” Withouse said.

“I thought we’ve done great tonight,” Guffey said.

“You felt the need to call me out for running to the newspaper,” she said. “I was just curious if you know how much this was going to cost.”

Mitchell said it would cost an estimated $667 per transmitter and meter times about 80 units if all landlords took advantage of the city’s generosity.

The board agreed to discuss a timeline at the Oct. 8 meeting, but it was a consensus that landlords know what they want to do and have everything installed by Jan. 1.