Scarsdale Mayor Denies 90% of Scarsdale Subsidizes 10%

On March 14th, Scarsdale Village sent a letter stating the new proposed water rates. The base rate went up over 12% and the excess rate was cut by almost 4%.

When a number of us wrote the mayor and the village about the reasons why the excess rate was cut, we were all told that Scarsdale was passing along an excess rate reduction granted by New York City. We now know this is NOT true. The city has not changed its rates in three years. The official village explanation for decreasing the base rate has now changed at least three times.

The rate change of the new proposal is regressive. Close to 90% of Scarsdale households will subsidize the remaining 10% who use this excess water to fill swimming pools and irrigate large lawns.

In fact, contrary to the message of shared sacrifice in the March 14 water rate letter, more than HALF of the 12 percent base rate increase is used to pay for the excess rate discount. Based on water consumption for the last four billing periods, the proposed hike of the base rate will raise an additional $106,000 for capital projects. However, the rest of the base rate hike is used to fund a $127,000 cut to the excess rate. It's a classic bait and switch. We are told the increase is for capital projects but the cost of the excess discount is actually greater.

The Village is now trying to justify the excess rate cut with the explanation that excess users are the majority contributors to capital projects. I hope the village is not suggesting that we want to encourage excess consumption! Furthermore, if excess consumption is what funds our capital projects then why would we want to cut the rate?

How significant are these excesses that the village proposes to reward with a rate cut? Did you know that there is a Scarsdale household that consumes over 10,000 gallons of water per day at a cost of almost $53,000 a year? This is 38 times what the median Scarsdale household consumes. For this level of consumption, this household will receive almost $2,000 off its water bill this year and 51 Scarsdale households that do conserve water will be stuck making up the difference.

If we were to add up all of the water consumed by just the top 100 residential consumers in Scarsdale for the last year it would be enough to supply drinking water to the entire city of Flint Michigan for a whole year.

Can we finally agree that excess water usage is contrary to the long term interests of this community? I am not asking for an increase to their water rates. For the sake of sensible sustainability, I'm just asking you not to cut them.

Passing a budget tonight does not deny you the opportunity to fix this. Since there is solution that does not alter the revenue line for the water rates, simply make the rates subject to review after the budget is passed.

Brice Kirkendall-Rodriguez