Gov. Cuomo Signs Fire Hydrant Bill Into Law

[x635 4,066]

Is this a good thing for the fire service?

EASTCHESTER, N.Y. -- Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill into law on Wednesday that is intended to more fairly distribute the costs of operating fire hydrants.

http://greenburgh.dailyvoice.com/news/gov-cuomo-signs-fire-hydrant-bill-law

[PCFD ENG58 1,085]

Yes it is big news as the water company has raped the home owner for years. They charge over 700.00 dollars to inspect a hydrant yearly and most times drive right by them.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Yes it is big news as the water company has raped the home owner for years. They charge over 700.00 dollars to inspect a hydrant yearly and most times drive right by them.

Not sure this will change.

The law makes it possible for fire departments to stop paying for hydrant rentals and forces rate payers to pick up the tab. In otherwords, your tax dollars will not be used to pay for the hydrants, you will get a surcharge in your water bill.

The good news is currently non-profits and big developments that are tax exempt (do to deals) will have to pay as well, spreading the total cost around

[Bnechis 3,961]

Check your link

Is this a good thing for the fire service?

http://greenburgh.dailyvoice.com/news/gov-cuomo-signs-fire-hydrant-bill-law

[Bnechis 3,961]

STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________

4086--A

2013-2014 Regular Sessions

IN ASSEMBLY

January 30, 2013
___________

Introduced by M. of A. PAULIN, OTIS, ABINANTI -- read once and referred
to the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions --
reported and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means -- committee
discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted
to said committee

AN ACT in relation to authorizing the public service commission, upon
application by a municipality, to order costs for infrastructure main-
tenance and access to be charged to all customer classes located in
such municipality

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. 1. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a municipality
may apply to the public service commission to have any costs for infras-
tructure maintenance and access it is charged by a water-works corpo-
ration to instead be charged to all customers across all customer class-
es located in the municipality provided the municipality has held a
public hearing with notice on the matter and has adopted a resolution
and determined by a majority vote of the total voting strength of its
governing body that it is in the overall public interest to have such
costs charged to all customers across all customer classes. Any savings
achieved as a result of this action shall be applied to the property tax
levy of the municipality which has adopted such a resolution in an
amount equal to such savings in the following fiscal year. Within 120
days after receiving an application pursuant to this act, the public
service commission is empowered and directed to issue an order requiring
that costs for infrastructure maintenance and access be included in the
rates charged to all customer classes and apportioned among all custom-
ers located in the municipality and that such municipality shall not be
charged separately or additionally for costs for infrastructure mainte-
nance and access. The public service commission shall have the power to
request any information that it may deem necessary from the water-works

corporation or municipality so that it may issue an order as required by
this section and may require that such information or application be in
the form and manner as the commission may request.
2. Definitions. For purposes of this act:
a. "costs for infrastructure maintenance and access" means all costs
associated with maintenance and operation of infrastructure and equip-
ment used in connection with the sale, furnishing, transmission and
distribution of water for domestic, commercial, public and emergency
purposes and shall also mean costs or charges associated with municipal
access to infrastructure or equipment.
b. "municipality" shall mean a city, town or village located in the
county of Westchester.
c. "water-works corporation" shall have the same meaning as that term
is defined in section 2 of the public service law.
S 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Interesting, this means that fire districts will have to get the town government to do the resolution to get the fire district out of paying. THat makes it unclear what would be needed in Eastchester (and others). Eastchester fire district would have to get town approval, but would it also need the villages of Bronxville & Tuckahoe to also approve?

[antiquefirelt 994]

Sounds like a decent bill. I know we pay a significant number of dollar per hydrant due to the overall size of the local water delivery system. At budget time "Hydrant Rental" is another $350k+ item that makes the budget that much higher inviting the "it must have some fat" attitude.

Edited October 26, 2013 by antiquefirelt

[antiquefirelt 994]

Interestingly enough, I had a thought about this topic this morning after a parallel conversation (different topic). In our area, the water company bills the users for metered water use, but bills the municipalities for hydrants and system infrastructure that is passed on to the taxpayers, some who are also rate payers, some that are not (live outside the water system). In our case this spreads out these infrastructure (and hydrants) costs out to more households reducing the rate payers bills (though they're paying from their other "tax' pocket). The justification is basically that even if you live outside the water districts system, you reap the benefits whenever you enter a sprinklered building, or don't lose a neighborhood to fire because the system allowed FD operations.

My question would be how will taking the municipality out of the equation effect future decisions of the districts? Without a singular voice (the municipal government) the districts can conduct expansions and improvements without anyone in their way to ask how much it costs. Will they be able to push project cost directly into rate payers bills and those payers will no longer have a united voice? The above bill seem to be very palatable in that the savings will be tied to a first year tax break, but after that it appears maybe the same taxpayers. minus those who do not pay for usage, will end up splitting the costs among a group of fewer users and with less ability to say "no" to future costs?

[efdac 1]

When the hydrant costs are included as part of local taxes they are deductible concerning your federal tax return. Now the cost will be included in a bigger non deductible water co bill.

[Bnechis 3,961]

My question would be how will taking the municipality out of the equation effect future decisions of the districts? Without a singular voice (the municipal government) the districts can conduct expansions and improvements without anyone in their way to ask how much it costs. Will they be able to push project cost directly into rate payers bills and those payers will no longer have a united voice?

We cant get them to even fix broken hydrants, the chance of them improving anything are slim and none.

All cost increases must be approved by the NYS public service commission. They are appointed byt the gov.

[antiquefirelt 994]

We cant get them to even fix broken hydrants, the chance of them improving anything are slim and none.

All cost increases must be approved by the NYS public service commission. They are appointed byt the gov.

We have a similar system, our water districts fall under the Public Utilities Commission, but they never seem to deny a rate hike. On the other hand our water district is constantly working on the system and making improvements. Our previous chief had the city council convinced not to let them open a pubic street unless the main they were replacing was going to be upsized. For the most part that's how they still operate, thus our system is improving all the time.