By Cathy Holt

 

Mayor Bellamy declared it was “time to put the past conflicts behind us” and to avoid pitting city against county. Council members asked the county to pay the city $6 million a year to make up for the shortfall caused by the city\’s inability (under the Sullivan Acts) to charge a differential rate for county water users.

Holly Jones stated that $6 million would be needed to fix pipes that haven\’t been repaired in 25 years. State Senator Martin Nesbitt suggested that applying the county\’s contributions to assets such as the Civic Center, the Municipal golf course, McCormick Field, and the Nature Center together would make up that $6 million; he also proposed that the county might help the city find funding for Civic Center renovations.

 

Robin Cape\’s Perspective

 

City Councilwoman Robin Cape has been involved in water issues since her successful campaign to protect the Woodfin watershed. Her first elected position in the community was a seat on the Woodfin Water Board. In an interview, she shared some history and her unique perspective on Asheville\’s water controversy.

Robin Cape: Prior to the Depression, all the small towns and districts around Asheville started developing their own water systems. When the bust came, a lot of these little towns couldn\’t continue to maintain their own water companies. So an agreement was made with the city of Asheville, called the Sullivan Act, which said that Asheville would absorb all these small districts into their water system. In exchange, no differential rates would be charged to those folks who had built their own water systems.

The city of Asheville made the honorable decision to try to repay all its municipal bonds and debts, so for the next 50 years funds were taken out of the water department to help pay these debts off. [Doing so] caused us to put off a lot of maintenance on our water system.

In 1977, we\’d paid off all our debts, and we realized we had a lot of infrastructure needs. Around 1980, we entered a 25-year water agreement with the county. Other issues such as police, sheriff, and Parks & Recreation got tied in with the water agreement.

 

UNO: How well did the 1981 agreement work?

RC: The main trouble was that it relied on the city, the county, and the newly formed Water Authority to approve the budget, so we could never get an agreement to raise the funds necessary to repair the system. In my estimation the city was like a landlord: we had a lease agreement with the “tenants,” but the building wasn\’t getting maintained. A water system needs continuous maintenance and improvements. The age of our system has a lot to do with it, but some of the oldest parts of the system are working better than the galvanized pipes of the 1950s and plastics of the \’80s.

UNO: What happened at the end of the 25-year water agreement?

RC: The city opted not to renew it. The health of the water system is one of our highest responsibilities and we wanted the option to be its steward. We can\’t underestimate the value of the system and its importance for the health of our community. We\’ve already given away our sewage system, and since we don\’t have any other municipal utilities, we must be careful with the decisions we make about our municipal water system.

UNO: What was the Legislature\’s role in all this, and what impact did it have?

RC: When the first Sullivan Act expired, the state legislature stepped in and said, “If you can\’t work it out yourselves, we\’ll work it out for you.” Sullivan Acts 2 & 3 were introduced by Martin Nesbitt and [Representatives] Wilma Sherrrill, Bruce Goforth, and Susan Fisher. They place extensive restrictions on the way Asheville could run its water system, [including the requirement] that there be no differential rates for users within the city limits and those outside them. Most other cities can use the carrot of a lower water rate to encourage people to be part of their city.

City Councilwoman Robin Cape

If we had the right to use differential water rates, builders could come to us for water and we could offer them a better water rate for building in the city and sharing some of the burden that city taxpayers bear. Some cities even use their water as a tool to encourage good, healthy development for their region.

The bills also basically supported the county\’s side and thereby thwarted the negotiations between the city ad the county. The county had no incentive to come forward and negotiate with the city, [and] standing up for our rights as a city placed us in bad stead with our own legislators. So the city filed suit.

 

UNO: What effect do smart growth policies have on area development?

RC: Ironically, the more Asheville promotes principles of smart growth for a healthier region, the more we “push\’ people to the county. A developer can build right outside the city limits and say, “Be near Asheville!” but not pay their fair share of taxes. We have 105,000 people who come into the city during the daytime, yet only 69,000 in the tax support base.

 

UNO: Is the city working to try to develop alternative approaches?

RC: The meeting with the legislators and county commissioners was a good thing — we are all trying to find solutions, though we may have different ideas about it. If we quit seeing ourselves as adversaries, we can make progress. My hope is that we get resolution from the courts on this. Those 1920s water lines have primarily been absorbed into the system, or may have been completely replaced by now. The people who paid for the initial bonds for those initial water systems are no longer reaping the benefits from those bonds. Looking at precedents, I\’d be very surprised if the city of Asheville is not allowed to run their water system the way other cities run theirs.

UNO: There\’s been talk of consolidation lately, starting with the school system or parks departments. What about shared assets between the city and the county?

        RC: The county and the city realize that we\’re all here to provide services for our citizens. I don\’t favor consolidation of all services, but it makes sense to consolidate McCormick field, the Golf Course, the Nature Center, even the Civic Center. These are seen by the whole county as county-wide assets. I don’t believe every aspect of Parks &Recreation needs to be merged.

There is some movement on these issues now; the legislators, especially Martin Nesbitt, spoke about helping us with the Civic Center; they recognize it as an asset for the whole region, and are willing to be partners in it. But I think it\’s better to work out the water issue on its own merits, not use the Civic Center as a leverage tool. Why should a struggling family in West Asheville pay a disproportionately higher amount of taxes to support the Civic Center, and not get a break on their water, while people come in from the county and enjoy the Civic Center?

 

Incentives to Conserve

Just recently we instituted is a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) based on meter size. Large users such as Grove Park Inn and Mission Hospital will pay more since their water meter size is larger. This fee will go to help cover the basic costs of the Capital Improvements that our system so desperately needs.

We also received a report from consultants that encouraged us to go to a Uniform Rate for all water users, not a reduction for the more water one uses. Many are concerned that this would be a big blow to our large water users; in fact it would encourage them to make conservation improvements to their systems.

In my opinion, the uniform rate should be phased in over five years, to insure that this adjustment will allow large users to prepare themselves. But ultimately everyone will be paying the same amount for water. I expect that we will begin phasing this new rate in starting in January of 2007.

 

UNO: So what else is the city considering to raise revenue or improve the way the system works?

            RC: We are blessed with very high quality water. A Peer Review in which ten different municipal water companies evaluated our water system gave us high marks for our facilities, how well we run them, and the quality of our water.

The city of Asheville is considering bottling our own water, to help offset the costs of making repairs and keep our system running. Why should we let Coca Cola make all the profits on bottled water at Bele Chere when we could offset some of the fees that water users in our community pay for their water? If we sold our own water at that event, it would help support our water system for the rest of the year.

Bottled water is the fastest growing beverage there is. My major concern would be the increase in plastic bottles at our landfill, and we\’re looking into a cornstarch-based plastic bottle or other options. But we shouldn\’t wait for private enterprise to profit on our community\’s asset. I say we use some savvy business sense ourselves by looking at how we might expand our options with our water.