The debate over whether the city should return to an old water billing policy that puts the burden of collecting unpaid water bills on taxpayers instead of landlords will return to the council horseshoe in July.
Cambridge councillors debated the issue Tuesday after a motion was brought forward by Coun. Helen Shwery asking staff to report back in June on the feasibility of switching back to the old system.
Landlords who delegated at the meeting said they think it's unfair the city holds them responsible for unpaid water bills.
They claim the option of recouping that money from delinquent tenants through the Landlord and Tenant Board isn't often effective because of a backlog of complaints.
Tenant rights advocates, on the other hand, believe the city's current policy holds landlords accountable for fixing leaky plumbing fixtures, which are often the cause of high water bills.
The city's current policy was enacted in 2015 to eliminate some of the high costs the city and taxpayers were incurring to enforce collection of overdue bills.
Going after tenants who didn't pay often involved legal action and forced the city to shut off and turn on water on a recurring basis.
The change in policy eliminated three full time positions and saved taxpayers from taking on the financial and legal burden.
But councillors who voted in favour of the motion Tuesday said the city has a responsibility to support landlords who are suffering heavy losses, many of whom are small business owners.
Landlords at the meeting said the city's policy is contributing to the housing crisis by making it more difficult for them to operate.
Coun. Nicholas Ermeta said that fact alone makes revisiting the city's water billing policy worth it and he believes taxpayers would be willing to absorb any added costs to return to the old system.
"No matter what we do, there's going to be a cost to the city, although I hope it would be minimal, but I'm prepared to absorb some of that if it means more housing in the community and more affordable housing," he said.
Councillors Scott Hamilton and Ross Earnshaw voted against the motion citing the fact that landlords are in business to profit and should take on risk as part of their business model.
"What I'm concerned about is shifting that responsibility to the city so the city absorbs that particular loss while the landlord continues to profit. That is a hit to the taxpayers and the tax base and that's the concern that keeps coming back to me," Hamilton said.
"Ultimately, during a cost of living crisis and during a housing crisis, this risks increasing the costs to our city and to our residents at a time when we've heard over and over again people can't afford any more."
Mayor Jan Liggett said she hopes a staff report explores all of the pros and cons and perhaps finds some consensus that works in everybody's favour.
Shwery said the city has a responsibility to support businesses and the current water billing policy makes it tougher for businesses to be sustainable and profitable.
Later in the meeting, she voiced her disapproval of planned increases to the city's water rate despite the earlier discussion which made it clear a change in water billing policy would likely add to the taxpayer burden.
She was the sole councillor to vote against accepting a long-range financial plan for the city's water services.
That plan will see water rates increase annually by 4 per cent until 2027, and by 4.2 per cent thereafter until 2034 to cover infrastructure upgrades and maintenance.
"Based on feedback I've received from my constituents, water was one of the big affordability factors when of course, added to the property tax, utilities, inflation, groceries, gas, interest rates, etc.," she said.
"There's a lot of frustration out there. We lower our consumption. It seems nothing is working and the water keeps going up."
