Water charges for excessive usage

blanch152

Benedict wrote: »

What's this "pressure" you speak of? You're forgetting that IW walked off the job themselves so that even homes willing to accept meters with open arms were left without them?

Those who have to pay will question why meters are not being installed in new builds.

The boil notices in Dublin are having an effect on ordinary people's understanding of why water charges are needed.

K.Flyer

blanch152 wrote: »

Those who have to pay will question why meters are not being installed in new builds.

Never mind new builds, they are currently a small fraction of the bigger picture.
I've been questioning why meters were not installed in every single property from the outset.
I personally contacted I.W. directly shortly after they began installing meters to establish their plans for apartment metering due to my involvement in the maintenance of many apartment developments in Dublin.
At the time I was Officially told that there were no plans to meter apartments now or for the foreseeable future. No reason would be given.
So never mind new-builds, what about existing developments. And with the exception of one development, metering was going to be a walk in the park. I could meter a couple of floors in the time it would take I.W. to do a couple of houses.

I am all for conservation, but I will not pay into a useless business model that provides an inept headless chicken of a service.
Anyone who supports I.W. and believes they were doing a good job needs their head examined. At the moment it is a failed bloated money pit which the the government needs to put out of its misery.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Those who have to pay will question why meters are not being installed in new builds.

The boil notices in Dublin are having an effect on ordinary people's understanding of why water charges are needed.

You're delusional, no one "will have to pay" for the reasons that have been stated and repeated on this thread numerous times already.


Middle Ireland won't be stiffed, meter one, meter all, and all that jazz.

Even Bendar will agree on that one, it would appear you two are on the same team, but poles apart.

markodaly

Boil notices for all, I say. At least the water will be free but the electricity used to boil the water isnt...
Mugs.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Bit harsh there my friend, no need.

Truth can be harsh Brendan.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Those who have to pay will question why meters are not being installed in new builds.

The boil notices in Dublin are having an effect on ordinary people's understanding of why water charges are needed.

More a case of people in Dublin with boil notices understanding just how inept Irish Water is IMO.


I imagine they would be delighted to go with your plan though.

Meter all the remaining households plus all apartments at a cost you cannot put a figure too. Then have them pay a charge so that Irish Water breaks even without any improvement to the infrastructure or water quality.

I`m sure they would be thrilled to hear that they were paying their nice wedge of cash under the guise of conservation while 50% of treated water continued flowing out of burst mains.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Those who have to pay will question why meters are not being installed in new builds.

The boil notices in Dublin are having an effect on ordinary people's understanding of why water charges are needed.

They are completely unrelated. As shown numerous times full compliance might have covered some of the admin costs for IW and nothing else.

Interesting to watch FG on this. Water conservation and supply being such an important thing, I expect the FG party will be breaking open the piggy bank no bother :rolleyes:

markodaly wrote: »

Boil notices for all, I say. At least the water will be free but the electricity used to boil the water isnt...
Mugs.

You don't pay taxes?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They are completely unrelated. As shown numerous times full compliance might have covered some of the admin costs for IW and nothing else.

Mixing up covering set-up costs and covering on-going costs again, Im afraid.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Mixing up covering set-up costs and covering on-going costs again, Im afraid.

Boss the gap is so wide and even after set up, the admin costs alone were rising.

In 2014, the State provided a €439m operating subvention and €239m in capital contributions or equity. Last year, its operating subvention dropped to €399m and capital contributions came in at €222m.

However, 2016 has proven to be the costliest year to date. While capital contributions dropped to a low of €184m, the operating subvention rose to a high of €479m.

You think 300 mill a year, (best generous estimate) intake will cover repairs, maintenance and looking after our own? Not at all.

We all agree the infrastructure needs repair. Metering and billing is a dead duck. Dinny got payed so alls well. The question is are this government and the following FF government going to take it seriously or kick the can down the road like in previous decades because there's no private profit in it, like with health and tackling housing?

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Mixing up covering set-up costs and covering on-going costs again, Im afraid.

This has been already been pointed numerous times and ignored! Facts don’t seem to fit their agenda!

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

This has been already been pointed numerous times and ignored! Facts don’t seem to fit their agenda!

That reads like a Trump tweet.
Did you read my post or are you ignoring inconvenient facts too?

One indisputable fact is government don't give a toss about the water supply. They only maintain IW to save face.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Boss the gap is so wide and even after set up, the admin costs alone were rising.


You think 300 mill a year, (best generous estimate) intake will cover repairs, maintenance and looking after our own? Not at all.

We all agree the infrastructure needs repair. Metering and billing is a dead duck. Dinny got payed so alls well. The question is are this government and the following FF government going to take it seriously or kick the can down the road like in previous decades because there's no private profit in it, like with health and tackling housing?

Once again, you quote something without a link or a context, probably something you selectively took from a tabloid report.

Let's hope the next government does take it seriously and introduces metered water charges and tackles the issue.

Domestic water charges weren't the only source of income as you well know, and the fact of water charges being income would have been sufficient to allow Irish Water to borrow to fund investment, again as you well know, but here is the business plan to remind you once again.

https://www.water.ie/docs/Irish-Water-Business-Plan.pdf

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Once again, you quote something without a link or a context, probably something you selectively took from a tabloid report.

You are being highly dishonest here. You are making up stories. You are being purposfully false.
Even if you missed my comment recently with quote and links I never post a quote without a link.
The last quote was from my earlier post. And as predicted, here it is again:

The State gave Irish Water €678m and €621m in 2014 and 2015 respectively in operating subventions and capital contributions, bringing the total cost to €2.143bn over the past three years.

In 2014, the State provided a €439m operating subvention and €239m in capital contributions or equity. Last year, its operating subvention dropped to €399m and capital contributions came in at €222m.

However, 2016 has proven to be the costliest year to date. While capital contributions dropped to a low of €184m, the operating subvention rose to a high of €479m.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/irish-water-has-cost-state-2bn-768178.html

So even being generous and considering full compliance, IW was never going to come close to paying it's way and carrying out the infrastructure upgrade on 300ml a year.
But you knew all this. I expect to need post this stuff again no doubt...

blanch152 wrote: »

Let's hope the next government does take it seriously and introduces metered water charges and tackles the issue.

They'll need raise the charge a lot to make it worthwhile.

blanch152 wrote: »

Domestic water charges weren't the only source of income as you well know, and the fact of water charges being income would have been sufficient to allow Irish Water to borrow to fund investment, again as you well know, but here is the business plan to remind you once again.

https://www.water.ie/docs/Irish-Water-Business-Plan.pdf

We were talking metering Blanch. Metering income would be about 300 mill a year being generous, therefore metering is pointless, considering we are nowhere near the any proposed usage cap even without them.
You are condoning squandering money we need elsewhere on a lot of crap. It would be better spent directly on the problem rather than creating a costly third party to give uncie Dinny an earner and jobs for the FG posse. If FG weren't so openly greedy and, benefit of the doubt, incompetent, it might have survived, but then there'd be no point.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are being highly dishonest here. You are making up stories. You are being purposfully false.
Even if you missed my comment recently with quote and links I never post a quote without a link.
The last quote was from my earlier post. And as predicted, here it is again:





They'll need raise the charge a lot to make it worthwhile.



We were talking metering Blanch. Metering income would be about 300 mill a year being generous, therefore metering is pointless, considering we are nowhere near the any proposed usage cap even without them.
You are condoning squandering money we need elsewhere on a lot of crap. It would be better spent directly on the problem rather than creating a costly third party to give uncie Dinny an earner and jobs for the FG posse. If FG weren't so openly greedy and, benefit of the doubt, incompetent, it might have survived, but then there'd be no point.

Dishonest? That is a pretty strong accusation.

From your link:

"Figures released to the Irish Examiner show the controversial utility will cost the State €844m in 2016 alone, when its operating subvention, capital contributions and the replacement revenue — provided by the State following the decision to suspend billing customers — are taken into consideration."

Now you seem to think that this is a bad thing that it cost so much, and that we are saved by abolishing water charges from having to spend so much on Irish Water, am I right?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Dishonest? That is a pretty strong accusation.

Your claim was false. I assume you aren't making stuff up unbeknownst to yourself? If you are, apologies.

blanch152 wrote: »

From your link:

"Figures released to the Irish Examiner show the controversial utility will cost the State €844m in 2016 alone, when its operating subvention, capital contributions and the replacement revenue — provided by the State following the decision to suspend billing customers — are taken into consideration."

Now you seem to think that this is a bad thing that it cost so much, and that we are saved by abolishing water charges from having to spend so much on Irish Water, am I right?

You're using a quote, I didn't use and asking me to explain why it's a problem?
That 844m figure is irrelevant, that's why I didn't use it to make my point.
You again, dodged the portions I did quote and link to.
300m from water metering/billing is far short of any meaningful sum for even operating IW.

This:

However, 2016 has proven to be the costliest year to date. While capital contributions dropped to a low of €184m, the operating subvention rose to a high of €479m.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/irish-water-has-cost-state-2bn-768178.html

That's not including any work carried out.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That reads like a Trump tweet.
Did you read my post or are you ignoring inconvenient facts too?

One indisputable fact is government don't give a toss about the water supply. They only maintain IW to save face.

You are ignoring the fact that Irish Water are still here and working away upgrading the infrastructure despite financial constraints.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

You are ignoring the fact that Irish Water are still here and working away upgrading the infrastructure despite financial constraints.

Sorry Maryanne you are dodging the response to your 'rot' claim. Debunked again and again. At least Blanch is trying to be creative.
Now you're going back to script. I'm not ignoring it. It's a shame to have this not fit for purpose entity draining the states finances. They should spend the IW money on infrastructure.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

This has been already been pointed numerous times and ignored! Facts don’t seem to fit their agenda!

Yet again you come up with this rubbish without a single figure to back up your claim.


We have been through this already on the mega threads. I distinctly remember you and others with the same old guff on Stephen Donnelly`s figures included set up costs along with on-going costs.
I even remember posting them and asking you to point out where these set up costs were included.
Not a word from you then, yet here you are again with the same old guff.


Perhaps you can have another go and show me where these set up cost are included.

271M.: Total expected revenue if everyone pays.
-166M. : The cost of the conservation grant if everyone claims it
=105M.
- 6M. : The cost of administrating the grant
= 99M.
- 44M. : The annual cost of water meters.
= 55M.
- 54M. : The annual cost of meter readings, billing, debt management etc.
= 1M.


Where in those figures are these set up costs you keep withering on about ?

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

Yet again you come up with this rubbish without a single figure to back up your claim.


We have been through this already on the mega threads. I distinctly remember you and others with the same old guff on Stephen Donnelly`s figures included set up costs along with on-going costs.
I even remember posting them and asking you to point out where these set up costs were included.
Not a word from you then, yet here you are again with the same old guff.


Perhaps you can have another go and show me where these set up cost are included.

271M.: Total expected revenue if everyone pays.
-166M. : The cost of the conservation grant if everyone claims it
=105M.
- 6M. : The cost of administrating the grant
= 99M.
- 44M. : The annual cost of water meters.
= 55M.
- 54M. : The annual cost of meter readings, billing, debt management etc.
= 1M.


Where in those figures are these set up costs you keep withering on about ?

Where on earth did you get those figures?

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Where on earth did you get those figures?

You have either a very short memory or selective memory

Those are the Stephen Donnelly`s figures you and others kept shouting about that included set-up costs in the mega thread and still are it seems.


So.... where are the set-up figures included now that you could not find when they were posted previously ???

James Brown

charlie14 wrote: »

You have either a very short memory or selective memory

Those are the Stephen Donnelly`s figures you and others kept shouting about that included set-up costs in the mega thread and still are it seems.


So.... where are the set-up figures included now that you could not find when they were posted previously ???

With the selective memory and rinse and repeat claims, no wonder there were mega threads.

It's like, 'yeah but what have the Romans ever done for us?'.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

You have either a very short memory or selective memory

Those are the Stephen Donnelly`s figures you and others kept shouting about that included set-up costs in the mega thread and still are it seems.


So.... where are the set-up figures included now that you could not find when they were posted previously ???

Can YOU explain why meters would cost €44,000,000 a year every year?

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Can YOU explain why meters would cost €44,000,000 a year every year?

Depreciation/replacement parts for meters costing 539,000,000.



So.... where are these set-up prices in those figures you keep waffling about?

James Brown

Here, save everyone some time. Here's the current conversation as it originally unfolded.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=101726839

astrofool

charlie14 wrote: »

Depreciation/replacement parts for meters costing 539,000,000.



So.... where are these set-up prices in those figures you keep waffling about?

Genuine question: what are the ongoing cost for ESB and Gas Network for meter maintenance?

James Brown

astrofool wrote: »

Genuine question: what are the ongoing cost for ESB and Gas Network for meter maintenance?

Wrong thread TBF. Like comparing a tax funded utility to a non-tax funded utility, (or batman's utility belt). A household ESB or Gas were never paid for through general taxation that I know of.

charlie14

astrofool wrote: »

Genuine question: what are the ongoing cost for ESB and Gas Network for meter maintenance?

Why are you asking that and what relevance has it to what I posted

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

Depreciation/replacement parts for meters costing 539,000,000.



So.... where are these set-up prices in those figures you keep waffling about?

Oh, Dear Lord. You have to be taking the proverbial!!

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, Dear Lord. You have to be taking the proverbial!!

I`m afraid yet more of your attempts at deflection will not work this time.


You have repeatedly come out with your rubbish that those figures included set-up costs. I have provided you with them, and not for the first time either, so now show where these set-up figures are included.


If you do not have the good grace to admit they are not, then at least desist from repeating your fiction to suit your agenda.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Yet again you come up with this rubbish without a single figure to back up your claim.


We have been through this already on the mega threads. I distinctly remember you and others with the same old guff on Stephen Donnelly`s figures included set up costs along with on-going costs.
I even remember posting them and asking you to point out where these set up costs were included.
Not a word from you then, yet here you are again with the same old guff.


Perhaps you can have another go and show me where these set up cost are included.

271M.: Total expected revenue if everyone pays.
-166M. : The cost of the conservation grant if everyone claims it
=105M.
- 6M. : The cost of administrating the grant
= 99M.
- 44M. : The annual cost of water meters.
= 55M.
- 54M. : The annual cost of meter readings, billing, debt management etc.
= 1M.


Where in those figures are these set up costs you keep withering on about ?

Those are historical fantasy costs from the first year that Donnelly himself admitted he drew up on the back of an envelope and could well be wrong about. That didn't stop them becoming the bible for the we won't pay crowd. They bear no relation to how an updated system might work.

For a start, the income could be higher with higher pricing, which is one thing I would do, no point wanting conservation if the pricing doesn't encourage it. Secondly, the conservation grant isn't needed and should be abolished. Finally, the costs of metering weren't benchmarked against the costs of metering for Airtricity or someone else. For example, the costs bandied about were for metering every meter every month, when most utilities only check meters every few times they are due and work on estimated bills the rest of the time. All the assumptions in the workings were designed to make it as expensive as possible.

Actually, I don't know why I am explaining all this again to you, it was explained more than once at the time, but ignored.

I would expect that you could get domestic revenues of c400m and easily keep costs below 50m.