Water Rate Increase on the Agenda in Poway

It's that time of the year again. On Tuesday, the Poway City Council is poised to raise both the fixed water fees and water rates. Last year, the council voted to abandon their tiered conservation water for a more uniform rate, thereby increasing rates significantly for lower volume water users. This year's little surprise is that the council intends to relieve the folks in High Valley, Old Coach, the Industrial Park and other high places from having to pay those pesky pumping fees. The City will fold the pumping fees into the regular water fees of ALL the water users.

The new water rates for single family residential customers will be $3.96/ unit. That is up 13 cents a unit. The fixed water service charge will go up almost a buck, from $28.00 to $28.98 for each 2-month billing period.

These increases aren't the most severe we've had, but the pattern of dumping any and every possible charge, fee and rate increase disproportionately onto those who use less of something or onto those who don't even use something (e.g. pumping) is onerous.

In addition to getting stung for somebody else's pumping charges, Poway water customers are also paying for the costs to administer a backflow device inspection service. Only people with wells or on reclaimed water require the yearly inspection, yet the costs to administer this service is dumped on all of us. Is that fair?  Remember, this is the City that charges higher sewer rates to people who use less water. This City is all about who is being advantaged.

If you want to formally protest the increase of rates, and in particular, getting stung with all future pumping fees of the high landers, you need to submit a written notification to the City Clerk containing your address or assessor's parcel number and your signature by 4 pm Tuesday, October 16th. You can also drop it off before the 7pm meeting in the Council chambers. If a majority of Poway water customers sent an official protest, the new water rates won't take effect.  That is a very high bar to reach, and not likely to happen even when a lot of people are upset with the rates. If you want to unofficially complain, but don't have time to drop off a letter at City Hall, you can send an email to the council before Tuesday's meeting. If you send an email it won't count in the official protest numbers but it will put the City on notice that you are paying attention, which is the first step toward any change.

In Defense of Tiered Water Rates

Last month I attended the water/sewer rates workshop. (You can read my initial reaction here.) Poway is now in the process of revising their tiered water rates to a simple 2-tier system for single family home water customers. Everyone who uses 0-199 units of water will pay $4.08/unit and folks who use 200+ units will pay $5.74/ per unit for any units over 199 units. So, for all practical purposes, Poway will have a flat rate for water, with the exception of a few extra gigantic water hogs.

I didn't speak about the water rates at the hearing. I addressed the inequities and abominations in the current tiered sewer fee structure. The staff told the council that they didn't have time to address the sewer issues. But because the sewer fund is overfunded, they recommended dropping fees 13% across the board. It speaks volumes about our city that the council has addressed and adjusted the water rates multiple times in one year, but cannot find time to fix the sewer rate structure.

Here is what the current and new sewer fees for single family residential look like:

The sewer fees (the chart says "rates" but it is incorrect) are lower, but all of the anomalies and inconsistencies remain. See the jump from Tier 2 ($44.07)to Tier 3 ($66.34)? That's still a 50% increase. A single glass of water from a customer who normally uses 12 units could push them into Tier 3 where they would have to pay an extra $133.62 ($22.27 x 6) per year.

And the rate is still lower for the big users. Someone who uses 44 units pays $2.23 per sewer unit and someone who uses 9 units pays $4.90 per unit. Why? Because the council is catering to the big winter water hogs.

There were few interesting or unexpected happenings at the workshop. Mayor Don Higginson cut off speakers he disagreed with with an abrupt, "Your time is up," and then let speakers he agreed with ramble on and on, and even allowed George Andreos to jump up out of his chair and speak even though he hadn't filled out a speaker's slip.  Not unexpected.

There was one unexpected moment. Council member Jim Cunningham asked the consultant how many other cities and water agencies were reverting back to a uniform unit rate for water. The consultant indicated that not a single one has. Almost all still have tiered water rates. So Poway will be the first. Technically, Poway still has tiered rates, but the second tier starts at the extreme water hog level of 200 units, so it only affects a very small percent of users, and only after their water use exceeds 199 units.

I'm in favor of tiered water rates. I know a lot of people were aghast that somebody would be charged more than someone else for their water. What's funny is that some of these same people were, until very recently, getting a discount rate for their water.  They seem to have a huge sense of entitlement. When they are being subsidized, that's OK, but when the reverse happens, it is the end of the world as they know it.

While some people call the old rates a "subsidy" to low water users, I prefer to call it an "incentive" for conserving. We have had incentives for buying water saving devices like low-flow showerheads and toilets. Tiered rates are another incentive for conserving water.  Our SDG&E gas and electricity rates are structured the same way as our tiered water rates. I know that when I get my bill, I look to see if I have exceeded the baseline amounts. If I have, it is a reminder to renew my conservation efforts.  This system provides benefits to the conservers and also to those who need the available resources to keep their businesses and industries humming. The same principles can be applied to our water rate structure. If conservation is incentivized,  more water is available for those who need large amounts of it. Poway's return to uniform water rates eliminates the incentive for conserving.

The new rates will require a Prop 218 vote. One more than half of us would have to send in a written protest. That's unlikely to happen, but the city has to pay to send out the notice anyway. In the notice that I received, there is an example of how the new rates will affect someone who uses 25 units of water and is in Tier 3 for sewer. I decided to take a more in-depth look to see what the new rates will mean.  Because I have water records (from Apr/May 09 to Feb/Mar 2010) for the city council members  I decided to use that data and compare what they would have paid under our current rate structure and what they will pay under the new rate structure.

The only problem is that none of our current council members live on small RS-7 sized lots like the ones in south Poway. So, I used the data I had from some south Poway council candidates for the June election, just so people could see how the rates will affect people who live in south Poway too.

Percentage-wise,  new water rates will hit small water users particularly hard. The increase in rates is about 25-28%. Large water users will see rates go up about 14-16%.

The fixed water fee will also increase from $26.00 to $28.00 per bi-monthly billing cycle. This fixed fee is the same for every user. It is like a "flat tax". Supposedly, it is to pay for some items which are not a function of how much water each customer uses. There is no such category in the Poway budget. There is no list or accounting of items that go into the fixed fee. In fact, all the money collected on our water bills for water go into the same pot and from that pot, all water related expenditures are subtracted. There are some items on that list which are not exactly consumption related, like, paying off the bonds for city hall, or paying the salaries and pensions of the city managers office. These items are traditionally paid for from property tax revenue, but have been shifted more and more to our water and sewer bills lately. We don't pay the same amount on our property tax bill for these items, so I am not impressed with the argument that we should all pay the same for them on our water/sewer bill. And to the argument that the fixed fees are an "access" fee, well, if we all pay the same access fee, then we should all have access to the same amount of water. And the right to sell that access to someone else if we aren't using our fair share of access.

As a reminder to how much the fixed fee affects the cost per unit of water, I have added the fixed fee in and divided by the total number of units to find the true per unit cost of water for each council member or candidate listed above. Here are the results:

The true cost of water is $4.41/unit for the highest volume user, Jim Cunningham (434 units).  The guy who used the least amount of water, Roger Willoughby, pays $5.58/unit. That's more than a dollar more per unit than Cunningham pays. Another reason I favor the tiered rates is because it helped to mitigate the impact the fixed water fee has on the low volume users. Now that the tiers are gone (rates effective in January 2011), the low volume users will be paying more per unit for their water again. Until we see some change in the council makeup, the low volume users are going to continue to pay an unfair share of the costs for their water and sewer.

Bidness As Usual

irrigation water in the gutter in Arbolitos

Last (Tuesday) night, I wasted a few hours attending the workshop on the proposed water and sewer rates. There were mostly large-lot folks from north Poway at the meeting and they got what they wanted. The city is going to bail on the 5-tier conservation water rate structure and go with a 2-tier system. Everybody will pay $4.02/unit for their first 199 units in a billing period. The 200th unit on up will cost $5.74/unit. 200 units in one billing cycle is an ENORMOUS amount of water. It is way more water than the Cruse household uses in an entire year. Hardly anyone in Poway uses that much water, so for all practical purposes, we are back to a flat rate for most everyone.

Those of us who use less than 125 units in a billing cycle will see the water consumption part of our bill jump about 20%. The large-lot people who consume between 125-200 units in a billing cycle will see their water consumption bills jump about 10%.

The city will have to spend thousands of dollars to send out mailers (required by Prop 218) and give everyone notice of the changes and an opportunity to fruitlessly protest. Then in October, the council will lock in the new rates with a vote and they will become effective in January, 2011.

Last night's meeting went pretty much as I expected. A consultant presented several water and sewer rate options. Well, really just one sewer rate option and four water rate options. The four water rate options offered a choice between a 5, 3, 2 or no tier(s) structure. The first public speaker was Bruce Tarzy from the GVCA. Tarzy had already had a meeting with staff where he presented his 2-tier plan.  For months now, I have been hearing about how unfair it is that some people pay a different water rate than others, that some pay less than the cost to provide the service and are subsidized by others. So, why a 2-tier plan instead of a uniform unit rate? I'm not totally sure I get this, but from what I was hearing, it goes something like this: Everybody should pay the same rate. Except the people who use more than 200 units. Because they really need to learn to conserve. So, they have to pay more. As a result, the large-lot people are gonna get subsidized by the handful of super-large-lot people. And they seem OK with that. Advantage is relative.

After the people had their say, the council weighed in. Newbie John Mullin seemed to still be fond of a uniform unit rate. Jim Cunningham went next. If Cunningham had to be succinct to save his life, he'd be a goner. You can watch the replay, or if you want, but my analysis is that Cunningham's verbage amounted to: "What Tarzy said." Same with Carl Kruse. Next up was Merrilee Boyack. She wanted Don Higginson to go first, but he insisted that she state her position next. Boyack asked a few questions, but went with the Tarzy plan. Ditto the mayor.

I requested to speak during the public comment period. I wanted to address the sewer rates, or fees, as they are more appropriately called. I pointed out that we were all paying different rates. I even gave some examples of anomalies caused by the crazy tiered sewer fee structure:

1.)   Even when someone uses no water at all, they have to pay a minimum of  $45.00 for not using the sewer.    

2.)   The jumps between tiers are irregular.  A single extra shower or load of wash taken during the winter months could jump a user’s bill from  $304 to $458 per year.  That’s a $154 shower or load of wash or drink of water.

3.)   The person who uses 6 units of water pays the same total amount as the person who uses 12 units of water. How can this be conservation pricing when someone gets twice as much for the same price?  The person who uses 6 units pays twice the rate of the person who uses 12 units.

4.)    In general, the per unit cost for the sewer decreases as sewer use increases.

Well, I found out that the large-lot people and the council's passion for equity applies to water rates, but not to sewer fees, especially sewer fees that are tilted to their advantage.  Mayor Higginson, who interrupted me twice to hurry up with my comments, did not address my concerns. Neither did Boyack or Kruse. I am not sure if I heard correctly, but I think Mullin may have said something about looking into the sewer rates. To his credit, Jim Cunningham asked the staff about the sewer rates; staff told him there wasn't time for it this year, not enough time to get something sent out to the voters and ready for the October vote, it would have to wait.

So, there you have it.  Yep, I took the time to attend the water and sewer rate workshop. I stood up and spoke in front of a roomful of people who were seething with the injustice of unfair rates. I addressed a council that I had pre-sensitized for months with a barrage of emails and copies of my blogs. I'd even met with the staff and was the one who pointed out to them that there was quite a surplus in that sewer fund. And the response? There isn't time to fix the sewer rate structure.

Like I said, I wasted a couple of hours last night.

Leadership

Leadership. I've been hearing that word a lot lately. Which is fitting because we have an election right around the corner. Leadership does matter when we pick our leaders. So, I wanted to take a look at one of the biggest issues- Water Conservation- and see how the candidates (and current councilmembers) are doing on water conservation. Are they just telling us to use less water or are they leading by example? I requested the water use data from all of the current councilmembers and candidates for the last 2 yrs. Candidates were under no requirement to release that information, but EVERY ONE of THEM did. Kudos to the candidates. I used the water use data  to compare water conservation efforts from candidates and current councilmembers. 

First, a word about the data. Everybody is not on the same billing cycle. Some people get their bills in Jan/Mar/May/July/Sept/Nov and others get them in Feb/April/June/August/Oct/Dec. For purposes of comparing data, I aligned Jan bills with Feb bills, and Mar bills with April bills, etc. Also note that the data is for the billing date. The  billing date  will indicate the water use in the 2 previous months. For example, a March billing date will indicate how much water was used in the previous January and February.

There were also  2 instances where the customer had more than one reading in a billing cycle (probably indicating a new meter was installed) and one huge anomaly (probably indicating a water pipe break). Dave Grosch had 2 meter readings for Jan, 2010. I added the readings together. I did the same for Carl Kruse who had 2 readings in Jun/July 2009. Betty Rexford, who has the lowest water use among the group had a 129 unit reading in Aug 2009. No other reading was more than 11 units, so I substituted 11 units for the August 2009 reading. 

First, I wanted to compare the total water use during the period from Feb/Mar 2008 until Mar/April 2010.

Here are the results (click on each graph to make it larger):

The biggest water consumers during this period were Steve Vaus, Jim Cunningham and Don Higginson. Which is kind of interesting. Because they all live in the same neighborhood.  I'm not saying they would vote the same way on everything. But how weird would it be to have the council majority be 3 people who live about a block from each other and are big water users to boot?  Would we all feel represented under such a scenario?

The next biggest water user is Grosch (who used less than half the water Vaus used), followed by Boyack, Mullin, Collins and Babich.  At the bottom of the pack were Kruse, Cross, Willoughby, and Radcliff, all of whom live on smaller acreage than the other councilmembers and candidates. The smallest water user is Rexford, who, I believe, has a well.

Because some of the councilmembers and candidates live on larger parcels than others, I decided to compare winter water use. During the 2010 winter, folks should have been able to turn off their outside irrigation for an entire 2 month period. Especially if they were leading by example.  Ahem....

The following graph shows the number of units billed  in Feb. or Mar for each of the last 3 winters, 2008, 2009, and 2010. The data from 2010 is in yellow. 

The largest winter water user, by far, is Steve Vaus. His total use during Dec/Jan for the last 3 years is almost 300 units. And he used 65% more water during this period in 2010 than he did during this period in 2009.  Jim Cunningham is the next largest wintertime water user; he used just a little over half of what Vaus used. With the exception of Vaus, almost everyone cut their wintertime use in 2010 or kept it pretty close to what they used in 2009. 

With the city promoting turning off irrigation this winter, I would have expected to see the 2010 data (in yellow) be fairly close for everyone, despite their lot size.  But it isn't.  Boyack's use is the lowest- just 3 units. Collins is next lowest at 4, followed by Willoughby, Rexford and Grosch, who are all in single digit use. Way to lead by example!

Mullin, Kruse, Radcliff and Cross used under 15 units. Higginson clocked in at 19 (less than half what he used the previous winter), Babich came in at 20, followed by Cunningham at 33, and in the very last spot, Vaus with 91 units.  91 units is way out there!

The next thing I wanted to look at was whether the candidates and councilmembers had cut back their use since the previous year. So I compared the total number of water unit used during the last 12 months to the 12 months before that.

The following information is useful in comparing and analyzing the data:

Vaus, Higginson and Babich all have lots between 32,000-37,000 s.f.

Cunningham, Rexford and Mullin have lots in the 22,000- 27,00 s.f range. 

Boyack's lot is about 14,500 s.f

Radcliff, Wiilloughby and Cross have lots between 6,600-7500 s.f.

The size of Grosch, Collins and Kruse's lot is unavailable on the Poway or Sandag's GIS site or zillow. 

Grosch lives in Rancho Arbolitos in a lot zoned PC-2. Collins lives in North Poway on a lot zoned RS-2 and Kruse also lives in North Poway on a lot zoned RS-4.

Once again, some people have been conserving for years and their recent use might not show much improvement. But look at that graph! Everybody, except Radcliff,  cut their water use in the past year. I'm going to give Radcliff a pass on this because his water use was, and still is, pretty low.  

The graph shows that, in general, people who have larger lots use more water. No surprise there. But there is still a lot of spread between the larger water consumers. Vaus, Higginson and Babich have lots that are relatively close in size, yet Vaus uses way more water than Higginson and more than twice as much water as Babich. So, there is still lots of room for improvement and leadership. And probably pool covers. 

Note: All of the candidates do not have the same philosophy when it comes to how the city should structure water rates and promote conservation. Please visit each candidate's website to learn more about their view on water conservation and water rates:

Dave Grosch 

Chuck Cross 

Roger Willoughby (could not find a website for Willoughby)

Howard Collins

Pete Babich

David Radcliff

Steve Vaus 

John Mullin

Are You Listening?

There were lots of goings on last week in the ol’ Poway corral.

First off, Rod Gould unexpectedly resigned. He is going to be leaving Poway in January to take the city manager ‘s job in Santa Monica. Gould has been Poway city manager for 4 yrs.  That's not very long by Poway standards (Jim Bowersox served for 24 yrs), but probably only a few years shy of the average city manager’s tenure. Gotta wonder just how much of Gould’s decision was a desire to get away from the rancor and contentiousness of Poway and how much was a desire to do something in a bigger city and get paid a lot more for it. Gould is a consummate professional. We will probably never know.

Betty Rexford was elated at the news about Gould’s leaving. Apparently she and Gould didn’t get along too well. I think there may have been some words between them about this city not being big enough for both of them. She’s still standing, so I guess that’s a win for her.
Last week, Rexford launched her website, therealbettyrexford.com. It is Rexford’s effort to get her side of the story out. As you might expect, the Poway Posse aka the recall-rexford folks responded to the rollout of her website by rolling up their recall tent. Not. You can read their responses here, but I suggest you avoid it, unless you have a perculiar nostalgia for your junior high years.

Last week was also the performance of Steve Vaus’ Carols by Candlelight. That’s his annual “for charity” gig. But since Vaus’ production company is a for profit company, we won’t know how much of the donated money and ticket revenue from Carols by Candlelight went to coddle the artists and line Vaus’ pockets and how much of it actually went to charity.  The recall stampede has been pretty quiet lately. I am not sure if that is because Vaus has been otherwise occupied or if they just ran out of steam.  Vaus hasn’t sent out a tweet since Nov 10.  No new republican leaders have stepped forward this week demanding that Rexford resign right this very minute.

Vaus’ claim that other houses burned to the ground during the Cedar Fire because a fire crew  was diverted to “babysit” Rexford’s house has been getting a lot of pushback.  I must say, the “facts” about the fire presented on the realbettyrexford site here, here, here  and here are pretty compelling. The documents on Vaus' site don’t back up his claims, they just show that a fire truck was sent to Rexford’s neighborhood to mop up after the fire. No document that Vaus provided shows that Rexford called and made any demands to send a firetruck. No document shows that any other house burned down due to a truck being sent to the Creek Rd neighborhood to quell spot fires.  Although not backing down or apologizing for what sure seems like a freakin’ distortion of events, Vaus (and his friend, Jack) are quick to point out that the issue of Rexford costing us a lot of money remains.

Do whatever you can to hide the real issue. Betty Rexford is unfit to serve and her repeatedly poor ethical choices have cost the city almost 1/2 a MILLION dollars. Does this not even bother you Gerold and Chris? You would rather put up with someone who is clearly unfit to serve rather than let anyone replace her?

So, maybe another house didn't "burn" as a direct result of her having trucks babysit her home, but does that make it any less salacious that she was able to have her own personal fire brigade stationed at her property and available to her beck and call?

Yes, it does bother me that the court case cost the city almost $500,000. I don’t agree with the recallers that Betty, and only Betty, was the problem that led to the court case. Nor do I agree that removing her from office just before her term expires and replacing her with an appointee is gonna fix things. But, consider the mathematics of the settlement. There are about 50,000 people in Poway. This case cost us about $10 ea. Or about $25 per household. Since January, I have been bitching about something that is costing me and many other Powegians about $50 per bi-monthly billing cycle. That is about $300/yr and it has been going on for years and will continue to go on until the council takes some action on it. I’m talking about my sewer consumption rates also known as “a variable commodity charge”. I’ve blogged about it here, here, here, and especially here. I’ve also complained about the fixed fees but that is another whole blog. Right now I am paying $72.23 for using 13 units of sewer water.(even when I only use 10 units). That is over $6/unit. Customers who use over 51 units are paying less than $2.29/unit. It isn’t fair, it isn’t just, it doesn’t comply with the best management practices of cities that have joined together to promote less consumption. Why should those who dump less water into the sewer system be paying a higher rate?


Tonight, the council will take another look at the water rate increses that went into effect this summer. The GVCA (Green Valley Civic Assoc) has complained that the rates aren’t fair and that some people will be paying more than it costs the city to provide the water.  Well, hello, isn’t that what I have been saying about the sewer rates for almost a year now? Can anybody hear me?  At least with the water rates, everyone is paying the exact same rate for the same amount of water purchased. Not so with our sewer rates. Those who buy more pay less. So how is it that GVCA got the council to bring back the water rates, but my complaints about the unjust and unfair sewer rates have been completely ignored?

Not a single councilmember has stepped forward to bring back the unfair sewer rates and put it on the agenda. In fact, Merrilee Boyack is the only council member to even respond to my many emails. Ms Boyack said maybe the council will look at it in a couple of years. A couple of years, eh? In a couple of years, that $300 extra that water-wise Powegians are paying each year is going to start adding up. It makes the Rexford settlement look like chump change.

Betty Rexford has also spoken in favor of rehearing the GVCA call to roll back the water rates to a flat rate. My request to rehear the sewer rates? She has done nothing.  Here is the issue where I am in total agreement with the recall folks. Betty Rexford has not been doing a good job of representing all of us.  But I’m not looking to replace Rexford with an appointee chosen by the council. I want the voters to replace her with someone who will listen to everyone in this community, not just the GVCA.

As for Higginson, Kruse and Cunningham, I haven’t heard a peep out of them about the unfair sewer rates either. They all live in north Poway and are pretty much tethered to the GVCA, but, uh, don’t you guys represent all of us? The unfair sewer rates  are not a north v south issue. The people who are getting ripped off are the ones who don’t use a lot of water in the winter months.  They are paying up to 10 times the sewer rate of the people who are putting a lot of water down the drain.

To be fair, most of my complaints were sent to the council before Carl Kruse was appointed.  So, here is your chance Carl. At tonight’s meeting, I am hoping you will ask to bring back the sewer rates and change them so that everybody pays the same rate for their sewer use. Not the same fee-  the same rate-  for each unit of water put into the sewer pipes.  Are you listening, Carl?  


Is anybody listening?