Council Ad Hoc Committee hears more
discord from citizens over utility bills

September 12, 2014
Santa Paula News

Although touted as a rate study required every five years, no one in the audience at a special workshop Wednesday had forgotten that the Ad Hoc Committee of Mayor Rick Cook and Councilman Bob Gonzales was formed in September 2012 in response to the public outcry of spiraling water, sewer and sewer surcharge costs.

After the last meeting in August drew more than 200 residents - many expressing their displeasure at the council and the city - Wednesday’s session was a tighter and more fast-tracked model including only allowing 2 minutes each for public questions and comment.

Interim Public Works Director Brian Yanez and NBS Consultant Greg Clumpner did the presentation.

Yanez noted that the city has never exceeded its annual allocation of 5,488 acre-feet of water and over a 7-year period has averaged 4,911.8 acre-feet drawn from aquifers. 

“We have not exceeded our allocation since the basin was adjudicated,” said Yanez.

Clumpner started by noting that the city will likely change how sewer bills - specifically sewer surcharges - are calculated by establishing an annual average of water use based on the wettest months November through February.

Although at the previous workshop it was stated the city could only electronically access records from one year ago - which would put such calculations right in the middle of the 3-year drought - Yanez noted records could be accessed as far back as 2008 to set billing baselines.

The sewer surcharge has been among the strongest of citizen complaints with critics noting that residents were being charged for a service - processing sewage - for water that was used outside the household such as for landscaping.

The high monthly sewer rate base of $77.21 has also been an issue of discord.

According to the presentation, families in Santa Paula pay an average of $88.41 a month in combined sewer costs, less than a dollar than the highest county rate, Fillmore’s $89.60 a month.

Clumpner said a proposal would reduce the monthly fixed sewer charge from $77.21 a month to a tentative $60 a month but the present $1.12 per 100 cubic feet (748 gallons) sewer surcharge would be raised to $3.06 per 100 cubic feet, based on the “winter rate” base charge.

If the council adopts the proposal, Santa Paula residents would pay the most of any city in the county, average of $99.30 per month.

Clumpner noted residents still would have control over billing by conserving water and watching usage, with those using more paying more.

He added, “I want to make a couple of points clear,” including that the city has a financial obligation to pay for the privately owned plant. 

“Your sewer treatment plant was very expensive... “ 

Although water rate increases wouldn’t be as noticeable, residents are also facing higher bills in years to come.

According to the rate study, a Santa Paula household now pays an average of $56.16 a month for water. 

This is lower than the $89.31 paid on average by a family in Ojai where a legal battle is ongoing to purchase the water company from the private operator. Residents that claimed the company was gouging them voted to purchase the facility but the transaction has been tied up in court.

Due to the drought water bills also could be affected if water consumption is ordered cut by 20 percent because residents still would have to pay United Water Conservation District pumping charges.

Clumpner and Yanez noted the city is considering developing a three-tier water rate structure meant to discourage excessive water use. Someone who uses more water would pay a higher rate for every 100 cubic feet of water consumed. But those with large lots might find they instead receive a discount by paying the flat commercial rate for water rather than being charged for the tier system.

Also being considered are a leak policy and a senior and low-income discount program.

Growth and the city’s purchase of the wastewater treatment plant could spell some relief to present residents and the rates they pay, what Clumpner said could be “The light at the end of the tunnel... “

Public speakers for the most part were critical and suspicious of new rates and policies.

Questions ranged from whether or not the city has an energy efficient appliance rebate program to how much the city charges for sewer connections, a hefty source of income to other cities.

Steve Barnard noted the city was “talking about rates because of the very poorly negotiated sewer plant that was way over cost,” and he questioned how water rates would impact aesthetics as people stop watering plants, trees and lawns.

Nikki Dryden asked how much lost revenue the city was experiencing because  the treated wastewater was not meeting standards and could not be recycled.

Yanez said 1.9 million gallons are percolated at three ponds at the sewer plant but more study would be needed on the issue.

“Is a meeting coming up on the sewer plant any time soon?” asked Dryden, and Yanez said no.

Maria Soto spoke through a translator about the high utility costs that are impacting her quality of life: “I apologize but I think this is theft, I think it is abusive,” she said.

Sheryl Hamlin asked several questions including whether or not the city obtained a quote for a bond before committing to let a private investment company own the wastewater treatment plant.

Pam Marshall asked specifics about treatment plant operating costs and Delton Johnson asked, “How are we going to handle new home development and where is the water coming from?”

Bob Carson also addressed connection fees as well as “This budgeting on the backs of the single family residential... we are taking the hit on the additional water use and the drought expectations... I’m also concerned about some of the systems,” including the removal of the tank on Hospital Hill and correcting what he said was sub-par fire flow in the area.

The next stop for the sewer and water rate study is the council, which will consider the proposal; any rate changes would be subject to the Prop. 218 process that would require a protest vote of 50 percent plus 1 to stop the increases.





Site Search

E-Subscribe

Subscribe

E-SUBSCRIBE
Call 805 525 1890 to receive the entire paper early. $50.00 for one year.

webmaster