Irvine Water District Rate Hikes

iacrenter

Well-known member
Is anyone else getting annoyed by the constant rate hikes to water?

I just got another letter in the mail notifying me of the proposed rate hikes for 2016-2017:
http://www.irwd.com/images/pdf/rates/PROP_218_IRWD_Irvine_Residential_201617.pdf

I know we had a decent El Nino year but as far as I know we are still under a Drought State of Emergency. IRWD increases rates across the board for Low Volume to Inefficient but cuts the rate for Wasteful. What kind of message does that send?

This rate hike is especially annoying on top of the rate hike from last year. I made an effort to conserve and moved from inefficient to low volume. Now IRWD rewards my conservation efforts by raising my rates the most (both percentile basis +9% and nominal +$0.10) and lowering the rate for the most wasteful users.

Low Volume: $1.11 to $1.21
Base Rate: $1.62 to $1.65
Inefficient: $3.92 to $4.01
Wasteful category: dropping the rate from $14.53 to $12.01 WTF?
 
Yeah, I saw that and said wtf!!! It's ok to be wasteful, you'll get rewarded with lower rates.
Or the rich wasteful folks drummed up this change.

Need to write to them and complain to the board as they indicated on the letter
 
If you are not happy with these rate changes per IRWD:


Any customers or property owners within the IRWD service area may file a written protest for the proposed rate increases with IRWD by sending a letter to IRWD, P.O. Box 5149, Irvine, CA 92616. A valid protest letter must include your name, the address at which youreceive service from IRWD, a statement of protest and your original signature. Protest letters received by June 27 will be tabulated and presented to the Board of Directors at a public hearing regarding the rate increase to be held on June 27, 2016 at 5 p.m. in the IRWD Board Room, 15600 Sand Canyon Ave., Irvine, CA. Any customers or property owners may appear at the hearing to make comments regarding the proposedrates. Letters may be delivered in person at the hearing, and must be received prior to the conclusion of the June 27 public hearing.
 
The low volume people will hardly notice an increase because they hardly use any water.

My bills are consistently over $50. I have no yard yet and only two people live here so we use hardly any water.

Last month we used ONE ccf and the month before TWO ccf (so $1.11 and $2.22) of my bill was for the water we used.

But my total bill comes to over $52 (PER MONTH).

The rest of the bill ($49.80) goes to water and sewer service charges.

Those two charges have gone up consistently. I only have bills going back to the beginning of 2014, but at that time, those two charges amounted to $28.25 per month. Never a water waster, our 9000+ sq foot lot (no pool), 4150 sq foot house water consumption was 12 ccf ($12.72 which was split between low vol and conservation)

If I use the same amount of water here after we have our landscaping in (doubtful since I have a small yard but maybe since we're putting in a water feature which will probably be used more than the last house) my water portion will probably be over $15 an increase of $3-$4 which pales in comparison to those ridiculous service charge increases.
 
R2D - you probably have a 1inch water meter so your fixed infrastructure charge for water is 25 per mo.

Most builders, at least iPac, only use a 5/8 inch meter in which case you only get charged 10 per mo.

1 inch meter allows better water pressure but you pay a fixed 15 more per mo extra
 
If Irvinites aren't happy with their water rates, they may be able to vote on it. If Yorba Linda wins their court battle, I will propose Measure W during the next election cycle: The rolling back of water rates and salary caps for IRWD.
http://www.irwd.com/about-us/board-and-senior-staff-compensation
http://www.ocregister.com/taxdollars/water-718360-district-linda.html


============
Should voters be able to affect rate hikes? Battle over water in Yorba Linda could spill beyond O.C.
by TERI SFORZA
2016-06-06 09:50:25

YORBA LINDA ? How much money does the water district have, and how much does it really need?

Those questions have ricocheted through city council chambers and board-rooms statewide over the past year, as agencies scramble to adjust to declining water sales dictated by the drought and mandatory state cutbacks.

But nowhere, perhaps, has the battle grown more bitter than in Yorba Linda. Raw rage over skyrocketing rates has morphed into a resident-led exercise in forensic accounting, a cheeky ?Water Lies? newsletter and a legal battle that could reach much farther than the hilly horse country and its 70,000 residents.

A ruling on the challenge to the new rates is expected this month. If the residents win, it could deal a blow to how public agencies set fees for all sorts of services from one end of California to the other.

Yorba Linda?s case is a high-stakes test of the power of Proposition 218, which gave Californians the power to repeal or reduce any local tax, assessment or fee. A dozen independent governments have filed legal briefs in support of the water district, warning that public health and safety could be endangered if agencies can?t raise rates to keep pace with costs.

?This could be a huge problem for everyone ? huge,? said Ric Collett, president of the Yorba Linda Water District.

?If people can overturn any rate increase with just a small percentage of the vote, it would be nearly impossible for government agencies to set rates in the future.?

Democracy can be messy, said a perhaps unsympathetic Mark Petracca, political science professor at UC Irvine.

?I don?t see why, offhand, we wouldn?t want citizens/voters to be able to make judgments on such things as rate hikes,? Petracca said. ?I find the arguments of the YLWD to be completely specious.

?If the rate is justified ? if that?s the only option they have to offer ? then this citizen group has given the district the chance to make that case to the public in an election,? he continued. ?If they cannot persuade a majority, then they go back to the drawing board and do what they are, at the end of the day, being paid to do: solve the problem.

??The sky is falling? criticism of what the citizens are doing here is indicative of a district which is unaccustomed to public scrutiny and public oversight for its actions. Sometimes ? and honestly, it probably happens too rarely ? the public says enough is enough, and this is what you get.?

THE FIGHT

Yorba Linda suffered the state?s most draconian water cutback: 36 percent.

Turns out the fixed costs of providing water ? upkeep of infrastructure, salaries of employees, etc. ? don?t plummet even when the volume of water sold does. So agencies that historically recouped money through water sales, rather than by charging a higher fixed cost-for-service, have found themselves hardest hit.

And so it?s been in Yorba Linda, where costs were shifted to a monthly service charge to make ends meet. That charge has more than tripled, a trend that has angered residents and triggered recall efforts.

Residents with standard piping saw their monthly service charge rise from $7.56 in 2012 to $26.29; those with larger properties (and heavier piping, common in horse country) saw their fixed monthly charge rise from $12.60 to $41.57.

That?s on top of the price of water actually consumed, which was subject to ?administrative penalties? for those who exceeded a basic allotment. To date, penalties have raised $1.7 million.

?Our egregious water district used the drought as an excuse to gouge customers,? said Kent Ebinger, who works in commercial real estate and is lead plaintiff in the suit against the district.

Enraged, the Yorba Linda Taxpayers Association collected more than 5,000 signatures demanding that the water district either rescind the rate hike or place it on a ballot for voters to decide. The district declined to do either, saying that such a move was improper under the law. Ebinger and the taxpayers association sued, and a judge is slated to rule this month on whether the issue should go to voters. Recall efforts have been launched against two board members.

?The primary basis for the Water District Board of Directors? refusal to present referendum question to voters is apparently that the Water District needs the money that would be generated by the rate increase,? the association argues in court filings. ?This, of course, is not a basis for unilaterally denying voters access to the referendum process.?

Under the old rates, with the conservation mandated by the state, the Yorba Linda Water District was flirting with bankruptcy, officials said. The referendum would reinstate those old, lower rates ? which would have blown an $8 million to $9 million hole in the district?s budget, it says.

The ballot box can?t be used to put a public agency providing a critical service out of business, the district argues.

Last month, as the state eased some water conservation goals, Yorba Linda?s water board asked staff to research the idea of rolling back some rate hikes and increasing watering from two to three days a week. A meeting will be held today.

DOLLARS AND SENSE

How high are the new fixed charges?

First, a disclaimer: This is an inexact science. Cities and water districts have differing debt loads; receive differing shares of property taxes due to Prop. 13; and sometimes charge additional ?capital fees? that aren?t included here (which range from nothing to $1.41 in Garden Grove, to 10 percent of the bill in Buena Park, to $20 a month in the East Orange County Water District). Such variables can boost fixed costs or shrink them.

With that understanding, a Register review of fixed service charges for Orange County agencies providing water service ? 17 cities with their own water departments, as well as 11 independent water districts ? found that the average countywide was $15.

The tiny Serrano Water District, which serves Villa Park and a slice of Orange, had the highest monthly service charge, at $32.21. It was also subject to the largest conservation mandate ? 36 percent.

Next highest was the aforementioned $26.29 in Yorba Linda; $24.32 in San Juan Capistrano (as of July 1); $21.45 in the South Coast Water District; and $18.10 in the East Orange County Water District.

The lowest fixed service charges were in Santa Ana, at $5.35; Fountain Valley, at $6.89; and Westminster, at $6.93.

Water districts are especially known for amassing large piles of cash, saying that such reserves are necessary to repair and replace vital infrastructure. Yorba Linda was at the lower end among special districts that made it to the state controller?s Top 250 list:

The Yorba Linda Water District had cash and investments of $25.6 million, according to the state controller?s 2014 figures. That?s equal to 11.6 percent of total assets.

The Irvine Ranch Water District, which serves 380,000 people, had cash and investments of $307.3 million, or 15.1 percent of total assets.

The Santa Margarita Water District had cash equal to 12 percent of total assets; Moulton Niguel, 26.5 percent; South Coast, 28 percent; Mesa, 21.5 percent.

SHIFTING FEES

That Yorba Linda?s financial cushion is more circumspect doesn?t necessarily make critics feel better. They view their money as going to aid developers who want to build in the community ? a slow-growth battle splashing from city hall to water district and back again.

Ebinger said the district wouldn?t be talking about rolling back charges if residents hadn?t sued and started the recall efforts. He added that, for the moment, the district is doing only that: talking.

?Bottom line, the trust is gone,? Ebinger said.

Jeff Decker, another leader in the battle, said the district?s moves are promising but don?t go far enough.

He wants the district to refund most of the penalties collected under the reduction mandate, immediately lower connection rates, rescind additional rate increases and suspend further development of a Fairmont Booster station until the district has ?a tough, fair deal with developers.?

The residents behind the lawsuit say they want a more thorough vetting of revenues and expenses.

?The $9 million hole in their budget (their exact words and a gross exaggeration) is now a $5 million surplus because of their excessive rates,? Decker said. ?They have plenty of excess revenues to work off with lower rates, and ongoing may only need a very small rate increase.

?Their prior consultant?s analysis and their communications were deceptive and based upon very poor accounting. We do not want them to make that same mistake again.?

The process of shifting revenues from water sales into a fixed monthly cost began about four years ago, Collett said, and were accelerated only due to the drought. The district?s actions have been legal, responsible and in the best interest of the public, Collett added.

Chapman University political science professor Fred Smoller predicted a winner.

?Legally, the courts have recognized the ?inherent? powers of government, which means that government can do the things all governments need to do,? he said. ?For example, citizens can?t vote to cut off electricity to government buildings in order to save money.

?However, politically, government serves the people. You recall that one of the precursors of Proposition 13 was that various public entities ? schools, water districts, cities and counties ? were independently slapping homeowners with rate increases which added up and upset citizens.

?Bottom line: Legally, courts will side with the water districts,? Smoller said. ?I?d assume they?d point to Flint and say, ?Public safety doesn?t have a price tag.? But politically, I see much political hay to be made.?

Contact the writer: tsforza@ocregister.com
==========================
 
Interesting. We should be able to do this for everything. Lol
 
Back
Top