Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009-06-23; City Council; 19875; Water and sewer rate increase proposal
CITY OF CARLSBAD AND CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - AGENDA BILL 14 AB# 19,875 MTG. 6/23/09 DEPT. FIN PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED RATE INCREASES FOR WATER AND SEWER RATES DEPT. HEAdVJC^ ( CITYATTY. &J|fl?~ CITY MGR. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1360Conduct a public hearing to receive public comment and adopt Resolutions No. and No. 2009-165 approving increases for water and sewer rates for properties within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and the City of Carlsbad, so long as there is not a majority protest regarding the proposed rate increases. ITEM EXPLANATION: PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENT: The California Constitution, Article XIIID, Section 6, states that local governments must hold a public majority-protest hearing, and notify customers forty-five (45) days in advance of increases in water rates. Customers must be notified forty-five (45) days in advance of the hearing of the proposed rate changes. At their meeting on May 5, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and the City Council adopted Resolutions No. 1352 and No. 2009-095 setting a public hearing on June 23, 2009, to accept public comment on the proposed water and sewer rate increases. The public hearing is to be held forty-five (45) days after noticing the ratepayers. Any person interested in objecting to the increases may file a signed written protest with the City Clerk. The written protest must contain the address of service, the rate change being protested, the grounds of protest, and be received prior to the close of the public hearing. The protestor may appear at the hearing and be heard on the matter. Staff has taken the following actions at least 45 days prior to this public hearing: • Affected utility customers were notified by mail of the public hearing. • Notification of this hearing was published in the North County Times. • The notice (see Exhibit 1) outlined the proposed rate changes. • The notice outlined the protest process. • The notice provided information relating to the public hearing.. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Helga Stover, 760-602-2429, Helga.Stover@carlsbadca.gov FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONL Y. / COUNCIL ACTION:APPROVED DENIED CONTINUED WITHDRAWN AMENDED *u D D D D CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN RETURNED TO STAFF OTHER -SEE MINUTES D D D D Page 2 COST OF SERVICE STUDY: As part of the ongoing financial management program, the City annually prepares five-year operating and maintenance forecasts for the water and sewer funds. The most recent forecasts for the water and sewer funds show that rate increases are needed for the following reasons: • To keep up with the increasing costs from the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), Metropolitan Water District (MWD), and Encina Wastewater Authority. • To keep up with increasing maintenance and operating expenditures. • To maintain adequate operating and replacement reserves. • To encourage water conservation. Staff has been working with a financial consulting firm, PCS Group, to provide financial services including the design of utility rates to help address the need for additional conservation. Staff held a series of public workshops followed by a Board/Council workshop to get input on a new rate structure. Based on the results of the public workshops and Board direction, as well as the PCS Group study, staff recommended a tiered rate structure (for residential water customers) which would address funding requirements during normal periods and also during periods of cutbacks. Assembly Bill 2882 of the California Water Code (the Code) authorizes public entities to adopt allocation-based conservation water pricing (tiered rates) which meets certain requirements. There must be a fair and reasonable relationship to costs, and the revenues cannot exceed the reasonable cost of water service, including basic (fixed) costs and incremental costs. The Bill further states that allocation-based conservation pricing by public entities that sell and distribute water is an effective means by which waste or unreasonable use of water can be prevented and water can be saved. The primary component of this kind of rate structure is that the volumetric prices for the lowest through the highest priced increments are established in an ascending relationship that is economically structured to encourage conservation and reduce the inefficient use of water. The consulting firm, PCS Group, performed the cost of service study and designed a rate structure to ensure compliance with the Code. Additional objectives of the rate design included: • Is fair and equitable to all customers • Can be easily explained to the end customer • Ensures compliance with cutbacks from wholesale suppliers • Is flexible • Meets the Board policy objectives • Provides equity for customers already conserving • Sends pricing signals to water wasters • Minimizes enforcement resource needs • Is compatible with the agency's billing system • Promotes administrative ease and cost efficiencies • Ensures sufficient funding for operations • Ensures sufficient operating and replacement reserves Page 3 PROPOSED WATER RATES: On April 23rd, the SDCWA approved mandatory supply cutbacks of 8% beginning July 1, 2009. In addition, the cost of wholesale water is currently projected to increase by 21% (from $655 to $795 per acre foot) and the fixed charges for water purchases are expected to increase 19% (from $3.1 million to $3.7 million). Current information indicates that increases will continue for several years. The operating budget is scheduled for adoption on June 16, 2009. At that meeting, the Board and Council may choose to include funding for a meter replacement program and provide additional maintenance resources for the water, recycled water, and wastewater utilities. The budgetary decisions at that meeting and the drought information available at that time, will determine the recommended rate increase. The Notice contained rates which represent the maximum rate increase of 18% for water purchases and operational charges. Of the maximum 18% increase in the water rates, the primary component is a pass through directly attributed to the increase in the cost of purchased water. Approximately 74% of the increase in the estimated costs from 2009 to 2010 is directly attributed to water purchase costs. The remaining increase will pay for additional requests and ensure adequate operating reserves. If the Board and Council do not choose to fund the additional requests, the proposed rate increase could be less than the maximum amount. As long as the rate adopted is equal to or less than the maximum rate noticed, there is no requirement for subsequent notice mailing and public hearing. The proposed residential tiered water structure consists of a base monthly service charge and a usage commodity charge. The base monthly charge is similar to the current charge - this charge is paid regardless of water consumed and is imposed proportionate to water meter size. The fixed charge recovers the fixed utility costs such as utility billing, maintenance, operations, and replacement funding. The commodity charge is imposed based on actual water consumption. The proposed single- family residential structure includes three pricing tiers expressed in units. The 0-12 units in Tier 1 capture roughly 50% of current water consumption. Subsequent tiers reflect a progressive pricing scale for responding to water supply limitations. According to AB3030, if the SDCWA were to increase (or decrease) the cost of purchased water, the Board/Council could take an action to increase (or decrease) the selling price in the future by those same amounts, without additional noticing. This would allow the Board/Council to respond to supply changes in a timelier manner. It is important to note that the proposed maximum increase percentage of 18% is an average of all user categories. The proposed rate increases are lower for residential water purchases which fall within the first tier. This water is considered essential. The cost per unit increases by tier. This increase not only gives customers incentives to use less water, it also reflects the increased cost to provide excess system capacity to meet peak demands, which is otherwise idle during non-peak winter months. Page 4 Recycled water rates were proposed and noticed at $2.97 per unit, a 48% increase over the current rate. When the rate model was created, the customer and usage data was based on historical customer usage data through August 2008. When recent consumption patterns and growth in the customer base are factored in, a reduced recycled rate may be considered. The maximum recycled rate was noticed at $2.97, however, staff recommends a per unit cost of $2.50, or an increase of 24% instead of 48% from the current purchase cost of $2.01. As more recycled customers connect to the system, increased sales may help offset future cost increases because the fixed costs will be spread over a greater number of units, thus reducing the per unit cost. The proposed multi-family residential structure also includes three pricing tiers. The 0-5 unit allocation for Tier 1 captures roughly 75% of current water consumption. Non-residential rates are not subject to a tier structure. The rate is flat, and increases when additional conservation is required. Changes to all water rates are being proposed at this time. PROPOSED WASTEWATER RATES: The proposed wastewater rates will increase by a maximum of 9%. As with the proposed water rate increases, the allocation of cost by user category has changed based on the most recent cost of service study; the 9% is an average of all user categories. The proposed single family monthly rate is $20.93, an increase of $3.28, or approximately 18% over the current rate. The cost of service study considered all the cost components of the expenditures and allocated those costs to the existing customer classes. It is not uncommon that in a community with a lot of development, the allocation ratios change over time, sometimes resulting in large rate fluctuations in certain customer classes. The rate structure itself has not changed, and is calculated as follows: • Single-family residential - Flat monthly charge • Multi-family - Based on 90% of water usage • Commercial - Based on 100% of water usage • Schools - Based on number of students PROPOSITION 218: The proposed rates adhere to Proposition 218 requirements, equitably allocating costs to each customer class based on demands placed on the system, and the cost of providing wastewater conveyance and treatment. With the proposed cost allocation, single-family residential monthly rates and school rates will increase, while most other customer classes will experience a decrease in wastewater rates. This cost shift is not uncommon when realigning rates after an extended period. PageS ASSEMBLY BILL 3030: On September 30, 2008, the Governor of California signed into legislation California Assembly Bill 3030, an act which added Section 53756 to the Government Code. This section allows agencies that provide water, wastewater or refuse collection service to adopt a schedule of fees or charges authorizing automatic adjustments that pass through increases in wholesale charges for water and adjustments for inflation for both water and wastewater operations for up to five years. The schedule of fees or charges may include a schedule of adjustments, including a clearly defined formula for adjusting for inflation for operations and maintenance of the water and wastewater utility, provided the property-related fee or charge, as adjusted for inflation, does not exceed the cost of providing the service. The mailed notice disclosed that the inflationary index would be the "San Diego County Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers". If an agency purchases wholesale water from another public agency, the schedule of fees or charges may provide for automatic adjustments for up to five years which pass through the adopted increases or decreases in the wholesale water charges established by the other agency. The Board and Council would still be required to authorize the pass through amounts; only the majority protest public hearing is not required. PROTEST LETTERS RECEIVED: As of June 11, 2009, seven protests have been received. The protests are attached as Exhibit 2. Most comments related to one or more of the following: • The rates posed a hardship on seniors. • There was an inequity to those already conserving. • Lower water usage should result in a lower delivery charge. • Rate increases for certain user categories was not fair. • Rates for the higher residential tiers were too high. • Rates were excessive in a recession. • The notice did not justify the increases. • There was no longer a conservation rate. • Development should have been curtailed to avoid the water shortages. If there is no majority protest, staff is recommending that the Board of Directors and City Council, after hearing public comment, ratify these increases. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed rate increases, if approved, will be effective August 1, 2009, and will provide adequate funding to properly operate and maintain Carlsbad's water and sewer systems. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the establishment or modification of rate for the purpose of meeting operating expenses (CEQA Guidelines Regulation 15273). Page6 EXHIBITS: 1. Notice of Public Hearing. 2. Protest letters received. 3. Resolution No. 1360 of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District approving water rate increases. 4. Resolution No. 2009-165 of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad approving sewer rate increases. (j 6, Notice of Public Hearing on proposed Rate Increases and Drought Rates Tuesday - June 23, 2009 at 6pm City of Carlsbad - Council Chambers 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 For questions about the public hearing process or the proposed water and wastewater rate increases and drought rates, please call (760) 602-2403. Any person interested in objecting to the amount of the proposed increases may file a signed written protest with the City Clerk, at or before the hour fixed for the hearing. The written protest must contain the address of service, the rate change being protested, and the ground or grounds of protest. The protestor may appear at the hearing and be heard on the matter. EXPLANATION OF RATE INCREASES WATER RATES City of Carlsbad/CMWD rate increases shown in the following tables may change depending on the level of drought conservation needed. The rates in each category are the maximum rates that the Council/Board may set to achieve the financial and conservation objectives desired at that time. The various levels of drought conservation include non-drought rates(base = 0% cutbacks) and drought rates assuming increasing levels of mandatory cutbacks. The reason for the increase in the base rate is to fund the increasing cost of water purchased from the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), as well as rising operating and maintenance costs. The reason for the drought rates is to respond to water supply limitations using a progressive pricing scale. The drought levels would be implemented and generally triggered by SDCWA and MWD's prior declaration of a drought level. In addition to rising costs, the SDCWA will require mandatory water cutbacks beginning July, 2009. SEWER/WASTEWATER RATES The proposed rates shown in the following tables are set to generate revenues for recovering costs associated with operations, maintenance, and replacement funding of the City's wastewater system, as well as establishing adequate operating reserves. The proposed rate changes vary by customer category, based on a recent cost of service study to accurately and fairly allocate costs to the different customer categories. RATE TABLES ARE SHOWN ON THE BACK SIDE OF THIS NOTICE ASSEMBLY BILL 3030 On September 30, 2008 the Governor of California signed into legislation California Assembly Bill 3030, an act which added Section 53756 to the Government Code. This section allows agencies that provide water, wastewater or refuse collection service to adopt a schedule of fees or charges authorizing automatic adjustments that pass through increases in wholesale charges for water and adjustments for inflation for both water and wastewater operations. The schedule of fees or charges may include a schedule of adjustments, including a clearly defined formula for adjusting for inflation for operations and maintenance of the water and wastewater utility, provided the property-related fee or charge, as adjusted for inflation, does not exceed the cost of providing the service. If an agency purchases wholesale water from another public agency, the schedule of fees or charges may provide for automatic adjustments for up to 5 years that pass through adopted increases or decreases in the wholesale water charges established by the other agency. The Council and Board would still be required to authorize the pass through amounts; only the majority protest public hearing is not required. PROPOSED UTILITY RATES Current Rate | Proposed Rate | WATER RATES CURRENT RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE Delivery Charge Meter Size 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1.5" 2" 2.5" 3" 4" 6" 8" Single Familv Tierl Tier 2 TierS Multi-Familv Tierl Tier 2 TierS Non-Residential Agricultural Irrigation Recycled flat rate $ 14.54 flat rate $ 17.87 flat rate $ 24.50 flat rate $ 42.26 flat rate $ 60.88 flat rate $ 73.13 flat rate $ 108.89 flat rate $ 176.49 flat rate $ 341.99 flat rate $ 541.28 per unit $ 2.12 per unit $ 2.12 per unit varied per unit $ 1 .81 per unit $ 2.01 per unit $ 2.01 0% CUTBACK flat rate $ 15.25 flat rate $ 19.50 flat rate $ 27.50 flat rate $ 48.25 flat rate $ 73.00 flat rate $ 105.50 flat rate $ 139.00 flat rate $ 213.25 flat rate $ 419.75 flat rate $ 667.25 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 2.95 21 +$ 4.02 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 2.18 11 + $ 2.59 per unit $ 2.64 per unit $ 3.41 per unit $ 2.97 per unit $ 2.97 10% CUTBACK flat rate $ 16.78 flat rate $ 21.18 flat rate $ 30.25 flat rate $ 53.08 flat rate $ 80.30 flat rate $ 116.05 flat rate $ 152.90 flat rate $ 234.58 flat rate $ 461.73 flat rate $ 733.98 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 3.69 21 + $ 5.23 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 2.73 11 + $ 3.37 per unit $ 3.17 per unit $ 4.44 per unit $ 3.57 per unit $ 2.97 20% CUTBACK flat rate $ 16.78 flat rate $ 21.18 flat rate $ 30.25 flat rate $ 53.08 flat rate $ 80.30 flat rate $ 116.05 flat rate $ 152.90 flat rate $ 234.58 flat rate $ 461.73 flat rate $ 733.98 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 4.87 21 + $ 6.84 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 3.49 11 + $ 4.28 per unit $ 3.70 per unit $ 4.27 per unit $ 4.91 per unit $ 2.97 30% CUTBACK flat rate $ 17.54 flat rate $ 22.14 flat rate $ 31 .63 flat rate $ 55.49 flat rate $ 83.95 flat rate $ 121.33 flat rate $ 159.85 flat rate $ 245.24 flat rate $ 482.72 flat rate $ 767.34 Units 0-8 $ 2.29 9-16 $ 5.46 17+ $ 7.44 Units 0-4 $ 1.93 5-8 $ 3.93 9+ $ 4.67 per unit $ 3.83 per unit $ 4.61 per unit $ 5.20 per unit $ 2.97 40% CUTBACK flat rate $ 19.83 flat rate $ 25.03 flat rate $ 35.75 flat rate $ 62.73 flat rate $ 94.90 flat rate $ 137.15 flat rate $ 180.70 flat rate $ 277.23 flat rate $ 545.68 flat rate $ 867.43 Units 0-8 $ 2.29 9-14 $ 6.20 15+ $ 8.45 Units 0-4 $ 1.93 5-8 $ 4.47 9+ $ 5.31 per unit $ 4.23 per unit $ 5.12 per unit $ 5.94 per unit $ 2.97 Current Rate Proposed Rate SEWER RATES % CHANGE Group I - Residential (Flat Monthly Charge) Group I - Multi-Family (per ccf, based on 90% water usage) Group II - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group III - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group IV - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group V - Other Institutional (per ccf of water usage) Group V - Elementary School (per student) Group V - Junior High School (per student) Group V - High School (per student) Group V - Boarding School (per student) Group VI - Bio-Hydration Research Lab Inc. (per ccf of water usage) per month $ 17.65 $ 2.51 $ 2.08 $ 2.73 $ 4.31 $ 2.06 $ 0.27 $ 0.53 $ 0.80 $ 3.97 $ 1.62 2009-10 $ 20.93 $ 2.41 $ 1.96 $ 2.98 $ 5.53 $ 1.87 $ 0.43 $ 0.64 $ 0.85 $ 4.45 $ 1.70 per month 18.6% -4.0% -5.8% 9.2% 28.3% -9.2% 59.3% 20.8% 6.2% 12.1% 4.9% The above rates may be increased annually by the change in the "San Diego County Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers". In addition, CMWD may pass through increases in the wholesale cost of water purchases. Exhibit 2 Dr Nora La Com 2507 La Gotaadrina St. Carlsbad, CA 920Q9 May 11, 2009 Deputy Mayor Ann Kalchia& Carlsbad City Clerk 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, 92008 Dear Neighbor Ann Kulchin and our City Clerk: Today, I thought that I had received, finally, A written response front City Hal! to ray many tetters and emails. Instead, I was notified of my right to object to an apparently done deal- iMjationaivJncreases in rates for water,aod sewer from our Charter City for my "address of service", • ... 1. ! wish to use. this letter to "tile, a signed written protest with the City Clerk" for these unfeirj ncreases for "die rate change being protested" for both water _, •'' and sewer, on the "grounds" that those of us CONCERNED CITIZENS who J/ have already cut our water usage drastically (with drought-tolerant landscape, etc.) will be penalized with higher rates than WEALTHIER voters (those who are NOT living on a low fixed income like we are). (We have been waiting "forever" for the family farm to be sold, since banks will not give financing to potential buyers), Those who can afford higher bills for water and sewer (yuppies?) water their /" lawns and sidewalks every NIGHT and day- and probably will continue to do ^ so despite "drought rates". Another "ground of protest": this unfair method of water rationing is BAD FOR TOURISM (which produces tax revenues). 1 am expecting several visits from my large extended family (from NY aad NJ who want to experience Legolasd "San Diego"). Although they will have to take "Gl showers", they must wash their hands frequently -due to infectious diseases like pandemic A/H1N1 flu and life-threatening MERSA. (Hand sanitizers are not as effective).' • . • . ••• • "A ^ cWi *A COPY Jli Kiimmiiinainm m— jlCJ CiTYO' •=" '* •"-„CfiYCL? • • -c. _ pg-.^ Evert Ostermao 5165 Steinbeck Ct. Carlsbad, CA 92008 0-603 8170 Fx 425-740 1885 Email." cvert@<ksert-aire.com City Att: City dwte laoo carktoaet village E»rtve cartsbad, : Notice watt iswr-reasg aiwt T>rouglnt if U ts yowr urtemisl to mates ««>nAj,j th«w- yowf ^Rte sekedul« will worte.^lw,, h»«ev«r, if, true to youi' values, MCUT tvitjwd is to lower wst«r usage duwi^ a draught, thesv yo* showW lowjr ttit Moiftthly •DgEvery Charge or at. least taiep it the same, sad i*wirefl« the ]>er u*u.t rate ow. a sLWi^g s«U above a muAlwutw usage o-f say '» wntts*. ThLs we«U -prctoi' the less fovtu^ate a>ul altsw thenc to wse water, w4*e>t as the Vat«r wasters* wowU have to -pay a 1st more WA« they go ever the «*iwl*v.u.kw, As with the gas prices, w« te#iow Uicrt you have a g COPY Mr. and Mrs. Steve Rayner 2364 Merwln Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 May 12, 2009 City of Carlsbad City Clerk 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Regarding: Protest against the Proposed Rate Increases and Drought Rates Dear Carlsbad City Clerk; We are in receipt of the Proposed Utility Rates (attached). of Service: Rate Change Being Protested: Rate Change Being Protested: Grounds of Protest: 2364 Merwin Drive, Car/sted, CA 920O8 5/8" Meter Size Water Rate Group I Residential Sewer Kate Unfair % increase of rate increase across :tistomer categories You state "The proposed rate changes vary by customer category/ based on a recent cost of service study to accurately and fairly allocate costs to the different customer categories." 1. You did not include the % Change column for the Water Rates - I calculated this on rny attached copy. The proposed rates vary {In the 0% cutback scenario) from +4.9% to 4-89.6%. Where is the "fairness" h«re? 2. You did include a % Change column for the Sewer Rates which shows a variation from -9.2% to + 59.3%. Where is the "fairness" here? We gather from your statement referenced above that you are attempting to mark to market the utility rates. People live and budget by the water and sewer bflls they hMfi-faSg-iLiecfityioai Put yourself in our shoes. Why should an apartment complex with 21+ units receive an 89% increase?' They are (generaify) catering to lower- income residents who can now ill afford any rent increase WHICH WILL SURELY BE PASSED ONTO THEM. We suggest you adjust the rates by +2% across the board. That would be fair. Steve S. Rayner attachment Linda C. Rayner BEST COPY <*? CO U"> £TS O *£f O CO•i-El DO OJ O *>CM CM •* I co •>«• 1°<; CO N» v- CO CM *&G> **? 05 O$ "*"" 0S-»-* *$r 10 "tt" *d to ,nyjffl £•3 , •: O O> (O **• o* tfi r^ to « h~ n r- oO* O> <S> CO <£> CM M-M § §_ _® , mS. S. |;>| S 3! * a to aj ro IB w ca to o co r~CM CO j-°, *o o CO <D O O (».o> >* M t-~ <N '-" <«5 •* CO "»' c c w (.« Q. S. Stccr ~o0)w OQ.O I»—Q. Sa£ ^g !f?&M *5i •« o •*• JS!1" o • • cS 5i° '~ fn —•rt m>IT * O P> •r^ CN CO CO •* CO « ffl ®S. a. a. "T «C=., ,! 1* S o> to carn e» o" co as o» it-O> «-; «O 83 ^*" oi. CM CM O CO T- CM ^ CO o• 01,c c c333 & CD 4—* <§ C £^—5 c« c4 fl)a. a to o I - N "c "c t333 83 &} t&a. o, o. s™ !»;< S>i,'re. S5 2 g(8U. _ * S ® _OT.g _>-. P ®-$~* COOf "O0)COoa. a!^ ss C3 ,_te ® <B2 -e sr vteet)Monthly Charsccf. based onr cd of waterr cd of wateer ccf of wateal (per ccf ofool (per stixool (per studr student)l (per stud-ill- _ _~ & X O £ ^H- f |lsISW"•™rr^£:?;;s^'^:ntiaamilyerciaerciercinstietijjj —i. >; IL. *— ^" r; «-»• JEI ~ JL s•* 5 o ° ,9 £ ® S w o •- 1?'?5w0offi^?(8»| _ = > 3"§ ^S'S'i'0-15-0-0-oogo||ooSceoooooooooof £3v»COuc o < i X ,HQ_ 5E3 O to O 3U Q. II ro (/> JS 8 C ro i £ ^~w a •Siaj TD— T3(— re 0)0.UOtoo a Mav 22,2009 Cttv Clerk Cli_v Oi OuTobud 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Pleaw allow !h;<; letter to serve as our rrotest to the proposed water rate increases 1 he proposed structure would more than triple the rate for a tier 3 single famih r^ffli-if^-n^j^ \4Vvct ctwfiff^* f^rnlx tw^n^c *n ("^'»T*!cK'»^? ^r»» *Tr/%frt»r »r\ •F-aH *t^^ •* tK-s* ^N*t#**-«. \T«t To qualtrj for tier 2 would require a reduction in usage of much more than 1:0° o. Meanwhile businesses, multi-famih'. acriculture and non-residential will suffer much less severe increases. This is not cquitabic. We recognize the seriousness of the water shortage, bin we believe the harden should be spread in a fairer manner. Sincerely /--'' f ••/ ,^',- Jeerome E. Leitner — Sharon F, ! citn<.r COPY /3 v. K< ( \ \\T> R,-;e I-r-,;-.>o mj Or, ^ V !.-}•>•>*,; it r »• - „ ,t« a-d 0. .^T «^ •> Dear Mnyor and Ohv Council Member's T, 'V ""5 i!'*"1^ P->r-'" T t ,T-tn<> ,r ,'v Calls' , :\c> fi~ \ ,">•*• •id."cc> at ifv a *i" ''c ** m'% h^^io r\,rcr in •<- • civi <ri'r *, tc ! ic Xotic? o!"Pii"!''c t karrn;,' on pr^jw J R^.lo Inrrt.,!^^ and 0 is "h- R •••»• (a!-,^ rv^\ >»x 4 • ^ , <; the fl c-" «'i t'ie at*rcl"u u\ is ^oiHi.^'fit. r -^ \3-.'ic it \« vs ""T "v '"X •'" ""^v''!"-^1" rc'ercr e< '•" " '' ' ' •<«''"-. -'-- ' ''' ' '- '* '* * ' "5 o"t *mS r ^ ** ' ^ C ;•, Coin \.«.n't 'h H > i"oi ; M MI h". ' ot '-oof ^ . >, UhJ \4''.>n?"\ ! . i >T " 'T 'I v. fu" t! >:'""• n-'-oTC"1 ••.:<.>• "'" ' ''-» r 'XO •>.:r"y' '' ^ c v^ r , • j'.e '" n\ h - i -i. •; FA e! M -> : -ic *^"- "* - f M\\ 'J ^ xn^" <• i - •' . v • .'v --»"'- » , «h MI po« "•; < •>"(.- *r J jc rfrtv <-l%cr'<; "^*c r-r ca>t^ A i ' Mi^rt]x 1 \\j" ^e t-^d v h> i •ir IAC ni nx% JC' ''"" ^urt of 2 tc > „ 'i (•• [X-, 'T'onih .vi'-'i.!!' i%_'ti_v v-^i; i ' "<>t he! ,.w- !^ •", , -JL-H Js v jr . ^ x 1x 0, '\ :bc fa Ji f ;: c c ^ ^c - C\'^r«,.-"f. P'a'V'ij: ?'\1 0(.\'i'i'p«vi{ ^hv^itld 'u\c rt.r: a!' nue t'.t ^i '.a ' I\»M! -t "'• ii"i:"\ uith i adiv.Jit • \» ,i\ r'a )nT2 To iDi'ilcnicrT 2 'i i ' I ny n\- v t. i1: i, „ ; '! c -5' Ci'il >v* KM cl n t» be too , ' e<! ', ;• v1-" "i '' >r i h-r e oi"'~ \!\^ [5 ?" 1 would like to have answered no later that June 22, "* I v,i ,.'•*- -j- - v-» :!e I'v uyen-.t. s •• I • a\ more dearly understand CMWD's position ^C'^C . oil % v'.^t r\1\\ I) s-n ".•-•! ncerey. ,1, "- Dale Kubacki of 4 BEST COPY Comments and Questions (The "Flyer" referred to herein is the Notice of Public Hearing on proposed 'Rate Increases and Drought Rates proposal distributed for the meeting on Jwae 23, 2069 ia Council Chambers.) /. The FKor is \er» confusing Many of the columns are labeled "maxirmm rate"; howexer. 1 wish to knov, the exact rate C MWD \\\\l be charging for nn usacc and meter size If it is not the maximum rate for each declared level of cutback, ihen what exactly triggers the rate to 2 In the KKcr 'here is aii increisH; between she Cuiicnt Rate and ihe 0°o cutback rate in the Deliver ( iiarge laHc \o clear Justification has beer pmv'dcd for this increase in %vnior ;.uc o: the Sncrci^e in ^e^er Rate - the c*iougf:t and the fact that SDOV A tr.;s\ increase ib rate* is not justification and not all increases in uster rate* from M\V 0 or slX'WA should automatically iust'fs an increase from CM\V i> \Vliat happened to government spending transparency? Please pro* ide some solid reasons for the increases "to achicxc financial objectnes" is \acuc, "rising opcrat'nc 3rd r«atntenarcc costs'" h doubtful (since this was a reason lor the e\ireme!\ large rate increase for Januar\ 2'XtO and since the San Diego Counts C'PI-U aciualK d«;cixuscd the l<i>t half of 200S). Vviih customer input to rate proposals closirc one hour to '.he hea.inu, all relevant information he available f<»r consideration in ad\ancc of the f Ksirinc date J. The l:!yer has rates for 0»'fl, |<v»c z^o. ^n% 4nd 40'n cutback I eve! 2 is a 20% cutback. Level 3 is a 40°,. cistKick What rriggeni a 30° » cufbsick? -/, In trying to understand your Flyer called the phone number referenced to question the defined abbreviation "ccf' as used in the delineation of Sewer Rates,, The first response I received was *' not sure - the flyer was produced by the financial department" Since the flyer's audience is the general public, the abbreviation should have been explained, I doubt that even half of the Water Department Staff knows that ccf is "centa cubic feet" Was the lack of definition of the abbreviation and the ase of both the measurement ofinHt** and **ccf just a ploy to confuse the reader? 5. You ha<.e included information on Assembly Bi!i 3010 in your H\er In pan is slater " I he schedule ot" fees or charges mav include . provided the property related fee or charuc does noi exceed the cost of providing the service "" I am \\cSi aware of what I am paving but how much does it cost to provide sen ice to m> single property? 6. In the September 9, 2008 hearing in Council Chambers, the represents of CVfWD stated that their 5 year budget plan planned a 9% water rate increase next year The year is not even half over and now you arc asking for what appears to be a minimum of 8%. At the December 2ad 200S 2 of 4 COPY hearing in Council Chambers, the mayor scheduled a CM\\ D haJaet review far January 2009 The represent tt>\es acknowledged but stated that the ra.c ir.cieaM?^ :>i>t appioved would not chanue With others reinc in a budget reduction mode during this rece«.s><"n it appears thai CMWD is unaware and ignorant of the current economic <tatc and then it uppers that C\f\VD ju-'t sitnplv increase rates to match the bloated budget V\ hat measures ha* OI\\ D taken t«> reduce its budget? i Also see cvmment'question "° ) 7. The rnonthK \s.i:er purchase fee structure approved at the December 2"" 2008 hearing includes a "conservation rate". The Fiver does net address the conservation rate (v»hich was raised from SS ^'unif to SI 91''unit in January 200^) lias the conservation rate been eliminated? Does that mean that all conserved prior to the "drought crisis" and continued to conserve are now to be penalized? B\ the way. Ckeanside (dretiuht rate) on!v charges SI 88 per family who use less 13 units of Hficr or lesi. ('Source' The San Die«o I'nion-Tributc1 North Counu1 Mav I?, 2'Wi 8. Sewer rates are charged to residential customers at a flat rate hut multi-famih customer only pav V* of their u dter n>,i;je Please explain why i< costs the same (o process 2 units as 10 units (for example) Please espl.iin why there is a proposed reduction for multi-family when residential h so dramatically increased !t seems that iff currently consume onh 3 units of v»afer per month I should increase m> c»tnsuniptioti to nuiA what I aim paxirsg in the MAUT charge - how does this promote water consumption? 9 The F!i- er «.i< mailed separately from the monthly uji'itv bill Thi« F've* realh. did not need tn he muhi-cofored ($ JitTerent colors) Hit result of the>e r»vo actions incut red additional expense N\ hy did CM\VD feel these action/additiona! expense were necessary and justified? in. The Fiver indicates that she 10- u cutback column contains the proposed rate Hkmcver. it appears that a level 2 Condition is scheduled to begin i Jufv Does this mean the highlighted 1(1°;) cutback rates are only for June? If the rates are approved does this mean the 20% cutback rates are really the proposed rates? If so, she flier fas published) is mis-leading. //. In your letter to me dated Decemlxr io* 2008. \ou indicated that monev is budgeted to bring operating reserves hack up to 40°« in She flyer. Sewer 'Wastev.ater Rates operating reset\ es are also included Is it not obtuse to be building cash reserves daring an economic recession for a sole source, life neeewt) resource fwater)? 12. It is totally unclear tow water usage cutbacks increase the delivery charge Crate). Is this to compensate for tost revenue from water conservation? Please explain 13. ll appears that some of the proposed rates appear we!! above normal business costs. Where is all the money going? What new programs and efforts and modification to existing efforts are to be funded to solve the drought crisis - other than just charging more or telling customers to conserve more and then raising rates to compensate for lost revenue caused by conservation? 3 of 4 COPY 14 Mv * <* meter appear*? to measure usage to less than 1 cubic foot To etTectivcIv measure the cutback and to he fair io users, biltinc and meter reading \\ould tev c to be changed Is CMWD planning thi«te changes? 4 of 4 COPY /7 Mr. Mavorand Council Persons: 1 am writing to voice my concern on the proposed utility rate increases tc June 23 2009, As I calculate the proposed new rate my personal bill wiiLga approximately $35.50 per month granting that 1 am a good citizen and cut my water usage ten percent, 1 arrived at that figure by searching through my utility bill and determining that I use approximately thirty units of water per month. The math is as follows; Current Rate Proposed Rate with 10% Cut Back be Flat Rate Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Sewer Trash Collection Total Bill $14.54 $63.60 30 units @ 2.12 $17.65 SI 14.66 $16.78 $27,48 based on 12 units @ 2,29 $29.52 based on 8 units @ 3.69 $36.61 based on 7 units @ 5.23 27 total 'units $20.93 $18,87 $150.19 The difference is $35.53 or a 3 1 % increase. That is a pretty large penally for being a good citizen and cutting my water usage by ten percent. 1 am also concerned about the timing of the increase. I am retired and have seen my investment income drop by nearly half in the last year. Also my wife has been unemployed since December and the job market is dismal. I'm not complaining. We are better off than most and we do get to live in what we consider California's finest city. However, imposing this rate increase will be a burden to many who are not so fortunate. My wife and I have discussed it and if the increase goes into effect we are not going to let our grass and garden suffer. We will just cut back on spending even more than we already have. It wil! mean less money spent at local businesses like Caldo Palmadoro. Ocean House. Dinnys, Koko Beach, J. Martins and Linda's Gifts just to naine a few. I understand the city has a surplus in it's treasury of about forty-five million dollars and 1 commend the city government for building that surplus. I take it that the money was put aside on our behalf for emergencies. Our current economic crisis is the worst during most of our lifetimes. This is the time to spend some of that money to ease the burden of the citizens of our city. I propose that you come up with a plan to only charge an increase on utilities to those people who do not cut back on their water usage and that any other monies you need at this time to cover increased water purchases comes out of the surplus. Sineerelv,' Don Landis 2065 Westwood Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 copy CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE June 10, 2009 Richard C. Lantz 2844 Wilson St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 lanufam(a;TOadrurtner. com Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad Municipal Water District 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Written Protest to Proposed Water Rates To Whom It May Concern: I would like to file this letter of protest against the Proposed Water rates for the following reasons: 1. TIER RATE STRUCTURE unfair to large property owners. Water conservation ordinance is about accountability of water use, but proposed tier rate structure blindly penalizes use per meter. A one acre parcel owner who has landscaped with drought tolerant/water conservation methods would conceivably use less water per square foot of property than the '/* acre parcel owner who has made no effort to landscape or reduce water use. \ et, the large parcel owner is penalized excessively to maintain a landscaped property. Water conservation accountability is not fully addressed by the Tier Rate Structure. Recommendation: Tier Rate Structure should be adjusted based on property si/e and units consumed. 2. PROPOSED WATER RATES and TIER STRUCTURE are unrealistic. My lowest monthly unit use was 9 in the last three years. This was a month with heavy rain requiring no landscape watering, two occupants with one out of town three days a week, and all plumbing fixtures/appliances fitted with low flow/water saving devices. My next lowest month was 15, which is an average for non- landscape watering months. At this use 1 am double penalized with new flat rate and Tier 2 rates. Recommendation: Adjust Tier units to reflect basic minimum use; Tier 1:0-18. Tier 2: 19-25. Tier 3: 26+. 3. TEMPORARILY SUSPEN D WATER PERMITS.. If our new water rates are a result of lack of supply then why are we allowing more users to deplete the supply? It is unfair and irresponsible for our city to not only increase rates to cover cost but at the same time increase revenue by selling new permits. Recommendation: Stop selling permits until desalination plant is online. These comments have been respectfully submitted and 1 would be more than happy to expand on recommendations and solutions. Sincerelv. Richard C. Lantz: Exhibit 3 1 RESOLUTION NO. 1360 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD), TO 3 APPROVE INCREASES IN WATER RATES. WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 2882 approved on September 30, 2008 added 5 Chapter 3.4 (commencing with section 370) to Division 1 of the Water Code, allows a 6 public entity to adopt allocation-based conservation water pricing meeting certain 7 requirements. That allocation-based conservation water pricing by public entities that8 g sell and distribute water is an effective means by which waste or unreasonable use of 10 water can be prevented and water can be saved; and 11 WHEREAS, the California Constitution, Article XIIID, section 6, provides that 12 local governments must hold a public majority-protest hearing, and notify customers 13 forty-five (45) days in advance of increases in water rates; and 14 WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District is proposing a schedule of maximum water rates that will apply when the Board has declared a certain percentage 16 cutback in usage which will be implemented according to the attached schedule; and 17 WHEREAS, on May 5, 2009, the Board approved Resolution No. 1352 setting a 18 public hearing for June 23, 2009, thereby complying with the advance notice 2Q requirement of forty-five days; and 21 WHEREAS, on September 30, 2008, the Governor of California signed into 22 legislation California Assembly Bill 3030 (now Government Code section 53756) 23 allowing public agencies that provide water, sewer or refuse collection service to adopt a schedule of fees or charges authorizing automatic adjustments that pass through 25 increases in wholesale charges for water and adjustments for inflation for up to five 26 years; and 27 ai Exhibit 3 1 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District has 2 adopted the maximum rate that appears in the attached table, however, to be 3 implemented according to the percentage cutback determined by the Board. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the 5 Carlsbad Municipal Water District, as follows: 6 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.7 8 2. That the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District 9 approves the maximum rate at the percentage cutback as shown on the attached table. 10 The maximum rates shall be implemented by subsequent resolution of the Board. For 11 purposes of this Resolution, the rates shall be those specified for the 5% cutback, 19 except that agricultural water rates shall remain at $1.81 per unit and recycled water rates shall remain at $2.01 per unit unless and until these rates are adjusted by 14 subsequent resolution at a public meeting of the Board. Subsequent changes in these 15 rates shall be implemented by resolution at a public meeting of the Board specifying the 16 percentage cutback necessary but shall not trigger a subsequent protest hearing and 18 the attendant procedures under the California Constitution, Article XIIID, section 6 19 unless the rates proposed exceed those specified for the maximum rates under the 40% 20 cutback. 21 3. That the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District may, 22 by subsequent resolution, increase the above rates annually by the change in the "San 23 Diego Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers" and may pass through increases in 24 the wholesale cost of water purchases as authorized under Government Code section 25 53756 for up to five years from the date of this Resolution without triggering the notice 26 and protest procedures provided in California Constitution, Article XIIID, section 6. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Joint Special Meeting of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 23rd day of June. 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Board Members Kulchin, Hall and Packard. NOES: Board Members Lewis and Blackburn. ABSENT: None. UJDE A LEWIS, PRESIDENT ATTEST: LI (SEAL) O&/SECRETARY = Cft;*• 02) PROPOSED UTILITY RATES | Current Rate Option 2 Option 1 WATER RATES CURRENT RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE Delivery Charge Meter Size 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1.5" 2" 2.5" 3" 4" 6" 8" Single Family Tierl Tier 2 Tiers Multi-Family Tierl Tier 2 Tiers Non-Residential Agricultural Irrigation Recycled flat rate $ 14.54 flat rate $ 17.87 flat rate $ 24.50 flat rate $ 42.26 flat rate $ 60.88 flat rate $ 73.13 flat rate $ 108.89 flat rate $ 176.49 flat rate $ 341.99 flat rate $ 541.28 per unit $ 2.12 per unit $ 2.12 per unit varied per unit $ 1.81 per unit $ 2.12 per unit $ 2.01 0% CUTBACK flat rate $ 15.25 flat rate $ 19.50 flat rate $ 27.50 flat rate $ 48.25 flat rate $ 73.00 flat rate $ 105.50 flat rate $ 139.00 flat rate $ 213.25 flat rate $ 419.75 flat rate $ 667.25 Units 0- 12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 2.95 21 + $ 4.02 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 S 2.18 11 + $ 2.59 per unit $ 2.64 per unit $ 3.41 per unit $ 2.97 per unit $ 2.52 5% CUTBACK flat rate $ 16.78 flat rate $ 21.18 flat rate $ 30.25 flat rate $ 53.08 flat rate $ 80.30 flat rate $ 116.05 flat rate $ 152.90 flat rate $ 234.58 flat rate $ 461.73 flat rate $ 733.98 Units 0- 12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 2.95 21 + $ 4.02 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 2.18 11 + $ 2.59 per unit $ 2.64 per unit $ 3.41 per unit $ 2.97 per unit $ 2.52 10% CUTBACK flat rate $ 16.78 flat rate $ 21.18 flat rate $ 30.25 flat rate $ 53.08 flat rate $ 80.30 flat rate $ 116.05 flat rate $ 152.90 flat rate $ 234.58 flat rate $ 461.73 flat rate $ 733.98 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 3.69 21 + $ 5.23 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 2.73 11 + $ 3.37 per unit $ 3.17 per unit $ 4.10 per unit $ 3.57 per unit $ 2.52 20% CUTBACK flat rate $ 16.78 flat rate $ 21.18 flat rate $ 30.25 flat rate $ 53.08 flat rate $ 80.30 flat rate $ 116.05 flat rate $ 152.90 flat rate $ 234.58 flat rate $ 461.73 flat rate $ 733.98 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 4.87 21 + $ 6.84 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6- 10 $ 3.49 11 + $ 4.28 per unit $ 3.70 per unit $ 4.27 per unit $ 4.91 per unit $ 2.52 30% CUTBACK flat rate $ 17.54 flat rate $ 22.14 flat rate $ 31.63 flat rate $ 55.49 flat rate $ 83.95 flat rate $ 121.33 flat rate $ 159.85 flat rate $ 245.24 flat rate $ 482.72 flat rate $ 767.34 Units 0-8 $ 2.29 9-16 $ 5.46 17+ $ 7.44 Units 0-4 $ 1.93 5-8 $ 3.93 9+ $ 4.67 per unit $ 3.83 per unit $ 4.61 per unit $ 5.20 per unit $ 2.52 40% CUTBACK flat rate $ 19.83 flat rate $ 25.03 flat rate $ 35.75 flat rate $ 62.73 flat rate $ 94.90 flat rate $ 137.15 flat rate $ 180.70 flat rate $ 277.23 flat rate $ 545.68 flat rate $ 867.43 Units 0-8 $ 2.29 9-14 $ 6.20 15+ $ 8.45 Units 0-4 $ 1.93 5-8 $ 4.47 9+ $ 5.31 per unit $ 4.23 per unit $ 5.12 per unit $ 5.94 per unit $ 2.52 SEWER RATES Group I - Residential (Flat Monthly Charge) Group I - Multi-Family (per ccf, based on 90% water usage) Group 1 1 - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group III - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group IV - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group V - Other Institutional (per ccf of water usage) Group V - Elementary School (per student) Group V - Junior High School (per student) Group V - High School (per student) Group V - Boarding School (per student) Group VI - Bio-Hydration Research Lab Inc. (per ccf of water usage) Current Rate •1HH per month $ 17.65 $ 2.51 $ 2.08 $ 2.73 $ 4.31 $ 2.06 $ 0.27 $ 0.53 $ 0.80 $ 3.97 $ 1.62 Proposed Rate ^••^H2009-10 $ 20.93 $ 2.41 $ 1.96 $ 2.98 $ 5.53 $ 1.87 $ 0.43 $ 0.64 $ 0.85 $ 4.45 $ 1.70 % CHANGE per month 18.6% -4.0% -5.8% 9.2% 28.3% -9.2% 59.3% 20.8% 6.2% 12.1% 4.9% The above rates may be increased annually by the change in the "San Diego County Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers". In addition, CMWD may pass through increases in the wholesale cost of water purchases. Exhibit 4 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-165 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE INCREASES IN 3 SEWER RATES. 4 5 WHEREAS, the California Constitution, Article XIIID, Section 6, states that local 6 governments must hold a public majority-protest hearing, and notify customers forty-five 7 (45) days in advance of increases in sewer rates; and 8 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad is proposing an increase in sewer rates; and 9 WHEREAS, on May 5, 2009, City Council approved Resolution No. 2009-095 10 setting a public hearing for June 23, 2009, thereby complying with the advance notice 11 requirement of forty-five days; and 12 WHEREAS, on September 30, 2008, the Governor of California signed into legislation California Assembly Bill 3030 allowing public agencies that provide water, 15 sewer or refuse collection service to adopt a schedule of fees or charges authorizing 16 automatic adjustments that pass through increases in wholesale charges for water or 17 adjustments for inflation for up to five years; and 18 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad approves the sewer rate 19 increases as set forth in the attached table. 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 21 Carlsbad, California, as follows: 22 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.23 24 2. That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad approves the increases in 25 sewer rates, effective August 1, 2009, as set forth in the attached table. 26 27 28 Exhibit 4 1 3. That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad authorizes inflationary 2 adjustments for up to five years based on the change in the San Diego County Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumer. 4 \\ 5 \\ 6 \\ 7 8 9 10 \\ 11 \\ 12 \\ 13 \\ 14 \\ 15 \\ 16 \\ 17 18 19 20 21 \\ 22 \\ 23 24 \\ 25 \\ 26 \\ 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Joint Special Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council and Carlsbad Municipal Water District, held on the 23rd day of June, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Packard and Blackburn. NOES: Council Member Hall. ABSENT: None. CLAUDE A LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: (SEAL)ji§&^iijii&&£ PROPOSED UTILITY RATES Current Rate Proposed Rate ***^p^ WATER RATES CURRENT RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE Delivery Charge Meter Size 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1.5" 2" 2.5" 3" 4" 6" 8" Sinqle Family TieM Tier 2 Tier3 Multi-Familv Tierl Tier 2 TierS Non-Residential Agricultural Recycled / Irrigation /"" : , ;; ..'r^'f^sy flat rate $ 14.54 flat rate $ 17.87 flat rate $ 24.50 flat rate $ 42.26 flat rate $ 60.88 flat rate $ 73.13 flat rate $ 108.89 flat rate $ 176.49 flat rate $ 341.99 flat rate $ 541.28 per unit $ 2.12 per unit $ 2.12 per unit varied per unit $ 1.81 per unit $ 2.01 gy»^g|fefiiiiaai!a^mi flat rate $ 15.25 flat rate $ 19.50 flat rate $ 27.50 flat rate $ 48.25 flat rate $ 73.00 flat rate $ 105.50 flat rate $ 139.00 flat rate $ 213.25 flat rate $ 419.75 flat rate $ 667.25 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 2.95 21 + $ 4.02 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 2.18 11 + $ 2.59 per unit $ 2.64 per unit $ 3.41 per unit $ 2.97 MMBMHffilMM^^S flat rate $ 16.78 flat rate $ 21.18 flat rate $ 30.25 flat rate $ 53.08 flat rate $ 80.30 flat rate $ 116.05 flat rate $ 152.90 flat rate $ 234.58 flat rate $ 461.73 flat rate $ 733.98 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 3.69 21 + $ 5.23 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 2.73 11 + $ 3.37 per unit $ 3.17 per unit $ 4.44 per unit $ 3.57 ^^^tti|Sjfe^§Bteiy^|^^^P flat rate $ 16.78 flat rate $ 21.18 flat rate $ 30.25 flat rate $ 53.08 flat rate $ 80.30 flat rate $ 116.05 flat rate $ 152.90 flat rate $ 234.58 flat rate $ 461.73 flat rate $ 733.98 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 4.87 21 + $ 6.84 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 3.49 11 + $ 4.28 per unit $ 3.70 per unit $ 4.27 per unit $ 4.91 flat rate $ 17.54 flat rate $ 22.14 flat rate $ 31.63 flat rate $ 55.49 flat rate $ 83.95 flat rate $ 121.33 flat rate $ 159.85 flat rate $ 245.24 flat rate $ 482.72 flat rate $ 767.34 Units 0-8 $ 2.29 9-16 $ 5.46 17+ $ 7.44 Units 0-4 $ 1.93 5-8 $ 3.93 9+ $ 4.67 per unit $ 3.83 per unit $ 4.61 per unit $ 5.20 ^BflMj^fflftlQfe^ 1 flat rate $ 19.83 flat rate $ 25.03 flat rate $ 35.75 flat rate $ 62.73 flat rate $ 94.90 flat rate $ 137.15 flat rate $ 180.70 flat rate $ 277.23 flat rate $ 545.68 flat rate $ 867.43 Units 0-8 $ 2.29 9- 14 $ 6.20 15+ $ 8.45 Units 0-4 $ 1.93 5-8 $ 4.47 9+ $ 5.31 per unit $ 4.23 per unit $ 5.12 per unit $ 5.94 I Current Rate Proposed Rate SEWER RATES % CHANGE Group I - Residential (Flat Monthly Charge) Group I - Multi-Family (per ccf, based on 90% water usage) Group II - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group III - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group IV - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group V - Other Institutional (per ccf of water usage) Group V - Elementary School (per student) Group V - Junior High School (per student) Group V - High School (per student) Group V - Boarding School (per student) Group VI - Bio-Hydration Research Lab Inc. (per ccf of water usage) per month $ 17.65 $ 2.51 $ 2.08 $ 2.73 $ 4.31 $ 2.06 $ 0.27 $ 0.53 $ 0.80 $ 3.97 $ 1.62 2009-10 $ 20.93 $ 2.41 $ 1.96 $ 2.98 $ 5.53 $ 1.87 $ 0.43 $ 0.64 $ 0.85 $ 4.45 $ 1.70 per month 18.6% -4.0% -5.8% 9.2% 28.3% -9.2% 59.3% 20.8% 6.2% 12.1% 4.9% Q The above rates may be increased annually by the change In th«" addition, CMWD may pass through increases In Hofman Planning & Engineering Planning Civil Engineering Fiscal Services Coastal 111 it f) '-< ^'"\rr\JljN L ^ i.-.-d CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Mayor Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA June 23, 2009 RE: ARMY-NAVY ACADEMY SEWER AND WATER RATES On behalf of our client, Army-Navy Academy, I wish to inform you of their objection to the proposed rate increases for sewer and water charges to the school. The sewer rate charges to the Academy are especially troubling. When requested to review this issue for the Academy I found that there appears to be a serious overcharge in the monthly sewer fees paid by the school. As you are aware the Army-Navy Academy is a boarding school. As a boarding school, the facilities include class rooms, housing for the students and staff and ancillary buildings. Because of all of these uses a boarding school pays nearly five times the amount that a traditional high school pays (currently $3.97 per student vs $0.80 per student) under the Group V- Boarding School monthly sewer charges. However, I have found that the Academy is additionally being charged a Multi-Family sewer charge, a Group V-Other Institutional sewer charge and five Residential sewer charges. I have been in contact with city staff to get these charges corrected. I would request that any approved increase in rates not be applied to the Academy until these multiple charges are resolved. Bob Wojcik Director of Engineering Hofman Planning and Engineering c. Brigadier General Steven Bliss 3152 Lionshead Avenue C a r! s b a d ;A 92010 • (760) 692-4100 • Fax: (760) 692-4105 toLEOLEGWE JUN 2 3 2009 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE n\ •i/ Mercedes Martin 3715 Longview Drive Carlsbad, CA 92010June 23,2009 Carlsbad City Council Members 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: PROTEST regarding Proposed Water Rate Increases and Proposed Drought Rates Honorable Mayor and Council Members: I own, and reside on, the property located at 3715 Longview Drive, Carlsbad. The City of Carlsbad provides water service to 3715 Longview Drive; therefore, I am both a property owner and a rate payer. I am hereby PROTESTING the proposed water rate increases and proposed drought rates. In particular, I am protesting the tier levels and believe that Tier Level 2 should be expanded before Tier Level 3 kicks in. In addition, I am PROTESTING the rates because there is no allowance given for larger lots. On my street, 18 of the 20 properties have lots that measure approximately 7,500 square feet. The lot where I live, 3715 Longview, is approximately 32,700 square feet in size. This is 4.4 times larger than a typical lot. The proposed tier rate structure provides no allowance for this difference. I have already changed out all of my toilets and shower heads, have a water conserving front loading clothes washer, only run the dishwasher when full, and don't let the water run while brushing my teeth. Our yard is mostly watered via a drip system, and we take care not to plant water thirsty plants. If we were to attempt to fall into the first Tier, everything in the yard would die producing a fire hazard of dry landscaping and an eyesore in the neighborhood. If we continue to water just enough to keep things alive (versus lush), we will regularly fall into the third tier except in the rainy season — if there still is one. Please: 1) Reconsider the cut-off points for the different Tiers; 2) Put in place an appeal system for individuals to apply for additional water allowances based on lot size; and 3) Assign knowledgeable staff to act as water conservation ambassadors to visit property owners and advise them of ways to reduce water consumption on an individual basis. Sincerely, Mercedes Martin Protest — Water Rates and Our meeting at a budget workshop earlier this montn - v\ i oc i ... MAIL Classic Protest - Water Rates and Our meeting at a budget workshop earlier this month Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:51 AM To: cari.dale@ci.carlsbad.ca.us, lwood@ci.carlsbad.ca.us Lorraine, Please forward this email to the City Council Members for tonight's water rate hearing. I believe Mercedes will be submitting a "Protest Letter" separately. Thank you. Don Christiansen — On Tue, 6/23/09, donchristiansen@pacbell.net <donchristiansen@pacbell.net> wrote: From: donchristiansen@pacbell.net <donchristiansen@pacbell.net> Subject: Protest - Water Rates and Our meeting at a budget workshop earlier this month To: cari.dale@carlsbad.ca.gov Cc: lwood@carlsbad.ca.gov Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 11:42 AM Hello Can! Thanks for the info at the budget workshop at Faraday. I understand according to some printed information that I received that "Fairness Is #1 Goal". To the best of my knowledge: All the homes on Longview Drive have 5/8 inch water meters. Most homes are on 7,500 square foot lots. Our home at 3715 Longview Drive has a 32,670 square foot lot, or 4.4 times larger We have reduced our water use by an average of 38% the last two months compared to last year and we are still in the proposed Tier 3. There is only so much water conservation that can be done with landscaping until it dies and creates a fire hazard. I need help understanding how it is fair that no allowance is given for a larger lot size. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Don Christiansen 3715 Longview Drive 760-802-0552 http://us.mc810.mail.yahoo.corn/mc/showMessage?sMid==0&fid=Sent&filterBy=&midInd... 6/23/2009 Sherry Freisinger From: Sherry Freisinger on behalf of Lorraine Wood Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:51 PM To: Sherry Freisinger Subject: FW: Protest - Water Rates and Our meeting at a budget workshop earlier this month From: Don Christiansen [mailto:donchristiansen@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:51 AM To: Cari Dale; Lorraine Wood Subject: Protest -- Water Rates and Our meeting at a budget workshop earlier this month Lorraine, Please forward this email to the City Council Members for tonight's water rate hearing. I believe Mercedes will be submitting a "Protest Letter" separately. Thank you. Don Christiansen — On Tue, 6/23/09, donchristiansen(q)pacbell.net <donchristiansen(fi)]>acbell.neO wrote: From: donchristiansen@pacbell.net <donchristiansen@pacbell.net> Subject: Protest ~ Water Rates and Our meeting at a budget workshop earlier this month To: cari.dale@carlsbad.ca.gov Cc: lwood@carlsbad.ca.gov Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 11:42 AM Hello Cari! Thanks for the info at the budget workshop at Faraday. I understand according to some printed information thai I received that "Fairness Is #1 Goal". To the best of my knowledge: All the homes on Longview Drive have 5/8 inch water meters. Most homes are on 7,500 square foot lots. Our home at 3715 Longview Drive has a 32,670 square foot lot, or 4.4 times larger We have reduced our water use by an average of 38% the last two months compared to last year and we are still in the proposed Tier 3. There is only so much water conservation that can be done with landscaping until it dies and creates a fire hazard. I need help understanding how it is fair that no allowance is given for a larger lot size. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Don Christiansen 3715 Longview Drive 760-802-0552 \JUN 2 3 2009 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad California 92008 Proposed Water Rates Dear mayor and Members of the City Council: We have reviewed the schedule of recommended water rates and policies which is proposed for your adoption on June 23. The proposed rates appear to increase the potable and reclaimed water rates by more than 100%. We request that the rates for agricultural operations be (1) unchanged from rates for reclaimed water prior to January 1, 2009, and (2) limited to a pass through of the increases from the wholesale potable water suppliers for potable water. Specifically we ask that the rates charged the Flower Fields reflect the direct City commitments to maintain the viability of the Flower Fields as set forth in the various easements and agreements affecting the Flower Fields and the General Plan as amended by Proposition D. Most of the water usage occurs outside the periods of highest demands. The Flower Fields balances reclaimed water, whose higher salts negatively affect crop production, with potable as a means of reducing the burden on the overall water system. 16 years of constant improvements in water handling and management through drip irrigation, crop changes, and soil amendment, have reduced the water usage and made it more effective The proposed increase in costs will assure that the farming operation will operate at a loss, and therefore cannot be sustained. The increase in reclaimed water costs on top of the water quality issues which affect its efficacy for flower farming make its availability illusory. And unlike other businesses in Carlsbad, the Flower Fields has a restriction to the kind of crop production which does not allow a further change. More than 15 years ago the City adopted a General Plan which provided in relevant part as follows: 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 100 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TELEPHONE 760 930-9123 FAX 760 43 1-9020 www.theflowerfields.com "The City shall use all existing programs and land use protections and explore possible new grant programs and other outside assistance to keep the existing Flower Fields in permanent farming and flower production." Nearly 3 years ago, with Proposition D the citizens of Carlsbad reconfirmed the commitment. If this commitment has meaning, then the City needs to use the tool it has at hand- appropriate water rates and availability - to give it effect. We urge you to hold the rate on reclaimed water and limit increases in potable rates to pass through costs from the water wholesalers. Very! .alkins Presidj&t. CB Ranch Enterprises. Deborah Hembrock 2502 Navarra Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 760-942-9557 RE: Proposed Water Rates for Residential Use Mayor and Council: Would like to voice opinion of proposed water rates for residential use. Please consider guidelines for baseline allowance for residential users (like SDG&E does) and follow guidelines set by CPUC. This would be fair for all. She stressed guidelines set by CPUC. She did not have access to email today. She did not file a signed written protest with the City Clerk. MELLANO & COMPANY "Growing for you since 1Q25" JUN 2 -.> 2009 is/i C'TY OF CARLSBAD Ci7Y CLERK'S OFFICE June 22,2009 Mayor Lewis and the City Council Carlsbad City Council 1200 Cailsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council, Sorry for the lateness of this letter but it has only recently come to our attention that you will be considering water rate increases at your meeting tomorrow, June 23rd. We are the growers responsible for the farming operations at the "Flower Fields" and the currently proposed rate increase and structure has us extremely concerned. Upon review of the proposed changes it appears that the current recomnKndation is an increase of over 100% for users of agricultural water and over 75% for Reclaimed water. These types of increases, at this time, place production agriculture in jeopardy in coastal Carlsbad. We request that a more functional pricing model be utilized where conservation is applauded and the use of reclaimed water encouraged. It is understandable, given the current drought, that rate increases would be considered as a means to drive conservation however as currently structured the "Flower Fields" finning operation would surely operate at a loss and its very existence would be threatened. Fanning in coastal California is a challenging business. Increasing costs, limited labor and price pressures from producers across our borders all contribute to a declining profit position. Water itself is among the top cost factors in our production scheme and as such affordable pricing and availability are critical to our existence. Over the last several years we have systematically invested in methodologies to improve our efficiencies especially in the area of water consumption. Some of these include -conversion from overhead sprinklers to drip irrigation during the main season 'Increasing planting densities to maximize water usage -Usage of reclaimed water during the cooler part of the year when it is overproduced -Incorporation of organic matter to improve the soil profile and water holding capacity •Installation of check valves at each sprinkler to minimize waste and improve water distribution uniformity -Installation of computerized soil moisture monitoring system At this time we would like to request that the rates for Agricultural water be frozen at the current levels implemented January of 2009 and that the rates for reclaimed water be rolled back to the those of 2008. I would be glad to participate with the city in any discussions relative to pricing and usage of water. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael A Mellano VP-Production Mellano & Company P.O. Box 100, San Luis Rey, California 92068 / 1-800-MELLANO / 760-433-9550 / FAX 760-433-6721 - 0 c Street • Cartsbad, CaCifornia 92009 kl\°, 1 °p . > -)//.--t CA / / ' , n n A ^ .0)SSu{ ^ H-U C IAJ <\ U^ -.... .,,_ oly^ >-^ r^.ALj ^^^tv,. Lj^ a^_ ^ Ovv^pq^i^ > p^^^ u, n Chelsea Jean Wallace 4826 Kelly Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 June 16,2009 City Of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Water rate hike It goes without laying that water is a precious commodity jnd that therein ,-e it will be an expense item for all families. However, it seems to me that raising fees for water usage is but one alternative to the problem. Many years ago, several cities imposed moratoriums on new water meters to be installed since the City was in a water crisis. Rather than raising rates on existing accounts, it seems to me that you should look to restrict new meters before you look to penalize existing owners. Also, the City should curb usage of water on public sites such as golf courses, street medians and parks. I say "no" to water rate increases. Sincerely, Chelsea Jean Wallace COPY 0B/18/2009 08:23 19496609347 BIS WESTERN REGION PAGE 01/02 J(JN 1 8 2009 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE June 17, 2009Mayor Bud Lewis Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council: Fist of all, thank you for the efforts you expend to keep Carlsbad financially stable and a great place to live, work or vacation! in LaCosta and th;-n L.Chase. adults living in our home and a swimming pool. our costs for us does not seem reasonable. much. Optimistically Yours Tosto and Carol Tosto *4904 Via Arequipa Carlsbad, CA 92008 A home: 729-3445, cell: 458-5222 June 16, 2009 JUN 1 8 2009 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE Dear Carlsbad City Officials: I am writing you to object to your proposal to significantly increase water rates to commence on July 1,2009. Even prior to the recent proposed rate hikes, I and many other Carlsbad residents do not understand why the city continues to approve new development that involves ever increasing water usage when we currently do not have an adequate water supply. As we grow, do we keep paying more for water until it is unaffordable? Isn't it possible to limit development until new technologies are put in place to provide us with more water? The results of this rate hike will be unfortunate, as many residents, who cannot afford the increased water cost or whose yards might not be a priority for them, will stop watering and will let the plants around their homes die. This will affect property values and is not a wise environmental solution. Gardens attract insects and other forms of wildlife that contribute to the natural balance of life, such as the food chain, provide oxygen in the air, act as fire retardants if they are green, and their aesthetic benefits enhance community interaction and a sense of well-being. My husband and I are following the current water saving rules and plan to do more in the future, such as adding even more native, drought-resistant plants to our yard than we already have. We are on a fixed income, though, and will not be able to continue to pay increased water rates, along with our increased health insurance rates, along with increased taxes and with savings that have been cut in half by the current economic downslide. Instead of making landscape maintenance around homes unaffordable, please limit growth and increased water usage and permit your residents to be able to afford and enjoy their environment. Sincerely, Joan Horn Carlsbad resident JUN 1 7 2009 FCARLSBAD ^ /^ - & f ./ ^/l^^y^"^^~T" flfr^^---^™ is '£este-i*>j l/i As ^ —— • ^^~~^ a u ^ ~$ 4^-^ I. **'_ ™ C-TM--rlfo, -v " " " $7:1 . Z / Mr. and Mrs. Louis A. Wallace 4826 Kelly Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 June 16,2009 JUN 1 8 2009 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Water rate hike ,t goes without saying that water is a precious commodity and that therefore it will be an expense item for all families. However, it seems to me that raising fees for water usage is but one alternative to the problem. Many years ago, several cities imposed moratoriums on new water meters to be installed since the atv was in a water crisis. Rather than raising rates on existing accounts, ,t seems to r^Md 'ook to restrict new meters before you look to penalize existing owner. Also, the City should curb usage of water on public sites such as golf courses, street med.ans and parks. I say "no" to water rate increases. Sincerely, Jacqueline Jay Wallace City Of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Water rate hike Mr. and Mrs. Louis A. Wallace 4826 Kelly Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 June 16,2009 JUN 1 7 2009 It goes without saying that water is a precious commodity and that therefore it will be an expense item for all families. However, it seems to me that raising fees for water usage is but one alternative to the problem. Many years ago, several cities imposed moratoriums on new water meters to be installed since the City was in a water crisis. Rather than raising rates on existing accounts, it seems to me that you should look to restrict new meters before you look to penalize existing owners. Also, the City should curb usage of water on public sites such as golf courses, street medians and parks. I say "no" to water rate increases. Sincerely, A. WALLACE 2861 Tony Court Carlsbad, CA 92009 June 16,2009 DWE JUN 1 7 2009 City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Proposed Utility Rates Dear City Manager: I am writing to express my opposition to the rates increase proposed for July 1. If the city is proposing these rates increase because of water supply limitations, why is the city continuing to issue water permits for residential and commercial property? I called a month ago to talk with someone about the new housing development permits being issued in view of our water shortage, but never got a call back. It is not fair to penalize those of us who are and have been conserving water. A better solution is to stop issuing permits. It appears collecting revenue for newly permitted water users is more important to the city than solving the issue of water shortage problem. Please reconsider your proposals to raise water rates, but if you must, please keep them reasonable and equitable. Thank you. Leita McCormick City of Carlsbad, CA 6/23/09 Subject: Proposed Increase of Water Rates Address of Service: 1630 James Dr. I object to the proposed increase in the single family water rate because it would be punitive and make it more difficult for me and other s in the city, especially the ones who are out of work to afford a very necessary commodity. There should be other ways to help our city to save water besides penalizing the hard working people in our community with higher utility costs. respectfully, CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3932 Plateau Place Carlsbad, CA 92010 Daytime phone 760-721-0600 June 22, 2009 C'TY OF CARLSBADCITY GtESKS OFFICE VIA FAX 760-720-9461 Mayor and City Council Re: Carlsbad Water Restriction I am writing to discuss the proposed water restrictions- and explain why I think that in some instances that your proposed plan would actually cause more waste of this precious commodity rather than actually saving it. My Husband and I have always made an attempt to conserve water by running full loads in the dishwasher, running full loads of laundry and taking short showers. We have spent a very great deal of time and money on landscaping my property and have a few plants with high water requirements, which when they die or are becoming overgrown-am replacing them with a few plants with that meet lower water requirements when possible. At this time the entire garden is watered in 2 minute segments with all plants surviving. I am well under the 12 units of water. If forced to change to every other day increasing the time to3-l/2 minutes (over 20% less)- it actually would cause some plants to die, (too much water for lower water need ones) others to die because of lack of water and other areas being over watered would actually create run-off. Homeowners like myself are trying to conserve. If a homeowner keeps with the 12 units (and is using 20% less than the same month the prior year) by and being careful they should not be subject to every other day watering. Please consider this when you are finalizing your plans. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Marilyn Shea Mr E. C. Williamson 1530 Sunrise Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008-3648 Saturday, June 20th,-2rtnQ. City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad,, CA 92008 Dear Members of the Carlsbad City Council, Proposed Water Rate Increase Our letter dated Wednesday, June 17th, 2009, opposed the present method of calculating the water rate hike. For your convenience, a copy of this letter is attached. The present suggested method of calculation is totally unfair to larger households, larger properties, and properties with already built swimming pools. And there are many other factors which effect water use differently for each property. Therefore, a one size allowance for every water user, before a substantial price consequence, is patently unfair. A more proper rate tier could easily be calculated by averaging the annual water usage and setting a percentage reduction for an individual property. Perhaps you folk could think of some other, fairer method of rate increase ? Mr & Mrs E.G. Williamson 760-729-8485 Mr E. C. Williamson 1530 Sunrise Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008-3648 Wednesday, June 17,2009 City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad,, CA 92008 Dear Members of the Carlsbad City Council, Proposed Water Rate Increase Kindly list our household as against the way the proposed water rate increase has been calculated. The proposed tier rate does not take into account the many different needs of the homes in Carlsbad. For example, husband, wife and three children will need more water than a retired couple. If this household is also looking after Nana and Grandad, they will require substantially more water. They should be given an additional allowance before being penalized. What about the people who have more property, will they be penalized for keeping their property looking respectable ? What about folk who have a swimming pool ? Water evaporates, it is necessary to keep pools filled or they will suffer damage. The proposed water usage allowance does not take into account the many differing water needs of the population and unfairly burdens those that have greater water requirements. Please rethink the way the water rate increase is going to be shared by all. While we are on the subject, it would be appropriate for Carlsbad to stop providing building permits when there is such a significant water shortage. It is time to declare a build out. Thank you for your consideration. Mr Eric C, Williamson 760-729-8485 FARM BUREAU SAN DIEGO COUNTY June 19,2009 > East Valley Parkway, EscoHdido CA! 9202712409 Phone: (760) 745-3023 • Fax: (760) 489-6348 E-nuul: -Sdcft@sdfarmbureau.org . Websile: www sctabureau.org JUN 2 2 2009 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1200 Carlsbad Village DriveCarlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis- T™» I Eric Larson Executive Director Serving San Diego County Agriculture Since 1913 Doris Lee Ritchie 3379 Garibaldi Place Carlsbad CA 92010 760-729-9440 dl-ritchie@sbcglobal.net June 18, 2009 JUN 2 2 2009 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad CA 92010 Attention: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Gentlemen: I am against the proposed water rate increase. While the City of Carlsbad continues to allow multiple housing developments to be built in the city with total regard to the demands on our limited water supplies, it is unfair to expect those of us who have lived in the city for a very long time to be penalized by increasing our water rates. Therefore, I hope the city will reevaluate this proposed water rate increase. Sincerely, Doris Lee Ritchie, Ph.D. CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE Reviewing officer, It is not fair to raise water rates more than the city pays for water. If the increase from Metropolitan Water is say 5% then a 5% rate hike is fair. But to start with 40% is just wrong. Please wait until your new water conservation rules take place then raise rates based on what the city pays for water. Thank you for reading and considering this letter. William R. Clapton 6569 Coneflower Dr. Carlsbad, Ca. 92011 , . -r~f) V J, JUN 2 2 2009 PAPER PRINCE Minneapolis, MN 55413 USA IS0279500 Green Scallop ©Laurette "Acid Fre 0 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE V ASUM t£, ^Lc^^.4 ; 0 4LL~^-^-^/Wtf id , -Hft-^-^r o _U,tLs\.Ji* <•*-<.< J-ii, r X^. .'ty •' fa-£& :- (3-* A JUN 1 9 2009 CITYCL June 17, 2009 City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Sir: CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Wev molylcal who increase in the than °n the actual amount of water 84 - 10t of our neighbors waetew °f Water used' not the *water meter. We are very concerned about this situation. Yours truly, Robert & Irene Strause 3291 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 JUN 1 9 2009 CITY OF CARLSBAD,.CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Mr E. C. Williamson 1530 Sunrise Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008-3648 Wednesday, June 17,2009 City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad,, CA 92008 Dear Members of the Carlsbad City Council, Proposed Water Rate Increase Kindly list our household as against the way the proposed water rate increase has been calculated. The proposed tier rate does not take into account the many different needs of the homes hi Carlsbad. For example, husband, wife and three children will need more water than a retired couple. If this household is also looking after Nana and Grandad, they will require substantially more water. They should be given an additional allowance before being penalized. What about the people who have more property, will they be penalized for keeping their property looking respectable ? What about folk who have a swimming pool ? Water evaporates, it is necessary to keep pools filled or they will suffer damage. The proposed water usage allowance does not take into account the many differing water needs of the population and unfairly burdens those that have greater water requirements. Please rethink the way the water rate increase is going to be shared by all. While we are on the subject, it would be appropriate for Carlsbad to stop providing building permits when there is such a significant water shortage. It is time to declare a build out. Thank you for your consideration. Mr Eric C. Williamson 760-729-8485 it^L J^<^_^<^r^^_. s fl CITYO CITYCU FCARLSBADERK'S OFFICE / _**•£*!•_ <£?*•<!>{_ <*Xt/*V«X *~W -VL* ^^/«- ^J. As,^ ^^^C<^ -^^^-^JL^^.^^^..^^€^^^ 0 ' sfrttAd'^ tLA*^ d^t^^fg ^^^^^^.AJ^^..^^JL^ £(," -_ y , ____________________ ~^? 50PY Mayor Bud Lewis Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, California 92008 a JUN 1 9 2009 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE June 17, 2009 Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council! Fist of all, thank you for the efforts you expend to keep Carlsbad financially stable and a great place to live, work or vacation! My wife Carol and I have lived in Carlsbad since 1975. First renting in LaCosta and then purchasing a home near Kelly Electuary School from Bee Gee Development, Mr. L. Chase. We have changed our lives, based on the "Challenge" water use has presented. Our lawn and other areas have automatic sprinklers, set to conserve water, both in time on and only using them at night. Our water usage averages around 17 units a month, we have three adults living in our home and a swimming pool. My concern is that the "Proposed increase in water rates" is based on using 12 units per month, not based on past use. Since we implemented ways to conserve water, have about !/4 acre lot, mostly ice plant on hills and some trees, take "short showers"-even turning off water once we soap up and then just rinse off, made sure our inside faucets, toilets, showers are reduced water use products, do not wash our vehicles at home and have reduced water usage for outside use, we have very little room to conserve anymore. We feel that by conserving already, we are being penalized. Approximately 40% increase in our costs for us does not seem reasonable. I did call our Municipal Water District on June 16th and spoke with Joan. She has a lot of common sense and listened to my comments. However, she does not control policy. Just a Thought: Have ALL business, Home Owners Associations, Other Government agencies: School District, County, State, Federal and any others review their water usage and of course residents. Once that is accomplished, total use of water for our Carlsbad water district should be reduced. Please consider ways not to increase our water rates so much. Optimistically Yours, Tosto and Carol Tosto '4904 Via Arequipa Carlsbad, CA 92008 home: 729-3445, cell: 458-5222 JUN 1 8 2009 Subd •ease and Drought Rates 2236 Janis Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 18 June 2009 Atiacnment: Rate Payer Protest Dear Mayor and City Council Members, The attachment is submitted for consideration at the June 23, 2009 City Council meeting. In the short time that I expended to contact a few of my neighbors I found out that everyone contacted thought the proposed rates were too high am protest letter attachment. Although the sampling of opinion was amaii iuu-/. oppo sle t6 mCrereV,M°,st told me th* they found the Notice of Public Hearing on thesubject complex (hard to understand) and confusing. Again, I urge City Council to reject CMWD's proposal. Sincerely, Dale Dear Mayor and City Council Members, We the undersigned oppose/protest the water usage rate, delivery charge, and sewer charge increases to be considered at the June 23, 2009 Public Hearing in the Carlsbad Council Chambers. We feel the rates and charges are excessive in light of the current economic state (continuing recession, job loss, etc.) and the recent utility rate increases which became effective in January 2009. Name Service Address 23^3 &U///Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad C A 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad C A 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 *> I «""* // ^^^ tf A^^ ^ ^ ^^ T^//-^ */><></? k- j J O OCM m TOOT CITY OF CARLSBAD CiTYCLE: <•?, OFFICE Evert Osterman 5165 Steinbeck Ct. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Pk 760-603 8170 Fx 425-740 1885 Email: evert@desert-aire.com May 13., 2009 City of Carlsbad Att: city Clerk 1200 Carlsbad village Prive Carlsbad, K£f: Notice of Pitblic R«te twit-east i>rou.ght Tentes. if tt is. your Lwte^w* to cmatee wu>i^y the^v yowr rate schedule will worte fme, however, If, true to your values, your ivdct*d Is to lower water usage durii^ a draught, thei^- you, should lower the Mofwthly silvery charge or at least teeep it the sawve, and LwArease the -per ucut rate ow. a slldLiAg scale above a wampum usage of say '3 u.wits'. This would -protect the less fortuw^te a^d allow them to use water, where as the "water wasters* would have to pay a lot more oi^ce they go over the w.imwu<m allocation. As with the gas prices, we tei^ow that wortes, Hope you have a /vii Receive-Agenda Item ft For the Information of the- CITY COUNCIAsst. City M June 19, 2009 TO: CITY MANAGER VIA: ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR FROM: Senior Accountant REVISED PROPOSED RATE TABLE The Agenda Bill for the Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Increases had an error in one of the rates reflected in Exhibit 1 "Notice of Public Hearing". Under the "Maximum Rate 10% Cutback" column the Agricultural rate was shown as $4.44 per unit. The corrected rate is $4.10 per unit. The attached rate schedule reflects the correct charge. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 760-602-2429. Sincerely, HELGA STOVER Attachment PROPOSED UTILITY RATES 3/VATER RATES Delivery Charge Meter Size 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1.5" 2" 2.5" 3" 4" 6" 8" Sinale Family Tierl Tier 2 TierS Multi-Family Tierl Tier 2 TierS Non-Residential Agricultural Irrigation Recycled Current Rate CURRENT RATE MAXIMUM RATE flat rate $ 14.54 flat rate $ 17.87 flat rate $ 24.50 flat rate $ 42.26 flat rate $ 60.88 flat rate $ 73.13 flat rate $ 108.89 flat rate $ 176.49 flat rate $ 341 .99 flat rate $ 541.28 per unit $ 2.12 per unit $ 2.12 per unit varied per unit $ 1.81 per unit $ 2.01 per unit $ 2.01 0% CUTBACK flat rate $ 15.25 flat rate $ 19.50 flat rate $ 27.50 flat rate $ 48.25 flat rate $ 73.00 flat rate $ 105.50 flat rate $ 139.00 flat rate $ 213.25 flat rate $ 419.75 flat rate $ 667.25 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 2.95 21 + $ 4.02 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 2.18 11 + $ 2.59 per unit $ 2.64 per unit $ 3.41 per unit $ 2.97 per unit $ 2.97 Proposed Rate MAXIMUM RATE 10% CUTBACK flat rate $ 16.78 flat rate $ 21.18 flat rate $ 30.25 flat rate $ 53.08 flat rate $ 80.30 flat rate $ 116.05 flat rate $ 152.90 flat rate $ 234.58 flat rate $ 461.73 flat rate $ 733.98 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 3.69 21 + $ 5.23 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 2.73 11 + $ 3.37 per unit $ 3.17 per unit $ 4.10 per unit $ 3.57 per unit $ 2.97 MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE 20% CUTBACK flat rate $ 16.78 flat rate $ 21.18 flat rate $ 30.25 flat rate $ 53.08 flat rate $ 80.30 flat rate $ 116.05 flat rate $ 152.90 flat rate $ 234.58 flat rate $ 461.73 flat rate $ 733.98 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 4.87 21 + $ 6.84 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 3.49 11 + $ 4.28 per unit $ 3.70 per unit $ 4.27 per unit $ 4.91 per unit $ 2.97 30% CUTBACK flat rate $ 17.54 flat rate $ 22.14 flat rate $ 31.63 flat rate $ 55.49 flat rate $ 83.95 flat rate $ 121.33 flat rate $ 159.85 flat rate $ 245.24 flat rate $ 482.72 flat rate $ 767.34 Units 0-8 $ 2.29 9-16 $ 5.46 17+ $ 7.44 Units 0-4 $ 1.93 5-8 $ 3.93 9+ $ 4.67 per unit $ 3.83 per unit $ 4.61 per unit $ 5.20 per unit $ 2.97 40% CUTBACK flat rate $ 19.83 flat rate $ 25.03 flat rate $ 35.75 flat rate $ 62.73 flat rate $ 94.90 flat rate $ 137.15 flat rate $ 180.70 flat rate $ 277.23 flat rate $ 545.68 flat rate $ 867.43 Units 0-8 $ 2.29 9-14 $ 6.20 15+ $ 8.45 Units 0-4 $ 1.93 5-8 $ 4.47 9+ $ 5.31 per unit $ 4.23 per unit $ 5.12 per unit $ 5.94 per unit $ 2.97 Current Rate Proposed Rate SiSiSlSSSSpiCSsi •"• '.:.':;.;•./'• .',-. . V •;..;.;' .';,;„', •'. • . '.•' - '-.:. ...•...-,••..:'. , . ' %CHANGE ^.^ Group 1 - Residential (Flat Monthly Charge) Group 1 - Multi-Family (per ccf, based on 90% water usage) Group II - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group III - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) ^^^ Group IV - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) BSfc H5f ^STf Group V - Other Institutional (per ccf of water usage) jjiljh Waea ^J) @ Group V - Elementary School (per student) 4F^ jF%i BBfe^%^ Group V - Junior High School (per student) ^L^ 1LJP ll Group V - High School (per student) Group V - Boarding School (per student) Group VI - Bio-Hydration Research Lab Inc. (per ccf of water usage) per month $ 17.65 $ 2.51 $ 2.08 $ 2.73 $ 4.31 $ 2.06 $ 0.27 $ 0.53 $ 0.80 $ 3.97 $ 1.62 2009-10 $ 20.93 $ 2.41 $ 1.96 $ 2.98 $ 5.53 $ 1.87 $ 0.43 $ 0.64 $ 0.85 $ 4.45 $ 1.70 per month 18.6% -4.0% -5.8% 9.2% 28.3% -9.2% 59.3% 20.8% 6.2% 12.1% 4.9% The above rates may be increased annually by the change in the "San Diego County Consumer addition, CMWD may pass through increases in the wholesale cost of water purchases. -All Urban Consumers". In June 23, 2009 TO: FROM: Mayor and Council Lisa Hildabrand, City Manager *" All Receive-Agenda Item Asst. ^E ,NCREASES f OR WAT« 10% cutback.the Board consider Please contact me if you have any questions negarding this memo. USA HILDABRAND City Manager Attachments CSTY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Exhibit 3 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD), TO 3 APPROVE INCREASES IN WATER RATES. 4 5 WHEREAS, the California Constitution, Article XIIID, section 6, provides that 6 local governments must hold a public majority-protest hearing, and notify customers 7 forty-five (45) days in advance of increases in water rates; and8 WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District is proposing a schedule of 1 1 12 2( W. 2i 22 23 maximum water rates that will apply when the Board has declared a certain percentage cutback in usage which will be implemented according to the attached schedule; and WHEREAS, on May 5, 2009, the Board approved Resolution No. 1352 setting a public hearing for June 23, 2009, thereby complying with the advance notice 14 requirement of forty-five days; and WHEREAS, on September 30, 2008, the Governor of California signed into 16 f — legislation California Assembly Bill 3030 (now Government Code section 53756) 17: '" allowing public agencies that provide water, sewer or refuse collection service to adopt 18: : a schedule of fees or charges authorizing automatic adjustments that pass through / -| increases in wholesale! charges for water and adjustments for inflation for up to five * '••• : years; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District has adopted the maximum rate that appears in the attached table, however, to be implemented according to the percentage cutback determined by the Board. 25 /// 26 27 28 Exhibit 3 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the 2 Carlsbad Municipal Water District, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 4 2. That the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District 5 approves the maximum rate at the percentage cutback as shown on the attached table. 6 The maximum rates shall be implemented by subsequent resolution of the Board. For g purposes of this Resolution, the rates shall be those specified for the percent 9 cutback. Subsequent changes in these rates shall be implemented by resolution at a 10 public meeting of the Board specifying the percentage cutback necessary but shall not 11 trigger a subsequent protest hearing and the attendant procedures under the California 17 Constitution, Article XII ID, section 6 unless the rates proposed exceed those specified 13 for the maximum rates under the 40% cutback. 14 3. That the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District may, 15 by subsequent resolution, increase the above rates annually by the change in the "San16 Diego Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers" and may pass through increases in jg the wholesale cost of water purchases as authorized under Government Code section 19 53756 for up to five years from the date of this Resolution without triggering the notice 20 and protest procedures provided in California Constitution, Article XIIID, section 6. 21 \\ 22 \\ 23 ft 24 \\ 25 \\ 26 27 ^ 28 Exhibit 3 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Carlsbad 2 Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad on the day of. 3 2009, by the following vote: 4 5 AYES: 6 NOES: 7 ABSENT:8 9 10 11 CLAUDE A LEWIS, PRESIDENT 12 ATTEST: 13 14 15 LORRAINE M. WOOD, SECRETARY 16 (SEAL) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROPOSED UTILITY RATES Current Rate Option 2 Option 1 WATER RATES CURRENT RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE MAXIMUM RATE Delivery Charge Meter Size 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1.5" 2" 2.5" 3" 4" 6" 8" Single Family Tierl Tier 2 TierS Multi-Family Tierl Tier 2 Tiers Non-Residential Agricultural Irrigation Recycled flat rate $ 14.54 flat rate $ 17.87 flat rate $ 24.50 flat rate $ 42.26 flat rate $ 60.88 flat rate $ 73.13 flat rate $ 108.89 flat rate $ 176.49 flat rate S 341.99 flat rate $ 541.28 per unit $ 2.12 per unit S 2.12 per unit varied per unit $ 1.81 per unit $ 2.12 per unit $ 2.01 0% CUTBACK flat rate $ 15.25 flat rate $ 19.50 flat rate $ 27.50 flat rate $ 48.25 flat rate $ 73.00 flat rate $ 105.50 flat rate $ 139.00 flat rate $ 213.25 flat rate $ 419.75 flat rate $ 667.25 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 2.95 21 + $ 4.02 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 2.18 11 + $ 2.59 per unit $ 2.64 per unit $ 3.41 per unit $ 2.97 per unit $ 2.52 5% CUTBACK flat rate $ 16.78 flat rate $ 21.18 flat rate $ 30.25 flat rate $ 53.08 flat rate $ 80.30 flat rate $ 116.05 flat rate $ 152.90 flat rate $ 234.58 flat rate $ 461.73 flat rate $ 733.98 Units 0- 12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 2.95 21 + $ 4.02 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 2.18 11 + $ 2.59 per unit $ 2.64 per unit $ 3.41 per unit $ 2.97 per unit $ 2.52 10% CUTBACK flat rate $ 16.78 flat rate $ 21.18 flat rate $ 30.25 flat rate $ 53.08 flat rate $ 80.30 flat rate $ 116.05 flat rate $ 152.90 flat rate $ 234.58 flat rate $ 461.73 flat rate $ 733.98 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 3.69 21 + $ 5.23 Units 0-5 $ 1.93 6-10 $ 2.73 11 + $ 3.37 per unit $ 3.17 per unit $ 4.10 per unit $ 3.57 per unit $ 2.52 20% CUTBACK flat rate $ 16.78 flat rate $ 21.18 flat rate $ 30.25 flat rate $ 53.08 flat rate $ 80.30 flat rate $ 116.05 flat rate $ 152.90 flat rate $ 234.58 flat rate $ 461.73 flat rate $ 733.98 Units 0-12 $ 2.29 13-20 $ 4.87 21 + $ 6.84 Units 0 - 5 $ 1 .93 6-10 $ 3.49 11 + $ 4.28 per unit $ 3.70 per unit $ 4.27 per unit $ 4.91 per unit $ 2.52 30% CUTBACK flat rate $ 17.54 flat rate $ 22.14 flat rate $ 31.63 flat rate $ 55.49 flat rate $ 83.95 flat rate $ 121.33 flat rate $ 159.85 flat rate $ 245.24 flat rate $ 482.72 flat rate $ 767.34 Units 0-8 $ 2.29 9-16 $ 5.46 17+ $ 7.44 Units 0-4 $ 1.93 5-8 $ 3.93 9 + $ 4.67 per unit $ 3.83 per unit $ 4.61 per unit $ 5.20 per unit $ 2.52 40% CUTBACK flat rate $ 19.83 flat rate $ 25.03 flat rate $ 35.75 flat rate $ 62.73 flat rate $ 94.90 flat rate $ 137.15 flat rate $ 180.70 flat rate $ 277.23 flat rate $ 545.68 flat rate $ 867.43 Units 0-8 $ 2.29 9-14 $ 6.20 15+ $ 8.45 Units 0-4 $ 1.93 5-8 $ 4.47 9+ $ 5.31 per unit $ 4.23 per unit $ 5.12 per unit $ 5.94 per unit $ 2.52 Current Rate Proposed Rate SEWER RATES % CHANGE Group I - Residential (Flat Monthly Charge) Group I - Multi-Family (per ccf, based on 90% water usage) Group II - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group III - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group IV - Commercial (per ccf of water usage) Group V - Other Institutional (per ccf of water usage) Group V - Elementary School (per student) Group V - Junior High School (per student) Group V - High School (per student) Group V - Boarding School (per student) Group VI - Bio-Hydration Research Lab Inc. (per ccf of water usage) per month $ 17.65 $ 2.51 $ 2.08 $ 2.73 $ 4.31 $ 2.06 $ 0.27 $ 0.53 $ 0.80 $ 3.97 $ 1.62 2009-10 $ 20.93 $ 2.41 $ 1.96 $ 2.98 $ 5.53 $ 1.87 $ 0.43 $ 0.64 $ 0.85 $ 4.45 $ 1.70 per month 18.6% -4.0% -5.8% 9.2% 28.3% -9.2% 59.3% 20.8% 6.2% 12.1% 4.9% The above rates may be increased annually by the change in the "San Diego County Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers" through increases in the wholesale cost of water purchases. In addition, CMWD may pass Water Operations Potable Water Operations Personnel M&O Water Purchases Depreciation ISFs/Chargebacks Replacement Transfer Capital Outlay Total Beginning Budget Program Option: Optimization Program Option: AMR (no grant) Total Additional Request Total Request FY09 2,881,769 1,064,057 18,106,598 3,136,598 2,157,404 893,000 53,875 28,293,301 - 28,293,301 FY10 2,913,917 1,793,890 22,942,945 2,700,000 2,705,929 893,000 12,235 33,961,916 40,000 833,268 873,268 34,835,184 Change $ 32,148 729,833 4,836,347 (436,598) 548,525 - (41,640) 5,668,615 40,000 833,268 873,268 6,541,883 % Change 1.1% 68.6% 26.7% -13.9% 25.4% 0.0% -77.3% 20.0% - 23.1% Recycled Water Operations Personnel M&O Encina Operations Purchased Water Depreciation ISFs/Chargebacks Debt Payments Total Beginning Budget Program Option: Optimization Total Additional Request Total Request Total Water Operations Personnel M&O Encina Operations Purchased Water Depreciation Replacement Transfer ISFs/Chargebacks Debt Payments Capital Outlay Total Beginning Budget Program Option: Optimization Program Option: AMR (no grant) Total Additional Request Total Request FY09 445,078 248,605 786,613 1,158,915 1,352,464 175,233 2,021,183 6,188,091 - 6,188,091 FY 09 (*) 3,326,847 1,312,662 786,613 19,265,513 4,489,062 893,000 2,332,637 2,021,183 53,875 34,481,392 - • 34,481,392 FY10 474,809 477,468 827,126 1,280,209 1,100,000 216,918 2,036,009 6,412,539 - 6,412,539 FY10 3,388,726 2,271,358 827,126 24,223,154 3,800,000 893,000 2,922,847 2,036,009 12,235 40,374,455 833,268 833,268 41,207,723 Change $ 29,731 228,863 40,513 121,294 (252,464) 41,685 14,826 224,448 - 224,448 Change $ 61,879 958,696 40,513 4,957,641 (689,062) - 590,210 14,826 (41,640) 5,893,063 833,268 833,268 6,726,331 % Change 6.7% 92.1% 5.2% 10.5% -18.7% 23.8% 0.7% 3.6% - 3.6% % Change 1.9% 73.0% 5.2% 25.7% -15.3% 0.0% 25.3% 0.7% -77.3% 17.1% 19.5% (*) Reflects mid-year budget reduction of $183,182 Personnel Costs Re-allocated staff = $15,291 increase $22,139 increase in health insurance for retirees Purchase Water Increases from water suppliers Depreciation Estimate in FY2008-09 was too high. M&O $100,000 pipeline repairs (recycled) $62,735 for SCADA $60,000 increase in electricity (based on actuals) $125,000 for 5 year update of Urban Water Management Plan $184,770 for Hydrants, CLA VAL parts, other parts $24,000 for Motor service, repair and efficiency testing JUN 2 3 2009 CITY OF CARLSBAD,.CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 06/23/2009 FY2009/10 Operating Budget Total $41.2 million 'ncrease Million (19.5%) over FY2008/09 Operations & Maintenance 14%" Purchased Water " Leak Detection (AMR) Meter Replacement-; ^^ ^^ «™s^^ H COPY Majority Protest Public Hearing Water and Sewer Rate Increases 1 Calendar FY2009:Public Outreach May 5 :Set public hearing May 8 :Mailed written notice June 16 : Budget Adopted June 23: Public Hearing Approve New Rates August 1: Effective Date Agenda Water Shortage Allocation System Growth –changes to customer classes MWD/CWA Rates and Charges Cost of service study Rate Options & Impacts AB3030 Open Public Hearing Action Items 3 The cost of water is going up…. SDCWA –increased AF cost of wholesale water by 21% 4 FY2009/10 Operating Budget Total $41.2 million Increase $6.7 Million (19.5%) over FY2008/09 5 Operations & Maintenance Conservation and Water Shortage Drought Conservation Pumping Restrictions 6 •Hired FCS Group •Cost of Service Study •New Rate Design –Achieve cutbacks –Fair distribution of cost 7 Workshops for Citizens and Businesses •Residents •Local Businesses •CMWD Board •Water Cutbacks •New Rate Design Robb Grantham California Branch Manager FCS Group •Cost of service study •Designed rate model Objectives of Rate Design Maintain the fiscal health of the utilities and rate stability Adequate capital funding to maintain system infrastructure and reliability Fair and equitable rates based on proportionate usage and demand on system Achieve goals in response to water cutbacks and regulatory requirements Flexibility to adjust to unanticipated pass-through costs (AB 3030) Adhere to Proposition 218 Issues to Consider When Developing Drought Rate Pricing Fiscal Health of the Water Utility Targeted Water Usage Reductions Fixed vs. Variable Costs Penalty Charges Impact of Education and Enforcement Essential vs. Discretionary Usage Price Elasticity of Water –short and long-term Rate Development Process 1.Develop expenditure and revenue needs forecast 2.Allocate costs to customer classes 3.Develop rate structure to equitably recover cost from system users 12 Current Water Rates •The current water rate structure is comprised of fixed monthly charge and usage commodity charge: •Fixed Charge •A monthly delivery charge based on meter size •Commodity Charge •Consumption charge of $2.12 per unit or hundred cubic feet (ccf) of water •Conservation discount reducing commodity charge to $1.91 per ccf if the user consumes under a given amount •A recycled water unit charge of $2.01 per ccf Water Rate Alternatives Page 14 Allocation/Budget Tiered Rates Resource Requirements Med/High Low Costs Med/High Low Data Needs High Low Equity Low High Message to Customers Direct Indirect Customer Feedback Unfavorable Favored * Per Public Outreach Process Critical Attributes to Tiered Rate Structure •Use pricing as the mechanism to encourage appropriate water usage –Minimize “policing” users by Water Utility –Rewards conservation and penalizes water wasters •Pricing structure recognizes “essential” vs. “discretionary” usage –Targets summer peak/irrigation usage –Protects residential indoor usage –Protects commercial usage •Drought rates use the same structure as proposed ongoing rates –Administrative ease and cost efficiencies Proposed Rate Structure •Residential – •implement tiered rate structure –Unit cost of water will become progressively more expensive as a customer users more water. –Three tier block structure for its single family and multi- family residential users. •Commercial – •maintain flat usage charge per unit –Single unit charge for water –Customers are heterogeneous with various non- discretionary needs. Annual Water Demand Base usage Peak usage Fire flow System CapacityBase to Peak Allocation Peaking Factor by Class 18* Based on Winter Average Single Family Residential Usage 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Cumulative % of Accounts Cumulative % of Consumption Units (ccf)Monthly Bills Tiered Rate Structure All Usage$2.12 Current Rates 12 ccf Upper Tier Conservation Tier $5.23 $2.29 $3.69 Middle Tier 20 ccf Recommended Rate Structure Approximately 51% of customers bills are 12 ccf or less a month on average An additional 22% of customer bills are between 13 and 20 ccf The remaining 27% of the bills use 21 or more ccf Discount Block Proposed Drought Rate Structure •Maintain the non-drought rate structure –Residential tiered rates –Commercial flat charge per unit •Increase rates to (1) encourage conservation and (2) recover lost revenues •Additional Features: 1.Maintain Current Base Usage Block Unit Rate 2.Surcharge on Monthly Service Charge 3.Recover Penalty Rate Through Peak Rate 4.Decrease tier sizes with Drought Levels 3&4 Recycled Water •Increased consumption in FY2009 •Recommend rate reduction from Noticed amount •$2.97 to $2.52 per unit 22 Changes to Noticed Rate Table •Reduction to recommended Recycled Water Rate -$2.97 to $2.52 per unit –Reduce the increase from 48% to 24% •Maximum Agriculture rate shown as $4.44 per unit –should be $4.10 per unit 23 Water Rate Increase Options •Option 1: Recommended Option –Maximum Rate Increase per Notice –Average 18% over all user groups –Fund operating costs and help build reserve 24 Water Fund Fund Balance and Operating Reserve •Proposed 18% increase: –Fund operations and meter replacement –Help grow reserve to 15% by end of FY2010 •Reserve Policy: –40% of Operating Budget –145 days Expenditures 25 Proposed Water Rate Increase Average rate increase –18% All water users Delivery Charge -Residential •Current Rate $14.54 per month •Proposed Rate $16.78 per month Commodity Charge -Residential •Current Rate $2.12 per unit •Proposed Rate $2.29 per unit (Tier 1) •Average use of 12 units per month •Increase is $4.28 Option 1 Rates -continued Non-residential -$3.17 per unit Agricultural -$4.10 per unit Irrigation -$3.57 per unit Recycled -$2.52 per unit Water Rate Increase Options •Option 2: Reduced Variable Rate –Maximum Rate Increase for Fixed Rate –Average 15.5% over all user groups –Fund operating costs and help build reserve at 28 Option 2 versus Option 1 29 Option 1 Option 2 Res'l. - Tier 1 2.29$ 2.29$ Res'l. - Tier 2 3.69$ 2.95$ Non-residential 3.17$ 2.64$ Agriculture 4.10$ 3.41$ Irrigation 3.57$ 2.97$ Recycled 2.52$ 2.52$ Wastewater Fund Fund Balance and Operating Reserve •Proposed 9% increase: –Current balance low –Balanced budget for FY2009/10 –Will help build up reserve in future years •Reserve Policy: –40% of Operating Budget –145 days Expenditures 30 Residential Wastewater Rates Flat rate 18.6% increase Current Rate -$17.65 per month Proposed Rate -$20.93 per month Non-Residential Wastewater Rates Base monthly fixed charge Commodity rates for commercial, non-residential and institutional categories based on wastewater strength characteristics Proposed Increase Total Monthly Utility Bill (12 Units water usage per month -Single Family) Current Proposed Sewer Solid Waste Water Monthly Increase % Increase $ 17.65 $ 18.87 $ 39.98 $ 76.50 $ 20.93 $ 18.87 $ 44.26 $ 84.06 $ 7.56 9.9% What is Carlsbad doing to conserve? •Aggressively promote use of recycled water •Promote increased conservation through water audits and rebate program •Supported the development of a seawater desalination project •The city saves drinking water by providing recycled water to parks, plants in street medians and other landscaping •Artificial turf on athletic fields at Stagecoach, Aviara, Poinsettia and Pine Avenue parks 33 AB 3030 34 •September 30, 2008 •Authorized pass-through of increases in wholesale water costs •Authorized inflationary adjustment •Public Hearing not Required •Board/Council action is required with 30 day written notice •For 5 years Calendar FY2009:Public Outreach May 5 :Set public hearing May 8 :Mailed written notice June 16 : Budget Adopted June 23: Public Hearing Approve New Rates August 1: Effective Date Protest Letters •Not fair to those conserving •Tiered rate is not fair •Recommend building moratorium •Large families are penalized •Large lots are penalized •Cost to change landscaping is high •Rates are too high for Recycled, Agriculture, Irrigation customers 36 End of presentation……. PUBLIC HEARING Carlsbad Municipal Water Board: Adopt: Resolution 1360 Adopt maximum rate increase Implement the ____ percent cutback Board may pass through cost increases of wholesale water Board may raise rates annually by change in the San Diego Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers Action Items City of Carlsbad: Adopt: Resolution 2009-165 Adopt 9% rate increase Board may raise rates annually by change in the San Diego Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers Action Items System Growth 41 AMR •Total cost is $833,000 •2% of total operating budget •Single Family using 12 units would pay about $0.90 per month with AMR and $0.70 per month for manual meter replacement program 42 Cost Allocation Factors •Customer and Meter Costs –Utility billing and administrative –Meter maintenance and capacity •Base Costs –Ongoing costs to provide water service •Peak Costs –Capacity related costs to meet peak demands 43 Delivery Charge Usage Charge Delivery Charge •Costs are consistent between all customer classes •Charge based on meter size –Capacity related costs allocated based on meter size –Utility billing and administrative costs charged on a flat basis 44 Allocated Costs $$$$ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ Total Units ccf lbs lbs MEs Unit Cost $/ccf $/lbs $/lbs $/ME Unit Charges Calculation$ BOD5 ServiceTSSFlow Current Water Rates Meter Size Delivery Charge 5/8"$14.54 3/4"$17.87 1"$24.50 1.5"$42.26 2"$60.88 3"$108.89 4"$176.49 6"$341.99 8"$541.28 Meter Size Usage 5/8"< 7 ccf/month 3/4"< 10 ccf/month 1"< 16 ccf/month 1.5"< 30 ccf/month 2"< 45 ccf/month 3"< 79 ccf/month 4"< 123 ccf/month 6"< 228 ccf/month 8"< 336 ccf/month Monthly Delivery Charge* *This charge is incurred even if no water is used. Conservation Rate Table ** **A customer with consumption under the given usage amount will be charged at the discounted rate of $1.91 per ccf for all water used. Tiered versus Flat Rates •Residential Water Customers •Have similar basic water needs •Excess amounts are considered non- essential and cost more •Non-Residential Water Customers •Businesses are dependant upon varying quantities of water Price Elasticity •Price Elasticity is a measure of the sensitivity of quantity demanded with respect to a change in price Ed =% Change in Quantity Demanded_ % Change in Price = Q Q P P d d d d _ Price Elasticity will vary by customer class, type of water usage, and with time Proposed Water Rate Structure Characteristics •Fixed Meter Charge –Recovers administrative and capacity related charges •Commodity Charge –Recovers water purchase and treatment costs, plus costs incurred based on usage patterns •Residential Classes –Tiered Rate –Encourages water conservation for large users •Commercial Classes –Flat Commodity Rate –Recognizes “heterogeneous” nature of user class 49 Revenues –18% Maximum Increase •$8.2 million increase over 2008-09 •$6.7 million for increase to operations •$1.5 million added to reserve 50 Impacts of Increasing the Conservation Block 51 $- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 Proposed (12 Units) Base of 18 Units 52 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 53 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 Rates were effective between 7/1/08 and 3/1/09. These agencies may be contemplating subsequent rate increases. 54 Impacts of Increasing the Conservation Block $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 Proposed Tiers (12 units base) Alternative Tiers (18 units base)