Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-28; Water Commission Ad Hoc; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: DATE OF MEETING: February 28,1996 TIME OF MEETING: 2:OO p.m. PLACE OF MEETING: WATER COMMISSION (Regular Meeting) 5950 El Camino Real CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Melideo called the Meeting to order at 2:OO p.m. ROLL CALL: Present Absent: None. Commissioners Melideo, Henley, Kubota, Louis and Maerkle PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kubota. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There were no requests to address the Commission, NEW BUSINESS: AB 0228-01 - BOARD PRESIDENT TO ADDRESS WATER COMMISSION. Board President Lewis addressed the Water Commission, stating he was present to explain why the three appointments to the Commission have not been made. He said that the City Council is holding a workshop this Friday and will be reviewing all of the commissions and boards of the City, as there has been some discussion about combining some of the commissions. President Lewis stated that the appointments to this Commission will be made immediately following the workshop, but they may be for only two years, as the decision might be made to sunset this Commission in 1998. At that time, the new Council will decide whether or not to sunset the Commission. He said that the Water Board (City Council) must become more active in water issues, due to the importance of a reliable water supply to this area. President Lewis stated that the impression now is that the Water Board (City Council) will need to meet each week because of regional responsibilities. In response to Commission query, President Lewis stated that there has been discussion about combining some of the Commissioners; for example, the Arts Commission, Sister City Committee and Historic Preservation Commission may be combined into one commission. February 28, 1996 WATER COMMISSION Page 2 PREVIOUS BUSINESS: AB 0124-01 - REPORT FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN. Bob Greaney stated that this item is a continuation from the previous meeting in order to allow the Commissioners time to study the report. Bill Plummer reported on the water connection fees and how they would change under the proposed plan. He showed three examples of these fees for a typical residence. At the present time, the charge is on EDU's and is $2,400. He said when the New Demand Charge from Metropolitan is added, that would increase the EDU fee by $415; making the new fee $2,815.00. The consultant recommended going to meter size for the connection fees. The normal-sized house with a 5/8 meter would have a connection fee of $2,815; a custom-built house with a 3/4" meter would cost $4,043. Mr. Plummer said this would be an increase of $415, which is the New Demand Charge from Metropolitan. Mr. Plummer gave another example; that of a restaurant on Avenida Encinas. At the present time, this would be 2.67 equivalent dwelling units, plus an additional one EDU per each seven seats. If there were 100 seats, this would be 2.67 plus 100, or 17.67 EDU's, or a payment of $42,408. If the present EDU- based calculation remains, this would increase to $49,741 .OO. He said the consultant recommended going to meter size, and the cost for a 2" meter would be $18,680, or a reduction for this type of customer of $23,728 for a connection fee. Mr. Plummer said the third example is an industrial building on Faraday. On the EDU system, the fee is based on the square footage of the building, which is 64,000 square feet. That is divided by 5,000, or 12.8 EDU's, times $2,400, or $30,720 actually paid. He said that if the new demand charge is added, the new fee would be $36,032. Mr. Plummer said if there is a 1 1/2" meter for irrigation and 1 1/2" for the building, and a cost of each of $1 2,275, for the two meters it would cost $24,550. Under the new proposed system, there would be a reduction in cost of $6,170. Commissioner Kubota asked about the charge for a fire meter, and Mr. Plummer said they are to be charged for consumption meters only, as the capital improvement program builds a line that is capable of supplying water to that particular type of building. Commissioner Louis stated that there is a need for capacity to supply a fire demand and that would be a part of the over-all capital improvements. Mr. Plummer said that the charge is on the meter size and the user does not pay for the maintenance to the building; the developer pays for the storage in the tank and the transmission lines. Commissioner Louis stated he does not agree. Mr. Plummer said the Fire Department determines the requirements for the building, and from the transmission line to the public street and the buildings, the developer is responsible. Mr. Plummer showed the charges in other cities, and stated that Carlsbad would be in the same area as far as the charge, if they go to meter size instead of EDU's. He said these figures would be made available to the Commissioners. February 28, 1996 WATER COMMISSION Page 3 PREVIOUS BUSINESS: (Continued) Mr. Greaney stated that the EDU calculations were made for connections to the sewage system and were not meant to carry over to water. There was no connection fee for an irrigation meter and one of the inconsistencies on an industrial building, was that regardless of the water demand in that building, the EDU was based on the square footage and they paid one price for the connection fee and that covered all cases, no matter what goes into that building. He said with the proposed charge based on meter size, in case the use of the building changed and a larger meter was needed, the District would have an opportunity to request a different connection fee; also this new method would include connection fees for irrigation meters. He added this would allow the District to conform with the capacity charge the Water Authority charges, which is based on meter size. Commissioner Louis said that in two of the examples shown, the income would be less. Mr. Plummer answered that the income would be approximately the same, but the charges would be more equitable. In response to query about agriculture meters, Mr. Greaney stated that you only pay a connection fee one time; if it is a brand new connection, there would be the connection charge plus the Water Authority capacity charge. Clint Phillips continued the report, stating he wanted to show the impact on actual billing charges. He said in a single family dwelling with one 5/8" meter, using four units of water, the current bill at $1 51 per unit would be $6.04; at $1.52, there is an increase of .04 cents; monthly delivery charge $9.25; an increase of .75 cents; the sewer charge increased from $13.70 to $17.54; a total difference of $4.63. Mr. Phillips said that a second example would be a single family residence using 14 units of water and would have an increase of approximately $4.59. Mr. Phillips said that a multi-family residence with 20 units and a 1 1/2" meter, using 170 units of water, the bill would be $248.50, or a total difference of $84.45. Mr. Phillips said the same building using only 64 units of water would have a reduction of $78.65. In response to query, Mr. Greaney said that the Advisory Committee reviewed this and found the multi- family dwellings were paying more than their share on the sewer bills; they were paying "X number of dollars per unit whether or not it was empty. Chairperson Melideo stated that it is the landlords' problem to keep their units rented and is not in the Water District's jurisdiction. She felt the single family resident should not have to make up those losses and was concerned about the increase in that charge, a jump from $1 3.70 to $1 7.54. She said she would like it to be more equitable for everyone, and felt they were allowing more for multi-family dwellings and raising the fee for single family residences. Commissioner Kubota stated that the $17.54 recommended is a necessity for the revenue picture. Mr. Greaney said that any utility business must have a base rate for their income. February 28, 1996 WATER COMMISSION Page 4 PREVIOUS BUSINESS: (Continued) Mr. Greaney stated that the remaining issue for the Commission to discuss is the recommendation to institute a 5 percent discount for reclaimed water. Commissioner Louis stated he had felt there should not be any discount for reclaimed water, but he had attended a Water Reuse meeting in San Diego and listened to the discussions on water re-use and all of the speakers indicated that because of the cost of retrofitting and interior design, that should be paid for or a discount should be given. He said that because of that discussion, he would withdraw his comments on not using a lower rate. Commissioner Kubota stated that he had looked at reclaimed water as a different level of water service, and a drought-proof system, as the domestic users would have restrictions in a drought where the reclaimed user would not have that. He said that the City Council has mandated Leg0 to build dual systems and that is expensive. Mr. Greaney stated that now the District offers to make the retrofit for customers switching over to reclaimed water. He said if a discount is offered for reclaimed water, the District would no longer offer assistance for retrofit--the customer would have to pay for the retrofit. Commissioner Kubota stated he would not oppose a discount to encourage people to switch over to reclaimed water. Mr. Greaney said that new construction would have a connection fee for reclaimed water (if available) and a rate for reclaimed water. Whether or not the rate is discounted is up to the Commission and the Water Board. It would be either P 5 percent discount or leave it as it is now. ACTION : On motion by Commissioner Louis, the Water Commission recommended adoption of a 5 percent discount for reclaimed water, with the customer paying for the cost of retrofitting. AYES: Henley, Kubota, Louis and Maerkle NOES: Melideo Chairperson Melideo stated she felt users were fortunate to have the ability to have reclaimed water to help prevent a shortage of potable water and they should not have the privilege of a discount. ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Henley, the Water Commission recommended abandoning the EDU method and change to assessing connection fees based on the meter size. AYES: Melideo, Henley, Kubota, Louis and Maerkle The Commission discussed the change in the wastewater service charge, with Chairperson Melideo reiterating that the charge to single family residences was too high. She stated she would like that charge to be $1 6.00 instead of the recommended $1 7.54. February 28, 1996 WATER COMMISSION Page 5 PREVIOUS BUSINESS: (Continued) Mr. Greaney stated that if the Commission changes the recommendation, they must support that change with definitive information. This would also require changes in the other numbers in order to make up the difference in that charge. Jim Elliott, Financial Management Director, stated the rate study took 12 to 18 months to complete, and there has been no increase in sewer rates the last 18 to 24 months. Commissioner Kubota suggested this rate could be tried for a year and then reviewed to see what the revenue stream has been. He stated he supported staff, the consultant and the recommendations. Mr. Greaney stated that the Commission could recommend to the Board that the single family increase be phased in, with one half now and one half six months or twelve months from now. Mr. Elliott stated that the amount recommended is what it costs to run the system. If the money is not collected from one source, then it will have to be collected from another type of user. He said that the Finance Department would work with the District to take the increase in phases. If the Commission feels this is too much of an increase, they need to change some of the other rates or lower expenses. Chairperson Melideo restated her preference for a fee of $1 6.00 on single family residences. ACTION : On motion by Commissioner Louis, the Water Commission recommended wastewater rates for single family customers be a uniform base of $1 7.54 and that multi-family residences be changed to a water use base; to be put into effect at a 50 percent rate of the change and to be reviewed in six months. AYES: Henley, Kubota, Louis and Maerkle NOES: Melideo Mr. Greaney stated he will present the recommendations of the Commission and the Rate Study to the Water Board and they will set the matter for a public hearing. WATER COMMISSION: Presidents and Manaqers Meeting Commissioner Maerkle gave a brief report on a recent meeting, stating the discussion was about water boards and directors and how they operate. February 28, 1996 WATER COMMISSION Page 6 GENERAL MANAGER REPORT: Imperial Irrigation District Bob Greaney stated that Chris Frahm, CWA and Met Director, answered questions of the Water Board at last Tuesday’s meeting. The Board was concerned about who would pay for the water from the Imperial Irrigation District and who would benefit. One concern was that the water would come to south county, and Ms. Frahm took exception to that. She said that other routes will be considered and no specific recommendation has been made. Mr. Greaney said that the wheeling policy was discussed, and Metropolitan and the Water Authority have been at odds on that, as Metropolitan estimated a charge of $285.00 per acre foot to wheel the water through the Colorado aqueduct. The Water Authority said that was exorbitant and $58 per acre foot was a more equitable charge to move water from Imperial to San Diego County. Mr. Greaney said the Board asked whether the Water Authority would be willing to entertain a wheeling charge for Carlsbad if we entered into a water transfer from Central Valley, and there was no answer to that. Mr. Greaney said the issue would be, regardless of the agency involved, that if a charge was made to wheel water from point A to B, they would not be getting any revenue to pay for their capital projects--and the water both agencies sell includes revenue for those projects. If Carlsbad bought water from the Central Valley and wheeled it through at a nominal fee, we are not generating income for Water Authority and Metropolitan capital projects. He said that a large pump station would be necessary for the IID transfer from South County to North County: and the water from Imperial would be raw water. There is no treatment facility to provide treated water. The Board asked if Carlsbad would have to pay for those improvements to bring that water into the county, even if Carlsbad didn’t get any water, and the answer was yes, we would: that everyone pays equally, whether or not they benefit equally. Mr. Greaney said that reclaimed water was discussed and how this relates to reclaimed water. If Carlsbad buys water from IID and Met, with 100 percent reliability, how can we spend money on reclamation? If the Water Authority reduces its purchases from Metropolitan, would there still be a rebate program for building reclaimed water facilities? Mr. Greaney said this was not addressed directly. He said that if we get water from IID, the quality would be worse than now relative to TDS, and it can’t be used as reclaimed water unless the salt is removed. Mr. Greaney said he felt a partnership is needed with Carlsbad, Water Authority and Metropolitan. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Commissioner Maerkle, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting held January 24, 1996, were approved as presented. AYES: Melideo, Kubota, Louis and Maerkle ABSTAIN: Henley February 28, 1996 WATER COMMISSION Page 7 Set Next Meetincr Date. Mr. Greaney stated the next meeting date would be March 13, 1996. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of February 28, 1996, was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Minutes Clerk