News

Palo Alto halts water-rate increase -- for now

City Council calls for further revisions to proposed rate structure; rate hikes likely in the fall

Palo Alto isn't spiking its water rates just yet, but residents concerned about rising bills should hold their applause for now.

The City Council was scheduled to approve a new water-rate schedule that would raise rates by an average of 12.5 percent. The council held a public hearing on the rate changes last week and Monday night was scheduled to approve the new rates as part of their adoption of the 2012 budget.

But while the council approved most of the budget without a hitch, members put the brakes on the proposed water-rate increase after Councilman Greg Scharff said the proposed rates would violate Proposition 218, which requires water rates to be consistent with the cost of providing service.

The rates proposed by the Utilities Department, with input from the Utilities Advisory Commission and the council's Finance Committee, included new tiers for heaviest water users in both the residential and commercial customer classes. Currently, there are two tiers for residential and one tier for commercial customers. Under the proposal, which seeks to encourage conservation, the residential customers in the new third tier would pay more per gallon than other customers. So would commercial customers in the new second tier.

But Scharff and the council agreed that the new tiers would conflict with state law and asked staff to come back with a different rate structure. The council voted 7-1, with Gail Price dissenting and Nancy Shepherd absent, to support Scharff's proposal.

"I think it's really important that we move in right direction on Proposition 218," Scharff said.

Though the delay gives concerned ratepayers a temporary reprieve from higher rates, any sense of victory is likely to be short-lived. The council still expects to approve higher rates later this summer, though the way in which these rates are distributed among customers would change.

Palo Alto's Water Fund is facing a $6.2 million budget gap because of the spiking cost of wholesale water. The city's water-supply costs are projected to rise by 37 percent in the next fiscal year and to double by 2016, according to the Utilities Department. The increases are driven largely by a $4.6 billion infrastructure-repair project undertaken by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the city's water supplier.

The council decision to revise the water rates appeared to surprise city staff. City Manager James Keene told the council that its new direction on water rates is a "rather significant change from what you've been considering." Utilities Director Valerie Fong said staff is a "little bit confused" by the council's proposal, which she said appears to conflict with previous direction. Utilities staff is schedule to return to the council with a new proposal on Aug. 1.

Councilman Greg Schmid proposed adopting the proposed rates for six months and then taking a fresh look at the rate structure next spring. This, he said, would give the council time to figure out ways to resolve its two conflicting goals: to comply with state law and to encourage conservation. His proposal fizzled by a 3-5 vote, with Vice Mayor Yiaway Yeh and Price supporting it.

Councilman Pat Burt pointed out that the council's decision to further revise the water rates is unlikely to satisfy the 120 or so customers who had sent in letters protesting the rate hike. The only people who would likely benefit from the next revision are the heaviest users who would have been in the third tier.

Burt agreed, however, that the city needs to make sure it complies with state law when setting the new water rates.

"If Proposition 218 didn't exist, I think we'd have a different discussion about the merits of tiered rates for conservation, but Proposition 218 does exist," Burt said.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Do-It-Over
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 21, 2011 at 11:49 am

> But Scharff and the council agreed that the new tiers would
> conflict with state law and asked staff to come back with a
> different rate structure.

If this is true, what was the Utility people thinking? And did they get a "sign-off" by the City Attorney's Office?

Something is rotten in Denmark. This is another example of incompetence, or fraud, at the Utility.


Like this comment
Posted by Downtowner
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 21, 2011 at 2:30 pm

Sounds like staff was following previous council direction - what was the council thinking?


Like this comment
Posted by Michael
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 21, 2011 at 3:04 pm

Bravo Greg Scharff.

And no thanks to you, Gail Price, for standing up for the rate increase. The city needs the extra revenue to keep overpaying your public union cronies.


Like this comment
Posted by honey bee
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 21, 2011 at 5:52 pm

Is Valerie Fong part of the new unionized utility managers? Why is she confused by council direction? She should have asked for clarification early on. Maybe the 'I didn't understand' strategy was to buy more time. She got it. August 1. Let's hope all her high payng unionized managers can get her through this one. Hopefully the August 1st report back date gives Utilites staff time to actually read Prop 218 before they come up with another solution for council.


Like this comment
Posted by Aghast
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 22, 2011 at 3:05 pm

The unionized managers couldn't do their homework on rates? What are these guys doing on our dime?

Oh and 3 words: DUMP GAIL PRICE!


Like this comment
Posted by DeAngelo
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 23, 2011 at 12:18 am

Agree with Aghast. I think we should be asking why a group of managers of a utility would try to circumvent (or not be aware of... equally bad) voter passed legislation which dictates the code of conduct of utilities in this state. In the private sector, said managers would be answering for their incompetence. In the public sector, there are infinite do-overs.


Like this comment
Posted by haltit
a resident of Southgate
on Jun 23, 2011 at 12:54 am

Halt it forever,everyone must stop working on it.


Like this comment
Posted by Rate Payer Abuse Light Shines
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 23, 2011 at 8:35 am

Whats up with Gail Price, In her infinite wisdom does she not see Palo Altans are getting the short end of the stick.

Prop 218 is designed to STOP ABUSE OF RATE PAYERS.

Clearly they realize that the "cost of providing service is NOT IN LINE WITH THE RATES"; Somewhere else the money gets sucked away - not a surprise.

Thanks Prop 218.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Post-election reflections -- and sponges
By Diana Diamond | 12 comments | 1,452 views

Couples: Philosophy of Love
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,105 views

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 4 comments | 593 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 279 views