Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

PROTEST OF THE WASTEWATER RATE ADJUSTMENT

DownthedrainThis is a letter in PROTEST OF THE WASTEWATER RATE ADJUSTMENT as it is proposed.

The rate structure is based on a 60% fixed and 40% volumetric cost for those who use ~ 10 ccf per month, but the average usage is 6 ccf.  The more wastewater used the lower the fixed rate, and the less wastewater used, the higher the fixed rate.  Households using greater-than-average volume is why the system has to be as large as it is and have the fixed costs it does.  While I should pay for the opportunity to use the system, this proposal raises the rates unfairly.

Since the fixed rate would go up and the volumetric rate would go down, the more you use, the less proportionally you’d pay.  How unfair and unnecessary a way to generate the needed revenue. If you use 9ccf or more your bill will actually go down; if you use less than 9ccf, your bill will go up.  Since the average use is 6ccf, or 74% fixed at that level of use (not the 60% stated), this will generate more total revenue on the backs of the lower-volume users. Since more revenue needs to be generated, anyone who uses less has to make up for high users’ costs actually going down, and then some, to generate more revenue overall. This incentivizes waste.  Again, the heavier users, 9ccf and up, will actually pay less than they do now.

I fully understand that a significant component of the rate structure has to be fixed to cover infrastructure and administrative costs of the system, but

the fixed component of the proposed new rate structure is too large a proportion as to be fair for those who conserve, as I do. Look at these numbers. A user of 6ccf now pays $40.98 and at the first adjustment would pay $42.51.  A user of 10ccf now pays $53.50 and at the first adjustment would pay $50.47.  No bill should be going down when we need to generate more revenue.  The volumetric rate should not be going down and decreasing revenue generated, going the wrong direction.  Then if the current volumetric rates do not produce the needed revenue, the fixed rate can be raised, but much less.

At my 0-1 ccf monthly usage (let’s use 1 for the calculation) my single family rate is currently 3.94+18.26+3.13=$25.33 or 88% fixed.  In the new rate structure this would be $32.56 of which 94% would be fixed, and this high fixed rate continues year after year. By 2028, my $41.56 bill would increase 64%. Just this year my bill would increase by 35%.

These kinds of restructuring and increases DO NOT minimize the impact on rate payers who use the system proportionally little (as stated by the consultant).  Rather it impacts them and me greatly and unfairly. These kinds of restructuring and increases also DO NOT distribute costs equitably between customer classes. Even a duplex drops into the multifamily category and lower rate structure (similar to what my single family home currently is) while many duplexes are as large or larger than my single family home and have more inhabitants.

In conclusion, this proposed new rate structure for wastewater is unfair to those who conserve, raises revenue solely on their backs, incentivizes waste, and should NOT be adopted.

Submit a protest letter to the city by January 16th, or rates will be raised for anyone using less than 9ccf/month.

Donna Lemongello

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

6 responses to “PROTEST OF THE WASTEWATER RATE ADJUSTMENT”

  1. George Galamba

    A user of 6ccf now pays $40.98 and at the first adjustment would pay $42.51.[An increase of $1.53] A user of 10ccf now pays $53.50 and at the first adjustment would pay $50.47. [A reduction of $3.03]
    I get your point, but…

  2. Donna Lemongello

    A clarification and a correction. Clarification: The more wastewater used the lower the fixed rate, and the less wastewater used, the higher the fixed rate AS A PERCENTAGE.
    Correction: By 2028, my $41.56 bill would BE AN increase OF 64%.

  3. Donna Lemongello

    but what George Galamba? When you need to increase revenue, do you start by lowering costs for some people and raising them for others? Especially raising costs for those who conserve and lowering them for those who do not? How does that 1) get you to where you want to be revenue wise and 2) how is that fair? The less you use the more your costs will increase. This is one example, this extrapolates out to annual increases and years of payments.

  4. David

    Donna is once again making sense here…

  5. Colin Walsh

    What I would like to know is how does this effect large property owners? – especially apartment complexes.

  6. Donna Lemongello

    Multiunit properties currently have several categories. In the proposed rates they would all fall into 1, with rates similar to what single family has now, before the change, for all multifamily from duplexes and up, with a separate dormitory rate. Multifamily would start with rates similar to current single family and rise much less. I do not however know what their current rates are. The proposed dorm fixed rate is per bed and ~ 1/3 of the single family proposed 1st increase amount. The decreased proposed volumetric rate pertains to everyone.

Leave a reply to Donna Lemongello Cancel reply