August 9, 2017

Dear Pat,

Thank you for your well thought out comments and concerns and placeholder protest.  You really have defined the water rate increase to some of the core elements.

While the Board has been discussing this rate increase at the public Board Meetings over the last four months, I can see where anyone who doesn’t usually attend Community Board Meetings may have been surprised by the news.

The rate increase is definitely being driven by personnel wages, salaries, energy costs, and inflationary pressures to some extent.  The water system isn’t in danger of financial collapse, but only because it has been being subsidized by the district’s property taxes that have been covering the shortfall somewhat unnoticed over the past years.

Also, the district had not been including in its water costs the cost for overhead and financial management for the water system, as well as, looking ahead to the replacement costs of aging infrastructure.  The CSD needs to be fiscally responsible to make sure that the system will be able to maintain its infrastructure into the future – being as it is their only source for water.

A 100% increase does sound like a lot, but it is really the equivalent of an increase of $24.95 per month and will bring the monthly Base rate charge up to about the equivalent of a current LAN system payment.  But ultimately, the District does need to charge what it costs to produce, distribute, manage, and maintain the infrastructure, along with inflation.  The district has not been covering sometimes even half its costs over the past seven years plus even a few years prior to that.  So to make sure that we are in compliance starting this year, we simply need to do a catchup all at once.  Also, while a water district must charge a rate sufficient to cover its costs, it cannot charge in excess of that amount, and all fees must and will be used to cover the cost of services.

Any kind of price increase is never desirable to the customer (including myself), but the district was not being fiscally responsible letting the deficit be covered by the property taxes to avoid the not so pleasant process of raising prices, while at the same time, it was incurring increasing costs. Fiscal responsibility is primary to keeping our water system sound and solvent, and with this water rate increase, it will put the water system back on a solid financial footing.

Also, as for the Low-Income program, it will be designed to only be implemented for a two year period to help ease in the rate increase for truly lower income customers, then after that, lower income payers will then need to accommodate the full rate increase.  If they qualify for the first year, they will get an equivalent discount rate of $12.48 per month (the discount does not apply to any other tiers other than the Base Rate), and then if they qualify for the second year, they will need to pay 75% of the increase which will equal $18.75 per month, and then by the third year, they will be paying the full increase of $24.96 per month. The Board felt there needed to be some easing in for truly low-income residents who will need to provide income and financial statements to apply.  And, as it only applies to the Base Rate, it will not provide for a discount on higher water usage.

I hope this has been helpful in answering some of your questions and concerns and I am available to talk or meet with you further, as I very much appreciate that your concerns were genuinely thought out and reasonably presented.  Thank you.

Best,

Mary

Mary Halley

Co-District Manager

Water-Recreation-Finance-Communications

August 18, 2017

To: MBCSD Board Members

From: Leslie Riehl

190 Pacific Way

Muir Beach, CA

Property #: 199-224-14

Re: Proposed Water Rate Increase

Dear Board Members:

I am writing to protest the proposed water rate increase scheduled for a vote on September 6, 2017.  I do not believe that the Board has adequately addressed the financial situation related to the water department or the district as a whole.  I believe that the District expenses are out of line and the allocation of these excessive expenses should not be borne by the water district.  Clearly, more analysis is needed.

I have prepared my own analysis of the district expenses from information that I obtained from the website.  The documents provided leave many, many financial questions unanswered, in my opinion, and these unanswered issues should be addressed prior to a vote to raise water rates.

I also believe that all members of the Board should be present for the vote.  Please postpone the vote.

Sincerely,

Leslie Riehl 

 

MBCSD Approved 2017/2018 Budget

Is a water rate increase necessary? 

In my quest is to determine if the water rate increase proposed by the Board is necessary and appropriate I delved into the District financial data posted on the website.  The result of my search and analysis indicates that a water rate increase in necessary, but the level of increase is not appropriate.  Why? 

Here’s Why

General District Expenses:

1. General District Expenses are $207,900.
2. General District Expenses make up over half of the total CSD expenses.  While not specific to Water, Fire, Roads or Recreation, these overhead costs are largely allocated to each department.  These costs, and their allocation, matter because they help determine the water rates and the monies available to the other departments.

3. General District Expenses are projected to increase 29% from previous year’s $161,234 to $207,900 for the current year 2017/18.  If the extraordinary cost of the audit is removed, core General District Expenses are going up 60% from last year.

4. Salary for District Staff and Consultants are projected to increase from last year’s expense of $85,787to $146,000 (up 70%) for the coming year.  Total staff: 3 part time employees and one contract bookkeeper.

Fire:

1. Direct Fire Expenses are $25,865.

2. The General District Expenses allocated to Fire are $20,790, almost as high as the direct expenses.

3. Tax Revenues from the past and current fire tax ($200 per household) are designated to a specific fund for fire expenses only.  Current balance:  $188,357

4. The newly approved fire tax ($33,400) is essentially paying for a large portion of the allocated General District overhead expenses even though the District does very little for the Fire Department.  In the past, when Fire Revenues could not cover the direct expenses and the allocated overhead, money was taken from the dedicated Fire Fund to cover the loss.  So, past taxes put into the Fire Fund are being used to cover current District overhead expenses assigned to the Fire Department.

5. The Fire Department has no paid staff, and work done by the District on behalf of the Fire Department is very minimal.

MBCC:

1. Direct Expenses for the MBCC are $31,250

2. General District Expenses allocated to the MBCC are $20,790.

3. The CC plans to raise rents to cover ongoing expenses associated with the community center.  Expenses for the current year are projected to increase $7,644, or 32%, reflecting an increase in programs to be scheduled at the CC.

4. Last year and this year projected Revenues include the Measure A Grant from the County.  Several years ago, the funds from Measure A were used (in advance) to cover the costs of the playground renovation.  At the time, money to cover the costs of the playground were removed from the General Fund, with the stated intention that the depleted General Funds would be replaced by monies received each year from the Measure A Grant.

According to the proposed budget, this is not happening.  Instead of replenishing the General Fund, the current Board is putting all incoming Measure A money into the current MBCC budget. This is essentially funding new MBCC capital improvements before the playground expenses are repaid to the General Fund by the Measure A funds.

5. The CC has three part time staff for a total budget of $15,000.

6. Rental bookings and Event planning is performed by volunteers.

Roads:

1. General repairs for roads are projected to be $12,000.  This does not include the resurfacing of Sunset Way, which is budgeted to be $100,000.

2. General District Expense allocated to Roads is $20,790.

3. There are no assigned employees.

Water:

1. Direct Water Expenses are $109,640.

2. Last year water operating expenses exceeded the projected budget by 40% primarily due to an increase in legal fees, maintenance and other operating expenses.  This year’s direct expense projections are down $20,000, to $109,640.  Overall water operating expenses are still higher than previous years.  Reasons:

1. Bookkeeping fees have increased from $3,253 to $13,500 or 333%.  Bookkeeping expense for water the equivalent to $14 for every water bill generated during the year.  This seems excessive.

1. Payroll for a retiree has increased $6,000 per year.  This is a contracted expense.

1. Payroll for water management team has decreased, partially offsetting other expense increases.

3. General District Expenses allocated to the Water Department are $83,160

4. The overhead allocation by the District has risen from $64,493 last year to $83,160 this year.   The increase in the allocation is completely due to an increase in the General District expenses.

5. The General District expenses allocated to the water operations are not reflective of the actual work performed by the District for the benefit of the water department.

6. The budget for the proposed rate increase uses the 25% surcharge to cover current operating expenses.  In past years, the surcharge was removed to Capital Improvements.  This is a change in policy.

7. Total part time employees: 5 and a contract bookkeeper.

8. The proposed doubling of the water rates will provide the MBCSD with additional $26,045 in cash after the Sunset road repaving.

Is a rate increase necessary?  In my opinion, the short answer is yes, but not necessarily as much as is being asked by the Board.

So, how much of a rate increase is really necessary?  That’s a longer answer.

First, it should be noted that while the MBCSD has approximately $900,000 in the bank, not all of that money is available to be spent on operating and capital expenditures within the community.

1. The MBCSD has wisely set aside monies for operating and capital emergencies:  $412,660.  This money must not be touched.

2. The Fire Department and the Water Department have separate funds that cannot be comingled with any other funds at the CSD:  Fire:  $139,363 (I believe this number is understated, but this is what is in the planned budget), and Water: $238,857 (based on the proposed new rates.  The current amount in the bank as of 6/30/17 is $188,357.).

3. Therefore, the only money left to address roads and recreation is $177,729.

4. The District has several projects in the works and in different stages of planning:

1. Water Improvements:  Tank replacement, Pipe replacements, and probably more stuff as well.  At least $350,000 to over a $1,000,000.
2. Road:  Sunset way repaving, which could include the replacement of pipes along the road.  Other programs I don’t know about. At least $650,000 and could be much more depending upon criteria.
3. Community Center:  The community center needs work.  How much I don’t know. Cost Unknown.

5. The reality is that the property tax and other income from the County cannot possibly cover these non-water improvements.  Nor will they be able to in the future.  Why?

1. The District expenses are too high and seem to be growing every year, especially in the past two years.  Allocating General District expenses to other departments will not make the expenses go away, it merely masks the total expenses incurred by the District.

6. It is inappropriate to raise water rates to cover General District overhead expenses, as what is really happening is the water rates are subsidizing the General District expenses and the capital improvements for other departments.

7. Water rates should increase to a level that revenues will cover the projected operating expenses and not more.  Any additional fund requirements need to be addressed separately.

8. The District now must deal with the projected shortfall associated with the road and community center projects.  Money raised for these projects will be either through Grants or increased fees to residences, but not through water rates.

Final thoughts:

My first review of the District financial statements indicated that a sizeable water rate increase is necessary, BUT, not to pay for District overhead expenses that are not directly associated with the water system.  In my opinion, the District should allocate $31,000 in overhead expenses (not $83,160) to the Water Department.  In addition, the Water Department must find a way to reduce the bookkeeping expenses as $14 per bill is unbelievably high and the legal fees must be controlled.  Finally, a serious discussion on the capital improvements required to the system must be had and quickly.  Then, given all of this information, the rates should be set, but not before.

(My apologies to Leslie, the two spreadsheets would not import.  I will work to see if I can find another way to make them available. MH)

Table 1: Approved MBCSD Budget 2017/2018

No expenses Allocated

Table 2: Approved MBCSD Budget 2017/2018

August 22, 2017

Leslie Riehl’s District Analysis – Comments and Notes for meeting and discussion on Tues 8/22 1pm

General district Expenses:

1,2) CSD General expenses are Management Expenses for all of the 4 charters which are:  Fire, Recreation, Roads, and Water.  There is nothing else that the management is for except to make sure that these charters are organized, managed, and provide those services to the community.

3) Only 3 more audits were budgeted to be paid for this year:  2014, 2015 and 2016.  The costs of pervious audits were not used as a projection for this year’s general expenses.

4) The additional hire of a second part-time DM will increase staff costs for this coming year.  Last year’s DM costs were pushed by the hire of a DM who responded to an ad for a part-time position only to find out it was a full-time job, and the Personnel Committee and Board put him on an hourly wage that pushed his salary to almost $84,000 for the year he was with the District.  Based on that and further investigation, the Personnel Committee determined it was a full-time job but might be best divided between two people.  The part-time salary had been $55,000 per year, so the full-time salary is now $110,000 p/year plus health benefits, that were always provided, but now provided for two.  I was asked to develop a budget to cover all District costs and increased salaries had to be included.

Fire:

1) The previous DM had allocated 15% of management costs to Fire.  I adjusted it down to 10% based on the amount of time spent by staff on Fire.  It may seem out of balance with their dedicated expenses but managerial costs need to be covered by the 4 charters, so it can’t be just arbitrarily determined in comparison or balance to normal department expenses.  The CSD pays for everything for the Fire Department, the only thing that having a separate budget accomplishes is providing a decision-making framework for the Fire Department.  The allocation of management costs just provides a tool by which the Fire Dept. will know how much the department is costing the CSD and how much is needed to provide services, and perhaps, save and plan for capital expenses and improvements.  The Fire department is just one of the Governmental Services provided by the CSD.

2) By accounting for the Fire Department separately it makes sure that the $33,400 per year will not be spent on other Governmental Service within the District charter besides Fire.

3) The District staff must manage the renewal of all Insurance policies for the Fire department plus coordinate any grants it receives, or legal requirements necessary to be involved in a specific program and all the relevant paperwork that goes along with it, and manages the Fire Tax.  The District has the responsibility and the legal liability for the Fire Dept. even if the Volunteer Fireman provide the physical service.  Both the volunteers and the CSD work together as a team to make sure that the District can continue to provide a service within their charter.

MBCC:

1) MBCC does have very tractable dedicated expenses.

2)  Actually, quite a bit of District management time goes into managing the CC repairs, improvement projects, dealing with neighborly problematic conditions, coordination of various events, and community activities.

3) Yes, the increase in outsider rental fees at the CC is to hopefully help with some of the deferred maintenance, repairs and upgrades.  We have yet to see how it will all work out with higher fees.  Most likely, more per rental, but probably less rentals, so we have yet to see if it will be a wash.

4) This is the last year that Measure A funds will go into the General fund which is where they have been going.  But looking forward, they are restricted funds that will only be able to be spent on recreational uses, and will need to be kept in a separate bank fund from the normal District funds.  Most expenditures that meet the level of spending to be considered a capital improvement come out of the General fund anyway, so it’s probably a wash being as under the District charter, the water is the only CSD business-activity that has funds that are not completely interchangeable with General funds – with the exception of all restricted funds of course.

5) CC full-time staff is for cleaning and grounds maintenance.  It does have volunteer staff as well.  The staff may be increasing with the new rental fees because all the expenses are now included, so those payments that use to be paid directly to the cleaning crew and facilitators, will now run through the CSD.

6) Yes, Amy does the rental bookings, and various volunteers organize the community events, but the CSD pays the event expenses.  This seems to be something the community desires, so the costs are accommodated by the CSD, and work is performed by both District and volunteer staff.

Roads:

1) Roads are a charter within the District.  The $12,000 is just for planned repairs and maintenance, which this year was to patch Sunset Way.  The Infrastructure project to resurface Sunset Way is a capital improvement project and will come out of unrestricted funds and specifically assigned District funds.  As the Sunset Road starts to get closer to construction, or as a part of any kind of financial planning to generate funding, there will be a larger allocation of district management time added to the capital cost of the project.  The road portion of that project alone should cost close to $600,000+.  It is not a number that can be budgeted for in daily operations.  It will show up in actuals, but will come from reserves, loans, etc.

2) All District charters do have to contribute to their allocated portion of district management time.

3) Any staff time, aside from DM management time, spent on Roads is usually included in the cost of the road repairs and invoices.

Water:

4) Yes, the District has major infrastructure projects on the horizon.

5) Water does not subsidize the General District expenses.  The District only exists to manage the four charters as described previous, so there is no other service it provides other than to work on the four department’s activities for providing these four governmental and business services.  District County Counsel advises that the CSD would actually be on more dangerous footing if it was not allocating enough to its Business-activity enterprise and requiring the Governmental-activities funds to cover it.  In effect, using Governmental funds which need to go towards activities of equal benefit to the tax payers, would actually be benefiting the Business enterprise which, while providing equal opportunity for service, does not provide equal benefit based on fees and use.  This becomes the dilemma when the District co-mingles funds. It can run at a loss and still pay its bills, until the tax revenues run out, but it really shouldn’t be covering business losses with public funds.  The water business essentially must pay for its management and that management is provided for by the CSD who operates the business enterprise.

6) Water rates can only pay for cost of services.  This includes producing, distributing, maintaining infrastructure, and management.  Over the past years expenses have been going up, and among them most recently, management costs.  There now is one part-time manager pretty much dedicated to water and finances.  In the last few years, the water system wasn’t paying for management and was letting it be subsidized by property taxes.

7) Water rates are currently just going to cover operating costs and not even start to try to plan for deferred maintenance or how to pay for the larger infrastructure cost in the future – except for the water capital improvement fee which cannot go to daily water operations as it is a restricted fund.

8) You are absolutely right.  The biggest challenge facing the MBCSD and the Community is how to pay for these capital projects that are well beyond both the normal Business-activity revenues and current Governmental revenues.  We have a Grants committee looking into grants and the Board will have to look hard at the tradeoff between time and money costs.  It will completely fall onto the Board to take in community input and figure how to fund these large projects.  In an affluent community like MB, grants are far less likely, so it will probably come down to things like municipal bonds, property assessments, loans, or wait and pay-as-you-go.  The CSD has never borrowed before, it has always had a pay-as-you-go policy, but everyone is going to have to put their heads together to find solutions.  Right now, the water rate increase is just to get the Water operations to cover itself, and while that will free up unrestricted funds for other uses and definitely help, it will not solve all the infrastructure issues facing the District.

Wrap-up:

1) Itemized management costs for water operations is actually 43%, so an allocation of 40% is pretty close, accurate, and reliable.

Yes, we are looking at all ways to reduce bookkeeping costs, but that will not balance the budget alone.

We are currently in the process of developing a Capital Improvement Schedule – but we do currently have a Capital projects sheet.  Water rate increases are being based solely on Business-activities operational costs, not future capital costs at the moment.  The WCI fee is currently saving for water capital improvements – albeit slowly in comparison with district infrastructure needs.

Yes, the Board voted for the first time to have a water retiree compromise payment, so thus it must be included.

With the Water management team hire we were trying to find another way to look at having a water system operator by having a team approach but not cost the District any more.

3-5) The District only exists to manage the four charters.  The District’s goal is to get the best service and bang for its buck and will continue to do so.  Salary and staff costs are the driving force to why management costs have increased to all departments.  There is no separating the District from its individual charters – they are basically all one right now.  The CSD is planning on the advice of the auditor to separate the Water finances completely from the District’s books but it will still have management costs allocated, although distributed out by proportional percentages for those items that cannot just be expensed directly.

8) Water rate fees cannot directly pay for Sunset Way Road improvements, but it can stop absorbing the property tax revenues that could be used.  The WCI fund can help pay for the new Sunset Way water line and Fire hydrants but not road drainage or surfacing improvements.

Mary Halley – MBCSD Staff

Mary Halley

Co-District Manager

Water-Recreation-Finance-Communications

September 1, 2017

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your evaluation of Prop 218.  I realize this letter was addressed to Gary for the CSD Board’s consideration, but I thought I would try to address briefly the topic of Prop 218.

The CSD has been aware of the legal parameters concerning the use of tiered rates under Prop 218 – which almost 2/3 of California water districts still use.  The CSD started researching the issue and consulting with an attorney on the subject, well over a year ago, as the water district looked to cover its cost of service.  The district has been proceeding responsibly and carefully taking the position that spending a little bit on legal fees now may save in the future.

As you point out, the key to pricing under a tiered system is to be able to justify the pricing at each tier level and also to not charge any more than the cost of service – which does include production, distribution, maintenance, capital improvement for infrastructure, and management costs.

The district has done the calculations that show the additional costs at each tier and the additional revenues necessary to cover the increasing costs at the various tier rates under the proposed water rate increase. (Note: Excel spreadsheets don’t import well into comment pages – but see below)

MBCSD WATER OPERATIONS TIER RATE ANALYSIS
MBCSD EXPENSES: (Based on FY 17/18 Budget)
							FIXED+VAR
FIXED:	$147,800						$147,800
REPAIR:	$25,000	(normal repairs contributed to water use)					$172,800
VARIABE:	$20,000	(Treatment/electric)
TOTAL:	$192,800	(operational costs)					$192,800
Depreciation expense (UT)	$12,000	(WCI replenishment cost for upper tank)					$204,800	(currently charged but not being fully realized by T4)
MBCSD REVENUE: (Based on actual usage x current water rate increase)
TIERS	USERS		REVENUE
BASE RATE:	156		$93,450				$93,450	(Covers $93,450 Fixed costs)
TIER 2	65		$60,700		BASE+T2		$154,150	(Covers $147,800 FC + $6,350 VC /Repairs)
TIER 3	30		$23,150		BASE+T2,T3,T4		$177,300	(Covers $147,800 FC + $29,500 VC /Repairs)
TIER 4	5		$15,500
TOTAL:			$192,800		(BASE+T1,T2,T3,T4		$192,800	(Covers all Fixed + Variable + Repair)
WCI Fee:	$50,300	(towards infrastructure capital improvement)						Tiered Rates – Price p/gallon Analysis
TOTAL:	$242,800	(total water Operations and Water Capital Improvement)
											Running	Running
Capital Water Projects:										Price p/gal	Avg p/gal	Avg total
Sunset Way: $650,000								Base Rate		0.022	0.022	0.022
Lower Tanks: $350,000								Tier 2		0.0185	0.020	0.021
								Tier 3		0.025	0.021	0.02
UPPER WATER TANK COST COMPARISON:								Tier 4		0.032	0.024	0.021
TANK	GALLONS	STORAGE	COST	ADDNL COST		25-YR Dep Exp (Addnl cost only)
As built	200,000	8  days	$650,000	$300,000		$12,000	(per year – priced into T4)
Alternate	100,000	4 days	$350,000

If you first look to the Tiered Rates – Price p/gallon Analysis, you will find that there is very little cost difference at each tier level due to the fact that the tiers are based on price per 100 gallons.  So basically, the cost of a gallon of water pretty much averages out to $0.02 per gallon at all tiers.

Then under the proposed rates, the majority of the water district’s fixed and variable operating costs (80%) are captured in the first two tiers of revenue (80%) and thus spread out equitably among all water users.  Then the full portion of fixed costs and variable production and treatment costs plus normal repairs (92%) are covered within the base rate and next two tiers of revenues (92%).  Then currently, all fixed costs plus variable costs plus total maintenance costs (100%) are captured in all four tiers of revenues (100%).  The introduction of the ever so slightly higher Tier 4 rates is to try to recapture the depreciation expense for the additional construction costs for the upper water tank that built-in the excess storage capacity needed to accommodate the highest volume water users, along with the fire requirements of the one commercial user, which was all needed over what would have been the necessary water tank size to accommodate the first three tiers of water users alone.  Right now that depreciation is not even yet being realized, as the district is just covering the costs of operations. The depreciation expense only effects the last two tiers ever so slightly, but if realized, should cover the $12,000 annual cost over the useful life of the Upper Water Tank.

As you can see, 100% of customers pay the Base Rate, and 78% of customers pay the Base Rate and some part of Tier 2 that generates 80% of the revenue towards covering 80% of the costs.  97% of all customers fall within the first three tiers with 19% sometimes reaching Tier 3 (but not usually by much) who together pay 92% of the revenue to cover 92% of the total costs.  And then of course 100% of all customers fall within all four tiers to cover 100% of the costs, with only 3% of users ever reaching Tier 4 and with that last 5% being mostly incremental variable costs or depreciation expensed (if realized) and is almost exclusively to the district’s one commercial customer for who the district was required to provide the accessibility to a certain volume of water for fire protection, as I understand it, and which was accommodated for when the upper tank was built.

I think in the future the district could look at trying to trim down to fewer tiers, but that would more likely result in a very small change, as currently there is very little difference in cost between tiers now.  I think it would not be impossible to find the balance in a three-tiered system as long as the depreciation expense still remains in the top tier  The actual trend in many water districts is to use more tiers, not less, but in a district with many customers falling into the same use patterns and classifications, that may not have much useful application for MB in the long run.  The district doesn’t have a lot a varying meter sizes, and it is trying not to discourage the fire protection need for the few residents who are required to have a slightly larger water meter to accommodate their fire sprinkler systems, and don’t generally, use any more water than the majority of households with the standard meter.  The district has just two water zones that are all gravity fed, for the most part, from a 60/40 split between lower and upper tanks respectively – with just a couple of homes needing pressure boosters – and the upper tank having the capability of feeding the system interchangeably from either direction .  All water gets pumped from the Wells to the lower tank and the cost to pump water to the upper tank is negligible in comparison.  But all costs and expenses are being looked at in the process of setting rates.

The CSD has been in consultation with an attorney that specializes in water law as needed, and he does not see anything non-conforming or illegal in the CSD’s current pricing structure or proposed rates, as the district can justify its tiers and costs, and has not built any punitive use charges or excessive fees into any of the rates.

The water district has done individual costing of the exact amount of management and itemized overhead costs for the water system and it actually comes out to 43.96%, so the 40% allocation is fairly representative of the water enterprise’s share of district management and overhead costs.  I think it’s hard for the general public that doesn’t live with managing a water system day-to-day to realize how much time goes into running and managing every aspect of the system: from production; to keeping track of testing and reporting; to monitoring treatment levels; to responding to emergency repairs and the coordination of routine repairs (especially for an extensive and aging distribution systems that includes many miles of water lines and mains of various ages and types); to a manually read metered billing system, leak detection, customer invoicing and billing; to customer service inquiries, water advice, on call help, research, and just all levels of communication around notifications; to even the time spent on this water rate increase.  And then from there, it just gets more complicated by the addition of the Banducci connection to the system, with a new State requirement to add a 4-log Inactivation permit modification to the existing system, and the time that it entails to work with both the State and Civil water engineers to bring the whole system up to a new level of the water code standards.  And also, to work with the NPS to monitor the creek to stay incompliance with our water permitting.  In short, water systems don’t manage themselves and there is a lot of work to keep a safe and dependable supply of drinking water delivered continuously to every doorstep and faucet, and to such a degree, that no one really notices how much is necessary to make it all happen.

The water district has not done the calculations for a single rate payer system.  Currently though, that would most likely result in a rate that would be higher overall for lower volume users than they are paying currently, and I don’t think it would be fair to have those customers pay for the excess storage cost of the highest users.  But that said, we are pretty close to a single rate right now at $.02 p/gallon.

Currently though, the CSD Water Committee is starting to explore a very different water pricing concept called “Aquashares” which is based on a single payer plan, but it will take a great deal of research and public education, along with the installation of a real-time water metering system (and additionally a computer hub or server), to introduce such a novel approach of water sharing to the MB community.  At the CSD Water Education Day, one of the guest speakers did talk on this concept and many residents in attendance conveyed that they wanted the CSD to look into this system further.  But as a whole, a radically different water sharing concept would take quite a bit of time to explore and will bring as many questions as it answers in the beginning, and may seem confusing, and perhaps, unwanted by many community members.  So, I believe, it would still take quite a bit of further investigative research and public education to get to a fair and equitable single payer or single rate system, but certainly the district should be looking at all long-term potential ideas and options to present to the community for logistical application, usefulness, and input.

Anyway, the district is aware they are operating under Prop 218.

Sincerely,

Mary Halley – MBCSD Staff

Co-District Manager

Water-Recreation-Finance-Communications