The drought may be over, but Palo Alto's water forecast shows rates going up every year for the next decade, starting with a 4 percent increase that will kick in on July 1.
The rate change, which the City Council approved on Monday night by a 6-1 vote, with Mayor Greg Scharff and Councilman Adrian Fine absent and Greg Tanaka dissenting, is a harbinger of things to come. Current projections show rates rising by 6 percent in each of the next four years.
According to Utilities Department staff, the main driver for the increase in the water rate is the rising cost of buying water wholesale from the city's supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (last year, the wholesale costs rose by 9 percent, according to department staff). In addition, the city expects to see a $1 million increase in operating costs for emergency generators for wells and pump stations.
The cost of replacing water mains is also going up, thanks to a generally hot construction climate. An April report from Utilities notes that these costs have "risen substantially in recent years, and it is possible higher CIP (capital-improvement project) expenditures will be required in the future."
The proposed rate increase would add about $3.24 to the median residential water bill (which is currently $81.03 per month) However, the impact of the increase is expected to be largely offset by the concurrent elimination of drought surcharge that the city had tacked on to local bills during the recent dry spell. As a result, staff anticipates that the change will in fact result in a decrease of 2 to 4 percent for most customers whose usage remains similar to pre-drought consumption.
The council's Finance Committee had discussed the proposed increase on April 4 and supported moving ahead with a more modest increase of 3 percent in the current fiscal year. But in May, as the committee reviewed the rate in the context of the entire utilities budget, it acceded to staff's recommendation of 4 percent.
City Manager James Keene said the decision was driven by a desire to invest in needed infrastructure in the near term, when the city's overall utility rates are "competitive," as opposed to "postponing some of that spending to the future."
Tanaka disagreed with staff and called the 4 percent increase "over the top." The city, he said, should "hold the line" and look out for the city's ratepayers, who trust the council to be responsible with funding.
"I don't believe we're being responsible here by increasing it by 4 percent," Tanaka said.
In addition to approving the 4 percent increase to the water rates, the council also voted on Monday to adopt a 5 percent increase to the city's refuse bills. The change means that the monthly rate for a 20-gallon "minican" will go up from $26.48 to $27.81 in July. For those with 32-gallon cans, the rate would shift from $47.69 to $50.07, while for those with 64-gallons cans the rate will go from $95.38 to $100.15.
Comments
Community Center
on Jun 20, 2017 at 9:10 pm
on Jun 20, 2017 at 9:10 pm
Thank you, Council Member Greg Tanaka
Professorville
on Jun 20, 2017 at 9:29 pm
on Jun 20, 2017 at 9:29 pm
[Post removed.]
Crescent Park
on Jun 20, 2017 at 9:49 pm
on Jun 20, 2017 at 9:49 pm
[Post removed.]
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 20, 2017 at 10:28 pm
on Jun 20, 2017 at 10:28 pm
We have an abominable garbage service and the tax (since we have no choice but to pay it) is basically a case of holding the residents to ransom.
The water increase is basically their way of not giving us back the drought surcharge.
Can I say I am not surprised.
East Palo Alto
on Jun 21, 2017 at 10:31 am
on Jun 21, 2017 at 10:31 am
When we had a drought The Water Companies raised and put strong and exaggerated rules but when we had a lot of rain they didn't low the rate ! I really was waiting for that! But it is obvious that they spent the extra money in stupid adds for saving water and I couldn't SAVE MY MONEY!!! No fair!!!!
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 21, 2017 at 11:52 am
on Jun 21, 2017 at 11:52 am
Can I expect to get consistent water pressure moving forward? Some days it's a trickle, other days somewhat better, but never strong.
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 21, 2017 at 12:36 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 12:36 pm
Even Sunnyvale has given GreenWaste the boot after years of poor service and numerous complaints!
GreenWaste doesn't deserve a single penny more for what lousy service we get: broken receptacles, trash strewn up and down the street, snarky employees, receptacles left unemptied, emails and phone calls unreturned, etc!
The Utility Dept doesn't deserve another increase, they have had several already. Wait and see if another drought appears in a couple of years, first!
Community Center
on Jun 21, 2017 at 1:14 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 1:14 pm
Hey, anyone see the movie "Groundhog Day"? Every year it's the same thing happening over and over again from our city's utility dept - raise garbage rates, raise water rates, raise electricity rates, etc. But what can citizen really do? I feel helpless here.
Community Center
on Jun 21, 2017 at 1:48 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 1:48 pm
Milpitas charges: $5.13+$1.30 (capital surcharge) = $6.63 per HCF (hundred cubic feet).
Palo Alto's rates: $6.73 for the first 6 HCF. $10.03 per HCF thereafter.
And that's before the 6% increase!
Can you say gratuitous pensions? I knew you could.
Community Center
on Jun 21, 2017 at 1:49 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 1:49 pm
Oh, and BTW, that's for the exact same Hetch Hetchy water going through a delivery system of similar vintage.
Palo Alto Hills
on Jun 21, 2017 at 1:57 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 1:57 pm
We are a very wealthy city. Why do we have to pay more for anything much less water?
-Jason
Barron Park
on Jun 21, 2017 at 2:15 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 2:15 pm
Hi all. I grew up in Palo Alto and graduated from Gunn last yea. I have never been in charge of paying the utilities bill, but I do see it.
@38 year resident If you are having troubles with your water pressure have you reached out to utilities about it? Or are you just complaining on a public forum without actually having attempted to take any action? Just wondering. If you've reached out to them I'd love to hear what they said.
@Damn! Sorry you've had bad experience with GreenWaste. That's rough. You can try and voice that concern more in the future when the city is picking a new hauler (in a few years?) Sunnyvale has had the same waste hauler since 1927 so I don't know what you're on about there (Web Link
@PT Barnum I think the refuse fund is its own thing, not part of the General Fund. Could be the same for the water district, too. Composting ads through GreenWaste or Zero Waste seem like a refuse fund thing. And besides, composting is really important! The less we send to landfills the better things will be for my generation when we have to deal with all the closed landfills polluting the surrounding area through chemical percolation and methane production.
@SuperD and anyone else, really. If you're concerned about governmental spending then educate yourself on where money in the budget is going. A lot of that information will be public record and big projects are voted on by City Council. You aren't helpless. Council meetings are every Monday at 6 and the agendas are posted ahead of time. Become more engaged. Posting on Town Square isn't going to get anyone in government to pay attention to your concerns. Call. Email. Get your questioned answered. A lot of the costs we're covering actually make sense. If you read the article about water price hikes you'd find that it's based on what SF is charging for Hetch Hetchy water. It's expensive. We have some of the most expensive water in the entire country. But we also have some of the cleanest water in the country. We are one of 6 (?) water districts in the entire US that don't require additional filtration--so that also reflects *some* savings. Refuse rates cover GreenWaste daily trash pickup but they also cover stuff like clean up days, hazardous waste, maintaining the closed landfill, etc.
If you care enough, educate yourself.
Barron Park
on Jun 21, 2017 at 2:21 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 2:21 pm
Only 4 people wrote the city to oppose the rates out of 11k+ households, I believe was the number. Don't complain here unless you opposed to council.
Barron Park
on Jun 21, 2017 at 2:53 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 2:53 pm
In fact, the City Council will be discussing the budget for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2018 beginning July 1. It's probably too late to make a meaningful dent but in any case here's the proposed budgets.
Web Link
Web Link
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 21, 2017 at 3:10 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 3:10 pm
@Young Palo Altan........ I have talked to city on numerous occasions and have been told that there is nothing they can do about the problem. If you take my comment as a complaint, you're correct. Given that direct contact with the city doesn't provide any insight to the problem, perhaps publicly posting my concern might offer a solution, unlike your somewhat condescending reply.
Barron Park
on Jun 21, 2017 at 3:13 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 3:13 pm
My apologies. I am used to interacting with other college students who are all talk and no walk. I still don't know how the public comment will help resolve anything, though.
Barron Park
on Jun 21, 2017 at 3:25 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 3:25 pm
@Super D -- Ground Hog Day is perfect! More money for less responsiveness.
@ Young Palo Altan (19) @I think the refuse fund is its own thing, not part of the General Fund. Could be the same for the water district, too. Composting ads through GreenWaste or Zero Waste seem like a refuse fund thing. And besides, composting is really important! The less we send to landfills the better things will be for my generation when we have to deal with all the closed landfills polluting the surrounding area through chemical percolation and methane production.
Refuse is one of the various utilities, fees, surcharges, usage taxes etc. itemized on our monthly utility bills from Palo Alto Utilities. When they run a profit, that gain is siphoned off into the General Fund to fund other expenses. The more increases, the more gain
Re compost, you want to compost, great. You don't, also fine. Preaching conservation and composting etc. is a joke when the city's mant5ra has been hyper-development. PA's compost campaign was such a bad joke that people irritated at being forced to pay $25 for an unwieldy compost bin that attracted vermin and whose use was confusing sent back their larger black cans in protest.
Crescent Park
on Jun 21, 2017 at 5:39 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 5:39 pm
My understanding is that pipes that carry SF's water pass through Palo Alto.
Why is there no water transit tax? Or, in lieu of such a tax on water passing through PA, a deal for bargain rates?
another community
on Jun 21, 2017 at 5:59 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 5:59 pm
Sunnyvale got rid of GreenWaste two years ago.
They have a different garbage company now.
They have NOT had the same company since 1927: I used to live there before they had GreenWaste. At one time they had Browning Ferris.
Sunnyvale has Specialty Waste Company since 2015. That's who my mom pays her bill to!
Palo Verde
on Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00 pm
on Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00 pm
@res, those pipes were there before Palo Alto annexed the land.
Water rights are a peculiar thing.
Different subject: what about our recent water agreement with East Palo Alto?