A proposal to provide some relief to Palo Alto utilities customers whose bills were inflated by undetected water leaks gained some momentum last week, when several members of the Utilities Advisory Commission said they would support some revisions to the existing policy.
The discussion was sparked by periodic complaints from residents, some of whom were shocked to receive water bills that are magnitudes higher than usual. The city's current policy, which was adopted in 2006, states that City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) "shall not make billing adjustments for Water, Gas or Wastewater Charges resulting from leakage in a line on the Customer Premises beyond the CPAU Meter, unless CPAU determines that City staff were solely responsible for such leakage."
While the policy aims to ensure that customers take water leaks seriously and repair them expeditiously, some on the commission and in the community during a July 12 discussion argued that the city's no-exception approach to giving credits to water customers is too stringent.
Mark Harris, a Crescent Park resident who had previously served as assistant director of utilities in Palo Alto and as director of utilities in Mountain View, told the commission that the city made a mistake in 2006, when it adopted the stricter policy.
Harris said he became aware of the issue after several discussions popped up on his neighborhood's message board.
"I can't really understand how a community-owned utility system that prides itself of conservation, energy efficiency, carbon neutrality and zero-waste policies that are cutting-edge could take a step backwards in serving its customers during a critical concern," Harris said.
Tom Auzenne, assistant director for customer support services, said the Utilities Department has a responsibility that it takes very seriously "to try to communicate with our customers how to best use the tools they have available to them for water and energy efficiency and the like." He encouraged customers to learn more about their water meters, which he noted has a blue indicator that spins when it detects leaks.
Auzenne wrote in a report to the commission that since 2009, there have been 74 calls about high water consumption that required the attention of a supervisor or manager. Of these, there were about a dozen "significant-volume water leaks where the dollar values of these leaks ranged from several hundred to several thousand dollars," with a high of $7,000.
The problem of unexpected water leaks will probably be solved once smart technology such as advanced metering infrastructure becomes adopted, allowing meters to notify customers, Auzenne said.
"But we're not there yet," he said. "In the mean time, customers get the unhappy experience of getting a bill at the end of the month where water consumption is significantly more than expected.
"It could be several times their normal bill, could be several hundred dollars. In one case, for a fairly large estate, it was several thousand dollars."
Harris suggested that the city revert to the pre-2006 policy while considering a new one. He recommended that the city's approach include a limit on the number of adjustments and a demonstration by the customer that they made an effort to address the leak. And if the customer ultimately gets charged for the water, the bill should only account for the wholesale price of water (the prior policy called for wholesale plus 10 percent).
Jon Foster, a former chair of the Utilities Advisory Commission, also spoke out in favor of reverting to the old policy, which allowed utilities to make billing adjustments in cases where the customer "had no control of such device(s) leaking." That policy also specified that credit would not be given to a customer "when the facts indicate that a Customer had knowledge of a water or gas leak, but failed to take corrective measures in a timely manner."
"Bottom line: let's do the right thing. Go back to the old policy or come up with a new policy that basically says, if you have a $7,000 bill because you had a water leak that you didn't realize, you get a little relief," Foster said.
While the commission didn't take any formal votes on amending the 2006 policy, several current commissioners said they would support some changes. Commissioner Judith Schwartz said the city should have a "forgiveness policy that's reasonable."
"If there's somebody where it slips through and you bring it to their attention and they fix the problem, I think we should forgive the $7,000 or whatever it is," Schwartz said. "If they refuse to fix it -- you figure out they have a leaking toilet or whatever, and they refuse to fix it -- they should pay for it."
Commissioner Arne Ballentine said the city should also consider designs in the city's water infrastructure that would prevent water leaks in the first place by automatically shutting off the water main when a problem is identified.
"If you don't have limiters and shut off valves, you're going to have leaks," Ballentine said.
Comments
University South
on Jul 19, 2017 at 9:29 am
on Jul 19, 2017 at 9:29 am
Thank you to PA Online for informing the community of this issue. We brought it forward to provide a venue for public discussion of an existing City policy recently brought up in a neighborhood online group. Based on the UAC discussion we are evaluating options and expect to bring the issue back to the UAC within the next few months.
I do find notable that while there was quite a bit of group discussion, this article (and a prior one) hasn't generated any comments. I'm curious what City staff should make of that. What do others think about the prospect of modifying this policy?
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 19, 2017 at 9:31 am
Registered user
on Jul 19, 2017 at 9:31 am
We had a leak last summer, made even more ironic as we were away on vacation. One of our sprinkler valves failed. After we returned home, I heard water running at an unusual time of day, and our bill arrived at about the same time. We paid $1600 for this mistake, although I did consider it our responsibility. At that time, there was no forgiveness and no way to amortize the costs across multiple months. It was a major aberration in our standard water use, about ten times our normal daily use.
another community
on Jul 19, 2017 at 11:26 am
on Jul 19, 2017 at 11:26 am
First, the City cannot automatically shut off the water "main" if a problem is detected. It's a service that's involved. The main is out in the street (usually) serving everyone. It's ridiculous to think that a resident would not have a leak fixed once they know about it, just as they must fix a known gas leak or their service is shut off at the meter until they do. At the first high bill, a utility service person can be called to monitor the usage at the meter to determine a customer-side leak. If the meter is running when no one is using water, there's a leak! Until there is technology to give warnings or automatically shut off a service (which leads to other problems, like health), people have to be more aware. The City owns the pipes leading up to the meter and the part on the customer's side is the customer's responsibility.
Stanford
on Jul 19, 2017 at 11:45 am
on Jul 19, 2017 at 11:45 am
I agree with Stretch. Ballantine's idea sounds absurd, or at least overly expensive, to implement. I also like the current policy of no forgiveness. Seeing. The impact of a leak on your water bill certainly will lead to quick fixing of leaks of our valuable water supply.
Midtown
on Jul 19, 2017 at 11:51 am
on Jul 19, 2017 at 11:51 am
Water leaks can happen to any of us. I'm running out to check my water meter right now!
Water used/wasted should always be charged but there should not be a 10% fine for the first pay cycle. Additionally, amortization (six months?) should be allowed for payers with payments of over 100% their regular bill.
Midtown
on Jul 19, 2017 at 12:26 pm
on Jul 19, 2017 at 12:26 pm
I had an irrigation water leak at my residence in February 2016. We are very water conscious and had recently installed a new drought tolerant garden and drip irrigation system. The leak occurred from a faulty irrigation valve, and we did not notice all the water loss. We found out about it after the leak occurred, after we were shocked to receive a water bill of roughly $500. We immediately fixed what we suspected the problem to be. Unfortunately, although we thought we fixed the problem the first time, we had a second related irrigation leak occur (while on vacation) which cost $700, after which we were then able to identify and permanently fix the problem.
I paid my bill both times. But after the first leak, I wrote CPAU at the time, asking for relief of the bill, and the response I received was that Palo Alto Utilities was not responsible for the leak. This woke me up to the city's current policy
Thankfully, the particular problem we had was finally taken care of, but we do live in constant fear that this will happen again, especially while we are on vacation. When this happens to you (and it can happen to any of us), believe me, you wish there was some financial relief of the situation. And by the way, standard homeowner's insurance does not cover this.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 19, 2017 at 12:51 pm
on Jul 19, 2017 at 12:51 pm
We remodeled our kitchen and bathrooms recently. At that time we caught a small leak in the downstairs bathroom, and it was repaired.
Still, our water bill was not in the meat lessened, despite low-flow faucets and shower heads, low-flow toilets, and watering our front yard no more than twice a week.
Our children are bathed twice a week in winter, three times a week in summer-- and 5-6 times a week, our showers are taken at the gym.
The back yard is drought resistant, mostly patio, and never watered.
So, on Utility department recommendations, we tore up our entire front and side yards-- no leaking sprinklers or drip irrigation!
The water meter is 56 years old, and we suspect that may be the problem, but the Utility department refuses to replace it!
I think there is something fishy with the Utility Dept!
Registered user
Midtown
on Jul 19, 2017 at 2:01 pm
Registered user
on Jul 19, 2017 at 2:01 pm
Credit card companies generally don't hold you accountable if an unauthorized transaction was done with your card. Yet, they provide you with superb monitoring and alerting so that you are always aware of card usage.
The city does hold you accountable for water accidents yet it provides you with virtually no way of monitoring your usage. The only way for you to be sure you don't have a leak is to go out to the yard every few hours and with a flashlight write down the usage, subtract it from the previous read, convert ccf to gallons and estimate if this makes sense. This has to be down 24/7.
I think the city can't have it both ways. Either provide us with real time, accurate alerts or reimburse people for mistakes.
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 24, 2017 at 4:28 pm
on Jul 24, 2017 at 4:28 pm
I returned home recently from a vacation and discovered a note left by a neighbor that water was gushing out of the meter box along the sidewalk. I also had a message from the utilities department letting me know that my bill was well above normal. When I checked, I found nothing amiss.
In talking to my gardener, he mentioned that he found the water leaking from the meter box and fixed the leak. I didn't think much of it until when I returned the call to the utilities department, I found out that my water bill for the month was about 7 times normal ... $1500!
As mentioned the leak was in the meter box on "my" side of the meter, which makes it my responsibility.
The bottom line is that there is no reasonable explanation why this leak occurred, however according to the current "rules" at the utilities department, there are no accommodations made for this type of occurrence other than the billing department allowing payment over an extended period of time with no penalties.
Some of the considerations for inadvertent water leaks seem to be in order. Reverting to the previous policy seems like a reasonable thing to do, and/or charging the wholesale cost of the water and possibly in some cases forgiveness of the charges.
Midtown
on Jul 28, 2017 at 10:14 am
on Jul 28, 2017 at 10:14 am
I think Palo Alto utility should be more user friendly. We should really allow some adjustment maybe once every 5 years like some other district do. Customer has the responsibility to maintain all pipes from meter, however, some of the water leak, toilet, underground is hard to detect without smart meter alert. At minimum, with the customer's best effort care, the utility should not charge more than the wholesale cost for the extra usage, at least once every a few years.
At the mean time, we should consider to replace with smart meter gradually.