A standing-room-only crowd packed a Goleta Water District hearing about raising water meter charges Tuesday night and approximately 40 speakers — farmers and residential customers alike — bluntly expressed their reasons for opposing the increases.

“There is a lot more work to do before increasing these rates,” said Linda Phillips, a former member of the water board. “The fee increase is unrealistic — you need to implement an inverted tiered system of charging for water, not increase fixed costs.

Phillips stressed that water conservation is a primary responsibility of the board and that she was concerned because the proposed increases do nothing to encourage conservation.

More than 140 people crowded the meeting room at the Goleta Union School District; over three dozen were from Encina Royale, a 360-unit retirement community off North Fairview Avenue.

“There should be no increase or decrease in meter fees,” said Dorothy McNeil of Encina Royale.
She also urged the board to increase revenues by implementing a tiered water rate structure that would encourage conservation, charging customers based on their consumption of the resource.

The annual water bill for Encina Royale, which has 18 2-inch meters, is expected to increase by about $19,000, said Greg Feet, manager of the complex. Some residents bemoaned the fact that if they’d had individual meters, the percentage of increase would be much less. According to Chip Wullbrandt, attorney for the water district, even with the increased water meter fees, residents of Encina Royale would be paying less than if each unit had separate three-quarter-inch meters. People living in the complex have delivered 240 signed protests to the water district, said Feet.

Water district board members are proposing to restructure the way consumers large and small are billed for their monthly service charge, or water meter fee. Water district bills have two parts: one is the fixed service charge, the other the commodity rate that varies with the amount of water used by individual customers.

Kevin Walsh, general manager of the water agency, said that by increasing the fixed, predictable portion of the agency’s income it will be less susceptible to variations in climate that affect water supply and demand and thus the income of the district. Approximately two-thirds of the district’s expenses are fixed costs, he said.

Several farmers addressed the board, universally opposing the fee increases.

“I can’t believe that farmers like myself have to be here once again to defend our livelihood,” said Matthew Logan, administrative director of Fairview Gardens and Center for Urban Agricultural. “Your latest proposal attempts to force farmers off of their land.”

One of the speakers’ recurring themes was the fact that increasing the fixed part of water bills does nothing to encourage water conservation, which is seen by many as a primary obligation of the agency.

“Increases in fixed meter charges in no way promote conservation of this valuable resource,” said Rosemary Orr, a teacher.

Director Bert Bertrando told the audience that the proposed changes in billing modify meter charges so they are proportional to services received by each customer, as required by law. Critics argued that was not the case, and that potential for water delivery based on meter size and actual delivery are very different.

Bertrando also said that the board is planning to soften what some may experience as the “sticker shock” of the increases by granting up to $1,200 in deferred payments to farmers and other customers. The program has not yet been formalized, but Bertrando said there would be no interest charged on the deferred payments.

The fee restructuring proposal includes a 50 percent increase in the current $18.42 monthly service charge paid by a majority of single family homeowners, most of whom have three-quarter-inch meters. Those with meters ranging from 1 inch to 10 inches — agricultural, multi-family residential, institutional, light industrial and commercial entities — will see their monthly service charge increase anywhere from 85percent to 550 percent.

About 19 percent of customers would fall into a “low use” category (400-800 cubic feet of water monthly), and their monthly service charge would remain $18.42. A smaller group of customers, ultra-low users, would see their monthly fixed charge decrease from $18.42 to $9.21.

Walsh reviewed the general budget and compared charges of the Goleta Water District to those in Montecito and Carpinteria, which are higher, in a preliminary presentation.

“The charge that we’re changing is documented in the overall budget report,” said Walsh. “Ten million (dollars) of our costs are fixed, 9 million is for operations which are mostly variable, we have 4 million a year in debt payments, which are fixed, and then capital improvement costs.”

Walsh pointed out that expenditures on capital improvements have been trimmed recently, and that the same strategy is planned for the near future. He also said additional income was necessary to begin rebuilding the district’s financial reserves, which have been dramatically depleted over the past few years.

“We plan to slowly increase our reserves to approximately $8million over a six-year period,” he said.

Gail Humphreys, with the West Campus Point Association, said she had collected more than 50 letters of protest from residents, who are served by two 6-inch meters. “Our fixed charges will increase by 242 percent,” she said, “if your proposal is implemented. We object to this fee increase.”

Jim Mattinson, a residential customer with a 2-inch meter, encouraged the board to base its charges on actual usage of water, not on the potential for water use based on specific meter size. He also chided the district for printing that there would be “No Change in the Water Rate,” on its official notices, calling the wording a cop out and misleading. The statement apparently referred to the commodity rate, which is not being changed; most water bills, however, will increase if proposed changes are implemented.

The changes in billing will be automatic unless 50 percent plus one of the district’s 16,000 customers protest the move, in writing, by July 9. Protests do not have to handwritten, but must be signed by either an owner or tenant of a specific property.