OWASA chief Ed Kerwin predicted another steep rate hike after the board raised water rates 17 percent last year.
Get ready.
On May 28, the OWASA board of directors will hold a public hearing on its draft budget and a 9.75 percent increase in monthly water and sewer rates.
The rate hike would increase a monthly bill by $6.68 (from $68.24 to $74.92) for a typical individually-metered residence using 5,000 gallons per month.
OWASA’s draft fiscal 2010 budget includes $18.7 million for operations, $6.8 million for capital improvements and $9.7 million for bond debt payments. The operating budget includes:
- $1.7 million in cost reductions including elimination of 10 positions and freezing of eight vacant positions, deferral of a sewer maintenance program and postponement of water meter replacements;
- reduced capital spending including a one-year delay in the next phase of odor elimination improvements at the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant;
- reducing recreation days at University Lake from Friday through Monday to Saturday and Sunday, and continuing the current Saturday-only schedule at Cane Creek Reservoir; and
- substantial increases in the cost of chemicals used in water and wastewater treatment.
Without the increase in chemical costs, the draft operating budget for FY 2010 would be 6 percent less than the budget for FY 2009.
As Kerwin and OWASA said last year the budget reflects continuing low water demand and reduced revenue from new development connections due to the slow economy. Projected water demand next year is 16 percent less than in fiscal 2001, while the number of customer accounts has increased by 3,100 since then.
The May 28 public hearing will be part of a meeting at 7 p.m. in Chapel Hill Town Hall, 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. The meeting will be televised live on local cable channel 18. All customers may also contact OWASA at webmaster@owasa.org, or by letter to 400 Jones Ferry Road, Carrboro, NC 27510.
Comments
In your own world...
Thu, 04/30/2009 - 21:25 — ActLocalAll of these comments are without context. People used to leave their sprinklers running overnight. For hours on end, low flow consumption added up to large meter readings. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with today's demands. The water supply and sewage capacity have to meet PEAK DEMANDS, which have nothing to do with overnight trickle. If sewer pipes cannot accommodate what gets dumped into them during the busiest hour of the week, or the month, or the year, then you have a service lapse. You flush the toilet on the second floor and it backs up on the first floor, because there is nowhere for it to go. Similarly, the water supply must be able to accommodate the demand if everybody decided to take a shower and flush the toilet at the same time [with the dishwasher running]. Capacity demands are what create infrastructure needs, not whether people are watering their lawns like they used to in the middle of the night. Peak demands are not averaged over 24 hours and 365 days. When you add meters, you add peak demand. Conservation can only address that to the extent that an individual fixture requires less.
Can't quite figure out what you're saying
Fri, 05/01/2009 - 13:38 — marcoplosBut it is a fact that OWASA's customers now use far less water than was projected back in 1999-2000 when the OWASA Master Plan was created. It's important to note that these redutions were on purpose.
This means lower peak demands & less revenue generation. It also means that our water supply is more secure for the future and less costly to provide in the future. It also means less environmental impacts.
I believe Kerwin's
Thu, 04/30/2009 - 18:15 — TBlakeremarks about a 15 percent reduction were in the context of stage II water restrictions, not today's "use as much as you can" context.
His message:
Thu, 04/30/2009 - 20:32 — fhblack"For fiscal year 2010, we expect to sell 16% less water than we sold in fiscal year 2001, even though we have about 15% more customers. Consumer conservation and the new reclaimed water system serving UNC has significantly reduced demand."
I stand corrected
Sun, 05/03/2009 - 10:48 — TBlakeReclaimed water
Sun, 05/03/2009 - 11:30 — tbucknerA very significant portion of the conservation for 2010 is anticipated to come from the reclaimed water system OWASA is developing. UNC will be the first user and is paying for all or a large part of the infrastructure to build the system. Estimates are that this "highly treated" waste water will account for about 3 million gallons per day. Since OWASA is paying the cost of the treatment chemicals and operations, and UNC is *not* paying to offset the cost of the lost revenues (they are getting a lower rate), it means that rate payers are shouldering at least part of the costs. Of course, without the reclaimed water system, we would be shouldering the cost for new infrastructure to meet higher demand so it's pretty much of a wash (theoretically).
Actually
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 09:43 — marcoplosthe reclaimed water system will begin saving about 600,000 gallons or so per day.
UNC is not getting a lower rate. They are the only customer purchasing reclaimed water (other than the occasional tanker truck) & much research went into determining a fair rate.
The notion that UNC or anyone should pay to offset lost revenues is a bogus notion that I doubt anyone would want to live with. Certainly the utilities and oil companies would be in favor of such a bizarre economic mechanism. Maybe we could even extend it to the health care industry, so that when you got healthier, you had to pay more to the health care corporations to off-set the revenue that you were "depriving" them of.
The future success of our society depends upon innovation in conservation. For us to even consider hamstringing efforts to use our resources more wisely by placing an economic tithe on those efforts is off-the-wall.
Lower rates
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 21:00 — tbucknerYes, usage is anticipated to begin at 600,000 gallons per day but could expand to 2-3 million gallons per day according to the UNC and the OWASA websites.
UNC is not getting a lower rate than who? Reclaimed water is being charged at a lower rate than regular water--so UNC will be paying less than they do now for their water needs at the chiller plants. That results in utility savings for UNC and lost revenues for OWASA.
To claim that paying to offset loss revenues is bogus is a ridiculous claim. Other businesses build those loss revenues into their rates. OWASA chose to pass those losses on to their other customers. And as the usage of reclaimed water goes up, so should rates for the rest of the community.
As for your other claim, "Water conservation now translates into less or no need for
environmentally-damaging reservoirs or pipelines to Jordan Lake in the
future", you must have missed the discussion last summer about future plans:
"OWASA is looking at whether a partnership at Jordan Lake makes
more sense than other options such as expanding Cane Creek Reservoir
and University Lake, constructing a new dam and reservoir on Sevenmile
Creek south of Hillsborough, building permanent facilities to withdraw
water from the Haw River and expanding its reclaimed-water system." (News & Observer, September 16, 2008).
Of course it costs less than potable water
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 22:26 — marcoplosAnd on top of that, they are doing the community a huge service by using reclaimed water instead of potable water.
And, yes, OWASA is "looking at" the ramifications of a partnership on accessing Jordan Lake water. This is because they were asked by neighboring jurisdictions, because they own a great site for an intake, and they can hardly tell their neighbors to cram it. Civility and neighborliness requires them to look at it.
I still am stumped by your assertion that OWASA is passing on lost revenues to their customers. They are in fact charging the customer base, which includes UNC, based on the new reality of water use that we are experiencing. What's the meaning of "Other businesses build those loss revenues into their rates." Assuming that is true, doesn't that mean that ratepayers pay? I've heard this "lost revenue compensation" argument over & over through the years and I'm still baffled.
Check back on the posts Mark
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 22:31 — tbucknerYou'll see that I wrote "Of course, without the reclaimed water system, we would be shouldering
the cost for new infrastructure to meet higher demand so it's pretty
much of a wash (theoretically)."
Burying the cost of the reclaimed system under "conservation" is not transparent. If the costs of those lost revenues are going to be passed on to consumers, OWASA should say so. Those costs are going to go up as the use of reclaimed water goes up, and the community deserves to understand that.
If you've been hearing something over and over through the years, perhaps you should listen. It's pretty simple accounting.
UNC is paying for the infrastructure
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 08:48 — marcoplos& is paying for the cost of the reclaimed water. In other words, none of the costs of the system are being shunted off on customers.
One effect of this reclaimed water system is that our water is being used more efficiently and less potable water is being sold. This is exactly what we need to do.
To then say that any person or institution that improves their efficiency is then bound to pay for any lost revenues that may occur is patently goofy.
Should people who ride the bus more, pay oil companies for lost revenue? Should I pay Duke Energy for lost revenue because I have my own PV electric generating system and am depriving them of revenue? Should I pay the lumber companies for their lost revenue because my construction company uses advanced framing techniques and uses less lumber than we used to? Should water customers who install rain barrels have to pay OWASA for lost revenue?
It's silly on the face of it but, to take it seriously for a moment, what a disincentive to do all the things we need to do as a society to change our overly-consumptive destructive behavior.
It's wonderful!
Sun, 05/03/2009 - 23:05 — ActLocalActually, a better word is "amazing," that we so willingly pay more to use less in the name of conservation, knowing that what we save is not going to benefit the environment, but to be sold to some other new customer.
In another blog, in a previous year, one poster labeled it "living like a refugee." It's true when you think about it... putting a bucket under your bathroom sink so you can collect the water you spit while brushing your teeth in order to pour it into your toilet when you need to flush. All so a new subdivision can get approved. OWASA has so many drinking the Kool-aid.
OWASA does not oversee growth
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 13:04 — marcoplosYour local elected officials are in charge of growth control, zoning, etc. OWASA is charged with meeting the water & sewer needs of the community as devised by these elected officials. How else should it work?
Water conservation now translates into less or no need for environmentally-damaging reservoirs or pipelines to Jordan Lake in the future.
ActLocal's plan would apparently have us not worry about conservation now and then wake up one day a few years down the road with a tremendously expensive need for more water.
Nobody oversees growth.
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 18:14 — ActLocalThe local elected officials keep approving it because OWASA says there is plenty of water and the school district says there is available capacity in the schools. That's good enough for the town councils, who promptly rubberstamp new developments, causing OWASA to impose punitive water rates to curtail consumption and the school district to plan construction of another school, at an always higher price than the last one.
Adequate Public Facilities ordinances are a ruse to make people feel good, but in application, each side expects the other to impose the limitation. OWASA says it's up to the officials, the officials say that OWASA said there was plenty of water. Same with the schools.
It's the Orange County version of "Don't Ask - Don't Tell." The Mayor of Carrboro just posted a comment on an item that their is insufficient funding to build the proposed elementary school, that approvals only happen when the school district says there is adequate capacity.
As long as each party claims that the other is responsible, then nobody is.
Marcoplos, I realize that you defend OWASA at every turn. Are you an employee?
Give us a break
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 22:03 — mchiltonActLocal, you ought to know that we have imposed some hard upper limits to growth in Carrboro and Chapel Hill has done likewise. We have an urban services boundary and we intend to live within it. No one was asked to conserve in order to justify growth. We were asked to conserve to deal with a drought.
I wonder if any real estate developers would agree with your characterization of the "rubber stamp?" Chapel Hill just shot down a major new development, for example. Carrboro's review process for major developments takes 2 years in some cases - anything but a rubber stamp.
Just say no to Blackmailers
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 20:50 — ActLocalI guess one developer would not, since Chapel Hill did not approve a project that was many times what was allowable under the applicable zoning, and in a waterfowl impoundment area. In the meantime, mega-developments are going up on East 54 and MLK. Carrboro is following with Main Street and other smaller projects. I wouldn't really call that strict limits. But you made my point already, when you wrote that the projects don't get approved unless the school says there is capacity and everytime the councils approve another project, the school board has to add capacity.
Then why
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 09:00 — TBlakedon't you take responsibility for your garbage? Why do you want to take it to Bingham?
Urban services indeed.
Is not
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 10:42 — fhblackgarbage a county funtion? What does this have to do with living within the urban services boundry?
Actually according to
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 17:38 — TBlake.....the interlocal agreement the municipalities are responsible for collection and the county is responsible for the landfill. The landfill is closing. The interlocal agreement does not work anymore.
As a the "collector" of the garbage and customer of the county disposal, the municipalities are very much involved.
As Barry Jacobs said in the last OCBoCC meeting the municipalities seem to want to pretend otherwise and "are not engaged".
Of course, the "Urban Services" boundary defines their municipal services area for such things as fire, water, sewer, school and garbage collection area. But you knew that. As usual Fred, your questions are shallow and silly, but thanks for asking :)
Despite enjoying our little vignettes Fred, I'd really like to hear Mayor Chilton weigh in on if Carrboro and Chapel Hill think it's OK to haul their trash out to the county; costing their citizens lots of money, bifurcating the solid waste operations and compromising recycling from trash efforts, frankly making a mess out here with their truck and trash rather than dealing with it themselves.
Mayor Chilton; I deal with my trash recycle, compost and have reduced to the point of a small bag per week or less. I pay to have private haulers. I live out here to avoid your "Urban Services" and frankly I don't want your garbage.
You and your predecessors have had decades to plan for the closing of Eubanks road, Decades to plan and zone for this eventuality, you have spent millions on redundant facilities and apparently built them in the wrong locations just "assuming" that things would go your way. Now you want to build a transfer station somewhere that is 180 degrees counter to EPA guidelines, the 2013 comprehensive plan and would not be permitted if a private concern wanted to build it. You apparently don't mind if your trash trucks to travel empty a significant portion of the time, unnecessarily spewing diesel fumes, endangering people and wasting taxpayer dollars in the bargain. BTW the interlocal agreement requires the county notify you of increases in tipping fees greater than 10%, have they told you how much extra it's going to cost you? Don't you think that money could be better spent elsewhere?
All of this is happening and you are seemingly silent on the matter of *your* garbage. Have you talked to the other mayors? Do you care? What say you?
As Usual!
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 18:09 — fhblackNothing "shallow or silly" about my comment. You know full well that personalizing this with the Mayor of Carrboro - "his" garbage, is what's silly.
But as usual, you want to fight people rather than work toward a solution to problems. Your "we-they" approach, thankfully is rejected by those who really want to do something productive. Your approach, tone, and tenor will get us nowhere.
Thirty Years
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 08:07 — TBlakeof your approach has brought us to a complete impass. As I said Barry Jacobs said himself that the towns were not interested in helping.
Personalizing is your word Fred, the *fact* is the municipalities is where the trash comes from.
What's your approach Fred? Just throw it over the wall to the county? Denial does not make for a solution, just more of the same.
OWASA can always find water
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 22:30 — marcoplosThey can get it from Jordan Lake, they can buy it from Burlington, they can drill wells. Their charge is to supply water.
The leverage point on growth is the elected officials. That is about as straight-forward as it can get. The elected officials make growth decisions.
I was on the OWASA Board for 6 and a half years and learned a lot about this stuff.
Is the solution
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 17:34 — TBlakesomething like rates based on what the available water is? As the reservoir goes down the rates go up, in the dry season rates are higher?
The only thing that seems like a potential problem is the possibility for manipulation.
Plus it could be unfair
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 08:50 — marcoplosProfligate users draw down the reservoir and then conservers get higher rates.
That
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:01 — TBlakeis sort of what I meant. Costs during shortage is less impacting on people who can afford water prices, and there is less impetus to conserve the more flush (pun intended) you are.
OTOH, I don't see a better way to apply market forces to water conservation.
I conserve because the more I use, the more chance there is for my well and septic to have problems. I maintain my system for the same reason. Maybe the root of the problem is that it's too easy to turn on a seemingly bottomless tap that has little real maintenance consequences for the average user.
Our bodily functions
Thu, 04/30/2009 - 17:19 — ActLocalAnd we have trained ourselves to reduce our poop by half, I suppose. Less water for irrigation, more water going into the sewage system. The capital cost were driven by running new lengths and upsizing pipes where denser development required. The connection fees would have covered a portion of these costs, but the pipes were in place and the connection revenues stopped coming in. Our bills made up the difference.
If the customers had hooked up before the drought, we would have had their money but we wouldn't have had the water, regardless of how much less we are irrigating.
Wow
Thu, 04/30/2009 - 05:48 — elvisboy77This increase, on top of the large one last year. In the middle of a recesssion.
Makes no sense at all to me.
This is the least cost option
Wed, 04/29/2009 - 22:38 — marcoplosRatepayers need to understand that paying more now is the best alternative. We are in a new era where the true cost of water is being measured.
If we don't adjust to the new reality, we will end up paying far more in the future to recover from droughts and neglect of our infrastructure.
No... what we're paying is the cost of growth
Thu, 04/30/2009 - 08:34 — ActLocalAdding spigots and toilets is costly and those costs are passed on to existing users. Connection fees pay only a portion of the true cost. For years, OWASA has provided Letters of Coordination, stating that there was ample water supply to provide for new construction, then set out aggresively to build the infrastructure required to deliver it. What happened next was a double whammy -- 1. the bills rolled in for the upsized pipes, pumps and treatment facilities and 2. the small portion that connection fees would have provided ceased, due to the real estate market stalling those new connections.
Existing users are picking up the tab for growth. the ironic thing is that if the connection fees had continued to roll in, we would not have had enough water to supply the enlarged customer base during the last drought. So, in a way we are lucky. For now, we just have to pay the price for OWASA's bad decision.
misconceptions
Thu, 04/30/2009 - 10:28 — marcoplosThat "enlarged customer base" that ActLocal mentioned uses less water than the smaller customer base did in 1999. We simply learned to conserve.
While that causes the cost of water to more closely reflect its true higher value, the costs we would incur in the future would be far greater if we were not conserving. Conservation is dramatically less expensive than building new capacity.
Didn't Ed Kerwin say
Thu, 04/30/2009 - 11:28 — fhblackthat compared to 1999, we have 16% more customers but we are using 15% less water, or are my numbers reversed?