The Surcharge Nobody Can Explain

Every apartment complex, condo building and mobile home park in the district pays a water surcharge called WAS: $4.07 a month for every 1,000 square feet of the property. For the 196-home San Joaquin Village mobile home park, that came to $4,415.95 in October alone. I wanted to know how that number was set. So far, no one can say.

What the record shows

The surcharge appears in the district’s 2021 rate study, prepared by Bartlett Wells Associates. The board adopted that study on June 29, 2021, according to the board minutes. What the district has on file from that study is a slide presentation and draft tables, both posted on the Rate studies page at pcwdinfo.com. They show the $4.07 rate. They do not show how it was calculated or why it applies to multi-family properties and not to single-family homes.

When I asked for the full study, the district said it had contacted the firm and that the presentation is all that exists. That answer came in an email from the general manager and was confirmed in open session.

In October, the district’s current rate consultant, LT Municipal Consultants, reviewed the district’s two prior rate studies. In her Oct. 22 email to the general manager and me, she wrote that she “couldn’t find any information describing why the WAS was implemented or how proportionality was evaluated,” and proposed eliminating it.

Why it matters

Under Proposition 218, a water charge can’t exceed the proportional cost of the service to each property, and if the charge is challenged, the district has to prove it. A charge with no documented basis is hard to defend. The surcharge wasn’t on the park’s December 2012 bill and first appeared in late 2021, under the 2021 study.

Stepping back

A rate study that cost the district real money should leave more behind than slides. Proposition 218 requires the cost justification to exist when rates are adopted, not just a summary of the result. The consultant’s recommendation to drop the surcharge is the right one. The board should also ask for the 2021 study’s underlying work, so customers can see how it was justified, if it was.

The district has a professional general manager and retained counsel, and both were in place for this increase. They are the ones who should be flagging inconsistencies in these rates and the possible conflict with Proposition 218’s requirement that a charge not exceed the cost of providing the service.

Dutcher’s Take

For years, multi-family customers have paid a surcharge that the district’s own consultant can’t find a reason for. Some of the directors voting on next year’s rates were on the board when it was adopted. The least they can do is vote to end it, and explain to the people who paid it how it got there. Directors who were on the board for the earlier rate increases should be asking for this documentation and history too.