Translate this page

FPUD increases rates


Brady expands on viability of FPUD, RMWD consolidation


Thursday, June 28th, 2012
Issue 26, Volume 16.
Andrea Verdin
Staff Writer


The Fallbrook Public Utility (FPUD) board of directors approved a fee increase for the next fiscal year, which will begin on July 1. According to general manager Brian Brady, the average customer will spend another $8.43 a month, which amounts to approximately 28 cents a day.

"That is an increase of approximately 8.1 percent in their monthly bill," he said. "The majority of the increase is just for the cost of water."

The cost of treated water that FPUD purchases from the San Diego Water Authority is increasing, said Brady, who said the cost will go from $1,148 per acre-foot to $1,259 per acre-foot.

"That is a 9.7 percent increase, and the real driver for the rate increase," he said. "We just can’t do anything about it."

Brady said that 2.5 to 3.5 percent of the increase will go to other costs, such as fuels, in addition to the employees’ memorandum of understanding (MOU), which is a part of a four-year agreement with employees.

As part of the agreement, FPUD will also cut the budgeted employee count from 71 to 70.

"The employee association made the agreement," said Brady. "As part of the agreement, one of the benefits of the MOU is that employees will have picked up the complete employee contribution to their retirement. That means that by the end of the four-year period, eight percent of their salary will contribute to their retirement instead of the district paying for it."

Brady stated that as a non-profit public sector operation, FPUD is not amassing profits other than what is required by the financial reserves for unexpected events.

"Right now, the policy set by the board is to maintain revenues from water sales at $19 million, with costs projected at $18.5 million. That leaves us with an overage of $500,000" said Brady. "The board has a policy that we maintain about $3.7 million in reserves for rate stabilization and catastrophic repairs. As of right now, we have $2.7 million, so any overage goes to the reserve requirements."

Brady said the increase amount is reflective of why FPUD and Rainbow Municipal Water District (RMWD) have been deliberating in regards to a consolidation of the two water districts.

"We have done some forecasting, and the best estimate is that in a three year period, the cost of water will go up around 25 percent," said Brady. "That’s half of our cost of doing business."

Brady stated that FPUD is doing "everything it can" to reduce costs.

"We are not adding staff; we are reducing by one position, and we continue to look at our staffing level," he said. "We have held costs for the last four years if it was a non-water related cost, and we can’t keep doing that. Our labor and everything else is pretty reasonable given the economic pressures we face. It is very frustrating being at the mercy of the imported water system in California."

At a recent Fallbrook Revitalization Council meeting, Brady shared with community leaders that both FPUD and RMWD would achieve significant savings through sharing infrastructure and resources. An ad-hoc board was asked to figure out the viability of this option, and recently brought the information to the two districts’ boards.

"We began looking at how we could economize by working together. Rainbow’s gm [Dave Seymour] is talking Advertisement
Advertisement for Berry-Bell and Hall Mortuary
[ Berry-Bell and Hall Mortuary ]
about retiring in December, his operations manager is retiring, and his financial manager will be retiring within a year. Each district spends about $3.5 million in administration," he said. "That includes the general manager’s office, the finance and accounting office, billing and customer service. If we were to combine, we would be able to improve the emergency response time, and have more people to respond."

If the two districts were to consolidate, the combined operation would be over 122 square miles, which would rank the district as the third largest in the county.

"It would serve 53,000 people, and we would be significant at the Water Authority because we would have 6.6 percent of the vote," said Brady.

The consolidated district would also have a larger employee force, though there would be a reduction from the employees that are currently serving the two districts.

"We would have the ability to reduce overhead costs and have a stronger organization with 102 employees," said Brady.

Currently, FPUD has 68 employees and RMWD has 55.

"The nice thing about this is that unlike some consolidation, this would involve a programmed reduction in management first, then in supervision," said Brady. "There would be fewer reductions in the people who are turning wrenches and doing the hard work in the field. We have talked to both employee groups, and we are pretty comfortable with the approach that we are going to take."

Brady also stated that the consolidated district would allow for a better financial state as well.

"If the districts stay separate, the districts would not be investment grade if they had to go out for bonds," he said. "When combined, they would probably reach an investment grade credit rating."

Brady said if the districts choose to remain separate, they would face a 17 percent increase in three years, but if they were to consolidate, the rate increase would only be 12 percent.

"Rates are not going to drop because we can’t fight the increase by decreasing all of the other district costs," he said. "We can make a good impact, though."

Brady stated that a concern on both sides is the assumption of liability for the other district.

"We would take the preferred consolidation of the Rancho California District, which used to be the Santa Rosa and Rancho California Water Districts," said Brady. "They consolidated in 1978, and they developed a divisional accounting system to keep everything separate."

The model would keep both the liabilities and benefits of the districts separate as well. Examples that Brady used were the liability of covering the reservoirs, the refurbishment of FPUD’s waste treatment plant and emergency costs that come from catastrophic water spills.

"If something was to happen on Mission Road, and it were to cause millions of gallons of water to spill, it would be [FPUD’s] responsibility," he said. "Rainbow customers would not have to pay for that."

In addition, the boards would go to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and ask for a consolidation, and would choose from a number of ways to form a board, as long as the board had an odd number of directors.

"This is not a technical issue for a GM, but it is a political decision," said Brady. "It depends on what the boards decide to do."


 

22 comments


Comment Profile ImageFallbrook Resident Since 86
Comment #1 | Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:37 pm
The FPUD reminds me of the currupt police captain in Casablanca when he "discovered" gamling in Rick's Cafe American. He said "Gambling, I'm shocked"

In this case the FPUD raised the rates even after the horse and pony show hearings............. FPUD raises rates, I'm shocked.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageFallbrook Resident Since 86
Comment #2 | Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:39 pm
By the way I predicted it when they made the announcement regarding the open hearing.

Comment Profile ImageRay (the real one)
Comment #3 | Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Go figure.

Comment Profile ImageReality
Comment #4 | Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:58 pm
How would reducing the employee count and consolidating efforts at the FPUD building improve emergency response time for Bonsall Residents?

How does reducing staff provide more people to respond?

Don't the two Districts currently have 6.6% of the vote at Water Authority already? When have the District's ever voted differently?

Why would the Districts go out for bonds? Isn't Rainbow debt free right now?

"...Probably reach investment grade..." Shouldn't we know this before making a decision???

If each division is kept financially separate how does that achieve 'investment grade credit ratings' for the entire combined district???

As I have studied it, the savings all come from employee reduction. But no one has discussed how the determination was made that 100 employees is sufficient to provide service. Where is the labor study that shows how many employees a combined district should have???

Brady doesn't offer true compelling reasons for the consolidation. It sounds like smoke and mirrors. And what does Rainbow's GM think about this 'consolidation'??? It seems more like a forced marriage. Marry in hast... repent in leisure. Rainbow doesn't need these empty promises.

"NO!" to consolidation!

Comment Profile Imageratepayer
Comment #5 | Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:45 pm
This is terrible!

Comment Profile Imagegrower
Comment #6 | Friday, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:30 am
which lapdogs on the Board voted for this increase

Comment Profile ImageDISGUSTED
Comment #7 | Friday, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:36 pm
If you saw how much the employees at FPUD are making, you would not want to pay this increase. They are making twice as much as private sector employees. Someone needs to cut their salaries literally in half. The reporter for the monthly meeting's starting salary is $77,000 annually plus benefits.

This is the same problem the State of California faces. They overpay their employees and give them outrageous benefits and then charge the rate or taxpayer to cover their overly generous salaries and benefits.

Comment Profile ImageRedneck Bill
Comment #8 | Friday, Jun 29, 2012 at 9:49 pm
So a CEO can make more money than he could possibly spend in 100 lifetimes, but if someone who gets his hands dirty makes 77,000, that is a bad thing.

You rednecks crack me up.

The secretary in FPUD's office acts as though she is a civil servant and can't be fired. But the guys out in the field, they deserve every penny they make. They are all good guys. Without exception, every time I have had need to interact with them, they have helped me above and beyond what was required.

I would prefer to see my rates not increase, but rates for everything are increasing. Paying good people for good work is always justified.

Comment Profile ImageMORE DISGUSTED
Comment #9 | Saturday, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:10 am
Disgusted,
I hope you have your facts correct before opening your mouth about how much the guys make at FPUD. Most of those guys don't make enough to live on. They work hard and haven"t seen any kind of raise in many many years. Many work second jobs on days off to support there families. As for there insurance the employees have to pay for some of it.If you don't have beneifits then maybe you got in the wrong line of work. Your lashing out in the wrong direction. I suggest finding one of those hardworking guys take a look at his take home pay and what takes to feed his family and pay his bills.

Comment Profile ImageJAS
Comment #10 | Saturday, Jun 30, 2012 at 1:38 pm
FPUD IS NOT A FREIND TO THE FALLBROOK COMMUNITY. The district has tainted our air by providing an 8 acre dirt lot under the guise of clean solar, the dust particulates are terrible when the wind blows. The water trucks they have running in and out of the solar compound have destroyed the asphalt at the bottom of Alturas; it looks like a puzzle. The water and sewer costs are high...tell me again how this water district got started?

Comment Profile ImagePathetic Board!
Comment #11 | Sunday, Jul 1, 2012 at 6:54 am
Shame on all you board of directors who voted to approve this 8% rate increase! And Brady states: "FPUD is doing everything it can to reduce costs." Sure you are! Next, you will probably tell us that we can expect snow, in Fallbrook, in July! Replace them during the next election!

Comment Profile ImageFPUD and RMWD Ag water user
Comment #12 | Sunday, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:00 am
Reality (comment #4): You ask some great questions. I agree that we should get your answers and a lot more questions answered before any merger vote takes place. But I am willing to wait for these answers before I make up my mind on the proposal. It may turn out to be winner or a loser or it may turn out they decide on their own that a joint powers agreement is a better plan. It is too early to condemn the whole idea.

More Disgusted (comment #9): Last year, the FPUD MOUs were renewed and a job survey was posted on their website. It compared what FPUD pays its employees to what other utilities pay. I tried to understand their codes, but never could figure it out. I suspect that FPUD doesn't want it understood. I for one would like to get their pay comparison codes explained. Maybe somebody on the inside could enlighten us all.

The SDCWA is in a huge battle with the MWD over rates. I went to the SDCWA website and found a place to complain about water rates that SDCWA uses to bolster their case. I recommend that anybody that doesn't like their water rates going up every year for the foreseeable future, go to http://www.mwdfacts.com/speak-out/ and make their complaint known.

Comment Profile Imagefallbrook resident
Comment #13 | Sunday, Jul 1, 2012 at 10:52 am
Look around FPUD. no avocados trees,no green grass.people cant afford to water as it is. not saying have a hard time paying their bill.And then you charge fifty dollars when thay have to come out to give you 48 hr, notice. PLEASE!!!!!!! people of fallbrook should have a vote .... you employ's what do you pay a month, for your bill?
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.Post Continued
Comment Profile Imagefallbrook resident
Comment #14 | Sunday, Jul 1, 2012 at 10:54 am
truth must hurt. fallbrook resident. unapproved

***VILLAGE NEWS REPLIES: Keep your language within allowable guidelines and your comments will get approved. --D. Ramsey

Comment Profile ImageIgnorant
Comment #15 | Sunday, Jul 1, 2012 at 6:09 pm
I read the letter from FPUD and understood most of it. I see that most of the increase is the water again. I have also watched the last 4 years in the increases and most of it was also the water rates going up. MWD seems to have a free reign when it comes to raising water rates and all districts suffer for that reason. I must be the ignorant one since all I see is the rates continuing to rise from MWD and a smaller percentage from the local districts themselves.

Comment Profile ImageJohn Doe
Comment #16 | Monday, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Do you use recycled water to keep the dust down under the solar panels? If we annex Rainbow Water will that bring our rates down? If so I'll vote for it, if not why bother.

Comment Profile ImageReality
Comment #17 | Tuesday, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:53 am
Why would Rainbow Water want to absorb FPUD and all their debt and whiny complainers? We are doing just fine without their problems!

The questions I asked earlier where rhetorical, Ag Water User. The answers are plain and simple. No amount of studying will change the results. But dragging this out will allow people to confuse and muddle the situation. Anyone who has reviewed the numbers can see that taking over FPUD is a bad deal for Rainbow.

Comment Profile Imagegrunt
Comment #18 | Tuesday, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:41 am
I think it is simple - they ask us to cut down on water use, we did, so rates have to go up so thier income is the same. Just like electric - "get solar" then, when we did, the electric company "needed" to charge for poles - why? they were not making enough. All governments "need" to continually increase thier income - too much spending, increase taxes, not enought usages, increase rates.

Comment Profile ImagePessimistic
Comment #19 | Tuesday, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:24 pm
grunt, you are such a wise fellow. You hit the nail on the head, to the chagrin f many scratching their heads in wonder. Every time they ask us to conserve and when the majority does just that - we get the big stick placed where the sun don't shine. We consumers can't win either way...

Comment Profile Imageoldtimer
Comment #20 | Wednesday, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Reality: You raise some good questions. As I understand it , Rainbow is running with some field positions unfilled. Reducing employee numbers would undoubtedly reduce service levels. What kind of study is going on, real data being compared or just more platitudes and generalities ? That's all that has been put forward in the power point at the board meetings of April and May. However, you have one concept wrong. Rainbow doesn't want to take over FPUD. They are the ones pushing this, and far too fast. Why ? What's the hurry ?

FPUD, which has twice the population base of Rainbow would be in control. What weight do you suppose they would give the concerns of RMWD ratepayers ? And of course the public will not be allowed to vote on this. We don't count.

Rainbow has pulled itself out of a ditch and is moving forward. It has less debt, more assets and cash, and a brighter future than FPUD. Why should Rainbow bail FPUD out and in the process lose its autonomy ? Rainbow would be a in a minority position after a merger or consolidation. Is that supposed to be an improvement ?

As far as the public, it is ill informed. Nothing of substance has been put forth as an explanation of why this would be a good idea. Unless something has been done behind closed doors, how can the boards have enough real facts on which to make a responsible decision ?

Comment Profile Imagecurious
Comment #21 | Wednesday, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:30 pm
What makes you think Rainbow is taking over FPUD ? Did reality read the letter ? It says a consolidation not a takeover. The water rates are forced on districts from MWD that is the real problem. As the Ag user said go on the website and complain to the real problem.

Comment Profile ImageMyView
Comment #22 | Thursday, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:12 am
Does any of this talk about merging have to do with the future costs/income related to all of the building & development of the new communities at the 15 & Hwy 76? Cost for sewage treatment upgrades, water infrastructure, etc.??? Is all of that new development under Rainbow or Fallbrook? Somewhere in a prevous article or comment it was mentioned that the developers of the new construction were not paying for the sewage plant upgrades so the local water district would be responsible. I don't know if this is true, but if it is maybe that is one of the factors being considered regarding the merger.

Article Comments are contributed by our readers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Fallbrook Village News staff. The name listed as the author for comments cannot be verified; Comment authors are not guaranteed to be who they claim they are.

 

Add your Comment


Name

Images, Formatting, or HTML is not allowed : plain text only. You may post up to 5 website addresses within your comment.
Disclaimer

The Fallbrook Village News has tightened its policy regarding comments.
While we invite you to contribute your opinions and thoughts, we request that you refrain from using vulgar or obscene words and post only comments that directly pertain to the specific topic of the story or article.
Comments that are derogatory in nature have a high likelihood for editing or non-approval if they carry the possibility of being libelous.
The comment system is not intended as a forum for individuals or groups to air personal grievances against other individuals or groups.
Please, no advertising or trolling.
In posting a comment for consideration, users understand that their posts may be edited as necessary to meet system parameters, or the post may not be approved at all. By submitting a comment, you agree to all the rules and guidelines described here.
Most comments are approved or disregarded within one business day.



RSS FeedFacebookTwitter



Subscribe



Advertisement for Temecula Dining




Most Commented


Reach Local Customers



The Fallbrook Village News The Fallbrook Village News
760-723-7319 - 127 West Elder Street, Fallbrook CA 92028
All contents copyright ©2013
About Us
Earthquake Information
Business Listings
Contact Us
Letter to the Editor
Report a website error
Sitemap
Online Digital Edition
RSS Feeds
Login