HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 - Grand Jury Response Regarding Water BudgetsCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 10
August 12, 2008
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Utilities Department
Steve Myrter, Utilities Director 718 -3400
smyrter@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY ON "WATER BUDGETS, NOT WATER
RATIONING"
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the response letter to the Grand Jury report on "Water Budgets, Not Water
Rationing" and authorize the Mayor to submit the report to the Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court pursuant to Penal Code 93305.05 (a) and (b)
DISCUSSION:
Background:
On May 20, 2008, the Orange County Grand Jury released a report entitled "Water
Budgets, Not Water Rationing ". The purpose of the report by the Grand Jury was to
investigate water conservation efforts in the County due to the looming water shortages
and court mandated cutbacks.
The Grand Jury Report included the following sections:
"Water agencies certainly promote conservation The question is, is this enough?
The Grand Jury concluded that they could do more through:
interest if they offer workshops on determining soil types, using water
calculators and demonstrating new devices like smart timer
• Promotion. Some water agencies send out mailers with water bills to
promote classes or encourage efficient watering techniques. Press
releases may generate brief announcements of the classes. But effective
Response to Grand Jury Report on
"Water Budgets, Not Water Rationing"
August 12, 2008
Page 2
promotion may require teaming up with other agencies as well as vendors
to provide the resources to attract greater attendance at classes or garden
demonstrations.
• Rebates. Water agencies should continue to offer more rebates for
water - saving devices such as more efficient landscape sprinklers and
controllers outdoors as well as more efficient indoor appliances and
plumbing fixtures.
• Personal assistance. Water agencies should establish a telephone help
line staffed by a person (not a computer) to answer their customers' water -
related questions. They should also make available a countywide soils
map that would allow the customers to approximate soil textures.
CONCLUSION
There is still room for more water conservation especially in outdoor landscape
irrigation Water agencies need to help the public better understand the principles
and new technologies to make improvements in landscape irrigation. Customers
need encouragement and assistance. Water agencies must provide clear targets
for the customer and implement tiered pricing in support of the targets. "
The Findings and Conclusions from the Report are provided below. The report requires
the City of Newport Beach to respond to:
• Findings F -1, F -2
• Recommendations R -1, R -2a, R -2b, and R -2c
GRAND JURY FINDINGS
F -1 Opportunities for further water conservation exist especially with regard to
landscape watering.
F -2 Conservation pricing, or tiered pricing, with a fair and reasonable base allotment,
followed by tiers of higher rates, can be an effective tool to motivate further
conservation.
GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS
R -1 Continue to emphasize methods and availability of tools that assist the customers in
understanding weather -based irrigation practices by:
• Providing a hotline for assisting the public with landscape irrigation information
• Providing a countywide soil texture map on the MWDOC website
• Developing an Orange County specific water calculator on the MWDOC website
Response to Grand Jury Report on
"Water Budgets, Not Water Rationing"
August 12, 2008
Page 3
R -2a Develop monthly water allocations for each customer based on both of the
following:
• A per person indoor water allotment that satisfies basic needs
• An outdoor water allotment that applies the weather -based method over the
customers' landscaped area
R -2b Develop a tiered - pricing structure with the first tier based on individual customer
water allocation priced at a commodity rate, and subsequent tiers priced significantly
higher to encourage conservation. The pricing shall be structured in a manner that will
preclude the necessity of price increases as a result of reduced water use.
R -2c Modify water bills to clearly explain customer monthly allotment and monthly water
usage.
RESPONSES TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT:
The following responses will be submitted to answer the Grand Jury findings:
For Findings:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the
response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons therefore.
For Recommendations:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope
and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared
for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury
report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
Response to Grand Jury Report on
"Water Budgets, Not Water Rationing"
August 12, 2008
Page 4
DRAFT RESPONSE
See Attachment A
Environmental Review: None
Alternatives:
Do not approve the response letter to the Grand Jury report on "Water Budgets, Not
Water Rationing" and do not authorize the Mayor to submit the report to the Presiding
Judge of the Superior Court pursuant to Penal Code 93305.05 (a) and (b)
Prepared by: Submitted
eorg Mur och,
Utilities Operations Manager
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Attachment A
The Honorable Nancy Wieben Stock
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, California 92701
RE: Response to the Grand Jury Report on "Water Budgets, Not Water
Rationing."
Honorable Judge Wieben Stock,
This letter is submitted in response to the May 20, .2008 Grand Jury report
entitled "Water Budgets, Not Water Rationing." As mandated by Penal Code
933.05 (a) and (b), the following responses address the findings and
recommendations of the Grand Jury.
In accordance with your report, the City of Newport Beach was requested to
respond to Findings F -1, F -2 and Recommendations R -1, R -2a, R -2b, and R-2c.
Our responses are provided below:
Grand Jury Finding F -1: Opportunities for further water conservation exist
especially with regard to landscape watering.
Response: The City of Newport Beach agrees with the finding.
Grand Jury Finding F -2: Conservation pricing, or tiered pricing, with a fair and
reasonable base allotment, followed by tiers of higher rates, can be an effective
tool to motivate further conservation.
Response: The City of Newport Beach agrees with the finding.
Grand Jury Recommendation R -1: Continue to emphasize methods and
availability of tools that assist the customers in understanding weather -based
irrigation practices by:
• Providing a hotline for assisting the public with landscape irrigation
information
• Providing a countywide soil texture map on the MWDOC website
• Developing an Orange County specific water calculator on the MWDOC
website
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
Response: Municipal Water District of Orange County ( MWDOC) notes that
the recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented
by November 20, 2008.
MWDOC Comments and the Cost of Implementation
MWDOC staff believes that the second and third recommendation bullets (soil
texture map and water calculator) would require a minimal amount of cost and
effort to implement, maybe on the order of $2,000 total per year. The
recommendation on the landscape irrigation hotline could be implemented in
a number of ways. MWDOC staff is currently working with the Master
Gardener's Association to see if any working relationships can be developed
to have them provide the hotline services. Other options include getting
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to establish a hotline for
their entire service area. MWDOC could also allocate a certain number of
hours to host a hotline out of our office. It may be possible to contract with
the Resource Conservation Districts to provide such a service. There may be
funding opportunities for implementation of the hotline. To put an
implementation cost not to exceed on it at this time, if we assume the hotline
can be staffed by an administrative position or intem position at no more than
4 hours per day, the maximum annual cost would not exceed $15,000 per
year. It is likely that it can be done at a much lower cost. The total cost of
implementation of the Grand Jury Recommendations is not expected to
exceed $17,000 per year.
Grand Jury Recommendation R -2a: Develop monthly water allocations for each
customer based on both of the following:
• A per person indoor water allotment that satisfies basic needs.
• An outdoor water allotment that applies the weather -based method over
the customers' landscaped area
Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. In March 2008, the
City of Newport Beach retained a consultant to analyze the feasibility of a
tiered rate /water budget based rate structure billing system as part of a
comprehensive rate study. The following rate structures will be explored to
identify feasibility and estimated implementation costs:
• High Uniform Volumetric Rate (current system)
• Inclining -Block Rate Structure
• Water Budget — Indoor /Outdoor Allocation
• Water Budget — Historical Evapotranspiration (ET) weather -based
• Water Budget — Dynamic Evapotranspiration (ET) weather -based
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
The scope of the rate study is to identify legal concerns associated with
Proposition 218 and conservation rate structures, develop a ten year financial
plan, evaluate customer classes, develop a cost of service analysis, develop
a rate design, and present the financial plan and proposed rate structure(s) to
City Council for selection and approval. Staff along with the consultant plan
on presenting the proposed rate structure(s) to Council at a scheduled
meeting in the October - November 2008 timeframe.
Grand Jury Recommendation R -2b: Develop a tiered - pricing structure with the
first tier based on individual customer water allocation priced at a commodity
rate, and subsequent tiers priced significantly higher to encourage conservation.
The pricing shall be structured in a manner that will preclude the necessity of
price increases as a result of reduced water use.
Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. As with
recommendation R -2a, the City of Newport Beach is currently analyzing the
feasibility of implementing a tiered rate /water budget based rate structure
billing system as part of a comprehensive rate study. The City is hoping to be
completed with this phase of the study by December 2008.
Grand Jury Recommendation: R2c: Modify water bills to clearly explain customer
monthly allotment and monthly water usage.
Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. In conjunction with
the rate study, City staff is currently looking at modifying the existing
municipal services statement that includes water and wastewater service and
consumption fees. The intent is to provide customers with historical usage
and allocations should the City Council decide to implement a new billing
system. The study to modify the existing bill or create a new one will be
completed by December 2008.
Other Discussion: The City of Newport Beach received a MWD grant to pursue
the development of a tiered rate billing system in 2007, The $125,000 funding
would be applied for studying the City's current billing software and determining if
we could utilize tiered rates with our current system framework. The study would
also evaluate existing hardware and software and determine changes or
replacements that would need to be in place to implement a tiered rate structure.
In July 2008 the City of Newport Beach submitted a proposal in response to a
Proposal Solicitation Package from the Department of Water Resources for an
Urban Drought Assistance Grant Program. Under the proposal, the City of
Newport Beach requested $211,334.
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
If you have any questions regarding the current rate study please contact George
Murdoch, Utilities Operations Manager, at (949) 718 -3401 or
gmurdoch(a)city. newport- beach.ca. us
Sincerely,
Edward Selich
Mayor
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor August 13, 2008
Edward D. Selich
Mayor Pro Tem
Leslie J. Daigle The Honorable Nancy Wieben Stock
Council Members Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Keith D. Curry 700 Civic Center Drive West
Nancy Gardner Santa Ana, California 92701
Michael F. Henn
Steven Rosansky RE: Response to the Grand Jury Report on "Water Budgets, Not
Don Webb Water Rationing."
Honorable Judge Wieben Stock:
This letter is submitted in response to the May 20, 2008 Grand Jury report
entitled "Water Budgets, Not Water Rationing." As mandated by Penal
Code 933.05 (a) and (b), the following responses address the findings and
recommendations of the Grand Jury.
In accordance with your report, the City of Newport Beach was requested
to respond to Findings F -1, F -2 and Recommendations R -1, R -2a, R -2b
and R -2c. Our responses are provided below:
Grand Jury Finding F-1:
Opportunities for further water conservation exist
landscape watering.
RESPONSE: The City of Newport Beach agrees with the finding.
Grand Jury Finding F -2:
Conservation pricing, or tiered pricing, with a fair and
allotment, followed by tiers of higher rates, can be an
motivate further conservation.
regard to
seasonable base
effective tool to
RESPONSE: The City of Newport Beach agrees with the finding.
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach California 92658 -8915 • www.city.newport- beach.ca.us
(949) 644 -3004
August 13, 2008
Page 2
Grand Jury Recommendation R -1:
Continue to emphasize methods and availability of tools that assist the customers in
understanding weather -based irrigation practices by:
• Providing a hotline for assisting the public with landscape irrigation information
• Providing a countywide soil texture map on the MWDOC website
• Developing an Orange County specific water calculator on the MWDOC website
RESPONSE: Municipal Water District of Orange County ( MWDOC) notes that the
recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by November
20, 2008.
MWDOC Comments and the Cost of Implementation
MWDOC staff believes that the second and third recommendation bullets (soil texture
map and water calculator) would require a minimal amount of cost and effort to
implement, maybe on the order of $2,000 total per year. The recommendation on the
landscape irrigation hotline could be implemented in a number of ways. MWDOC staff is
currently working with the Master Gardener's Association to see if any working
relationships can be developed to have them provide the hotline services. Other options
include getting Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to establish a hotline
for their entire service area. MWDOC could also allocate a certain number of hours to
host a hotline out of our office. It may be possible to contract with the Resource
Conservation Districts to provide such a service. There may be funding opportunities for
implementation of the hotline. To put an implementation cost not to exceed on it at this
time, if we assume the hotline can be staffed by an administrative position or intern
position at no more than 4 hours per day, the maximum annual cost would not exceed
$15,000 per year. It is likely that it can be done at a much lower cost. The total cost of
implementation of the Grand Jury Recommendations is not expected to exceed $17,000
per year.
Grand Jury Recommendation R -2a:
Develop monthly water allocations for each customer based on both of the following:
• A per person indoor water allotment that satisfies basic needs.
• An outdoor water allotment that applies the weather -based method over the
customers' landscaped area
RESPONSE: The recommendation requires further analysis. In March 2008, the City of
Newport Beach retained a consultant to analyze the feasibility of a tiered rate /water
budget based rate structure billing system as part of a comprehensive rate study. The
following rate structures will be explored to identify feasibility and estimated
implementation costs:
August 13, 2008
Page 3
• High Uniform Volumetric Rate (current system)
• Inclining -Block Rate Structure
• Water Budget — Indoor /Outdoor Allocation
• Water Budget — Historical Evapotranspiration (ET) weather -based
• Water Budget — Dynamic Evapotranspiration (ET) weather -based
The scope of the rate study is to identify legal concerns associated with Proposition 218
and conservation rate structures, develop a ten year financial plan, evaluate customer
classes, develop a cost of service analysis, develop a rate design, and present the
financial plan and proposed rate structure(s) to City Council for selection and approval.
Staff along with the consultant plan on presenting the proposed rate structure(s) to
Council at a scheduled meeting in the October - November 2008 timeframe.
Grand Jury Recommendation R -2b:
Develop a tiered - pricing structure with the first tier based on individual customer water
allocation priced at a commodity rate, and subsequent tiers priced significantly higher to
encourage conservation. The pricing shall be structured in a manner that will preclude
the necessity of price increases as a result of reduced water use.
RESPONSE: The recommendation requires further analysis. As with recommendation R-
2a, the City of Newport Beach is currently analyzing the feasibility of implementing a
tiered rate /water budget based rate structure billing system as part of a comprehensive
rate study. The City is hoping to be completed with this phase of the study by
December 2008.
Grand Jury Recommendation: R2c:
Modify water bills to clearly explain customer monthly allotment and monthly water
usage.
RESPONSE: The recommendation requires further analysis. In conjunction with the rate
study, City staff is currently looking at modifying the existing municipal services
statement that includes water and wastewater service and consumption fees. The intent
is to provide customers with historical usage and allocations should the City Council
decide to implement a new billing system. The study to modify the existing bill or create
a new one will be completed by December 2008.
Other Discussion: The City of Newport Beach received a MWD grant to pursue the
development of a tiered rate billing system in 2007. The $125,000 funding would be
applied for studying the City's current billing software and determining if we could
utilize tiered rates with our current system framework. The study would also evaluate
existing hardware and software and determine changes or replacements that would
August 13, 2008
Page 4
need to be in place to implement a tiered rate structure. In July 2008 the City of
Newport Beach submitted a proposal in response to a Proposal Solicitation Package
from the Department of Water Resources for an Urban Drought Assistance Grant
Program- Under the proposal, the City of Newport Beach requested $211,334.
If you have any questions regarding the current rate study please contact George
Murdoch, Utilities Operations Manager, at (949) 718 -3401 or amurdochCla citynewport-
beach -ca -us
7 Sin ely,
�VJ _
EDWARD D. SELICH
Mayor
Ir
ca
Er ;
" ";..a• .. is -. ',� ...-
ru ru Postage $
CID
r.- CediAetl Fee
Posenark
° Return Receipt Fee Here
° ( ndorsement Required)
° Reswoed D9kV Fee
° (Endomement Required)
rU T d Postage & Fees L$
M Sent TO ° Honorable Nancy ieben Stock
— -------------- - -- - -- ----------------------------------------------------------
,4 Stree( Rut. No.;
C3 a POSa,No. 700 Civic ----- 92
vic Ctr Drive West
N cry��z)PS Santa Ana CA 701
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1, Article Addressed to:
Honorable Nancy Wieben Stock
Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
A. Signature
X
0 Agent
0 Addressee
Its of Delivery
D. Is delivery address different from item t? ❑ Yes
if YM8ItM"ddj fl blWvSb 0 No
3. Service Type
6 Certified Mail 0 Express Mail
0 Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
0 Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
2. Article Number 7001 0320 0000 7828 9689
(Transfer from service label)
PS Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595- 02-F-2893
JNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
I I First -Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G -10
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP +4 in this box
Leilani I. Brown, MMC
Deputy City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663