Fairfax Focusing on City’s Proposed Water Rate Increase
By GEORGE BROMLEY
Falls Church Times Staff
April 28, 2011
Last Monday the Falls Church City Council deferred final approval of a water rate increase until June 27. The following day the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors authorized the Fairfax Consumer Protection Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the City’s water rate making practices. The measure was introduced by Supervisor Linda Smyth (Providence). The Board’s action was preceded by two letters from Fairfax Water’s outside counsel Stuart Raphael to City Attorney John Foster, which suggested that higher rates would violate a judicial order and the City Charter.
“Needless to say, all of us who have residents who use Falls Church water are very much concerned,” said Ms. Smyth. “We would like to get our consumer product protection folks starting to look at this to see if it conforms to our principles of sound water rate making.” She added that the Commission also would review the City’s water rate making study, which was prepared by an outside consultant.
Specifically, Supervisor Smyth asked the Commission to determine the basis for Falls Church’s rates, whether the City was in compliance with the rate making principles established by the Board in May 2010, the nature, location, and cost of any capital improvements made over the past five years and how those improvements were funded, and the location and cost of projected improvements. She asked that the Commission report back to the Board by September 27.
Ms. Smyth’s motion was seconded by Supervisors Gerry Hyland (Mout Vernon) and Penny Gross (Mason), and then approved by voice vote.
Mr. Raphael’s letter of April 15 noted that the proposed rates include a 7.8% return on equity and questioned why this would not violate Judge R. Terrence Ney’s January 2010 decree and Section 13.09 of the Charter. Mr. Foster responded that the return on equity would remain in the water fund. However, Mr. Raphael rejected this view on April 23, maintaining that such a return could not be built into the rates and concluding that Fairfax Water was expecting to see a reduction in the City’s charges, rather than a sharp increase.
The City Council gave preliminary approval for the higher rates on March 28, calling for gradual increases over the next three years: $3.27 per 1,000 gallons in FY12, to $3.53 in FY 13, and to $3.82 in FY14. The current rate is $3.03, which has been in effect since 2005. Approximately 92% of the system’s customers reside in Fairfax County.
According to City Manager Wyatt Shields, the City’s Public Service Commission met on March 23 and recommended the Council authorize the increase. If approved at second reading, the new rate structure would take effect on July 1.
Video of Supervisor Smyth’s complete statement is available for viewing on the County’s website (click on the meeting link and go to 3:02:35). Fairfax Water’s letters to the City and Mr. Foster’s response are posted on the utility’s website.
By George Bromley
April 28, 2011
Needless to say, I am not surprised w/the above article and Fairfax County residents’ views, especially after the city has just come away from water lawsuit w/FC. Since 92 percent users are FC, perhaps now is the time to sell. To FC? Falls Church City residents would be getting a reduced rate rather than predicted outrageous rate increases over the next years.
It would seem that Supervisor Smyth doesn’t have a problem with the City of Fairfax raising their rates 7.5% this year and they serve Providence District as well.
Typical. Fairfax wants to buy a well-run, well-maintained water system on the cheap, so the pile onto Falls Church. Who needs Tony Soprano on your side when your courts will do the job with way less trouble.
Note that every other system that serves Fairfax residents is going up in costs and Smyth and the rest don’t say “boo.”
Every other system that serves Fairfax County residents charges less than Falls Church charges, and has charged less than Falls Church has charged for a decade. So you are arguing that it is OK to overcharge now and it will always be OK to overcharge in the future, as long as Falls Church’s rate of increases are equal to or less than the increases charged by Fairfax Water. Falls Church Water is a monopoly, and as such it should be regulated by state utility commissions. Failing that, the courts will step in and they have stepped in. You remind me of a cheerleader, “Falls Church Good, Rah, Rah; Fairfax Thugs Bad, Boo, Boo.” Most people leave cheerleading behind in high school, and of those who don’t , all but a few get over it when they graduate from college
Mr. Yerkes – you have another option – move out of the service area.
Mr. Yerkes:
While I like the idea of you moving out I’ll keep my comments to facts. Falls Church charges for water are about the middle of the range for this area. On point, Vienna (which, last I checked is in Fairfax) charges significantly more that Falls Church does. Also, Fairfax Water really sticks it to the developers on up front fees.
Calling Fairfax “thugs” is not cheerleading, it is a calculated observation based on long experience.
If Mr. Yerkes also was paying attention, he’d know that Falls Church gets its water from a different source (Army Corps) than Fairfax, thus its supply costs are higher.
If Falls Church City wasn’t charging exhorbitant water rates, then perhaps one of you fine citizens can explain the yearly $2.2 million dollars profit the Little City was making through this monopoly, and dumping into its general fund. We know the water comes from the U.S. Army Corps. This does not explain why F.C. City rates are almost twice that of Fairfax Countys’.
May I suggest that both Falls Church and Fairfax residents look at the following web site for Fairfax county water:
http://www.fcwa.org/rates/rate%20comparison%202010.pdf
The rates shown here are 2010 rates. Glad I don’t live in Fairfax City or Town of Vienna.