54 replies to this topic

[ducky]

Just got my February City of Folsom utility bill and it still says "No Data Available." They were supposed to print the data for metering this month. Is anyone else getting their metered rate and consumption information on their bill?

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

Just got my February City of Folsom utility bill and it still says "No Data Available." They were supposed to print the data for metering this month. Is anyone else getting their metered rate and consumption information on their bill?

It starts next month.

[ducky]

It starts next month.

I was told it would be on February's billing, but I guess you are right. I just don't see how they are going to provide a full year of comparative billing if they dont' start showing the information on bills until March.

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

I was told it would be on February's billing, but I guess you are right. I just don't see how they are going to provide a full year of comparative billing if they dont' start showing the information on bills until March.

The city's February newsletter says it's to start next month.

[Robert Giacometti]

I realy hope people put their thinking caps on regarding this metering and future costs.

When the city switches to metered rates, the City still needs to bring in the same amount of revenue PLUS additional revenue for all the costs for switching over, plus the cots of the meter readers, plus the additional costs for staff for repair and replacement of meters.

The reality is the city is going to have to increase revenue above what they are currently collecting. Its my belief that the supermajority of Residents in Folsom are conscientous and do conserve water. Because the residents are conservationists, the ciy will INTIALLY see a reduced amount of revenue, therefore rather quickly, they will have to raise the rates to make up for the lost revenue from all that Conservation everybody is doing.

I can foresee that within 5 to 7 years all of us paying substantially MORE for far LESS water! The more we conserve under metered rates, the higher the cost of each CCF will have to be increased to pay for all the additional costs.

Some of us will see some intitial lower bills, but those will go away rather quickly.

Looking at the long term, rates are going to skyrocket for far less water! I can't see how this would make anyone happy?

[folsom500]

I agree with you Robert. There have been news reports of this exact scenario being put in place to prop up the lagging revenues when residents start conserving more water.
Not that we can do anything about it as it is a state mandate to use meters starting next year.

[cw68]

Its my belief that the supermajority of Residents in Folsom are conscientous and do conserve water.

Judging by the amount of landscaping run-off water running down the street gutters every day (even when it's raining) I can't agree with this statement. My brother-in-law was visiting from Wisconsin and went out for a run in the morning. When he returned he asked me if all Californians watered their gutters in the morning. Most residents don't shut off their water once it's not being absorbed and many keep their auto-sprinklers going even when it's raining. I'm not touching the city finances part of your post, only disagreeing that the supermajority of residents are conscientious and water conserving.

[4thgenFolsomite]

yes, water is critical in many ways.

When we get a winter like this, I often think of the forest that once grew deep in Lake Tahoe and wondered just how long it had to be dry for the lake level to drop that low. let's hope that isn't part of a cycle.

[Robert Giacometti]

Judging by the amount of landscaping run-off water running down the street gutters every day (even when it's raining) I can't agree with this statement. My brother-in-law was visiting from Wisconsin and went out for a run in the morning. When he returned he asked me if all Californians watered their gutters in the morning. Most residents don't shut off their water once it's not being absorbed and many keep their auto-sprinklers going even when it's raining. I'm not touching the city finances part of your post, only disagreeing that the supermajority of residents are conscientious and water conserving.

There will always be some who don't try to do the right thing, but IMO most Folsomites do.

I guess once the metering starts, we can add up all the residential users usage and answer this question once and for all. IMO, this metering isn't worth the cost!

I'll bet you lunch our Residential users use less per person than the average person in comparable cities within the Valley?

[cw68]

There will always be some who don't try to do the right thing, but IMO most Folsomites do.

I guess once the metering starts, we can add up all the residential users usage and answer this question once and for all. IMO, this metering isn't worth the cost!

I'll bet you lunch our Residential users use less per person than the average person in comparable cities within the Valley?

Disclosure: I'm all for metering because it has been shown to reduce consumption and that, to me, is one of the most important priorities. Dollars shouldn't be used as an excuse to perpetuate waste.

Define comparable cities and how to measure? One could reference water studies but could argue they aren't accurate because of leakage (which just about every water delivery system has). Not to mention we should also compare to similar climates where landscaping matches the climate.

[folsom500]

There will always be some who don't try to do the right thing, but IMO most Folsomites do.

I guess once the metering starts, we can add up all the residential users usage and answer this question once and for all. IMO, this metering isn't worth the cost!

I'll bet you lunch our Residential users use less per person than the average person in comparable cities within the Valley?

What is MOST ? over 51% - then I would agree but I can tell you that on our street alone there are 15 houses that grossly overwater their front lawns for not a few minutes but 20 minutes to hours of heavy gutter flow in a few... even in the rain. It would be interesting if the city was able to monitor this outflow through our storm drains.

What are your suggestions for an alternative to metering ? Especially considering it is mandated by the state ?

[nomad]

What is MOST ? over 51% - then I would agree but I can tell you that on our street alone there are 15 houses that grossly overwater their front lawns for not a few minutes but 20 minutes to hours of heavy gutter flow in a few... even in the rain. It would be interesting if the city was able to monitor this outflow through our storm drains.

What are your suggestions for an alternative to metering ? Especially considering it is mandated by the state ?

Let's not forget the City themselves, dozens of medians, etc constantly over-watering flooding the streets. Where are those meters? Or does that fall under some kind of flat rate general fund?

[Robert Giacometti]

What is MOST ? over 51% - then I would agree but I can tell you that on our street alone there are 15 houses that grossly overwater their front lawns for not a few minutes but 20 minutes to hours of heavy gutter flow in a few... even in the rain. It would be interesting if the city was able to monitor this outflow through our storm drains.

What are your suggestions for an alternative to metering ? Especially considering it is mandated by the state ?

I think its probably closer to 70%, but your guess is as good as mine.

I thought the City had already established standards regarding wasting water? I thought one of those was NOT allowing excess water runing off into the gutter? If so, why not just enforce the existing standards?

Do you really think those residents who are wasting water now are going to get procative because they are using 5 CCF's more than the base every month costing them maybe about $8 more per month?

I understand its a State Mandate to have water meters, but the City could be creative with its rates and readings, to reduce the amount of additional costs. People could do their own meter readings and send them in to save money? What worries me most is down the road our water rates are going to be outrageous for the small amount of water we get to use!

One of the attractions to moving to Folsom was the adequate water and low cost of the water here. All of that is going down the drain with these changes!

Here is the million dollar question, After rates have been jacked up so high that we are only showering once a month, what is the city going to do with all that "surplus" water we are conserving?

[Robert Giacometti]

Disclosure: I'm all for metering because it has been shown to reduce consumption and that, to me, is one of the most important priorities. Dollars shouldn't be used as an excuse to perpetuate waste.

Define comparable cities and how to measure? One could reference water studies but could argue they aren't accurate because of leakage (which just about every water delivery system has). Not to mention we should also compare to similar climates where landscaping matches the climate.

I'm just as passionate about saving tax dollars! There is a point where the cost to squeeze out the last drop of water from savings is far more costly than the benefit of conservation! Our Governments, at many levels are going broke, maybe its time to rethink all these cost benefits regarding some of these programs?

Roseville and Elk Grove could be good cities to compare us against.

The problem with studies is that they don't factor in our giving away so much water to Aerojet, selling water to Intel, Kikkoman and Sake Plant. All this water goes through our treatment plant and then gets added into how much is used divided by the residents. This GREATLY distorts how much we as residents actually use.

Folsom did do some auditing a few years ago and it was determined that our system was leaking a substantial amount of water. This study was put on the shelf and nothing done about it. This leakage, DOES also affect how much it appears residents are using!

[rpo]

I do not know how Folsom compares to other local cities, but the Sac Metro is pretty much the worst of any large city in California as per numerous water usage studies. There was an article in the Bee not too long ago about this. We use over twice as much water per person as LA.