LV pumps up rates for water

After a rehearing, Las Vegas Valley Water District board members voted again to raise rates by an average of 23 percent.

The increase was originally approved in February and set to take effect April 1, but district officials decided to repeat the public hearing and the vote after complaints about the way the matter was listed on the agenda two months ago.

Very little changed the second time around.

After listening to sporadic criticism of the rate hike from a handful of valley residents, the County Commission, which serves as the water district's board of directors, approved the new rates.

Only the vote was different, 4-2 this time versus 6-1 last time. Commissioners Lawrence Weekly and Chris Giunchigliani opposed the increase.

The higher rates will show up on bills beginning in May and apply to water used this month.

The increase is designed to affect high-volume users the most, but all water district customers can expect to see their bills go up.

In addition to a flat, 50 percent increase in the monthly service fee, the water district is raising the rates in all four of its consumption-based tiers.

Tier 1, which applies to the first 5,000 gallons used at most single-family homes, will go up 5 percent to $1.16 per 1,000 gallons. The rates will increase 10 percent in Tier 2, 18 percent in Tier 3, and 32 percent in Tier 4.

Generally speaking, minimal water users will see their bills go up about 17 percent and high-volume users will see their bills jump more than 30 percent.

Dick Wimmer, deputy general manager for the water district, said low-end water users can expect to pay about $2.50 more each month because of the higher rates and service charge combined.

During Tuesday's "public rehearing," as water district General Manager Pat Mulroy called it, the service charge increase drew much of the criticism, and not just from the public.

Echoing comments she made before the first vote in February, Giunchigliani said the increase in the service charge could hurt those on a fixed income and may muddle the conservation message the district is trying to send with the rate hike.

Las Vegas resident Martin Boyett agreed.

"Consumers can't reduce this (service) charge by reducing their consumption," he said. "Therefore it sends no conservation signal."

Assemblyman Joseph Hogan, D-Las Vegas, called the district's plan "grossly unfair" to even moderate water users and urged the district to reject any increase in the service charge or the two lowest pricing tiers.

Wimmer defended the new rates, calling them a "pretty surgically applied pricing signal" aimed at the highest-volume outdoor water use at residential properties.

Depending on how customers react to that signal, the rate increase is expected to generate about $65 million a year for the water district.

Some of the money will be used to replace $30 million that was taken from the district's reserve fund last year for operational costs. The rest will be used for maintenance and operation of the district's water system.

One person the board did not hear from was Chris Mero, the Las Vegas resident whose open meeting law complaint prompted Tuesday's "do-over."

In a letter sent to the Nevada attorney general's office late last month, Mero argued that the agenda for the board's Feb. 19 meeting violated the law because it made no specific mention of a vote on the rate increase.

Wimmer called Mero's challenge a "narrow technical issue" but said the district decided to rehear the matter to avoid "having a cloud over the rate hike."

He went on to list all of the public notices and other publicity leading up to the Feb. 19 rate hearing. "We've never had a rate increase with a more extensive public outreach," he said.

Mulroy has said the one-month delay in enacting the new rates could cost the utility $4.2 million in revenue.

As part of Tuesday's vote, commissioners also doubled the fines for those caught watering on the wrong day or otherwise violating the rules against waste.

Those calling for a hefty rate increase on only the highest water users could still get their wish when the district takes up the idea of seasonal rates.

The idea would most likely involve charging more for water in the top tier or two during peak demand at the height of the summer.

Wimmer said district officials plan to present the board with a seasonal rate proposal toward the end of the year.

Contact reporter Henry Brean at hbrean@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0350.