The winter months have provided California with little rain, making weather forecasters wonder and worry if this is the start of another drought.
In November of 2016, as a Benicia Councilmember, I voted along with two of my colleagues to increase the water and sewer rates over a five-year period. Based upon information given to the council by city staff at the time and after a year of public testimony, I still believe it was the right decision. The city and the state were experiencing the fourth year of a historic drought, and infrastructure improvements on antiquated systems had been ignored because of declining revenue in both water and wastewater funds. Previous councils, because of timing and the Great Recession, had not addressed the rate increases for years.
However, in the past year, several things have happened to change the situation.
First of all, the staff that made these recommendations are no longer with the city. The new staff has been left trying to explain the urgency of the rate increases, the projects and the water meter exchange.
Second, while the citizens of Benicia did an amazing job conserving water during the drought surpassing the state-set goal of a 28 percent reduction to 43 percent, the record year of rain in 2017 eased restrictions and conservation. The brown lawns throughout the city have turned green again as residents were encouraged to replant grass by the optimistic signs of overflowing reservoirs and emerald hills.
Third, the new water meters have created a lot of confusion. With the guarantee of nearly 100 percent accuracy, the new meters have detected leaks and underreporting with both residential and commercial users. In 2015, the Solano County Grand Jury reported that Benicia had non-revenue losses at 25 percent, the highest in Solano County. It was determined that the old meters were underreporting leaks by 10 percent and inaccurate readings by 15 percent. The good news is the city is capturing the losses and citizens are paying for what they actually use, the bad news it comes at a cost. Water in California is expensive and perhaps becoming a rare commodity.
The rates approved in 2016 were to cover sewer and water capital improvements. In some cases they were declared emergency projects. I understand that some of those projects have been delayed and in some cases being reassessed. What projects have been completed or deferred?
There has been little information about conservation since the May 5, 2017 decision to lift water restrictions citywide. The colorful yard signs seen around town reminding Benicians to save water have been buried in the garage. Are our citizens and businesses still conserving and at what rate?
As of Aug. 11– the last time it was reported– the water fund revenue was 5 percent above projected revenues of $7.2 million and the sewer fund revenue was 14 percent below projected revenues of $9.2 million. This was shortly after the first rate increases. Where does the city stand financially with both funds?
Based on the criteria for approving the rate increases back in 2016 and the questions presented here, I am respectfully requesting that the City Council delay upcoming water and sewer rate increases.
A report from the city is due this spring on the water and wastewater funds. I look forward to the city manager and her staff’s report on this important issue.
Christina Strawbridge is a resident, business owner and former Benicia City Councilmember.
Sharing is caring!
Candidate Strawbridge, what are your views on new housing development, at Seeno or North of Lake Herman Road?
Good question Stan, the 524 acres owned by Seeno north of Lake Herman Road is not zoned for residential. During the 2016 campaign I am on record opposing the plan for building 900 homes. The community needs to have a conversation on what is the best fit for our town.
This doesn’t completely address my question. The zoning can be changed. I am looking for your present views on homes there in the future. We are having the conversation now.
I think the zoning should be changed to agricultural and let Seeno grow outdoor cannabis there if the family is interested, then it can be processed at BIP. It will make more money in perpetuity than homes, use less water, and have no wastewater needs. The water can come from Lake Herman or Valero possibly.
We should also lease our lands North of Lake Herman to cannabis cultivators. The climate here with warm to hot days and cool evenings mimics the Hindu Kush where cannabis is said have originated. We should manage these properties as agricultural assets rather than open space. Doing this would also wipe out any chance of wind turbines or homes forever, so everybody should be happy.
Here are top Napa vintners organizing around cannabis as a premier ag crop. Mondavi? Yes!
https://tinyurl.com/yal79zd9
900 homes will use less than 300 acre-feet per year. If half the acreage is planted, it will need about 1000 acre-feet per year for the consumptive use of the plants plus another 300 to 400 acre-feet per year to carry off the dissolved solids in the water (which has to go somewhere). So A) you are wrong that it is less water than houses, B) you are wrong that it has no wastewater and C) that is a huge increase in water use on a system that was stretched too thin in recent years.
Lake Herman is 1800 acre-feet when full and is the City’s emergency supply. Valero wastewater would have to be highly treated (Probably RO) and transported at great cost to be used.
Very good Greg. Sort of shuts down that idea/comment.
At this point, I believe the current zoning is correct for the property. Industrial, light industrial and commercial. Changing the zoning will be a MAJOR issue with the community, surrounding businesses and the Council.
Stan, I would be happy to meet you to discuss these topics. In the past, I have been open to your ideas on windmills, public art, potholes, and the Women’s Purple Heart designation. Looking forward to hearing from you.
My e-mail is fashfun@aol.com
I am not going to deprive the community of the opportunity to hear directly from you on this important issue. It’s a simple yes or no answer.
Actually, Candidate Strawbridge, I am offended that you gave me an example of what you did in the past in the hopes I would abandon asking about new housing. The fact you were against 900 homes in the past does little to give confidence to the community that you will not find some number of homes acceptable.in the future. Now you want me to be grateful for your past support of things important to me, and discuss this issue privately? I think you can imagine how that appears to folks that are very much interested in your view on expanding our housing footprint. For the record, I support in-fill housing only.
For you,
Banned!
Thank you for your comments Ms. Strawbridge. I admire your defense of your previous vote raising rates, even though the vote now is very unpopular.
I have written several times about the abusive levels of the rate increases. Some people are literally being taxed out of their residences. I do have several questions regarding the water and sewage budgets:
While the budget may have been under funded for years, and upgrades did not move forward, our previous bills were not very low. While water rates may have been low, I believe maintenance fees both sewer and water have been at high levels. The water and sewage departments were funded. Beyond salaries and employee benefits, where did the department funds go? Where were they spent? And is the department over staffed considering the dearth of projects?
You state the new meters now accurately report leaks and undercharged usage. Would it not make sense for the city council to roll back the rate increases until the new data is collected and analyzed? It appears council, including yourself, respectfully, voted for rate increases without knowing the data from the new meters and how the new data would affect revenues.
Again, I appreciate your honesty and being a stand up person. We need you back on the council.
Matter,
Thank you for your response.
I believe that there will be an opportunity to review the data received since the new meters were installed. The City Council will discuss this information at an early March meeting that I will be attending.
As a disgruntled homeowner who saw massive water cost increases over the past 30 years of living here in town, much of which is due to city bungling; all I can contribute is to agree, delay the increase and FIRE SOME STAFF if you need more money. I don’t live in the country because city services are valuable, but not THIS valuable. I cannot tell you how upset I was to have to brown my lawn and allow trees to suffer/die while at the same time seeing green lawns at the city parks. I know it is a lot to ask for common sense, since it is a rarer commodity in Benicia than water….but please…
It appears Stan is very closed minded and stuck on pot. The Seeno property can be developed in three ways. One a commercial piece, two a light industrial park and three a Del Webb type of complex 300 houses. The commercial if anyone has any sense of what’s happening could have a main piece which is electric and hybrid cars all under one roof powered by solar. The second piece could also be powered by solar and have light industrial with parts depending on who wants to be there all phases of wholesale cannabis except retail. The third part, Del Webb would again be powered by solar and all the water saving devises needed with strict restrictions on landscaping. No golf course needed . Also no school needed and partner with say Valero for a Fire Station. The growing of cannabis anywhere in Benicia is a goofy idea. It is happening big time down south and other places where it is very isolated except in a very few places. Stan get off the pot stuff. It is over in Benicia. Retail and commercial area have been established in Benicia. The Seeno property will be about a ten year project. In the mean time add 1% sales tax with a sunset of ten years to keep the lights on. Forward thinking folks know exactly what I am talking about. Narrow vision folks are over and out including any future council candidate.
There is no such thing as a tax with a sunset. Period.
I am correct. When you put a tax to a vote that goes to the city only it can have a sunset clause. Just ask Fairfield they renewed their last one. I do not know where you are getting your info but it is wrong.
Bob, you swung and missed my point entirely. Each and every time the citizens of this state be it statewide, by county or by city, vote for a tax with a “sunset” clause it eventually becomes a permanent tax. Play whatever word games you want but the elected politicians take this “one time” money and put it into the general fund for use as every day money. Then when the tax is ready to sunset we are threatened with cuts to services and resources unless it is extended. You can call it a tax with a sunset but that is a meaningless statement – any tax voted on with a sunset will become a permanent tax when ready to sunset and the citizens are told that police, fire, library, parks, public works etc will have to be cut.
I do understand what you are saying. But that does not mean the voters cannot vote it down. The sunset may as you say continue by a vote. But that does not mean it cannot be voted down. In this atmosphere the chance of it getting voted down is very high.
Agree, John. Taxes (like bureaucracy) are immortal.
not if they have a sunset
Name TWO taxes that were actually rescinded after sunset.
Property taxes that pay bonds. When bonds are paid off the tax sunsets for good. Happens all the time.
Well, here’s the thing. I am paying on my property tax an assessment for “Rose Drive” that was scheduled to be eliminated in 2010. Still shows up. SO, be specific. NAME TWO that were ACTUALLY rescinded, not a class that should have been rescinded.
Bonds are a different type of tax Hmmm. They are passed for a specific thing or things, like a bond for school construction, or waste water treatment. Name a tax, sales, income, NOT A BOND, that has been allowed to sunset. Taxes get put into the general fund and used as everyday money and then we are threatened with cuts in services if not extended. A temporary tax is a load of manure.
Yes they are a different kind of tax. They are the kind that sunsets. And they are a counter example that disproves your “rule”.
Beg to disagree. They are bonds that are passed for a specific purpose. Hell, they aren’t even called a tax, hence the term bond. And when that purpose has been paid for, they are paid off. A general tax goes into the general fund and never goes away. If they did, you’d be able to name one that has sunset.
John I just did name one. 1/4 sales tax that sunset in 2017. No longer there. Does that count?
That is not the point. The voters voted them in with a sunset and can vote them out when and if it comes up again. As you say it may never happen but it could. Measure C in Benicia has no sunset. A true tax without a sunset.
Bob, I will never vote for a tax with a sunset and will do everything I can to keep one from passing. There is no sunset. It is a line to get support.
Name one Bob. My point is that once money is put into the general fund it is used to pay for everyday services and when it is time to sunset we are told if the money goes away we will lose fire, police, library, etc.
I agree with what you say. But that does not mean the voters have to vote for it again. They could vote it down. It does not automatically renew. Or does it. That seems to be what you are saying. I am told it must go before the voters again. They could vote for it again and again even with a sunset. No sunset it is there forever. That part I do agree with.
The California 1/4 sales tax sunsetted in 2017. You did not see it in 2018. There is one.