Water Rate Raised for Multiunit Dwellers : Drought: Bills will go up only pennies if residents conserve 20%, council says. The change could also affect water-wasting businesses.

Apartment or condominium residents who fail to conserve water could see their monthly bills increase by at least 25% under a new rate structure approved by the San Diego City Council on Tuesday that also could produce potentially bigger price increases for water-wasting businesses.

Disputing multi-family property managers’ complaints that their occupants are being held to stricter standards than single-family home owners, the council voted for a plan that city officials said will increase average water users’ bills by only pennies a month, provided they meet a 20% water conservation goal.

“It’s real simple: If you save water, you save money,” said Mayor Maureen O’Connor, who throughout the council’s months-long debate over water rates has insisted that the new fees reward people who conserve and penalize those who do not cut their water use.

Those apartment or condominium dwellers who fail to reduce their consumption by at least 20% from 1989, however, would face monthly “drought surcharges” of $5 per unit or 25% of their bill, whichever is higher. The 20% conservation target also was used in the new single-family water rates approved by the council last week.

Tuesday’s plan, which will go into effect Oct. 1, could mean even higher bills for high-volume water users whose consumption far exceeds citywide averages, even if they meet the 20% conservation target.

For example, families living in multi-unit projects who use less than 300 gallons daily will pay 94 cents to $1.08 per every hundred cubic feet of water--a measurement unit that equals 748 gallons--under the new rate structure. Those families now pay a flat rate of 99 cents per every 748 gallons.

Families that use more than 325 gallons daily, however, will pay $2.35 to $7.50 per every hundred cubic feet of water consumed, according to city figures.

The new rate structure was approved by a 6-1 vote, with Councilman Tom Behr opposed and Councilmen Ron Roberts and Bob Filner absent.

Several council members, including Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer, who complained that the city “needs to rethink” the entire water-rate issue, characterized their support as a reluctant recognition of the unpleasant fiscal realities stemming from the combination of higher water costs and tighter supplies.

Even with the new fees, San Diego faces about a $120,000 deficit in its water budget, city officials said.

“We’ve made sausage here, and that’s why we’re trying to find some pickles and mustard to make it palatable,” said Wolfsheimer, who voted against several earlier variations of the plan adopted Tuesday.

At least one chapter in the council’s protracted debate over water rates remains to be written. In September, City Manager Jack McGrory is to report back to the council on the appeals process that will be used to evaluate requests for exceptions to the new water rates. Such exceptions might apply, for example, to families that have grown since the 1989 base year, or to businesses that have expanded since then.

For most average water users, the new fee structure will mean only modest price increases, city administrators say.

When the drought that spawned the water-rate revision was at its peak early this year, the average water consumption in multi-family residential projects was about 180 gallons daily, city water officials said.

Assuming that such average users have since met the 20% conservation goal, reducing their daily usage to about 145 gallons daily, their “bill’s going to go up a dime a month,” McGrory said.

Apartment and condominium association officials, however, remained unconvinced by such assurances.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions,” said Bob Swanson, the president of Superior Condominium Management. “We won’t know the answers until we start getting the bills.”

Earlier, Swanson and other multi-family property managers complained that their new water rates are based on lower daily water-use averages than those used in computing the fees for single-family homeowners.

Seeking to bolster their case, the multi-family project officials argued that, discounting outside irrigation--which has a separate rate structure--a family of four, for instance, could be expected to use about the same amount of water regardless of whether it lives in a single-family residence or a condominium.

City officials, though, said water-use figures do not support that assumption. While multi-family residents used about 180 gallons of water daily in the pre-drought period, the average single-family home consumed about 350 gallons daily. In addition, single-family homes are occupied by an average of 2.8 people, compared to 2.0 for multi-family units, the officials added.

Those statistical differences, the city administrators concluded, justified the different water-use tiers used in the single-family and multi-family rates.

For commercial and industrial customers, Tuesday’s plan provides an even greater financial incentive to meet the 20% conservation target. Businesses that do so will continue to pay the current rate of 99 cents for every 748 gallons, while those that fall short of that goal will see that cost soar to between $5 and $7.50.

Although a representative of the San Diego Economic Development Corp. warned that the proposal could discourage business expansion or relocation here, McGrory and other top city officials said they are unconcerned about that prospect.

Noting that businesses initially were amenable to a proposed 30% water cutback target, O’Connor argued that most industries will find the 20% goal “acceptable and achievable.”

The 30% conservation target will be used, however, in computing fees for irrigation meters that measure the outdoor water use at multi-family residential projects.

The new fees for irrigation-meter users parallel those for industrial customers, with those who meet the 30% cutback target retaining the current 99 cents per 748 gallons and others facing the $5 to $7.50 tiers, depending on the precise amount they do save.

In a related action, the council unanimously agreed to pass through to all water users the higher water costs the city is being charged by the Metropolitan Water District.