Council Panel Backs 6% Annual Water-Rate Hike : Utilities: Increases would occur for five consecutive years; plan also would increase water bills during the summer.

San Diegans’ water bills will increase 6% this fall and by an equal amount during each of the next four years if the San Diego City Council follows a recommendation made Wednesday by a council committee.

If the full council adopts the proposal later this month, annual water bills would be about 34% higher than they are now by mid-1995. For the average single-family home, the current yearly bill of $201.60 would grow to $269.80 by June, 1995, based on figures provided by the city Water Utilities Department.

With city administrators arguing that more money is needed to operate, maintain and upgrade San Diego’s water system, the council’s Public Services and Safety Committee voted 4 to 1 for the annual water-rate increase.

Under the plan adopted by the committee, the city also would establish a seasonal rate structure in which water would cost more in the summer and early fall, when the costs of providing it also are at their peak, than during winter and spring. Because of seasonal variations, the water bill of a family or business could be higher, for example, in July than in June, even if its water use remained the same for those two months.

If the council passes the measure, the average single-family home’s monthly water bill will immediately increase from the current $16.80 to $17.04 for the November-June “winter season,” and to $19.56 July through October. In succeeding years through 1994, the annual 6% rate increase would take effect July 1.

But the council committee rejected a request by city water officials that this year’s increase be made, in essence, retroactive to last July 1 through higher rates over the next eight months. To compensate for the nearly four months of the current fiscal year that have already passed, city Water Utilities Department officials proposed that rates be increased by about 8% monthly through next July 1, when the price increase would revert to the 6% annual figure.

Pointing to the success of the city’s voluntary water conservation program program this summer, Councilwoman Judy McCarty convinced her colleagues that a retroactive rate increase would “send the wrong message” to consumers. From June through September, the voluntary program helped to reduce the city’s average water use by 10.7%, water officials said.

“It’s going to be bad enough that we’re raising (rates) after people spent the summer saving,” McCarty said. “The public sees that every time they join in and help to conserve, they take it in the chin. I’m embarrassed to be part of that. We need to reward the public for saving and not go back . . . for their pocketbook.”

Councilman Ron Roberts, meanwhile, objected to the entire rate increase, which he warned would “really hit people over the head” next summer, when the higher seasonal rate takes effect.

“Come next July, people are going to see water bills unlike any they’ve ever seen before,” said Roberts, who cast the lone dissenting vote on the committee’s action.

McCarty was joined by Councilwoman Linda Bernhardt, and Councilmen Wes Pratt and John Hartley in approving the proposed rate increase. Hartley, however, indicated that he supported the measure primarily to advance it to the full council in two weeks, and suggested that he might reevaluate his position before that vote.

Although city water officials characterized the proposed increase as modest, Roberts contended that its impact will be magnified by the fact that the bimonthly water bills also include sewer costs, which the city also recently increased.

“You lump those two things together, and you’re not just talking about nickel-and-diming people--you’re getting into some pretty serious numbers,” Roberts said. “When people open up their July ’91 bills, they’re going to be in for a big, big shock, because they may think they’ve been saving water and yet their bills will be higher.”