Bid to Hike Water Rates Could Be Blocked : Thousand Oaks: City says the increase is necessary to offset higher costs from supplier. Two councilwomen plan protest votes.

A symbolic protest vote in tonight’s Thousand Oaks City Council meeting could end up scuttling a proposed water-rate increase at least temporarily, as two councilwomen plan to fight a request to tack an extra $4 a month onto many customers’ bills.

Utilities Director Donald Nelson has described the 9.7% rate hike as distasteful but inevitable, a direct pass-through of the steadily rising cost charged by the city’s wholesaler, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

But Councilwomen Elois Zeanah and Jaime Zukowski said they were not convinced the city has to approve the rate increase, which would push the average monthly household water bill to about $45. Instead, they said, they were inclined to vote no as a protest, sending a message to the MWD that annual rate hikes must stop.

With Councilman Alex Fiore out of town, two “no” votes would be enough to block the cost increases. If the city’s Water Department could not collect enough from customers to cover its costs, it would be forced to either cut services or plead for subsidies from the city’s general fund.

Although Zeanah said she did not want to cripple the water department, she argued, “It’s time for us to stop rubber-stamping these pass-through increases.”

If the council stops the rate increase tonight, it could take up the issue again when Fiore returns in July.

Two years ago, the city absorbed a MWD rate increase for six months, refusing to pass a dramatically higher cost to its customers. But that effort to save residents a few dollars drained the Water Department’s reserves from $1.5 million to $165,000, leaving no cushion for similar generosity this year, Nelson said.

And since nearly three-quarters of the city Water Department’s operating expenses come from purchasing water and sending out bills, “there’s not much opportunity to cut costs,” Nelson said.

The result: “It’s pass-through time again,” Councilman Frank Schillo said with an exasperated sigh.

But Zukowski argued that the council clearly had a choice, since the rate increases are up for a vote after a public hearing. “I don’t see that our hands are tied,” she said.

Thousand Oaks’ Water Department, which serves 13,460 customers in the central portion of the city, buys from the Calleguas Municipal Water District, which in turn receives water from the MWD. So every time the MWD raises its wholesale rates, the city must either take a hit or pass those increases on to its residents.

The private companies serving Newbury Park and Westlake also receive their water from the MWD, and they too are planning to boost rates starting July 1. The average household cost in Newbury Park will rise to almost $60 a month, and in Westlake to just under $49, according to a city report.

In addition, the MWD has proposed charging every customer a one-time, $9.58 fee, and Calleguas plans to levy a $10 parcel tax on every lot or acre in its district. Both parcel charges will show up on property tax bills.

While the one-time fees have not yet been formally approved, the water rate increases will most likely appear on residents’ bills beginning this summer. Water officials have already notified customers of probable rate increases.

“Every day we get quite a few complaints--it keeps our customer service people busy,” said Raul Kottler, operations manager for California American Water Co., which serves 17,000 customers in Newbury Park. “But we’re just passing through our costs without making a profit.”

MWD’s annual price hikes--which amount to a 60% increase over the past five years--fund several capital projects, including a second water supply pipeline into the Calleguas district. Calleguas delivers water to about two-thirds of Ventura County residents.

For years, the Thousand Oaks City Council has protested the MWD’s policy of charging existing customers higher rates to subsidize improvements for future development.

Zeanah said she would like to see the city take a “more proactive, aggressive approach” to counteract “the impression that there’s nothing we can do except rubber-stamp the increases.”

Also, she suggested that the city might implement a tiered rate system, so conservation-minded customers could save money while those who use large amounts of water pay handsomely for their consumption. And she recommended that the city send out bills monthly rather than every 60 days, to help residents better budget expenses.

But while these measures might spread the burden more equitably, council members said they have to approve the basic rate increase. The only alternative, Schillo said, said would be to subsidize water by siphoning money from the city general fund, which would entail cutting other city services.

“It’s just very frustrating that we have to keep going through this,” Schillo said.