Jacob Jorgensen was surprised when he reached the fire lines section of the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilites water rates, as part of a study that led to fee changes earlier this year.
While the costs of water have risen over time, especially as Utah grows and the long-standing “megadrought” has fueled water scarcity concerns, Salt Lake City’s rate for water supplied to fire lines at multifamily, commercial and industrial buildings has remained at a rate of $1 per inch since 1961.
Jorgensen, the department’s senior financial analyst, still isn’t sure how this happened, but he flagged it as something that should change moving forward.
“It is a substantial cost on our system because in order to provide fire suppression, we have to upsize pipes, add additional pump stations or increase their size,” he said.
However, another error occurred when the city raised the cost of fire line water for the first time in 64 years earlier this year. Now, the Salt Lake City Council is looking to adopt a measure that would clearly define the fire lines section and the monthly cost per inch within the city’s fee schedule, after the department’s failure to add them sparked confusion from customers.
If not approved, the department would revert to its old structure for now, which would create an estimated $740,000 shortfall in its budget.
Adjusting an old fee
Fire lines are unique because of how much water is needed to flow through a line to put out fires, which is why they’re unmetered like other water lines. A 12-inch line can pump about 56 gallons per second, Jorgensen points out. More of them are being installed because of the city’s growth, which has sparked many more multifamily, commercial and industrial buildings.
But the city hadn’t kept up with inflation over time. A dollar in 1961 equates to almost $11 today, per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. City officials said the cost of running fire line service was picked up by other revenue streams, including people without them, before the error was caught.
Connection fees, under the change the city approved this year, range in cost, depending on the size of the line and if it’s inside or outside of the city, as the city provides water to some other parts of Salt Lake County. The fee change translates into monthly rates as little as $1.68 for the smallest size in the city to as much as $286.20 for the largest size in the county.
Billing confusion
Yet, billing questions were brought to the department by a few customers not long after the new fiscal year began in July because fire line heading and per-inch rate lines weren’t properly marked in the new bills, said Laura Briefer, director of Salt Lake City Public Utilities. One customer challenged their bill, which is when the city found its mistake.
“That individual helped us understand that the consolidated fee schedule was incorrect,” she told KSL.com.
The new fee went through the right notification channels during the budget process, but it may have also been overlooked by other fee changes. A clerical error then likely led to it not being on the new fee schedule when it was published, she explained.
Some other residents also brought up the issue, especially when they noticed the drastic increase in price in what had historically been a consistently low fee, City Council members added.
“To their extent, this is more than just a missing line. ... Yes, it’s been the same charge of $1 an inch for 64 years; there’s a time where we do need to increase it — this is a big increase for a number of people in those HOA areas,” said Councilman Dan Dugan.
It generally should be a small piece of a customer’s utility bill, but city officials pointed out that fees have risen elsewhere to handle rising costs in providing services and recent large-scale projects like the new water treatment plant. Still, the rising costs struck a nerve with the City Council as it was discussed on Tuesday.
Councilman Darin Mano called the different types of measurements people have to track in water consumption “complicated,” while others shared concerns about what’s passed onto the customer. It shows the city’s communication on the need to raise costs “still isn’t hitting the mark” with residents, said Councilwoman Sarah Young.
It’s a difficult situation where people with fixed incomes can be priced out, but the city could suffer without appropriate action to address rising costs and regular needs, added Councilwoman Victoria Petro. That’s why the City Council requested the department look at grants and anything that can help cover costs without raising fees, and options to potentially phase in the increase.
“It feels like we’re being painted into corners by virtue of generationally deferred maintenance that all of us inherited, but it also feels like we’re at an economic crisis, too, where the end user can’t shoulder all these,” she said.
Those are options the department could look into, but pushing costs down the road is also a concern, Briefer said. Having to reverse the fee, even for just another year, would impact the budget.
The city was tentatively slated to vote on the measure in its Oct. 21 meeting, but it wasn’t included in the initial meeting agenda.