Public utilities have a fundamental responsibility to serve the best interests of all their customers. This responsibility includes:

1. Providing Reliable Service: Utilities must ensure that all customers receive consistent and dependable service. This includes maintaining infrastructure and responding promptly to outages and service issues.
2. Fair and Reasonable Rates: Utilities are obligated to set rates that are fair, just, and reasonable. Rates should reflect the cost of providing service without unduly burdening any group of customers. Regulatory bodies often oversee this process to ensure compliance with legal standards.
3. Transparency and Accountability: Utilities must operate transparently, providing clear and accurate information about billing, rates, and service terms. They should be accountable to regulatory bodies and the public, ensuring that their operations are subject to oversight and scrutiny.
4. Environmental Responsibility: Utilities should consider the environmental impact of their operations and strive to implement sustainable practices. This includes investing in stormwater management to protect customers from flooding.
5. Equitable Service: Utilities must ensure that all customers are treated equitably, without undue preference or discrimination. This means providing the same level of service and support to all customers, regardless of their location or economic status.

By adhering to these principles, public utilities can fulfill their mandate to serve the best interests of all customers, ensuring that essential services are provided in a fair, reliable, and sustainable manner. We will discuss how Surfside Washington has potentially failed in adhering to these principles.

Illegal charging of Ocean Shores  lot owners for water

Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores, Washington (2004)

Background

In the case of Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores, Washington (2004), property owners of vacant lots sued the City over “availability charges” for water services to properties not connected to water. The court found these charges to be unconstitutional property taxes rather than permissible regulatory fees.

The Court of Appeals of Washington upheld the ruling and  determined that availability charges assessed to owners of vacant lots for water, even though such properties were not connected to a city’s water systems, were unconstitutional property taxes.

These are obviously legal issues and it’s ramifications are best researched by lawyers. But it is clear no public water utilities charge  lot owners for water

Refund Calculation

The court ruled that lot owners were due a refund of water rates. The refund for the residents was calculated based on the unconstitutional availability charges the City of Ocean Shores collected for water on properties not connected to these utilities. This sum was determined by the court as the total amount overcharged to the plaintiffs for several years and it included interest on the refunds.

Implications for Other Areas

The case highlights the potential  illegal charging of vacant lots without water meters or unconnected to water in Surfside, WA. Currently, no water utility in Raymond, Ilwaco, South Bend, Ocean Park, or Long Beach charges lot owners for water not connected to a water meter.

Are water rates really lower?

Both Ron Brumbaugh and Rick Dyer communicated with members that Surfside’s water rates, at $31 per month, were significantly lower than those in Vancouver, Washington, and other rates on the peninsula. However, they did not investigate the reasons behind these rates or note that other areas only charge for water if a meter is connected and  supplying water service. According to the Surfside water department, 700 out of 2800 lots are non-metered, yet these lots still pay $31 per month as part of their fees.  That’s  372 dollars per year of unnecessary charges per year.  This results is a substantial annual amount from lot owners subsidizing the water rates for home owners with houses that actually use water. Without lot owners subsidizing water rates for home owners, water coast would be 41 per month. In hindsight, the boasting of water rates was unwarranted. What was required by board members was far better research and analysis into the policies of other water utilities. Their lack of experience in public utilities is understandable. But now Surfside has an ethical and potential legal liability of why the HOA has charged lot owners for water as part of their fees for decades after a legal ruling against charging lot owners in ocean shores in 2004. Something as board members they are responsible for addressing.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

This situation highlights that having an HOA-run utility can be detrimental to the interests of property owners when those in charge lack the necessary background or proper oversite. Public utilities ensure members pay fair rates for their water service but also ensure that lot owner are not charged. The ocean park water utility has regular public meetings with detailed budgets of what money is spent on and published detailed water policy. But three different commissioners oversee the water department. They also have a general and office manager as well. It is clear.they have resources dedicated to setting water policy and future investment.

Additionally, water departments in other areas provide stormwater management through drainage ditches and stormwater systems to prevent flooding. This includes supporting tree canopies and ordinances to grow and protect trees for their natural ability to absorb water, prevent erosion, and manage stormwater. They invest in the best interest of the public and all residents.

The lot  owners in Surfside have potentially  been overpaying for water for years.  The legal  issue about lot owners paying for water without connection obviously needs to be addressed by the board. A refund to these owners may be warranted. 

The water department employees do a nice job of maintaining and delivering water to the residents of surfside. There is no issue with the water service they deliver to residents. This is more of a question of the HOA oversite,  lack of investment in stormwater management and the associated charges to lot owners do not meet some.of  the standards expected of a publicly  run utility as defined as the beginning.