> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Utility hikes to be decided - URL: https://www.smdp.com/utility-hikes-to-be-decided/ - Published: 2005-06-21T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T07:16:30.000Z - Author: Ryan Hyatt - Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import *Utility increases can be authorized tonight* CITY HALL — Local business representatives involved in the solid waste industry are questioning the method by which City Hall has called for a broad sweep of utility fee hikes. A group of refuse professionals said their knowledge of the industry and interests as residents has prompted them to act on the community’s behalf to seek answers for the perceived obscure accounting methodology by which they said City Hall is proposing utility rate increases over the next few years in solid-waste, water and wastewater service rates. The increases are intended to shore up the city’s declining utility funds. The group, associated with San Kardashian, owner of the privately-held Southern California Disposal Company located in Santa Monica, argue City Hall may be doing a disservice to the public by not fully disclosing information associated with disposal costs, which could be used to improve service. Staff members are asking the new utility rates be approved for next year’s budget, which is expected to be approved tonight. Some fees would go into effect by July. Officials said the increases in water and solid-waste fees are needed because expenditures are exceeding revenues for those services. A recent City Hall report details how solid-waste, water and waste-water fund balances have been decreasing to varying degrees over the last four years and need to be corrected in order to keep the bonds that support the funds in legal compliance. In order to restore the funds to a healthy level, staff has proposed to the City Council a rate schedule that would allow a “timely,” “intermediate” or “extended” recovery of the revenue stream over the next few years, depending on the rate increase. Meanwhile, representatives from City Hall’s environmental and public works management department, which oversees Santa Monica’s residential and commercial solid waste disposal, has attempted to clarify some of the issues associated with the proposed rate changes. Sam Chandler, a consultant based in Tucson, Ariz., said he has more than 17 years of experience in solid waste disposal with clients along the West Coast. Chandler, who used to work at the SCD site, said his interest in the utility rate issue is to help ensure City Hall is doing all it can to provide an efficient service to utility users. “Our position has everything to do with the process,” Chandler said, who acknowledged SCD and City Hall have had disputes in the past over Santa Monica’s disposal policies and operations. “Staff needs to be forthright in order to let the council make good decisions about these rate increase proposals. “They can’t just blackmail the council and say, ‘pass this tonight, or we’re broke.’” Chandler said Santa Monica would be better off adopting a rate review process in which expenditures and revenues could be compared line by line, perhaps by a committee allotted the necessary time to do so. “This is either an accidentally obscure budget, or something else,” Chandler said. “How do we know which services are in the red and which are in the black? That’s why a rate review process is needed, so the public can better understand what is going on.” Craig Perkins, director of Santa Monica’s environmental and public works management, said City Hall has accounted for the expenditures that are eating into the utility funds in its reports. According to Perkins, over three-quarters of the expenditures in the solid waste operation are tied to the cost of employees, landfill disposal and recycling processing, and vehicle repairs and replacements. “These expense categories, as well as other expense categories, have been increasing at greater than the rate of inflation,” Perkins said. “The refuse rates have not been increased more than the rate of inflation since 2001.” In the water fund, Perkins said the majority of expenditures are related to employee costs, the expense of purchasing outside water, and the money that’s needed to repair, maintain and replace the city’s water supply and distribution infrastructure. “These costs have increased at greater than the rate of inflation since 1986,” Perkins said. In the wastewater fund, Perkins said the major burden is related to payments to Los Angeles for the regional wastewater collection and treatment system with which Santa Monica contracts, called the Hyperion Treatment system. “These costs are increasing greater than the rate of inflation, whereas the wastewater rates have not been increased greater than the rate of inflation since 1996,” Perkins said. Staff is proposing the wastewater rates be changed in a year. As far as a rate review process is concerned, Perkins said City Hall has complied with the city’s rules for proposing any increases. He said the city charter and municipal code empower the City Council to make enterprise rate and fee decisions after holding a public hearing. He said there have been two public hearings held on the issue, with a third to be held today before the budget is adopted. “This is pretty much the standard approach to rate adjustments in Santa Monica over the past 25 years,” Perkins said. “Sometimes there has been more process, sometimes less. “Each city in the region follows a process that fits its unique circumstances and needs.” City Councilman Ken Genser, who has expressed concerns about the rate increases, said he has not been entirely sold on the information staff has yet provided. “I still have questions I have not had time to pursue with staff,” Genser said. “I am not sure I have enough information to commit to the increase at this point.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 21, 2005.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/062105.pdf?ref=smdp.com)