A puzzled reader asks Food for Thought: A News Cafe a question:

The City of Redding utility bill comes each month with a “storm drain” charge.   Recently we received a letter from Loxy Morgan, supervisor, Redding Municipal Utilities, stating that the commercial building we own has past due storm-drain charges, retroactive back to Octber 2005.

[In a phone call]  she stated that this was a billing oversight for about 30,000 commercial buildings in the City of Redding, and they are all being sent letters.

We have seen no mention of this massive “oversight” in the media.  While we don’t object to paying a storm-drain fee, I am concerned how such an oversight like this could go unseen for this long.

Here is Municipal Utilities Manager Ray Duryee’s email answer:

It is true that the City of Redding is reviewing customer accounts for accuracy.

The water and electric utilities have meters, which are read monthly and from time to time tested to verify that they are correct.

The solid-waste charges are based on the size of refuse container and number of times it is emptied each month.

Wastewater charges are based in the amount of water used which is monitored through the water meter.

The storm-drain charges have no meter.  They are based on the amount of impervious acreage of the parcel. Impervious surface is defined as any alteration of the natural ground which restricts the absorption of storm water into the ground.

Residential parcels have a fixed charge of $1.32 per month for a single family residence.  Commercial parcels are charged based on a percentage factor or the actual impervious coverage of the parcel at a rate of $19.07 per acre.

Many times, commercial properties are constructed in phases.  As a result, we have found that in some instances the impervious acreage percentage of the parcel has not been modified from the initial construction.  As a result, the improper amount is being billed.

During the development of the current budget, a calculation was done to determine if the storm-drain utility revenue was representative of the developed parcels within the City of Redding.  It was determined that it was not.

As a result of that determination, an audit of the accounts was put in motion.  That effort began in July of 2007.  The total number of parcels within the City of Redding, residential and commercial, is 33,182, some of which are undeveloped.

Some parcels have multiple service meters/accounts on them.  Each account is called a premise.  There are estimated to be 38,000 premises. Of that amount, 22,641 have been audited as of Sept. 30, 2008.  Of the commercial accounts audited, 963 have received notification that there is a discrepancy and additional funds are owed to the City of Redding.

It was also found that 340 commercial accounts had been overbilled and the customer was issued a credit. The audit will only be looking at accounts going back three years or the length of the current ownership, whichever is shorter for both backbilling or credit.

Your reader questioned why there has been no mention of this massive oversight in the media.

As indicated, through Sept. 30, 2008, only 1,303 commercial accounts have been found to be in need of an adjustment, receiving a supplemental billing or a credit.  This represents less than 6 percent of the total accounts reviewed to date, which is not representative of a massive oversight.  The bottom line is that the City of Redding is verifying that the customer is receiving the correct billing.

In response to follow-up questions, he added this information by phone:

To date, the city has backbilled for $552,616 and has issued credits for $161,130. Four accounts have appealed, saying it was the City’s mistake. All have been denied. If customers owe back charges, a payment plan is available.

By law, the city can issue back credits for only three years, but it can backbill without a limit. The city decided to backbill to only three years as well.

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

Ray Duryee can be reached at 224.6127 or rduryee@ci.redding.ca.us.

246 views