At Tuesday night's Council meeting, City Council gave direction to Staff regarding the Water Dept.'s proposed Water Rate increase. Staff had asked for direction on seven different items. Those items were: 1) Should the City comply with the bond obligation to achieve 120% net revenues ratio, achieved after operations, capital expenditures and debt service, and by when? 2) Should the Water Utility Fund be self-supporting, meaning should the City General Fund subsidize the Water Utility? 3) Over the five year period of the proposed increase, what dollar amount if any should be set-aside or accumulated toward capital projects? 4) What dollar amount of cash reserves should be available to meet contingencies and emergencies? 5) Should the Water Utililty have a tiered consumption rate structure? If yes, what is the preferred differential between the tiers? What is the preferred number of tiers? 6) Should the Water Utility continue to maintain different meter charges, based upon the size of the meter? 7) Should the Water Utility continue to maintain the same rate structure for all customers? Or should rates be based upon types of use, i.e., commercial, single-family, multi-family or agricultural?
Council Member Maryann MacGillivray proposed creation of a ratepayers' oversight committee to solicit input from the ratepayers to determine what rate they are willing to pay. Several members of the community spoke in favor of such a committee. However, the Council decided against the creation of such a committee. Ultimately, it was decided that the City should comply with its bond obligations, the tiered structure should remain as it stands, different meter charges would remain, and the same rate structure would be used for all customers. Council member MacGillivray noted that multi-family dwellings were less likely to conserve based on tiered rate structures since the end user frequently does not pay the bill, and Mayor pro tem Buchanan said that perhaps there might be a need to look at different rates for single family vs. multiple family in the future, but not now. Council member Moran proposed looking at different rates for commercial ratepayers to ensure that desired businesses were not so adversely affected by a rate increase that they could not continue to do business here, but in the future, not now.
It should be noted that changes to the structure such as these, or changes to the tiered system had the potential to re-initiate the Prop. 218 notice requirement, which would have allowed ratepayers to protest the rate increase. In addition, there is a possibility a Citizen oversight committee would return a proposed increase that would have triggered the Prop. 218 protest notification. In July, the Council voted not to continue with its proposed rate hike because 1700+ protest letters had been received. While that was not enough to legally stop the hike, the Council decided it was enough that they needed to revisit the subject. City Attorney Sandra Levin pointed out, however, that because there had not been sufficient protests to overrule the increase, the Council still had the authority to move ahead with an increase so long as it did not exceed what had been proposed. Tuesday, Council member MacGillivray suggested that even though the Council was not legally required to initiate Prop. 218 notification, it would be the right thing to do. Since there was no actual proposal for the Council, though, no decision was made on that issue. Direction was given to staff to bring back three separate proposals that maintained the current level of reserves, but allotted $0, $500,000 and $1,000,000 for capital improvements.
The Council also approved the Strategic Plans, Goals and Objectives that they had developed at their October 14th Strategic Planning Session. City Manager Elaine Aguilar pointed out that the Goals remained the same from the April Planning Session, but the objectives were new and were on the agenda for approval. To view a copy of the objectives, click here.
Also Tuesday evening, the City Council authorized the creation of another UUT Oversight Committee. When Measure U was passed to fund emergency services in April, 2008, it required the creation of a six member committee, with each Council member appointing one member of the public, and the City Treasurer serving as the sixth member. Tuesday night, the following five people were appointed to the Committee to serve with City Treasurer George Enyedi:
Larry David, appointed by Mayor Mosca, Jeff Bohn, appointed by Mayor Pro Tem Buchanan, Anna Laws, appointed by Council member MacGillivray, Tom Denison, appointed by Council member Moran, and Kevin Brennan, appointed by Council member Walsh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
