Laserfiche WebLink
notice, or something less onerous. Essentially, one the notice is issue the Council can elect to maintain <br /> or deepen the discount (or maintain or increase the threshold) but not the reverse. He suggested that if <br /> the Council wanted to retain the ability to examine and perhaps modify the threshold in October, the <br /> notice should state a threshold of 20 or 30 CCF rather than 40 CCF. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown said she agreed that the variable is worth considering. She explained that her intent <br /> in supporting the proposed senior discount decrease to 15% was to protect those who are perhaps <br /> seniors and are truly low income, rather than simply provide a 20% discount to someone who meets the <br /> age requirements but is more than capable of paying the standard rates. <br /> Ms. Wagner continued her presentation, explaining that the sewer enterprise currently maintains the <br /> sewer collection system within Ruby Hills while the actual service of sewage treatment is provided by <br /> the City of Livermore. Over the last decade the city has received an administrative fee for providing <br /> these services but has not recovered the cost of system maintenance. Therefore, Ruby Hills customers <br /> will need to be transitioned to the full single-family local collection charge over the next 2 years. <br /> Effective October 15, 2015 the charge would increase from $4.32 to $12.50 and then on July 1, 2016 to <br /> the full rate effective at that time. <br /> Despite the proposed increases and pass through of all Zone 7, DSRSD and City of Livermore rates, <br /> the city will continue to have some of the lowest combined water and sewer rates in the Bay Area. <br /> Using a low level single family residential user as an example, the city's water bill of $65.62 compares <br /> favorably to both Livermore ($81.02) and DSRSD ($97.94). Sewer rates compare favorably as well with <br /> the city only slightly higher than that of DSRSD due to a somewhat costly uphill pumping system. <br /> Ms. Wagner stated that staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to mail the Proposition 218 <br /> notice to ratepayers regarding the proposed changes in both water and sewer rates and to set the <br /> public hearing for consideration on October 6, 2015. In the meantime she and members of both utilities <br /> will be holding community workshops (August 5th and 20th) and meeting with the Chamber of <br /> Commerce's Economic Development and Government Relations Committee as well as the city's <br /> Economic Vitality Committee. <br /> Councilmember Narum noted that the draft notice contained considerable discussion regarding the <br /> implementation of drought rates but not how they are removed, and asked staff to explore some <br /> language in that regard. She also noted that, as proposed, a user's bill has the potential to increase 4 <br /> times over a 12 month period. She felt that was somewhat excessive and perhaps difficult to budget <br /> and asked staff to consider whether it might be limited to twice yearly. <br /> Ms. Wagner reminded her that the city's past practice of absorbing pass through rate increases has <br /> been identified as unsustainable. While DSRSD's annual increase coincides with the annual increase to <br /> sewer rates, the same cannot be said Zone 7 or the City of Livermore. This makes it difficult to time rate <br /> increases while still being able to pass through these increases as needed. <br /> City Manager said staff would return on October 5, 2015 with a more detailed analysis on whether that <br /> is feasible. <br /> Mayor Thorne said there were no speakers to address this item. <br /> Councilmember Pentin requested support to lower the CCF threshold relative to discounts for <br /> Proposition 218 purposes, which would allow the Council to further explore its benefits versus a <br /> modified discount rate. He asked and Mr. Smith confirmed that drought penalties are applied only to <br /> those users who fail to meet reduction targets and exceed 30 CCF, which he thought also supported <br /> his argument. He asked to reduce the published threshold to 20 CCF to allow the Council some <br /> flexibility in October. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 10 of 17 July 21, 2015 <br />