My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN072115
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
CCMIN072115
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2015 3:14:55 PM
Creation date
8/24/2015 3:14:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/21/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Councilmember Olson and Ms. Wagner explained that fixed costs and fixed unit costs are not the <br /> same. When fewer units of water are purchased, the fixed cost per unit must increase in order to <br /> maintain financial stability. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown asked and Ms. Wagner confirmed that the Council could implement both drought <br /> rates and penalties. <br /> Ms. Wagner introduced the proposed recycled water rates, reminding everyone that recycled water will <br /> only be made available to commercial irrigation customers at this time. She explained that all <br /> commercial accounts possess 2 meters, one of which measures irrigation use. Staff is proposing an <br /> initial rate increase, effective October 15, 2015, from $2.35 to $2.62 or 90% of the potable water rate <br /> increase. Additionally, staff is proposing concurrent increases equal to 90% each time potable irrigation <br /> water rates increase. <br /> She reviewed the proposed sewer rate, which would increase 3% from $24.46 to $25.19. She <br /> explained that the city only regulates the local portion of sewer bill, with regional sewer rates <br /> attributable to either DSRSD or the City of Livermore that would pass through at 100% should either <br /> agency increase their rates. Looking at the combined proposal, a moderate single-family residential <br /> user would experience a combined water and sewer bill increase of approximately $10 per bi-monthly <br /> billing period. <br /> Ms. Wagner explained that the Audit Committee strove to retain discounts where fiscally sustainable. <br /> She reminded the Council and public that fair and equitable rate setting prohibits one rate payer from <br /> subsidizing another, which means that utility discounts are paid for by the General Fund. The city's <br /> General Fund currently contributes an annual subsidy of about $350,000 to the water and sewer <br /> utilities. Currently the city offers a 20% discount to seniors age 65 and over, which staff is proposing to <br /> reduce to 15%. The city's current low income discount is proposed to remain unchanged at 30%. Both <br /> discounts would continue to require that the rate payer not exceed 40 CCF within the 2 month billing <br /> period and exclude the DSRSD and City of Livermore portion of the sewer bill. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown asked Ms. Wagner confirmed that individuals cannot combine or double up the <br /> discounts but that a rate payer who is eligible for both would receive the higher low income discount. <br /> Councilmember Pentin stated that the 40 CCF discount threshold seemed rather generous and <br /> perhaps outdated. Given the current water restrictions, he questioned whether someone using that <br /> much water was truly in need of a discount. <br /> Ms. Wagner acknowledged the point. She explained that domestic usage on a typical single-family <br /> residential bill falls somewhere between 8 and 10 CCF, with the remainder being used for irrigation. <br /> Prior to the most recent fiscal year and aggressive conservation efforts, many rate payers were <br /> disqualified from the discount during summer months when irrigation use tends to increase. Due to <br /> drought awareness and conservation, the subsidy from the General Fund is actually higher this year <br /> than ever before. <br /> Councilmember Narum concurred with Councilmember Pentin and inquired about the decision to lower <br /> the senior discount as opposed to lowering the threshold. <br /> Ms. Wagner explained that staff did not make this option available for consideration by the Audit <br /> Committee although in hindsight, it is certainly a wise alternative. <br /> Mayor Thome concurred. <br /> Mr. Fialho explained that the Council could still choose to explore this option. However, once the <br /> Proposition 218 notice is issued the Council's rate structure options are limited to what is stated in the <br /> City Council Minutes Page 9 of 17 July 21,2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.