CCMIN100615 - Laserfiche WebLink

paying the higher rate for Pleasanton as well as her rate charge to Livermore and while this was to be reviewed, nothing has been done. She also thought there were many other people who were already being charged double. She said it is difficult and she simply does not want to pay any more money for water and sewer. Mayor Thorne closed the public hearing. Vice-Mayor Brown said it was brought up that if this Council or a future Council removes the fact that the City is in Stage 1, 2 or 3 droughts they could automatically stop the drought surcharge. She asked if this would be realistic or financially viable. Ms. Wagner said the Council can always stop the drought surcharge. Vice-Mayor Brown said instead of making the drought surcharge an entire year, it would be tied to the Council stating people are in a Stage 1, 2, 3 or 4 drought or not. Once the Council announces it is out of drought, automatically she asked if the surcharge could stop. Ms. Wagner said right now, the Council is being asked to adopt the concept. When the Council returns to actually implement drought rates, all of those things should be addressed so the Council can indicate it is for 6 months or a year or some amount of time. Mayor Thorne asked when this is returning to the Council. Ms. Wagner said currently the City does not feel it needs it, but if they move up further in conservation they may. Staff based rates on FY 2014/15 - and they were materially different than 5 years ago as back then, people were using 6100 cubic feet. The rates being adopted are good for 5 years and the model has been based on that. As long as people are not asked to conserve more, staff thinks the City is okay and will not need the drought rates. But, if conservation has to be increased, then changes will need to be made. At the time conservation is increased, this will more than likely be the time the Council will review this. Councilmember Narum asked if the notice in the Proposition 218 contained the provision for both seniors and low income from the 40 CCF to the 30 CCF. Ms. Wagner confirmed, and said it was 20 CCF and 30 CCF and reduced to 3100 cubic feet, the subsidy would be about $280,000. If the Council only proposed it on the senior and left low income as is, it would be $282,000 versus the $310,000. In both cases, it does reduce the subsidy. Mr. Fialho further confirmed and read the paragraph of the Proposition 218 wording, "In order to mitigate the impact of these discounts on the City's General Fund and to encourage conservation and meet the spirit of the discounts (which was whether it was to go down from 20% to 15%) "The proposed rates will limit both programs to a discount only if the water customers' bi-monthly water consumption is less than or equal to 20 CCF." Therefore, the City announced it could go down to 20 CCF and the Council is proposing 30 CCF. Councilmember Pentin said he could go to 20 CCF but he thinks it is less onerous. Vice-Mayor Brown said a resident spoke about fees in Ruby Hill, and said on page 15 of 18, it states that the local sewer collection fee is going g from $4.32 to $12.60, and she confirmed this is approximately an $8 increase from October l 5t to July 1st and then the rate would go to at least $25.16 and it is the same rate as all other Pleasanton customers. She noted that Pleasanton tried to get Livermore to reduce their rate in order to accommodate Pleasanton's rate. They have a contractual agreement with Ruby Hill customers that state they can charge the same rates as they charge their customers. It happens that DSRSD's structure is such that they have their own collection system and Pleasanton as regional customers. Pleasanton many years ago made them break the two separately, so they only charge for the regional treatment and the City has its own collection. In the case of Livermore, they have no customers in that category other than Ruby Hill and their contractual arrangement but they do not break out regional versus collection. City Council Minutes Page 23 of 28 October 6, 2015