05/20/1985 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~'. , ~' Background - Local Collection Sewer Rates: The City maintains approximately 440 miles of sanitary sewers, 19 pump ~ stations and an extensive storm sewer system. Public Works staff projected ~ program costs for FY86 and FY87. The current wastewater budget was prepared using the same assumptions used for the FY86 executive budget; additionally, increments were added to reflect the costs of a sewer jet truck for River Road/Santa Clara, increased capital construction, and funding street sweeping from the sewer utility. The staff recommendation on local sewer rates is as follows: LOCAL SEWER/STORM SEWER RATES Single Family Dwelling All Others (greater figure) 7-1-83 7-1-85 7-1-86 7-1-85 7-1-86 7-1-87 $4.20/mo $5.70/mo $0.98/1000g $4.20 or $5.70 or $5.70 or $0.726/1000g $0.98/1000g $0.98/1000g Work Session Issues The City Council held a work session May 13 and discussed the FY86-87 rate proposals. Several questions were posed for staff response: . 1. Give more information about the transition from flat rate to a flow based rate for residential service in July, 1986. The average single family uses 5,800 gallons of water during winter months when customers are not using water for lawns, gardens and swimming pools. Customers would be notified in the fall of 1985 that beginning July 1, 1986, they will be charged for sewer service based upon their winter water use. For example, the customer would pay $1.61 + $1.48 (winter monthly use) regardless or their summer water consump~ion. As a result, the average family would pay $1.61 + $1.48 (5.8) = $10.20. e No data are available to relate water consumption to income. A 1978-79 metropolitan housing survey showed that the poverty household contained 2.35 persons while the non-poverty household contained 2.61 persons. Indirectly, it appears that flow dependent rates would lessen the cost to small, low income households. 2. Since the general fund now includes street sweeping, what happens to that money when sewer funds are substituted? The general fund forecast I reviewed with you in April (when presenting my FY86 proposed budget) projects an approximate 51 million deficit for each of the next 3 years. This assumes, among other things, a growth of only 3% per year in wage costs. To get ahead of this situation and avoid substantial layoffs and service reductions, I am asking each department head to propose a 5% reduction in staff levels over a 2 year period. ~ If the $461,127 cost of street sweeping is moved into the sewer fund, ~ the savings to the general fund will be pledged towards anticipated deficits and service reductions. In effect, this action can solve a major part of the FY87 budget deficit. Funds freed up in FY86 can be used for capital improvements or as a contingency for such items as the Fair Labor Standards Act. If the Council does not use