|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Pleasanton residents can expect to receive a notice in their mailboxes by the end of the month regarding the city’s proposed water and sewer rate increases.
The City Council is set to vote on the rates in October with plans for them to take effect in January.
The council gave staff the green light to send out the Proposition 218 notice during the July 15 meeting as part of an overall process the city is following before the council votes on the final water rate increases on Oct. 7. The council also accepted the final water rate study, which guided the city’s decisions regarding the various rates.
“We are doing a data-driven approach that I think should build trust,” Mayor Jack Balch said regarding the overall water rate setting process during the July 15 meeting.
“Collapsing the tiers as well as dealing with the Zone 7 fixed charge (are) two monumental shifts that we had to address,” he added. “And I definitely understand that the proposed rate increases are not likely what our community wanted to see in light of the fiscal headwinds that every household is facing, but we have to make sure that we’re investing in a reliable, sustainable water system and this is a data driven approach to achieve that.”
Vice Mayor Jeff Nibert pointed out that the last time the city underwent this process and sent out Prop 218 notices, some residents felt like there were shortcomings in the pamphlets and that the notices were inadequate. He asked staff if they had learned from those past comments.
“The reason that this process has looked the way that it has looked is a lot because of the takeaways from that last time around with water rates,” City Manager Gerry Beaudin said.
If residents want to reject the rate increase, over half of the residential customers would have to formally submit objections.
The three-step rate-setting process kicked off last September when the city contracted with Water Resources Economics to conduct a comprehensive water rate study.
The first step of developing that study was to adopt a Water System Management Plan and water enterprise financial analysis to set the foundation and framework for the study — both of which have been approved by the council.
The rate changes are associated with the implementation of an enhanced project delivery model from the Water System Management Plan, which included a revenue increase of 15% for the first two years and 8% for the following two years, and full fixed charge recovery of Zone 7 fixed costs.
This would change the city’s water rate structure from a tiered system to a uniform one where very low water users will see their bill more than double by the end of four years.
According to the city’s bimonthly impacts reports for single-family customers with a 5/8-inch meter, average water consumers under the proposed rate structure can expect a nearly $20 bump to their current water bill by next year but by year four, that difference jumps to over $80.
“For an average user using 24 ccf per bimonthly billing period, a single family customer with a 5/8-inch meter, which is the most common type of customer in your service area, they will see an $19.08 increase to their bi-monthly bill,” WRE principal consultant Nancy Phan said during the July 15 meeting.
After the council approved the final water rate study, the council members had to also approve the Proposition 218 notice because according to Phan, it provides the best justification to residents for the rate increases.
“Prop 218 requires that we show our work,” she said. “We have to prove that there’s a nexus between what we charge customers in the final rates and what it costs to serve those customers and the rate study report is our proof of that.”
She said the notice — along with the water rate study — is the city’s best defense in case of any legal challenges.
“I don’t like the outcome of rate increases but it’s really appreciated that we are able to show the community and justify what we have to do,” Councilmember Julie Testa said.
Testa also pointed out in her comments that the city did not address the potential changes to the city’s water discount programs for seniors and low-income residents, which the council previously discussed at the May 6 meeting.
Beaudin said the city is still evaluating both programs — staff previously recommended that the city should eliminate the “Senior Discount Program” — and that staff will return to the council to have a conversation about both programs before the new rates take effect.
In other business
* City staff introduced the specific elements of two proposed contracts: one between the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department Joint Powers Authority and the union representing LPFD battalion chiefs and the other between the joint powers authority and the union representing sworn fire personnel.
The council reviewed both contracts and will be voting on approving the agreements, which include various salary and benefit increases, during the Aug. 19 council meeting.
Both the battalion chiefs union and the union representing sworn fire personnel have ratified each of their agreements. The Livermore City Council will vote on adopting the agreements during its July 28 meeting — each city must approve the contracts because of the costs shared between each city.
According to the staff presentation, the previous tentative agreement between the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1974 Battalion Chiefs (IAFF-BC) and the Joint Powers Authority expired on June 30. The union currently represents seven employees.
The new agreement being proposed will cover the employees from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2028, if approved by the council in its August vote.
Some of the specifics of the agreement include general wage increases of 3% effective July 1, 2026 and another 3% increase the following year; administrative leave being reduced from 80 hours to 40 hours per year and administrative leave pay ending; and other changes to battalion chief coverage stipends and shift management pay.
Pleasanton’s obligation for the term of the agreement is approximately $115,000 over the three-year contract period, according to staff.
The other agreement between the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1974 and the Joint Powers Authority will look to cover sworn fire personnel, which includes 102 suppression and six prevention employees, over the next four years.
The previous agreement expired on June 30.
If approved next month, the four-year agreement will begin on July 1 and will include 3% general wage increases over the first three years and 3.75% during the last year of the agreement in 2028.
Other benefits include increases to education incentives, increased premium pay for paramedics of rank (engineers and captains) to 4.5% and longevity pay with varying percentage increase depending on if an employee represented by the fire association has been there for eight years or 12 years.
The fiscal impact to both cities for the second contract with fire personnel is about $8.63 million through June 2029 with Pleasanton’s share being approximately $4.3 million over the next four years.
Beaudin said while Pleasanton is in “not as great of a place” financially compared to Livermore, the two cities worked to find a right balance to be able to negotiate fair contracts with the unions and fire department that also works for both cities.
* The council, during its consent calendar portion of the meeting, approved nearly $700,000 in funding to go to the Housing and Human Services Grant Program, which helps organizations deliver vital services to those in need.
The organizations that received funding from the grants include Spectrum Community Services, Open Heart Kitchen, CityServe of the Tri-Valley, Tri-Valley Haven, Axis Community Health, Tri-Valley Reach, Goodness Village, and others.
The funding comes from a mix of federal, state, and local sources that support local nonprofits and community projects like the aforementioned organizations. The city also allocated $100,000 from its general fund to go toward these organizations.
“These programs allow us to invest in services and programs that directly support our residents,” Balch stated in a July 16 press release. “They reflect our commitment to a strong, inclusive, and connected Pleasanton.”
However, during the meeting Nibert called out the fact that Tri-Valley Haven, a nonprofit focusing on domestic violence and homelessness, did not receive as much funding as the others.
He said out of the nine organizations that were funded, seven received 100% of the funding they asked for while Tri-Valley Haven got 30% — the other got 60%, according to Nibert. He asked staff why this was given that Tri-Valley Haven received a high rating.
He also asked staff if there was any way to redistribute the funds evenly between all of the organizations but after some brief discussions it was decided that wouldn’t be possible and the grants were approved as originally presented.
Over a “four-year” period, low-end water user rates will double. Low-end water users are seniors. Again, seniors are forced to carry the load. On top of that burden, the senior discount is under consideration to be canceled/discontinued.
Seniors, the age group 65 to 84, are 14.58% of the population.
Working people, employed people, age group 30 to 64, are 50.19% of the population.
The age group 15 to 29 is 14.71% of the population.
The age group under age 15 is 18.60% of the population.
Those age groups, 15 to 64 years, are the high-water users. It is this age group that should be identified to carry the load. Get off the backs of seniors. It is time for the young people to assert themselves, to support this community. Seniors built this community. Now do your part.
City staff recommending senior discount be discontinued are among the age group of high water users; many of those staff members are not residents of this community.
A twelve-month billing period, seniors use between 5 and 8 units (3,740 to 5.984 gallons) per billing cycle. The average water usage per household in Pleasanton per billing cycle is 14,960 to 18,700 gallons (20 to 24 units) per billing cycle.
Place the burden of cost where it is consumed. Young people can learn to cut back, learn to use less, as seniors have practiced over the years. It is outrageous, when the government needs money, it seeks out the seniors.
Test
Every one needs to pay for what they use.
>> “It is time for the young people to assert themselves, to support this community. Seniors built this community. Now do your part.”
Really ? I think you mean build debt and the financial hole that the city is in.
You can check the data on which age group pays the most in taxes – The younger groups are relatively recent homeowners and pay a disproportionate amount of in taxes – just property tax for an average $1.5 M home amounts to (~ $20,000 to $30000 ) where as seniors pay $2000 to $3000 in property taxes per year (great deal?) So let’s not bring up “fair share”.
I feel like the seniors want everything for themselves – and let the burden be on the younger folks, a young person in Pleasanton cannot dream of owning a home here – but why do seniors care – they are happy in their homes paying a few hundred in property tax and dont want any more housing or development because it will bring down their home price by a few 100k and disturb their sleep and cause a bit more traffic. Let the younger kids graduating today go homeless – go somewhere else – who cares – right ?
Every one needs to pay what they consume. Period.
What is really needed is for the city to get its act together and cut cost and bring in efficiencies to reduce cost and embrace development.
I am a senior, and I pay $ 8,000 in property taxes.
Due to the city’s tree roots ruptured my sanitary disposal line.
It cost me $13,500 with the permit, increasing my taxes.
City’s tree roots ruptured my water service line, costing me $3,000, with the permit increased my property taxes.
I installed a new roof that cost me $16,000, and with a permit, increased my taxes.
I installed solar with a whole-house battery backup, which cost me $27,000.
With the permit increased my taxes.
I have posted in this publication multiple times that the city staff must cut additional services and reduce additional staff to reduce costs.
As a senior, I continue doing my part, employing people. That’s not the half of it. There are many other seniors engaged in this activity as well.