My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2000-07-24
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2000
>
AgdaPkt 2000-07-24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2005 10:10:32 AM
Creation date
6/28/2005 4:15:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
7/24/2000
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
273
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />REPORT <br /> <br />To the Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />From the City Manager <br /> <br />July 24,2000 <br /> <br />Subject <br />Amendment of Sewer Service Charges <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />Introduce Ordinance Amending Redwood City Code - Section 27.100 - Sewer Service Charges <br /> <br />Background <br />On July 12, 1999 the City Council raised the fixed sewer service charge from $17.25 to $18.33 per <br />month, in order to balance Sewer Enterprise Fund annual revenues with costs for Fiscal Year <br />1999/2000. Although the 6.26% increase was significant, the 3-year average increase (through FY <br />99/00) was 2.8%. As the economy has grown and costs for labor have increased, the City Council <br />Utilities Committee (Council members Ira, Claire and Pierce) has taken the position that gradual, <br />incremental and well-justified service charge increases to keep pace with inflation are preferable <br />to erratic changes in utility bills. The Committee has also emphasized cost controls and <br />benchmarking with other agencies to keep citizen's sewer bills as affordable as possible. <br />Accordingly, the Committee now recommends revising the monthly fixed sewer service charge to <br />$18.97, <br /> <br />The final draft Sewer Enterprise Fund 10-Year Business Plan (summary sheets attached) is <br />complete, The plan forecasts revenue requirements and the corresponding fixed monthly sewer <br />service charges necessary to balance the fund over a 10-year period. Assuming no additional <br />program costs are imposed on the fund and using cost increase assumptions similar to the General <br />Fund budget, an average annual increase in service charges of 3.73% will be required, <br /> <br />On May 8, 2000, the City Council approved in concept the staff's recommended "Alternate 1" <br />funding plan for implementing the Strategy to Address Flooding Problems plan approved Feb. 28, <br />2000. Of the total $11.55 million estimated cost, Council will have appropriated $5.35 million by the <br />end of FY 2001/02 to complete phases I, II and III of the 5th Avenue / Bay Front Storm Drainage <br />project, leaving an additional $4.2 million required to complete phases IV and V by 2006. The <br />question of funding the proposed Cordilleras Creek bypass project ($2 million) in FY 2003/04 is <br />contingent on a technical review, to be addressed in the next CIP budget cycle. The Council <br />directed staff to work with the Utilities Committee in drafting an action plan and schedule for <br />pursuing additional funding sources and reaching a decision on the use of revenue bonds supported <br />by an increase in sewer service charges citywide, <br /> <br />The Utilities Committee met on June 6, 2000 to consider the question of issuing revenue bonds and <br />to determine the effect that debt service payments would have on monthly sewer bills, Their <br />conclusions, while not unanimous, were: <br />. Adding a fixed debt cost to finance $3.5 million in flood program construction will result <br />in an 8.7% increase in sewer service charges, or $1.00 per month per account. <br />. The nexus between properties that would benefit and those who would pay, while <br />tangible, lacks the desired 'targeted' approach to financing projects. It was suggested that <br />more visible public projects, such as community centers and recreation facilities, might <br />be a better fit for bond financing, <br /> <br />1 of 2 <br /> <br />'-..r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.