HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-2014 B3 SchmidtChristian, Kevin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
B3 12/02/14
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC
San Luis Obispo City Clerk
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
Cd
0 Wits)
Mejia, Anthony
Tuesday, December 02, 2014 10:21 AM
Christian, Kevin; Goodwin, Heather
FW: Agenda Item B -3
council contract water meter read
City Administration
City Clerk's Office
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249
E amejia @slocity.org
T 805.781.7102
slocity.org
From: Richard Schmidt
Sent: 12/2/2014 10:17 AM
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Rivoire, Dan
Cc: Meiia, Anthony
Subject: Agenda Item B -3
Dear Council Members,
lIlcULIVtu
DEC 0 2 2014
COUNCIL MEETING: \ L,— 2 -7-0 4
ITEM NO.: 3
Please see attached note on this item relating to the wisdom or lack thereof of the proposal.
i
December 2, 2014
Item B -3
Dear Council Members,
Several concerns on this item:
1. Assuming the council goes ahead with this plan to farm out water meter reading, the
"communication plan" for the transition is a ridiculous waste of ratepayer money on an
expensive and unnecessary level of "communication." This, unfortunately, is typical of
"communication" from Utilities. Of course, staff isn't concerned about this waste since
they can raise ratepayer rates every June to cover it. But it's time the Council stepped in
to stop this toying with ratepayer money collected for the delivery of water and collection
of sewage, not for "communication." Staff proposes a "communication plan" consisting
of the following:
• Press releases
• Billing inserts
• Resource newsletter articles
• Direct mail postcards
• Social media posts
• Farmers' Market outreach
A single, simple billing insert is all that's needed. Please veto the rest, and save
ratepayers some money.
2. The report states that both the sewer and water funds, which are totally funded by
ratepayer rates, are running a cumulative annual surplus of a half million $$. Why?
If you're taking in too much money through rates, why aren't the rates lowered? (Given
how these "enterprise funds" are used as a slush fund to pay for everything from Katie
Lichtig's salary to operating city hall and the city's IT system, running a surplus while
levying increased rates annually is just that much more unfair to ratepayers.)
3. The report is very unclear because it's written in a propagandistic, rather than
informative, manner to "sell" what staff wants to do. (The "alternatives" listed present a
false choice; for example — there are many other alternatives, including the most
obvious one not mentioned, the status quo.) I find it very challenging to make sense of
the report. However, I did note that throughout the first 7 pages we're told repeatedly
that farming out meter reading is "cost effective," but then on page 8 we learn it will
actually cost $1731K more than the status quo. How is that cost effective?
The notion of "cost effectiveness" seems to reside in the presumption the Council has
already approved staff's desired hiring of more people in different job classifications
than at present, resulting in more Utilities employees overall unless some are farmed
out to a contractor. Since the Council hasn't even considered that proposal, and there's
no certainty it will be approved, taking a step aimed at diminishing its alleged
payroll impact seems premature at best, presumptuous at worst.
4. The notion that farming out city functions to contractors as "cost effective" doesn't
compute when viewed on a larger social- economic screen. After adding on profit and
overhead, how can a contractor offer identical services for less, unless he's
paying WalMart wages instead of the city's head -of- household wages? For a
council that has made additional head -of- household jobs a priority to be cutting its own
head -of- household jobs to be "cost effective" seems hypocritical. The race to the bottom
happens just this way, one small decision at a time, the lot of them adding up to
financial disaster for the collective middle class. (Note: One of the things that
traditionally has made SLO recession -proof is the high proportion of public sector head -
of- household jobs that don't disappear the minute a recession hits. This helps our
businesses weather recessions.)
5. Existing experience with contractors taking on the city's work has produced some
dreadful results. Note this both on this item and on the golf course proposal.
The basic problem is contractors, to be "cost effective" yet profitable, must cut costs at
all ends — quality of work, quality of work conditions, and pay for work.
For example, farming out maintenance of park -like areas administered by Public Works
has had dreadful results. The Mow, Blow and Go "maintenance" of the Murray Median
has been a destructive disgrace done by poorly -paid personnel who are so pushed and
rushed they make a mess of things in their haste, damaging trees, hacking down
wildflowers planted by residents, leaving a desertscape behind, filling the air with dust,
and the like. Their "maintenance" of the bike path at Foothill has been so incompetent
they've spread the dreaded yellow star thistle seeds all over the place when their
assignment was to cut them and bag them and get them to the landfill.
One has to urge caution about giving up control of what's done and how. You
have no control over the quality of the work or the work conditions.
6. As a member of the fixed income class, I cannot for the life of me understand how
this change will make my life better. Living on a fixed income one has to budget, and
that means one doesn't go on a shopping spree if the water bill hasn't been paid yet.
The day -of- the - month - bills- arrive argument goes totally over my head. It just makes no
sense, so long as two bills don't arrive in the same month, which they never do, and
even if they did, they wouldn't both have to be paid in the same month.
7. Finally, Drought policy. It's good to have something in writing, but what does it
mean?
Two consecutive months of ten percent or less than the normal rainfall for those months
I can't figure that out. Surely it doesn't mean that 2 months with 5% less than normal
rainfall, yet that is what it seems to say. The meaning needs to be clear.
Perhaps this is what it means:
"Two consecutive months when rainfall is at least 10% below normal —"
Also, since there is zero nexus between this and the contracting of water meter
reading, you should act on this alone even if you reject the meter reading scheme.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt