The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/19/1991, C-6 - GRANTING AUTHORITY TO THE WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR TO WAIVE RATIONING PROGRAM SURCHARGES UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. MEETING DATE: �Ilh��li�tii�l{I�I�Ilfiii!i`•��r'i Februar L 19 1991 city of San Luis OBISPO IIIIJI��1i�d, ITEM N BE COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM: William T. Hetl and, Utilities Director PREPARED BY: Ron Munds, Water Conservation Coordinatdry SUBJECT: Granting authority to the Water Conservation Coordinator to waive rationing program surcharges under specific conditions. CAO RECOMMENDATION By motion authorize the Water Conservation Coordinator to waive surcharges 1) for residential, commercial, or institutional water accounts with targets at or below the appropriate lifeline, that exceed their allocation but demonstrate water savings during the 35% program; 2) for residential water accounts with targets at the 25 billing unit ceiling that exceed their allocation but demonstrate water savings during the 35% program; and 3) allow the waiving of these surcharges one time per program year (July 1 to June 30) . DISCUSSION i The current rules for redistribution are 1) the customers must maintain a minimum of the lifeline amount in each billing period and no more than the 25 unit ceiling; and 2) the annual total allocation must remain the same. Since the implementation of the 35% conservation program there is an increase in cases where households with targets at the lifeline or at the 25 unit ceiling have exceeded their allocations. The majority, having previously stayed within their allocations, exceeded their new targets by just a few units. In the past, these customers could not redistribute to eliminate surcharges because targets greater than the ceiling of 25 units are not allowed, and accounts with the lifeline have no billing units to move (redistribute) . The following example demonstrates what a customer can do to eliminate a surcharge provided their target allocation conforms to the current guidelines for redistribution. ��w�i�hi�iIIIIIIIIPn �Il�Ill city or San WIS OBISPO ONGN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Surcharge Waiver Page 2 EXAMPLE - Typical Residential Account, Lifeline 16 Units Target Actual Usage Redistribution 23 20 -3 20 15 16 +1 16 25 24 -1 24 9 20 +11 surcharge 20 surcharge waived 24 16 -8 16 20 20 0 20 116 116 116 To make the program equitable to all customers, staff proposes, on a case by case basis after careful evaluation of the water account, to waive surcharges on water accounts that have demonstrated past water savings but do not have the appropriate target allocation to redistribute. This would be done one time per program year and the annual target would be unchanged as in other redistribution. In these two examples, both customers have demonstrated over-all water savings and staff would waive the surcharges. EXAMPLE 25 Unit Ceiling 16 Unit Lifeline Target Actual Usage Target Actual Usage 25 23 -2 16 13 -3 25 24 -1 16 15 -1 25 25 0 16 14 -2 25 28 +3 surcharge 16 19 +3 surcharge 25 25 0 16 16 0 25 23 -2 16 16 0 150 148 96 93 It is important to understand that the 25 unit ceiling will not be changed. The proposed modification to the current policy would allow staff the ability, after careful evaluation, to waive surcharges for water saving customers. Landscape water accounts are not included in the proposed policy change. From the beginning of mandatory water conservation, landscape has been the lowest water use priority. As the City's water supply becomes more critical, this policy should be maintained and reinforced. Also, staff has not encountered the same lifeline allocation problems with landscape accounts as compared to all other account classifications. '11111111111111,0111p1Gl MY Of san IDIS OBISPO WaZa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Surcharge Waiving Page 3 significant Impacts Since a portion of the residential water allocations in the City are based on historical use minus. a percentage reduction, a situation could arise where a customer with the 25 unit ceiling allocation, and has only one or two occupants, could save water during the winter months and use excessive amounts of water in the i summer months on their landscape. These customers could then use more than the 25 unit ceiling allocation but could still have their surcharges waived because of past water savings. In a case like this, the Water Conservation Coordinator would have the power to deny the request based on the careful evaluation of the water account. If the customer disagrees with the decision made by the Water Conservation Coordinator, the customer will still have the opportunity to utilize the established appeals process. Staff feels this situation would be the exception, not the rule. The intent of the mandatory water conservation program is to achieve over-all water savings and not be punitive to our customers. By allowing a one time waiving of a surcharge in the circumstances discussed previously, it will permit staff to offer a more equitable solution to all customers which receive surcharges. CONCURRENCES The Finance Department concurs with the recommendations presented in this report. FISCAL IMPACT As water surcharges are not a budgeted revenue source for the Water Fund, and this policy will be administered on a case by case basis, there is no significant impact on the Water Fund balance. ALTERNATIVES 1) Council may want to include landscape metered accounts in the one time waiving of surcharge policy. The advantage with this alternative is that the policy would then be equal for all account holders. The disadvantage is that it sends a mixed signal to the public on water use priorities. Because of the serious .nature of the water supply and past policy of not granting higher water allocations for landscape needs, this alternative is not recommended. ��►�►Illllillli�'�11°Illli; city or san tuis osispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Surcharge Waiver Page 4 2) Council can leave the policy as it is now administered. The advantage to this action is that the 25 billing unit ceiling will be strictly maintained on residential accounts throughout the year. The disadvantage is that current policy does not allow customers who have demonstrated water savings, any possible action to eliminate surcharges or to redistribute excess use into billing cycles with lower use. Because present procedures do not allow for the elimination of such surcharges, staff does not recommend this alternative. l