HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/1993, 8 - CONVERT RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYMENT OF UTILITY BILLS TO PROPERTY OWNERS IIIIN�I�I�II�IIIIII � U � MEETING DATE:
C�
of san LUQ s OBISPO 1 .
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance', .
Prepared by: Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager "
SUBJECT: CONVERT RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYMENT OF UTILITY BILLS TO
PROPERTY OWNERS
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution converting the responsibility for payment of utility bills to property
owners effective August 1, 1993.
DISCUSSION
Background
At the March 13, 1993 study session, Council reviewed staff recommendations for balancing
the 1993-95 budget which included the reduction of one staff person from the Revenue
Management Division of the Finance Department. The most significant service impact or
change that is required to implement this staff reduction is transferring responsibility for
payment of utility bills from the customer to the property owner which will significantly
reduce the customer service request workload (starts and stops).
This recommended staff reduction was included in the 1993-95 Financial Plan adopted by
Council on June 15, 1993. As indicated under Revenue Management on page D-128 of the
Financial Plan:
"Eliminating one Accounting Assistant position and related support supplies will save
$35,500 annually. Service impacts include: Transferring responsibility for payment
of utility bills from the customer to the property owner - this will significantly reduce
our customer service request workload (starts and stops); decentralizing invoice
preparation and accounts receivable management to the operating departments;
billing transient occupancy taxes (TOT) quarterly rather than monthly."
The Accounting Assistant position currently spends 90% of their time on utility billing and
10% of their time on accounts receivable/TOT. To- accomplish the reduction of one
Accounting Assistant we need to transfer responsibility of utility bills to the property owners
due to the volume and amount of time staff spent on processing service starts and stops.
During the fiscal year 1992-93, over 6,000 starts and stops for utility service were processed.
The workload involved for each start and each stop is as follows:
■ Customer phones the Finance Department, speaking directly to an Accounting
Assistant, to place their service request for a specific date. The information is
directly input into the service order system by an Accounting Assistant while they are
on the phone with the customer.
L
ii���a��H►�IIIIIIUIp ���`I city of San t, OBISpo
NMI A
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ Service orders are printed and processed at the end of each day by an Accounting
Assistant to provide the necessary information to the field crew.
■ Service orders are returned by the field crew and the utility billing master file is
manually updated by an Account Assistant with customer information.
■ An opening and/or closing bill is system generated, mailed, and the payment
processed by an Accounting Assistant.
What are the advantages of the proposed conversion?
The current approach is a very time consuming process. The peak volume for starts and
stops coincides with the beginning of school in September of each year and the end of
school in June of each year as college students represent the majority of customers (as
renters). During these two peak periods it is not unusual to process 300 starts and stops
within one day.
An additional consideration for proposing the transfer of responsibility for utility bills is the
issue of delinquencies. Each month customers that have not paid their utility bill and have
not made payment arrangements have their water shut-off. For fiscal year 1992-93
approximately 50 customers per month or 600 in total had their water shut-off for non-
payment.
The shut-off process is staff intensive. Each account scheduled for shut-off is manually
reviewed, additional service orders are produced notifying the field crew to turn-off the
water and then after payment is made to restore water service the same day. Several
manual procedures are necessary such as: notification to appropriate City departments,
initiation and verification of payment arrangements, and manually writing up door tags.
Each customer is required to come into the Finance Department to bring their account
current and each account is manually updated to reflect the security deposit and payment.
Approximately 70% of the accounts shut-off for non-payment are renters.
Another concern is the uncollectible accounts from renters who "skip town" and do not leave
a forwarding address. Although these accounts are turned over to a collection agency, it is
next to impossible to locate these individuals. Approximately 85% of the accounts sent to
collection are renters that have "skipped".
What are the disadvantages of converting utility bills to property owners?
Water Conservation - Currently the customer using the water pays for the water. Under the
proposed change the property owner would pay for the water and therein lies a concern that
the renter may not be as conservative with water usage since they are not bearing the cost.
However, when the City was under water rationing, many property owners expressed that
they could not control the amount of water used by their renters since the renters were
paying the bill.
city of san L_,s ogIspo
NMI COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Low Income Assistance Program - Most of the customers currently being assisted by the low
income assistance program are renters. Accordingly, if this proposed change is adopted,
there may be a significant "natural" change in program eligibility.
Landlords' Concerns - In general, property owners may be resistant to this change because
they will have one more bill to pay for each rental property. Property owners may or may
not be able to adjust the rent to cover the additional utility bill, which may cause contractual
concerns. The tenant's lease agreement stating a specific rental amount is normally for a
set period of time. As such, the property owner may not be able to change the lease
agreement until it is renewable.
However, we should point out that the City is currently providing a service to the property
owners by changing responsibility for the utility bill from tenant to tenant which could be
considered a subsidy to the property owners business.
Do other cities bill property owners for utility charges?
We performed a survey of the same cities chosen by the Revenue Task Force study on new
revenue sources for.the March 13, 1993 Study Session. The results are as follows:
it Utility Charges to:
i
Palm Springs Property Owners
San Juan Capistrano Tenants
Petaluma Tenants
Visalia* Tenants
Davis Property Owners
Santa Barbara Tenants
Camarillo Tenants
Santa Maria Tenants
Ventura Tenants
Santa Cruz Tenants
Napa* Tenants
Monterey Tenants
* Although tenants are billed for utility charges, the property owner is ultimately
liable for the payment. These cities have adopted an ordinance making the property
owners liable for any delinquent accounts and have the authority to place the amount
of the delinquency on the property tax roll.
��������►►►�IIlll�pn ,►IBIN city of San t.-.� OBISpo
iCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
An additional survey was performed on cities and water districts within the County of San
Luis Obispo. The results are as follows:
CityjWater District Utility Charges to:
Arroyo Grande Property Owners
Atascadero (sewer only) Property Owners via Property Tax Roll
Atascadero Mutual Water Co. Tenants
Grover Beach Property Owners
Morro Bay Tenants
Paso Robles Tenants
Pismo Beach Property Owners
County of SLO Tenants
Because of the high population of rentals within the County, many of the cities have chosen
to make the property owner responsible for the utility bills.
How will conversion of utility bills to property owners occur?
Based upon a listing from the City's land use inventory using homeowner exemptions as the
criteria for distinguishing rental property, there are approximately 7,000 rental properties
(residential and commercial) within the City. The land use inventory will be used as the
source document for the conversion. It will be updated in July 1993 to reflect the County's
new property transfers through March 1, 1993. The property transfers occurring from March
1, 1993 through July 31, 1993 will be obtained from the County Recorder's Office.
Beginning August 1, 1993, after each utility route is read and bills produced for the current
customers, the master file will be manually changed to transfer the utility account into the
property owner's name (using the land use inventory as source document). Although this
process will take two months to complete - August and September - it will allow all closing
bills to go to the current customer and property owners to assume the bill effective as soon
as possible after the August 1, 1993 adoption of the proposed resolution.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
On July 12, 1993, a letter was mailed to all property owners not having a homeowner's
exemption on their property (Exhibit B). The letter indicates the reason for the proposed
conversion of utility bills to property owners and invites them to a meeting held in
conjunction with the Property Owner's Association on July 16, 1993. The letter also
provides the date and time this item will be heard by the City Council.
���n���N��IINI�Ipn �UUIN MY of san L.41S OBispo
MiS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ALTERNATIVES
In order to eliminate an Accounting Assistant position, which spends 90% of their time
performing utility billing service functions, Council needs to adopt the proposed resolution
transferring utility bills to property owners. If Council does not adopt the proposed
resolution,they need to consider restoring the funding for the Accounting Assistant position.
If retained, funding for this position could be provided from alternative sources such as:
■ Including the expense associated with retaining the Accounting Assistant in the cost
allocation base and charging it back to the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds as
appropriate, minimizing General Fund impacts.
■ Initiating an "Account Set-up Fee" in the amount of $25.00 to cover the costs
associated with starting and stopping utility service. This non-refundable fee would
be paid by the customer starting service and would be added onto their first utility
bill. Using the cities previously surveyed, both within San Luis Obispo County and
outside the County, the following cities have a non-refundable "Account Set-up Fee":
CITY AMOUNT OF FEE
Palm Springs $37.00
Camarillo $10.00
Ventura $ 8.00
Santa Cruz $20.00
Napa $ 5.00
Arroyo Grande $13.50
Grover Beach $16.50
Atascadero Water $10.00
Additionally, other utility companies charge non-refundable "Account Set-up Fees as
follows:
UTILITY COMPANY AMOUNT OF FEE
Sonic Cable Television $20.00-$45.00(depending if service is"on"or"off')
Pacific Bell $34.75 residential
$70.75 commercial
Southern Calif. Gas Co. $ 5.00
If Council chooses to restore the Accounting Assistant position by implementing one of
these alternatives, that direction should be provided at this Council meeting.
If Council does not approve the billing change and does not restore the Accounting
Assistant position, staff is not able to provide any suggestions for additional reductions in
service. As part of the budget process, an exhaustive analysis was performed by staff in
which the services provided by the Finance Department were identified, discussed, and
111111111111111101111l City Of San 1L J OBISPO
Mis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
carefully weighed against the necessary customer services and reasonable internal controls
that staff needs to perform.
It is important to note that with the elimination of this position, there are only three
Accounting Assistants remaining in the Revenue Management Division,who are responsible
for annually processing:
■ 7,300 business tax certificates (this is up by over 3,000 accounts - an increase of 60%
since 1991 as a result of the business tax ordinance revision).
■ 80,000 utility bills, including recording-meter readings, payments, adjustments, and
processing service orders.
■ 4,500 general accounts receivable
■ 30,000 cashier transactions
SUNEVIARY
Council approved the elimination of an Accounting Assistant at the March 13, 1993 Study
Session and in the adoption of the 1993-95 Financial Plan. The service impacts identified
with this cut included transferring responsibility for payment of utility bills from the
customer to the property owner, decentralizing invoice preparation and accounts receivable i
management to the operating departments, and billing transient occupancy tax quarterly
rather than monthly. The actual conversion process of approximately 7,000 utility bills has
been carefully planned to make the transition as easy and accurate as possible. .Adoption
of the proposed resolution to become effective on August 1, 1993 is required for staff to
proceed.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution transferring responsibility for utility bills to property owners
EXHIBITS
A. Page D-128 from 1993-95 Financial Plan adopted by Council on June 15, 1993
B. Letter sent to property owners
RESOLUTION NO. (1993 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TRANSFERRING RESPONSIBILITY FOR UTILITY BILLS TO
PROPERTY OWNERS
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo determined it necessary to
eliminate an Accounting Assistant position from the Revenue Management Division of the
Finance Department as part of the necessary staff reductions required to balance the 1993-
95 Budget; and
WHEREAS, after a comprehensive analysis of the services provided by the Revenue
Management Division it has been determined that it is necessary to transfer responsibility
for utility bills to property owners to significantly reduce the workload so that the
Accounting Assistant position can be eliminated.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that effective August 1, 1993, property owners will be billed and held responsible
for payment of utility bills.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was adopted on this day of , 1993.
Mayor Peg Pinard
ATTEST:
City Clerk Diane Gladwell ..
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�ty 1 to
1
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
&hIbILLL
PROGRAM: Revenue Management (continued)
DEPARTMENT: Finance
SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURE AND STAFFING CHANGES
Reduction mq wrd to balance the budgrt
-'• 1993-95: Eliminating one Accounting Assistant position and related support supplies will save $35,500 annually.
Service impacts include: transferring responsibility for payment of utility bills from the customer to the
property owner- this will significantly reduce our customer service request workload (starts and stops);
decentralizing invoice preparation and accounts receivable management to the operating departments;
billing transient occupancy taxes quarterly rather than monthly.
Incases mqu and to meet basic savwe levels
None
1993-95 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
• 1993-94: Prepare revenue manual
• 1994.95: Perform business tax audit
• 1993-95: Achieve yields on investments that exceed 90 day U.S.Treasury Bills while safeguarding the City portfolio
from losses due to creditor default or market changes
• 1993-95: Prepare annual rate reviews for the water and sewer funds
• 1993-94: Convert responsibility for payment of utility bills to property owners
- 1993-94: Work with the operating departments in decentralizing invoice preparation -and accounts receivable
management 1
• 1993-95: Update General Fund fees and charges in accordance with adopted City policy
. PERFORMANCE AND 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95
.WORKLOAD INDICATORS ACTUAL PROJECTED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
Utility bills issued 79,500 79,800 80,600 80,600
Utility customer service orders 8,587 10,000 11,000 11;000
Accounts receivable invoices issued 4,436 4,500 4,500 4,500
Business tax certificates issued 6,835 7,100.. 7,300 7,300
Cashier transactions 27,366 28,000 30,000 30,000
Investment portfolio $3,1.5 Mil $32.0 Mil $32.5 Mil $33.5 Mil
D-128
io
city of sAn tuis oBisn
-- 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Exhibit�.
Dear .Property Owner,
cerci to the City's records you are an owner of rental properTJ, This IC::': !J it
;,u -.hat the City is proposing to transfer responsibility for payment of all utii:'" r:":!,
prcjner;v owner effective August 1, 1993. The proposed conversion of utility biil to oro--:.
ners is one of the service impacts necessary to reduce staffing levels enabling the
,Dr-�uuce a balanced 1993-94 budget.
to notifying individual property owners, a meetir-g will be held in cCi:,j'!'_;:•^'
.. 1r....r..3
Fro^erty Owner's Association that is open to all interested parties on.:
Friday, Jul), 16, 1993
2:00 p.m.
City/County Library - Community Room
995 Palm Street
.-I- -za- ou to attend this meeting so that we ma_v address an,, questions
r_garci +g the transfer of utility bills to property owners.
1.-Js ?roposai will be heard in a public hearing by the City Council on:
Tuesday, Julv 20, 1993
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers at City_ Hall
990 Palm Street
ve encourage your attendance and participation in the public hearing. If you have _:w
questions regarding this matter do not hesitate to contact me.
Sirce:eiv,
-7
Li ca s,-;nrion
vfar ager
;:'i� o: San Luys Qblsoo i5 commrt!911 Jo inclUd, !h.: C,i3b:ec in all ci rs 52rvices. orocr]n`s 3.'c
-_rn-••u:,:cauen, Dev,ce ;or tr-,e Deni ta0 5j
MEETING DATE:
��ui�i71►►��IIIIIII�I►�i �����Il city of San WI S OBISPO ITEM NUMBER:
-7-��-
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON CONVERTING RESPONSIBILITY
FOR PAYMENT OF UTILITY BILLS TO PROPERTY OWNERS
REVISED CAO RECOMMENDATION
Retain current service level of billing tenants for water and sewer service,and implement a
service start fee of$25 in order to recover the cost of retaining the Accounting Assistant position
as well as other related costs.
DISCUSSION
On July 16, 1993, a meeting was held in conjunction with the Property Owners Association to
answer any questions interested parties might have regarding the proposal to transfer
responsibility for water and sewer bills to the property owner. This meeting was attended by over
two hundred property owners, who were virtually unanimous in their intense opposition to this
change. Reasons for opposition include:
• The tenant, not the property owner, is the customer, and accordingly, the tenant should be
responsible for payment.
• It isn't fair to require property owners to serve as a collection agency for the City.
• It isn't fair to make property owners responsible for any outstanding amounts due if tenants
do not pay their closing bill.
• Separating the responsibility for the use of water vs paying for it will undermine the City's
water conservation efforts.
An alternative to this change that received significant support at the meeting (as well as in the
many letters and phone calls that have been received on this issue) is retaining the current service
level, but charging a start—up fee to recover the cost of providing this service. As discussed in the
original Agenda Report, this approach is used by a number of cities providing water service as
well as other utility companies such as cable, telephone, and gas. Based on the significant
concerns expressed with the originally proposed change — combined with the support for this
alternative — it is recommended that the current service level be retained, and that a start up fee
be implemented to recover this cost
In determining the amount of this fee, two options are available based on processing 3,000 service
starts annually. 1)a fee of$12 would generate about$36,000 annually, recovering the direct cost
of the Accounting Assistant position;2)a fee of$25 would generate about $75,000 annually,
recovering the total cost associated with this service, including field personnel who turn water on
and off at the meter and perform final reads for closed out accounts, as well as other related costs.
In order to reflect the total cost of this service to our customers, the $25 fee option is proposed.
It should be noted that the proposed fee would be applicable to all customer accounts
(residential and commercial, tenant or owner occupied). If conceptually approved by Council at
this meeting,we will return in August for formal adoption of this fee. _ /
JUL 20 193 14: 34 FRr '-ORAL WDL PAGE . 002
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 7�1TEM #$_
20 July 1993
To: City Council
San Luis Obispo, CA
Subject: Transferring Responsibility for Utility Bills to Property Owners
I am responding to Linda Asprion's letter dated July 12, 1993 regarding the above
subject. I am unable to attend the City Council meeting July 20, 1993 in San Luis
Obispo.
I am vehemently opposed to the City Council's proposal to have utility bills billed to
the property owners. I have no objection to paying a nominal 'Account Set-up Fee°.
San Luis Obispo has had a history of discouraging business and this proposal is no
exception. Council seems ready to layoff personnel to cut costs; but is not sensitive to
property owners concerns that renters will take advantage of FREE UTILITIES AT
OWNERS EXPENSE. Having just come off five or six years of water rationing, it is
inconceivable that council would give renters an uncontrolled use of water leaving the
property owner to bear the repercussions from authorities when rationing limits are
exceeded.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marsha Magnuson
17120 Viewcrest Lane
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
r MEErox
DATE
i
ACBMA ITEM#
VCU
SOURIQL R=21.DEOL
FL
i0 FIN.DIIt
TORNEY ❑ Pw ont
AO ❑/unLDUL
! ERK-0rlg 4Q FU
From HOEPTNER PRODUCTS PHONE No. : 400 779 7515 7u1. 20 1993 1:05PM P01
Hoeptner
® Perfected Products
15U85 Venetian Way - Morgan Hill. Galilornia 9ri037 (404) 779-7515
MEETINAGENDA
DATE-`- �
_ ITEM #
_�0-
DAA'
Council Chambers at City Hall
990 Palm Street
PO Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403-8100 n-:., [ /MDDIF,
7/20/93 coo YJ L..T.DR
T lir 4?Tv.'\•=, ❑ P'vJ DR.
UTIL DR
Att: City Council Members �`L ❑ T-T
Dear Coxinci.7. Members:
As a .Property Owner, Property Tax Payer and Business Tax
Payer, I find the proposed conversion of utility bills to
property owners to be extremely unfair and not warranted.
First and foremost, I do not understand how the city of San
Luis Obispo can get approval for thoir existing rates, based
on their costs, and then lower their costs. I am not aura of
the legalities of this matter but I am aware of its
unfairness. what next? To cut costs further, why not have
property owners be responsible to dump garbage at the land
fill. What a great idea, we could get rates based on costs;
and Than have the property owner do it for free.
IP your costs are higher than expected then your rates should
be increased. After all your rates are supposed to be based
on costs.
Secondly, my tenants have no contract with me for utilities.
I am not a utility company. The contractual obligation is
between the user and the city. I am not a supplier of
utilities nor do I have the legal right to shut off utilities
in the event that my tenants donOt pay.
Please include my letter in your consideration towardB this
unfair and unwarranted proposal.
91n ey.,
"Z. — —
Herb Iioept or
07/20/93 13:14 $805 544 6764 H2I. DERMODY & CO y» + SLO CITY HALL X001
MEETING AGENDA Cz
DATE. ITEM # V
July 19, 1993
City of San Luis Obispo
Attn: Peg Pinard, Mayor
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
RE: CONVERTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYDfENT OF UT=y BILLS
TO PROPERTY OWNERS
Dear Mayor Pinard:
This Ietter is in response to the Council Agenda Report. As a property owner in the City of
SLO as well as being a landlord, I urge you to support the property owner by voting against this
proposed conversion.
The reasons for opposition are obvious and I certainly hope you give this proposal a resounding
"NO".
I would like to thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Henry . hcock
1892 Corralitos Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
DAiE
AGENDA ITEM 9 J
E jC QD DIL
tt ''
1! CAO FIAI.DIR.
} V ATTORNEY ❑ PW DiR e
geACAO ❑ LML DIR '
❑ a r=RK-0ri& 0T--T
FR E
` . `1 NG AGENDA
Dk Z 2043 ITEM #
l V
OF
._ .......
�lV' ❑ 4
G ^'.�n_�
�O ,...
CE CR
63�
,
Y�3b v 1JVJ � '�1'�i��c CJ
Crrr cou.",IL
-� -�-� SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
2L-c-Q 7tiD -a
�—p oI v �
.•.6i:.... ... . :�� ..e-...�
7• •.� . �. .. .-
. .i _...-� ___._ ... _
. _ __ __ _ _. .-_ r _
PrETING AGENDA
E um #.
1930 NW 46th Street
Gainesville, FL 32605-3451
July 17, 1993 _
City of San Luis Obispo & to Whomsoever it May Concern
ATTN: Linda fisprion, Revenue Manager
990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Lear Sirs/Madam:
In reply to your letter of July 12th concerning a proposed transfer of
responsibility of payment for "all" utility bills (they should have been
specified), and this on rental property, we respond that this would be
unworkable. . In order to have responsible usage of utilities, they MUST be
paid for by the user and not a third party. This is true EVERYWHERE. It would
be an unworkable situation to have someone else pay those utility bills. [de do
NOT make the arrangements to have those utilities turned on or off and cannot
and will not pay for someone else 's utilities. This proposal must be from
someone who does not have adequate experience to forsee the ensuing problems.
We DO HAVE the experience to know that it will not work and would be most
FOOLISH. to adopt and are quite bewildered that anyone, anywhere in City
Goverment would even make such an unrealistic- and unworkable proposal. We
suggest that people making these proposals be transferred to more appropriate
jobs elsewhere.
In summary, we unequivocally oppose the transfer of the responsibility for
payment of utility bills to property owners (especially those who do not live
there) in San Luis Obispo, CA. We will not pay them and will not agree to
ANY CHANGE!
Sincerely,
Wilbur R.& Anna L/ Langford
❑•D^otca ACion ❑ FYI E
JUL 2 01993
Lrd r.0 D r!P,E
CITY COUNCIL Cg
,uqr.-y r_�J RIDIR.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
L r, ^. ❑ PGLi�Qi
I ❑ hlcnTr.1--u.I LJ rcz My
❑' LA Lc ❑ U""i
PAM TTRM Ot5 CO. I TING �� AGENDA Ci
SSANDON, CA 93461P 0. DATE� lTEM #._.-
July 19, 1993
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Re: Converting Responsibility for Utility Bills to Property Owners
Dear City Council:
At the July 16 public meeting on the staff recommendation to
transfer responsibility for payment of utility bills from the
customer to the property owner, the property owners were
unanimously opposed. I agree.
The City has imposed numerous ordinances on its residents to
reduce water consumption. One of the most significant measures was
a revised rate structure to penalize excessive water use. This new
staff proposal would substantially reduce the effectiveness of this
measure for rented properties. Annual renters would likely have no
knowledge of this measure until they receive their first bill
following two months of occupancy, and landowners would undoubtedly
find the cost of the last two months use uncollectible. Long term
leases may very likely be unchangeable. Both circumstances greatly
reduce the liability of the water user for any wasteful use.
Additionally, for those who are able to pass on these costs,
this proposal will add the burden of property owners having to re-
bill the tenants. If the property owner merely passes the bill on
to the tenant, that owner runs the risk of penalty if the bill is
not then paid by the tenant. If the owner pays the bill, then a
second bill must be prepared for the tenant and then a second check
written for this one transaction. This is unnecessarily wasteful.
Instead of the staff proposal, I urge you to adopt the
consensus of the property owners who appeared at the July 16
briefing and impose a "turn-on" charge of up to $25. Under that
proposal, the people who.generate the extra work for the City will
pay for it.
Sincerely,
�
COf IZ TO:
❑' AcLon ❑ FYl Rt(.;t1 V hU
j �I oo �Ftty-D. im Sinton JUL 1993
[j FVjDix CITY COUNCIL
1711 ��LiCFL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
IK i��
UING AGENDA
E 2P IT ENI 9
F'fl
July 19 , 1993
r
Linda Asprion
Revenue Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403=8100
Dear Ms. Asprion:
I am addressing you in regard to the letter dated July 12 an-
nouncing a public meeting July 16 , at 2 :00 p.m. I question the
intent of this letter other than to be either extremely dis-
courteous or blatantly arrogant. Anyone with any human relation
sensibilities would have the consideration to mail such a notice
with much more time leeway. Most property owners received the
letter July 14 .
I realize that you may not be the origin of either the letter
or the date sequence, but since your signature was affixed, you
must share some of this ire. Please pass on my indignation to
the proper source.
Sincerely,
Evelyn �Justesen
gf
R L)
YJL 19 1993
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
cc: Bill Roalman, City Council Member
-SENT BY: 7-19-93 3:05PM :KINKO'S WALNUT CREEK 8057817109:# 2/ 2
-TING AGENDA
bm'JE ' 'Zp-� TEM #
Gary P. Havas
1030 St. Raphael Drive
West Pittsburg, CA 94565
Home (510) 458-8618
Shop (510) 228-6515 r w'r"..'
p 1 19Fi:�r
July 18 1993 cr.0 s
�
Linda Asprion C.n;a
c.,'
REVENUE MANAGER ✓ ��
Council Chambers � = -
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
RE: Proposed Adoption of Resolution to Transfer Re5pkcnsail,i g-:c i
Utilities to Property Owners.
Ms. Asprion:
JUL 1 1993
CITY COUNCIL
DO NOT DO IT: SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
I am the owner of rental property in San Luis Obispo. I am
shocked and angered that the City Of San Luis Obispo has even
suggested adoption ' of something I cannot remotely see is the
City' s business. How can you think that I should be responsible.
for someone else' s bills? Gas? , Electric? , Phone? , Cable? Is
there some connection between these Utilities and the City Of San
Luis Obispo? I am furious to find that even now I appear to be
responsible for Water and garbage. Hey, it' s not my trash, and I
am not using the Water, yet I am threatened With a lien on my
property if I don' t pay the delinquent bill of a tenant. You
provide the service to the tenants, you should cover your own
behind and leave me out of it.
By 'the -way, thank you for the timely notice. Hmwm, a meeting on
Tuesday, July 20, proposed implementation on August 1 , notice
received Saturday, July 17 and a meeting on Jiily 16. Seems
devious to me . Unless I 'm missing something here , that sounds
less than professional, businesslike and discourteous.
Most sincerely,
0 v�
GarP. Havas
FAX: C. M. Florence, City of SLO
cc: 'D. Weegar,. F. Calabrese
MFETING AGENDA
-ITEM #
15 July, 1993
Robert and Carol Sexton
7 Norton
Irvine, CA 92715 ❑ Accon ❑ FYI
(714) 559-4465
' r
Linda Asprion �o ❑ z�Pz"; -
City of San Luis Obispo i rr:u�'> z C!
PO Box 8100 _ e'- /1^ �. C i [=,r_iCE C1
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 [� 1"`'" ' `-''^ ��-'1
Dear Ms. Asprion, t
We just received your letter regarding the public hearing on the proposal regarding transfer of
utility bills to property owners. We own the property at 327 Christina Way which we have
been renting out since 1987. Because we live out of the area,we are unable to attend the
hearing, and consider the short notice unreasonable. If possible, we would like the following
statement read at the hearing, and forwarded to the Property Owners' Association.
When we had to move out of San Luis Obispo,we decided to rent rather than sell our home,
because we were not sure how long we would be away. We have done so since 1987. At first,
we paid for utilities, including an estimated cost in the monthly rental figures. Because utility
costs are variable on the basis of usage and changes in fee structures because of decreasing
resources, we found that we could better service our tenants,ourselves, and the community by
having the tenants handle their own utilities. We took a 12-month average of utility costs and
reduced the rent accordingly. This benefits the tenants because it allows them some control V E 0
over variable costs. It benefits us because of the reduction in paperwork It benefits the
community because tenants paying their own utility bills are more likely to use scarce JUL 19 1993
resources wisely.
L;iTY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Changing to mandatory payment by property owners will have negative impact. For tenants,
rents will increase,probably significantly more than the actual monthly utility costs because of
the need for owners to manage payment or pay someone to manage payment. Owners will have
to regularly adjust rents on the basis of usage, or set rents high enough to cover the worst
possible scenario.The community will suffer because utility usage will increase because the
users are not the payers. Who will benefit?I'm not sure that the city will achieve the cost
savings.I assume the argument is that there will be less paperwork involved because of fewer
changes in responsible parties. The notice indicates all utility bills. My last experience was that
we paid one bill to the city for water, sewer and trash services. What is the cost to the city now
for gas and electricity billing? Last time I checked, these were provided by gas and electric
companies,not the city. I would assume the gas and electric companies are strong supporters of
this proposal, as it is likely to reduce their paperwork,but not their charges. Property
management companies may benefit, as out-of-town owners like us may require a third party to
manage utility bill payments for them.
We currently live as tenants in Irvine. Typically for rentals of homes, the owner pays trash,
gardening and association fees (the city is divided into developments each with itss2 own
community pools and community services determined by the development association). Water,
gas and electricity are the responsibility of the tenant. This seems reasonable to us. Dictating
that all utility bills,city-controlled or not,be paid by the owner rather than the occupant is
irrational and potentially wasteful. We certainly hope that the city council will recognize the
proposal as one having been devised in haste and without consideration for both short and long
term consequences.
Since",
f4ohe. ands Cqr Rexton
ET ING AGENDA
July 16, 1993
GATE TZH_�_-ITEM
Ms. Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
lr`7
F ,7�=,
990 Palm Street/P. O. Box 8100 A0 -71
F-1 J
San Luis Obispo, Calif.
93403-8100
I-j
=
Dear Ms. Asprion: DvFj LE
Today I received your notice proposing to JWerujtility bills
from tenants to their landlords. I would point out that, since I just
got this notice, I have had no time to attend the Property Owner' s
Association meeting scheduled for today, nor to arranage leave from my
duties to attend the City Council hearing on the matter scheduled for
July 20. This seems rather heavy-handed government to me. As a
minimum, therefore, I request you read my commenmts into the minutes
of the hearing.
First, I don't follow how this proposal will save the City money.
Someone will still have to send out the bills, monitor the accounts,
receive the payments, credit the accounts, etc. Where will the big
savings come from?
More importantly, I don't see how this proposal can be legal. I,
for example, have made no contract with the utility companies for
these services. Nor have I ever received any services from them,
wanted or not. The contractual obligation (which is to say, the LEGAL
obligation) is between the utility company and my tenants, not me.
Thirdly, the real hardship from this proposal is going to fall on
the tenants themselves, since the landlords will simply pass on the
costs of these services to them. And if a landlord choses not to pay
the bills or is late in paying, the services will be shut off to the
tenants, not to the landlords.
Finally, one of the ways young people, just starting out in life,
establish basic credit is by making contracts with utility companies
and then proving they can live up to their obligations. This proposal
will deprive them of that opportunity.
For all these reasons -- especiallty the dubious leagality of
charging for a service not contracted for, nor received I oppose
this proposal.
Sincerely,
Chris Holmes
9 1993
1608 Yucatan Way
Fallbrook, Calif. 92028 CITY COUNC;L
SAN LUIS OE SPO, CA
MEET (IG orEt�Gf _ �j
DATE #
a-
Ile
��n ✓2t� �/,/2���:�i����,�/� ',ted [/ (�v y(f� �. ,
✓� �L7 �� ��s`Y� 4 � iy�.]
CITY COUN< ;;
G// Sf.h LUIS
4 ETlI� ��� AGEW 1993 U
Atm-. Linda Asprion �a,c eoS-79/-7/O 4 DATE .ITEM
Revenue Manager (voice 905'--731--712b)
City of San Luis Obispo
1993 Related to Billing of Owners for Renter's Utilities
For Reading at the Public Hearing on July 20,
To the San Luis Obispo City Council:
Re:Proposed billing of utilities to owners of rental property.
Please do not force the billing of utilities to owners of rental property. This action would seem inconsistent ill-advised for the
following reasons.
1. Those responsible for use(the renters)would become isolated from the wntrolliul element(the city)for utilities.
This could create exceptional legal problems during rationing activities(e.g.would owners be given power to cut
off utilities from a racer without becoming responsible for creating an uninhabitable dwelling's).
2, Owners would be forced to inject themselves into a contractual relationship between the user and the provider of a
service. The owner is presently hold responsible for providing and maintaininghan^ehwouid reysical quire therownerth iW le
ser-vices(telephone wiring,water/sewage piping and electric service). o
participate in the providing of the services and dealing with their varying costs.
This proposed change also raises the following questions:
A. Will all owners become responsible for rental utilities,including business properties and those currently supported
by property management companies?
B. Under what authority can the City mandate an owner provide the on-going service(utilities)to the rents?
C. Would renters and property managers be prevented from requesting utilities and assuming payment responsibility
(i.e. receive billing)?
D. How can an absentee owner verify usage/billing problems? (If they are not present to check meters or service they
may have to engage a fourth parry to checl:on the City's and the renter's claims.}
ng
E. Is the City willing to back owners/appease ren wls lwhen a nt to 1increase and co11in rents 1octioorn renter)? {It mays necessary to cover costs ralsolbe
renters,collection costs,and carrying costs(betty payer
necessary to secure surety deposits for utility expenses-)
F. With the user(rents)not directly responsible for the bill,is it not possible the conservation gains of the past few
years could erode? {My experience has been that hotel,apartment,and home renters who do not feel diM&
responsible for the bill do not conserve as much as those receiving direct and immediate feedback(the bill)on their
usage.}
it seems this change could possibly drop the City's operating costs(although this is not readily apparent to me)while creating more
eomple)dty in the utility service to the user and therefore potentially mon:expensive utilities to renters. y/ n
1 thank you for your added consideration on this matter. Per 'Iej_ le f+._ _ ca
I -71 C1 W�'I l t MS HSP r,o":
FLP
=
John Cramer, d c ccu^-�S 4r "441 �s 9 7I 9193
Owns of a single family rental at 1557 Galleon Way
Ms.Asprion:
Co
Please keep me advised of actions taken by the uncil. Please also Hole I received your letter dated 12 July(mailed 13 July)on 15
July,the day before the first meeting on the subject-
please
ubjectPlease also send minutes of the two meetings noted in your letter to me at the address below.
Thank you for your help.
Z ` �.._ctJ ❑ r'^ cit
Johnramer !J Int
6815 Dauntless Court `•O ❑ F=
Colorado Springs,CO 80919-1304 ;XP =``=y E j r"'
719.522-0656 ` `/ ':� C]
SIE TO
A ..
is 4-4,97
//0,-/ml&' 41Lao.e,Q, / ._
Jcs
00
1
0[0
o s �c {r:U� . rr ._ _... fes... -- --- • ----- ..
uh _ 7eL
r.
�7
Mr7N`G,,O AGENDA
D►,,L ' ITEM #
MAINO PROPERTIES
post office box 6056 los osos,ralifomia 93412
(805) 528-8114 fax(805) 528-3609
July 19, 1993
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408-8100
Attn: Ms. Linda Asprion
Revenue Manager
Dear Ms. Asprion,
I am the owner of University Square Shopping Center where we have about
12 water meters. There may be more depending on how the city addresses
property owners.
Our leases require that the Tenants pay for their utilities, and they
will be required to do so whether the City bills them or we pay the City
and bill the Tenants.
There will be no saving by the City in our case as we will require
separate billings for every water meter we own.
I do want to state a formal rejection of this plan as I foresee serious
problems with having a rule requiring someone other than the direct user
having to pay for the water: That is the waste of water, not repairing a
leaking fixture, deliberate vandalism, and lastly the basic unfairness of
anyone having to pay anyone else's bills.
There is a simple solution to the City's need to save some money or make
additional revenue to balance the budget. Charge a $25.00 addition to
the first month's water bill for every new meter or every change of uses
on an existing meter. This whole transaction could be handled by phone
and be enforceable by the long time favorite method of turning off the
water.
Sincerely,
ti:C!PIS TO:
MAINO PROPERTIES ❑' '-^sAd'ion ❑ 1-Y1
I
.� ❑ mp.z=-� ! 19X993
Y ❑ F"VI DIR. J UL
Theodore C. Maino r^ -,;���r; �] ;.;;,;; fir,
F-1 me 7=: 2.I L A SCDIR. v COUNCIL CA
.;IS OBISPO,
TCM:bmm '_�7 s`' D ''L� 0 Un'.r"
MF17TING AGENDA
R._ ITEM #
JULY 15 , 1993
DEAR LINDA ,
I RECEIVED YOUR LETTER INFORMING ME OF A PROPERTY
OWNERS MEETING ON JULY 16 , 1993 . THIS IS EXTREMELY SHORT
NOTICE FOR A MEETING OF SUCH IMPACT . BECAUSE OF MY DISTANCE
AND WORK SCHEDULE , I AM NOT ABLE TO ATTEND , NOR WILL YOU
PROBABLY RECEIVE THIS LETTER IN TIME FOR THE MEETING .
HOWEVER , I AM OUTRAGED BY THIS PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER
RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYMENT OF ALL UTILITY BILLS TO THE
PROPERTY OWNERS . I WISH FOR MY VOICE TO BE HEARD LOUD AND
CLEAR .
AS AN OWNER OF RENTAL PROPERTY, I HAVE FOUND RENTING TO
BE AN EXTREME RESPONSIBILITY . THERE ARE FEW BENEFITS FOR
THE OWNER INVOLVED, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS A NEGATIVE
PAYMENT BECAUSE OF DECLINE IN PROPERTY VALUES . I PAY A
PROPERTY MANAGER TO MANAGE MY PROPERTY AND TO GET THE BEST
TENANTS POSSIBLE . THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN THE TENANT
DOES NOT PAY RENT OR TIMES WHEN THE HOUSE IS VACANT AND THE
OWNER IS EXPECTED TO EAT THOSE COSTS . THE OWNER HOWEVER HAS
NOT USED THE UTILITIES THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HE PAY FOR OR
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND I DO NOT FEEL THE OWNER SHOULD BE
RESPONSIBLE IN ANY WAY , SHAPE OR FORM FOR THESE PAYMENTS .
IF A TENANT DOES NOT PAY HIS UTILITIES , THEN THERE
SHOULD BE A SYSTEM WHERE THE UTILITIES ARE DISCONNECTED SO
THAT THE TENANT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO PAY OR MOVE . WHY
SHOULD THE OWNER BE RESPONSIBLE TO PAY, BECAUSE IF THE
TENANT HASNIT PAID HIS UTILITIES , CHANCES ARE HE HASNIT PAID
HIS RENT EITHER . THE OWNER MUST SIT THERE WHILE THE
UTILITY BILLS MOUNT UP AND THE UNPAID RENT MOUNTS UP AND THE
TENANT CANNOT EVEN BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY SOMETIMES
FOR MONTHS . NO, THIS IS NOT RIGHT . THIS IS RIDICULOUS .
WHY SHOULD YOU EVEN THINK THE OWNER SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE .
IF THE TENANT DOESN 'T PAY, TURN THE UTILITIES OFF AND THE
TENANT HAS NOT CHOICE BUT TO MOVE OUT .
PLEASE CONSIDER THIS LETTER AND LET IT BE HEARD BECAUSE
I REFUSE TO PAY THIS RIDICULOUS CONVERSION . I PAY PROPERTY
TAXES AND OTHER FEES THAT RENTERS DO NOT----WHY SHOULD I BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS UTILITIES . . . . . . AND VISA . . . . . . AND
MEDICAL . . . . . ETC . ;
❑'D^o.-SAM- L v L;
THANK YOU , ❑ �rrR
�- L Q { ✓��° _ r JUL 14 I9p3
FI❑ .. y'T
1
ciTY COUNCIL
R.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
CAROL MOREND
--^: F'LE L �T
PROPERTY OWNER ❑
MEFTI��V) -93- ITEM #�
AGENDA
CIERNIA COMPANY
DA,
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTMENT CONSULTING
July 15, 1993
Ms. Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager
City of SLO
Box 8100
SLO, CA 93403-8100
Re: Utility bill payments
Dear Ms. Asprion,
I am unable to attendant the public hearings on this proposed matter and wish to
let my opinions known in this letter.
We own two commercial properties in Higuera Commerce park.
We object to the proposal to bill utilities to the owner. This is an added expense
(tax) to the property owner as it will require more time.
Please let our position know to the city council.
csi�cerely,
µ
J R Ciemia
1993
CITY COUNCIL
FAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
REGISTERED INVESTMENT ADVISOR
153 Country Club Drive • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • (805) 541-0880
Security Transactions through IAS Corp. NASD/SPIC
)*,�JING AGENDA
DATE lit ITEM #�F _
1650 Descanso Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
July 17, 1993
Peg Pinard, Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
Dear Mayor Pinard:
Re: Payment of Utility Bills
Due to work commitments I am unable to attend the Council Meeting on
July 20. I am therefore writing this letter to voice my strong
opposition to the City's proposed transfer of responsibility for payment
of utility bills to property owners.
If tenants do not pay for their water most will not conserve it.. We
have just emerged from a severe drought and there will certainly be more
droughts in the future. It is essential that we keep conserving our
water.
Further, in order to adequately cover the unknown and very likely
fluctuating water charges the property owners will be assessed, property
owners will be forced to substantially increase monthly rentals. This
will in turn create an inflationary effect and unfairly punish tenants
who do conserve water.
May I suggest that instead of transferring the bills to the property
owners you instead cover the city's expenses for this service by
assessing a hookup fee whenever a new tenant moves in. This is how
Sonic Cable handles their transfers.
Sincerely,
1 9
yQ /r[-C7 Vv- f
Jerry W. Hull
cc.Councilperson Dave Romero
Councilperson Penny Rapper
Councilperson Allen Settle
Councilperson Bill Roalman -J ro:
Ad:on C1 FYI
�y Crna_I M T. ^I2.
.I �1Rr.•::il1:;
(' i,. rTL i) 1 : 1' yin.
MtrflNG AGENDA
f� DATE 1 -'D-9 TEM #
"f�
1358 i�czanaiu Jr6zivc
San 1'uii �lis�iv, eafl owiia 9341
Qv lg 17, 1993
To l9ryo� I'ecy I��nand caul. i'9prbeh�. 0A the l.ounCi�t
The ptoposat to have -tcndto'll pry the 0010f
l.+tf
ball s. of the -tema tis. in -tawlanowa t & 010
-thea. Up c b.l.ank check,. to the tente�,
Ties wilt rno s.t cea tr_inQ be a death How
.to Wotan coYnetuat on.
Tho ya h. 9 rn: l i tM e a f ected b y this con en i.on,
5 am ueheneevLQ opposed to ;t rrul vf't� you to
adon-t c. mote easitab•te wry to batance the
budle-t,
y selu6 that an 'IFlccou._.nt Set-up geelI was
moat favosA e to the ueny ,tame, concetlnez
cAowd aftendZel the mee&ynn o� Otdq 16, 1093
at -thC .LV),taAq.
�.Pwiie fid, r�,.w •'%
CC go a lmavc
SetWe
Romano -I/;,.-nic;flciicr. ❑ FT
ill.
Ln'-.LT),n
-JUL 1 1993
CITY COUNCIL
stly LUIS 0BISPO, CA
WITINGzo`� GENDA
L. , _ITEM #
July 16, 1993
To Whom It May Concern:
I wish to protest the conversion of responsibility for water and sewer bills from tenant to owner. As an
owner of a single family unit, which typically changes tenants every three years, I feel this change is
irresponsible.
I cannot control my tenant's water usage. The only way to get effective water conservation in the city
is by making the water user responsible for paying the bill.
Sincerely,
O"ice l O:
�' F ❑'fie ��Ar on p
!,�'eo�-c1 i
Paul S. Orton �.eAo ❑ uj..�_R
Catherine Orton '° 'o _
33 1 res . �rncl�rus l ❑ ��I
rjLo C-N cot-40% O-ETK/0-- ❑ Fvt DiR
MChTT T= . ❑ I CLiCE C7-L
�! I'CC DIV
iiI LMX
I
i
JUL 191993
Uw`wIS L CA
ET AGENDA
AGENDA
DATE RM #-.
y ❑ .o:a3?cion ❑ FYI
{ ti
CAO .. _
F7N.DiR
.2_ Q�.G10 ❑ F1FE'CHMF
U-14NEY FVJ DR.
Cc.?jr IORUG. ❑ MUC EO-L
�z F c ❑ LrnL*JL2
'�J' ' ❑
4,10 qu
LA
v Li
111 � 4 yn �' �� -f'� _ � . C•-c.�JC't'l.�itr 1�>� ;.�a�i--�
CITY COUNCUL--.SAN tvts Msav,64%
amu.¢. --b-�
v
Vic) ►�, C �
.um,
tow�}�. letl`C.G�itJ ��-�---�2,.�t� j�✓V , �j �"'7�f�.��i •.-�'t� �--•s�rLC�c;s'•
vl.���/ Lt�'G 1--a cam•- " �..�" ^� r+„�-�t�i
1
111,
/ ✓ / �r•f-/-r�r -
– i >�d'�'�
� epi t � 1C.-�✓vL('.lti /l�4 `+'L�cTl �..1.��-�'1 -p�4--�'- �, �l n
���� ,1,.''.}.Q—n.-.{.� t�, :t �s`Ks�•t '�Vl.�'�L.l_C�. - ,�[�,@ �1/gl.'�L�E-P.�'.�..c.La�
MEETING AGENDA
DATE TEM #
297 Eagle Ridge Street
Newbury Park, CA 91320
July 16, 1993
City Council of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100
Re: Transferring utility bills to rental property owners
Dear Council :
I am an owner of rental. property in San Luis Obispo. I am
writing to you to encourage you to not transfer utility bill
responsibility to property owner and to instead charge a service
connection fee to offset your administrative costs.
I spoke with your Ms . Linda Asprion and she explained to me that
this action is made necessary by the fact that the city processes
over 6, 000 utility bill connection/disconnections per year,
largely due to the transient student population (such as my
daughter) . She explained that reducing this number by
transferring responsibility to the property owners would
eliminate one staff position and help the city balance an austere
budget. I asked Ms. Asprion if the city charged a connection fee
as do other utility companies; she said you do not.
I believe the city should charge a suitable connection fee to
offset your costs as do other utility companies. I assume in
years prior this administrative cost has been spread among all
your utility customers . The current budget crisis
notwithstanding, I suggest that it was never fair in the first
place to have stable residents . (thnse who- stay at one house or
apartment for many years) subsidize the highly transient
residents who are responsible for the majority of the
connection/disconnection administrative costs .
Please consider my recommendation and please do not transfer the
utility payment responsibility to the property owners .
-ONES:O:
Ammon 11'
.
,,.-1 ❑ IR.
1� o rzv.rnR.D
cam ,✓e� ; ,o ❑ FIREECTEEF
1 1 ��ZT� ❑ FA DDR.
,��191993 ° CLU,-K/0=- ❑ POLICE C14
a
❑
MOM T=s":i U EEC D;? E
CPN i<U1�O�ISPC,GA ;'�"�. F;Lc � LRL'J'^.
A final note: your Ms . Asprion was most patient, courteous and
informative, despite the fact that her phone was ringing off the
hook, no doubt from many other callers like myself
Sincerely,
Robert Stine
Da. ccaw L. rmcf
DATE 7-Z17—I n
s ISMST r ITEM #
_ �'cau s oz
/ 993
���1%lrl�2Gfi� 0 Y� of
� 'D�ao!es Aupn ❑
Q i
AoIMUL
❑ Drt y
O/ �1 MG�TI T��s":1 L1 I:GCDLD
FU ❑❑ UI3L DL7. R
63
u 0
f4,cf�)
REC,riivk�u —et(
JILL 191993
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
- - _ . . -- .- - . . - - �✓-��70�`.. - -- -�� Gam/ - --
Nc . --rc.�.. . .
LTJ-`• • .� _ � ... ...- _ - - ..t4•.�.�:-V,:.rf--�i��• r ♦ •.�'II.r���+.•^�-^T�^.y��--
..r...__. .. v _. -.... - -.. ....�. ..... _ '_'s:ati,- ,_..n.f -.��1 _. ,.4. .-� �•-15. _ �.._ - �.'.. - -rt.rn.i r���,�4C.CL .. �..t..
COFI3T0: MEE 7-49 7�GENDA
❑•D�oxs Ac!ion El Fn ! 70,x'0 OAYt4� tAfif� � � ITEM # a
CYcAo LTHN.DiR _ 4 2(`A . S I g
Geo ❑ FM•
0,_,,��ToR\TEY ElFiN DRLiMc— <�ar�y. 11 rati�cz3
T EJ PEC DUt
E) c�F `R ❑ UTTLD.�
' D
' 1 5, .lr,�e SCG •.l2�'��
� ,�,L 'GL�L6�iu �'y�Qi .AGO G2%lit8u�
az J
r
RECEIVED
• C�[.�C �lirL �.t�F w�. V`�t�i 6��D-'4.�.d4.i.,..-•G.c.
JUL 191993
ittasc, CA
- -
PU
IMPORTANT. MES'`'1GE KrETING AGENDA
FOR •
A.M
DATE TIME .
M
OF
PHONE
AREA COOS NUMBER EXTENSION
❑ FAX
Copii:S TO:
O MOBILE L TIME TO CAL ❑
AREA CODE i .. .ca Action ❑ � i.
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL 4 ❑ DI1T
€ �o �R,
CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN, O ❑ q tel)^
WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH — '"� Z Y ❑ M IOE
I EiK/Oz:?. ❑ 1'�?LiCE Q L
RETURNED YOUFl ALL SPECIAL ATTENTION ❑ r'i ATT T t hJ U pEO +°
(] E ❑ LTPLD]l
�5 r
•M SAGE - ❑
SIGNE❑ U �Id1�L51L
� '� a.CA
TOPS FORM 30025.
LITHO IN U.S.A. '' p/� �++�+
IMP®RYAN 11f7E�7�7AGE'
(ImpoiaANT M SSAGEi n FOR-
FOR..
ORFOR ' (oi(�Jl/ DATE TIME
JJ 2/�� M. J
DATE — TIMEL—Z�M. M
M OF '
OF PHONE 6_91��_s2&6v
AREA CODE NUMBER EXT
PHONE 13 FAX
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION ❑ MOBILE
O FAX AREA COOS UMBER TIME l
O MOBILE TELEPHDNED
AREA COOS NUMBER TIME TO CALL PLEASE CALL '
�. . .:..., ..-. .. .. .. n
CARIE TO SEEYOU•. WILL CALL AGAIN
TELEPHONED..,'::. ':':_. PLEASE CALL`<-.;.;'.,
CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAIN .
WANTS TO SEE YOU:, RUSH
WANTS T0_SEE YOU ;. .y'.:..-.' _;RUSH ., ;:.
RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION
RETURNED
.YOUR CALL •;;:;::':p z.-SPECIALATTENiION `> ;::,(; M AGE17
SIGNED —
I-u'IGNEi❑' _ :-_ _ TOPS •• FORM 30025 _
_.—_. _r �___.— _.___—_ .. _- _. ._. _ ._ :._� LITHO IN U.S.A.-
. TOPS FORM 30025
.L117110 IN U.S.A.
.: •'TC-.r _ _ -..t•. _ _ _ _ -ice_-_�. .: _ .. .i-1--.:T^.Y:
:X70-COPYMRT-1559SOLRNO ID : JUL 19 '95 11 : 2b NO . UU4 r .Uz
- -'IEETING , AGENDA
C�enuQd S.�Jll(antir) IJATE � )� ITEM #
901 �ea'Uii�,�hiVe
,O,Q COW(). C,A. 94530
(SIO)526 2958 tiOP` 70:
❑' c>o:?.:ton ❑ Fi9
r.1 ❑ j jrR•
July 16, 1993 r.
L n
Cit of San Luis Obi O C".0
City spo, California �;'� ` r.•;,,
990 Palm Street, P. O. Box 8100 /` ` ❑ 'pL,CE'�?
San Luis Obispo CA 93403-8100 --� )'`'`I` = ' I U , c�)_
ATTN: City Council Members
Dear Members:
We are in receipt (received on July 1.5) of the notification to property owners
whereas The Council is considering a proposal to transfer responsibility for pay-
ment of, all utility bills to the property owners. Inasmuch as it is not possible
for us to attend the Friday, July 16, 1993, meeting we are transmitting our con-
cerns listing our concerns/objections against this proposal:
a. We would have to increase rent to offset paying utilities, and we
feel rent is high enough as it is.
b. Tenants would most likly abuse using utulities because they would not
be paying the bills.
c. It would be a hardship on the 8»11 property owner who is burdened
already with having to license is property as a business.
d. If there is another drought, property owners would be hard pressed
to control tenants use of water.
City staff has advised us that one of the other options to produce a balanced
budget, would be to charge a fee each tine water and garbage service is turned
on and off, we would favor this option...rather than transferring responsibility
for payment to the owner.
LEONA L. MARTIN S_ MARTIN
i -0
JILL 1 '4 1993
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISpO.CA
JUL-19-1993 1235 FROM . CORNERSTONE REAL ESTATE TO MEETIN67-9171e9 AdER'DA
DATE LL-93-ITEM #
-�oEj
:-y �?;�f•1'� �� t'VL.IC=SII. �
JULY 17TH, 1993
DEAR CITY COUNCIL:
I AM ASKING THAT YOU REMOVE FROM TUESDAY NIGHTS AGENDA THE
TOPIC OF "COVERT RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYMENT OF UTILITY BILLS
TO PROPERTY OWNER" AND PUT IT ON AN AGENDA AT A LATER DATE.
WE, AS PROPERTY OWNERS, JUST RECEIVED THIS NOTICE ON JULY
14TH/15TH. THIS IS NOT ADEQUATE TIME FOR US TO INVESTIGATE
THIS ISSUE OR BE IN A POSITION TO GIVE A RESPONSE. IT IS MY
UNDERSTAND THAT BILL STATLER HAS HAD SINCE LAST MARCH IF IN
FACT NOT LAST DECEMBER TO REVIEW THIS ISSUE. I AM NOT
SAYING THAT WE NEED THAT SAME AMOUNT OF TIME BUT FOR SURE
THREE WORKING DAYS IS NOT ADEQUATE TIMING TO INVESTIGATE
THIS TYPE OF ISSUE.
YOUR COOPERATION ON THIS MATTER IS REQUESTED.
RESPECTFULLY
r^
B50c)
JUL 191993
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
X70-COPYMAT-1559SOLANO ID : JUL 19 '9 6 No .004 P .01
�I�EE�l�,., ��AGENDA
DATE. _ITEM #
COPM4
TwPESTO:
The Professional Leader in Copy CenterE*,L °' 3aTon a Ffl
iLiJ
Date _July 16. 1993 N®. ®f Pages 2P CR
����=-
.;I1r.4 : '::2.
MESSAGE TOO
6 L! P.1Gb1i: [ ":! LI 1:ECJDI
/Name City of San Luis Obispo, al i f,
Company ATTN- City Council rjembers
FAX # (805) 783-7109
Notes. 2nclosed letter concerns the proposedt
of utility bills to hom owners.
MESSAGE FROM :
Name Gerald S. and IAX= L. Martin, 901 Sea View Drive El Cerrito, CA
94530
Company Property owners/1010 Church Steeet, SLO
Phone (510)526-2958
You can rely on COPYMAT for quality copies, fast turnaround
and first-rate service. Try us. You'll be impressed!
Free pickup & delivery a commercial charge accounts • competitive bids
SAN FRANCISCO CONCORD BERKELEY
1898 Union Street 1621 Willow Pass Road 2980 College Ave.
(415) 567.8933 (510) 676.4570 (510) 848.3114
FAX: (415) 567-0195 FAX: (5 10) 827.2504 FAX: (510) 843-9398
2370 Market Street OAKLAND 1559 Solari Ave.
(A 15) 864.2679 1000 Broadway . (510) 527.5800
FAX: (415) 864-0351 y FAX: (5 10) 526-6218
505 Sansome Street (510) 839.0636 r L
27 FAX: (510) 839-7916 r 1
FAX:( 415)42133252 SAN LEANDRO 1993
120 Montgomery Street 1505 East 14th Street
(415) 362-7360 (510) 357.3721 C,
COUNCIL
FAX: (4IS) 362-2510 FAX: (S 10) 357-2A89
SpN LUU IS O5ISP�,CA
This focsimile message and/or the accompanying documents contain privileged and confidential information belonging to
Ike sender.The informotion is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. IF you are not fhe intended
recipient,you are hereby notified thol any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
07-19-1993 12: 12 303 656 7215 "''MEETING AGENDA
DATEI-ZP ITEM #
724 Pab-Ma Driye!
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 .co.: :o:
0:
July 18, 1993 —
�an�
D C��Dmlwya Peg Pinard and 7�R.
Cily Council Members 0
F-J F-H DI -"
City Hall
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401DE
FAX: 90517041-7109
Dear Mayor Pinard and Council
.As others ofrental property in San Luis Obispo,v* have been informed-through Mends who
"n rental property in San Wis as we do-abouta July 12 IeWrrom Linda Asprion, Amnue
tAanagKtor tne Cv/or San LUG(-VbMFK-I. in tsire proposes Tansw c4re-spDrisiDiliq Or affuOliq
bills to the property owweffectiye August 1,1993.We-ourseNes- haye notbeen rMkvd about
this change in a proper and timely fashion.Ouronfy source of information has been received.
through secondhand conversations with friends.
Regarding the proposed change,we would like to make the Following points:
1. %Meare*ppQ69dFgrhe proF-oealdrat property owTrww aiwriUl uri4w be responsbie for
Yatense-wer bills.Our 93perience with tenants has shown that they should be fitly responsible W
corgracbrig services%hY the city,since they are the part using the service.in addition,we telivfe
ftt water conservation can be achieYed only whe.n the la�. .rit sees a direct connection between
use and cost of any such service.
2. If the city is losing money as a result of tenants failing to pay for orfulfill their contractual
obligation,perhaps!**city should return to the depost system that eras in effect for many years.f
be city-tyants to raise revenue to pay For increased services rendered,the city should simp�
charge an appropriate hookupinew service rate- each titne a teriantrequires city service.
3. We are outraged at what appears to be a rarnrodding process being used to change city policy
in this area.*What is the rush? From the dates provided to us by our Mends,there are only 8 days
batmen the date of the letterandthe Council taking iv U*maW. Bemuse many overs of rerfW
property take Yacations during the surnmer months and the tenant population is substantially lower,
pushing this charge through in such a compressed time Itarne does notallow for a dernomft nor
open process which should be followed.
We would 3ppreclate it T riv Council muld recognize the rrportance of tenants being responsible
for and closely connected to the efty services they use,and not try to durT this revenue problem on
the backs of the property owrners simply because It is problematic for the city.Fix the problem,don't
transfer and Hx 11 in the dayll^ not under maps.
Sincerely,
aa s
PtlHip and in uggles
JUL 1 1993
ITYOB,Spo
SAN LUIS , CA
CN 3
AGEND
SZ.0 M<<TiN 2�_ 3 ITEM #A
CL.."• DATE
1-76
S ,C, C� ( �, 931
c�77Li TLt
/ 7L "�L• / .7i't /L'L[Cs`ZL i GL'1
JG L
GLIC ii C�L•L' �i Z � L rCGE GZ L•�t �3 �LC Z YLLd C7'< L•'� L?.1 L�'C !yZC�2 /- �`L[,j
L�LiC-L�rL1
a Y,
yy rL L'-c.
C°Cf h LL' p /�1 L zC q LG'1'L C
'`-to lit-1:.' 1.L:'L1L '1'1' .t�L•L i
i / ( �D4'L�2 LhL .G yl. �LL iyCC7�L
,L.L'�G�� L✓L•' �L' G-GL'y(, iIZL-/ Cr1ZG'l �jrrLLZ'�- f"`- ,!
• -�-�-L.C-'7•L•2L'Ll'{- "LL'�LL<•Z 'I/�-' �'1'Lc,� / •-c Ly YL r,
,Q C Cl a li:-:` Z cL �GZLGL /L?Cz r�'cC LL'Z�Ci /�� Z�L a GL✓LG ,Cha h.'r ,L G'!L C c'�
Ir /
If
L.L�.L� �']-ZG'7 c. CLLG.i-LLQ OWE7titi G�;L 1L��-
/r �Ly?.CCli � . ._>7�, CC'.�2�' i/ �cCQ.:/C• GLLv��. G' i�Llu• i LLL , ..
++ ff',.��.�- �,L n-C�i,•-�c. rW Vie-n Li_ �Lp :� 2 v,�. n���,'��, Lrz�•t c-�-,tic•'�c.� U-w" -�n'L .���
�n•y� . lam .y Ide1C- �• - ,Z { 41, _ r 1
11
[ N.i.-R.
a CI . . . PLiCEI1.21 Q� x i
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
w AGENDA
WAT ITEM #.
cl-
�- �- �..�_`7�-►�, a.-�� `�.1� .�— �;,� ..�..�.<,a,�, � c� cue -8.�,.,� z�
aXif-- —aAV,, Goa Q..Ctw� 1�t. Q.. Q -
47 , aLd I Vt.J
C,oz.
. . . o;,.ce_ d`�3-3�/D �� 9 19 1993
CITY COUNCIL
/I FD SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
❑°�^e'�Ammon ❑ FYI
❑,�}�. 'D DIR.
iC L FTti'.LKR. 4
OiJ?Y F e)a9�z �rzve<_Err_�nfs.
7' DI:
D i
LT-L D
Zui4 OL,L io, Ca. 93401
MEETING, AGENDA
DATE o ITEM #
or
FOR QGRA__ T MASSAGE) @ 9aQRT'AE'�4T MESSAGE )
� FOR
A.M.
DATE / -` TIME 7~ / A.M DATE TIME
M L _ M
OF '
PH E AREA CODE NUIVID F_xiENSION PH E
ARE;COOE r1 u:.a UER Ei."iENSION
❑ FAX ❑ FAX
❑ MOBILE O MOBILE
AREA CODE I•:Ufr1UER TINC-TD G'�LL
AREA CODE IIN413ER TR.aE TO GALL
TELEPHONED v II PLEASE CALL I I 17ELEPHONEO PLEASE CALL
-----iF-------`-----� --- I— --- I —PLEASE ------- -'-- ---'
CAt:4E TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAItJ
1NANTS TO SEE YOU ; �� RUSH I -- --------;------,';. ------ I -I
' WANTS TO SEE YOUR RUSH
RETURNED YOUR, CALL ; SPECIAL ATTENTIOi 1
RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION __J
M E S S A G MS GE
l �. /
w .
c �
SIGNIS� SIGNED
TOPS h'1 FORM 30025 TOPS FORM 3002S
LITHO IN U.S.A. •� LITHO IIJ U.S.A.
�p I
CAO
R11;DIR
(_fit_,�!'.r�•'.'?; ;'-. � 1 I�.'LII..F C.[.' tj '
FROM:EUELYN DELMARTINI TO: 8057817109 "IL 17, 1993 4:40PM 972e P.ol
FAX COVER SII a -9 AGENDA
ITEM #
To:
SADATE:
N TkJTS OBTSPO CITY CLERK JULY 17, 1993
ATTENTION: MAYOR AND ALL COUNCIL Nf? BERS FAX 9 (805) 781-7109
'0 L.,--()
I c::% za
FROM. CRWYI; AND 4oa, YN DELMARTINI ;,Z C-Ao ENT.7-;3-
E j
Fj F
NUMBER 0F1>A(;J3S TO FOLLOW:
C
SUBJECT: CONVERT RESPONSIRILITY FOR PAYMENT OF UTILITY BILLS-70--
PROPERTY 94NFRS
REMARKS: PlEASF DISTRIBUTE ONF COPY TO FACH COUNCILMF7fER AND MAYOR PINARD.
THIS TS 70 N=, THAT WE DID AUTFND THE MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY, JULY 16, 1993 AT 2:00p.m.
SINCE I%TE WILL BE OUT OF TaqN AND UNP01,F TO AT= THF, =MIT, MEETING ON TUESDAY,
JM,Y 20, 1993, WE RESPFCT== RIXXEST THAT OUR CORPESPONDENCE BE CONSIDERED IN YOUR
DECISION ON THF SUB= THAT FVFNTNG. WE TRULY REGRET THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BILL
ROAINAN, WHO ARRIVED NEAR TIM. END OF THE MEETING, NONE OF YOU ATTENDED A WORTHY MEETING
br YOUR CONSTITUENTS. PFRfiAPS BIT-J, STATLER CONVEYED THE TOTAL OUTRAGE THAT PREVAILED:
HCFATVF-R, NO ONF, INCLUDING OURSELVES, COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED THE FRUSTRATION AND ANGER
WITHIN A GROUP OF CITIZENS WHO HAVE INVESTED TIME, MONEY,FAITH IN OUR COMMUNITY AND ITS
LZADERS.' THE PURE CALL OF SCHEDULING A MEETING WITH ONE TO TWO DAYS' NOTICF DURING
THE WORKING MAN'S WORK HOURS - AND Tl-M-N A COUNCIL MEETING IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS WITH
r
TNF: ADDED EXPENSE TO BEME, ErFTCT=- IN LESS THAN TV10 IN=! ! ! I HOPE FUR-niER THAT
MR. STATLER CONVEYED THAT ALL WERE OPPOSED TO IHE STAFF REM-MMATION BUT WOULD SUPPORT
A MkW7 TO ANYONTF WHO RFQUESTFD WATER SERVICE TO OFFSET THE COST OF RUNNING THE
BUSINESS. OF SERVING WATER IMR T.Ift iimLni AND WELFARE Or, OUR CITY
AS IN ANY BUSINFSS, IT IS NF.CESSARY THAT GOVERNMENT CUT. BACK - FVFN IF FFWR
D-TLOYM WORK FASTER AND HARDER - STOP FINDING STOP-GAP MEASURES TO BALANCE YOUR BOOKS.
WlrT,N WR INVESTED IN OUR C"lUNITY, WE DID NOT DO SO WIT[i Tlir INTENT OF BEING TIE CITY'S
COLLECTION AGENT.
THE FINAL INSULT - WHEN WE HAVE All, BFFN TRYING, To coNsFRw, WATER - =N ri-o FuRNisii
IT AT NO COST OR LIMIT TO TENANTS AS A FRM M- - - WHAT )LAPP M- ED TO OUR CCel'JTI"= TO
CONSERVE FOR TOl-lORR04q-.l' TTT. CITY OF CWINA TOSSED OUT THE =IRE: COUNCIL FOR IMPOSING A
6 PER CENT UTILITY TAX.
Jul, 17 '93 14:27 GWB SLO DWTN FAX 065-54G-0509 P. 1
MEETING AGENDA
P.O. }lox 13935 DATE ITEM #
San Luis Obispo, CA 93y06
July 15, 1003
Ci Ly of Sari Luis Obispu
City Council Member-,-
San
ember;:San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Ra: Proposed transfer of utility billo to property owncrc
Dear Council Membcrs.
I am writing to register my strong opposition to the
proposal I:o tranofcr utility bill3 to owners of rental property.
As d luny time resident and property owner in the City,
I feel Lhio io a very unfair burden to place upon the owner
of rant-al prnpart.y_ T .shniild not." have to serve as tho "policeman"
of illy tt�lidnts ' actions in this regard.
Without the orc:upantc r.enei vi ng and hp.i ng ra.cpnn.ci hl a fnr
Lheir 01%Trt %v&Lt::1 bills and usaye, thele will auvel be d viable
water conservation effort within this City .
If the City feels Lhere is a si9nificanL co6L impact in
this area, perhaps a snall water service and disconnect fee
would be appropriate. This would place Lhe burden on the user
in this instance. Although I generally donot favor inCreasing
user fees, it may be a fair, logical alternative in this
instance.
RPfore r_16.sinq, I also feel comrelled to comment on the
ucifd.i.irlL-s5 Of providing such short notice to property owners
regarding this propu--dl. 1 received the letter from L•he City
on Wednesday, July 11th and the publi.r hearing is .;rheduled
for Tucssay , July 20Lh. This is less Ll+dct ut+e weeks tivtlk.:e.
I hope this ie not typical of the way the City door, buoinecc.
Sinuu I am sulceduled Lu be uut of tuwn un July 20Lic, please
include my letter of oppositcn in the file and consider the
inequity of this proposal when it comes to at vote.
Respectfully yours,
RICK KIRK
LJ t C-[nc:`s F.l
;
i,%i c,l.o CJ
1
Jul 16,1993 10: 13P11 FROM Mumma Associates TO 1 805 701 7109 P.01
DATE "' '! ITEM #A®
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
Fax: (805) 781-7109
From : Douglas M. Mumma
Company: Mumma Associates
Phone: (510) 447-5164
Fax: (510) 447-8202
Date: 07/16/93
Pages including this 1
cover page:
Comments:
Dear Council,
As a property owner with a rental house at 1512 Balboa Street, I would like
to register my disapproval of the proposed transfer of the utility billing from
the house occupant to the property owner. The reason for my objection is it
will require me to re=bill my tenants for the amount of water that they use
and then I become a utility company, which I believe, is illegal for me to do.
I understand that the primary problem you are faced with is the excess costs
for changing the billing name every time a tenant moves in or out, This
becomes worse when there are more frequent changes in the billing party.
Please don't put in a system that unfairly bills the wrong party for utility
usage. I would like to suggest that you bill a surcharge for the additional
effort that is required to change the name of the billing party. This would
then properly allocate the costs of the additional work where it correctly
belongs and then keeps the bills being paid by the utility users.
Thanks very much......
i I CAO I.L' s.
I Lyi P_G1O Cl F1REC� _:' i
Mech . Detailing I,nc . TEL : 1-205-546-0616 Jul 16 .93 16 : 37 Mo .00.1 P .01
Ste lieu E. husks
12 77 H�uce, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 544-SI17).
MEETING AGENDA
July 16, 199: DATE 7-.20-93 ITEM # a
City of San Luis Obispo
Yost Of1Tce Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Fax 791-7109
Attn: Ms. Linda Asprion
Revenue Manager
Re: Utility bill responsibility shift
Dear Ms. Asprion,
1 respectfully request that the proposed shift of responsibility for utilities be reconsidered.
This proposal would place unn unfair burden on the prnperty owner and be to the detriment of the
water conservation effort.
1. Tho property owner is obliguLud to return the security deposit to the tenant witlliu 14
days. The city will not have time to process the closing bill in tune to relay It to the tenant in
times The owner will have to ether guess whtit the bill will be or eat the cost of the last ntinttlis
bill. You are placing the price of the last munths bill on the guess work of the owner.
3. San Luis Obispo, ltus made progress in reducing the water consumption in the city. This
is in Par[ due to tate responsibility of the tenant behig responsible for any fine or excessive costs
due to over usage. This proposal will reduce the responsibility of the end user and increase
water usage
This proposal is not just afferling some large property owner from L.A. This affects
retired people who have one or two housed in San Luis 0N.Rpn and aree retired on the income.
Placing this obligation on the property owner is an undo hardship.
In addition the public hcuring by the City Council needs to he moved tip on the agenda to
a tinto where all can provide input.
Sincerely,
Stephen F. Hicks
L�Coar.:1 ❑fc^7 LIR.
R"?DR
�1 C! `:IT''_
C.
F.
C 1
07/16/93 14: 43 S 0117 P. 01
MEETING AGENDA
DATE �)� ITEM # if
City of San Luis Obispo
900 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
7/16/93
Attention: Linda Asprion
Revenue Manager
As an owner of rental property in San Luis Obispo, I air not in favor
of transferring responsibility for utility bill payment to the property
oamer, in lieu of the tenant. Tenants are usually more responsible
users of utilities when they are responsible for their own bills.
I understand that your reasoning for proposing this change is to cut down
on clerk time for opening and closing utility accounts i.n a transient r
college community. Thereby you hope to produce a balanced City budget.
I propose that you place the account in the owner's name, if you must, but
nviiling the bills to "current tenant" at the property address. If the bills
are not paid within a specified period of time, then a third party notifi-
cation could be mailed to the owner, at which time the owner would pay
the bill and seek remuneration from the tenant.
Another idea would be to require a cash deposit in the amount of a one month
average utility billing to be used only in case of default and only after
notifying owner of such intent.
It seems to me that if your main reason is to avoid turning utilities off
and on and the related paper work, then there are alternatives to keep
the main responsibility of paying, utilities in the hands of the users
rather than the property o�•mers. Property owners would be forced to
raise rents to cover the extra time, effort and monetary costs imposed on
them.
The DMV is saving costs by requiring auto registration renewals be done by
mail . Maybe that technique would also work for you.
1 am sorry that l cannot make your meetings, but I hope that there are
enough viable suggestions presented by other property owners that you
car, make both the City and property owners feel good about whatever
necessary/changes eventually come about.
Ruth Creasy
owner 2855 Los Peliz Court Li F ` "" ``LOn
Zf
2509-B Bath Street r G+G
Santa Barbara CA 93105 ,o
C] r 1
C:7 ..,._' II_L•.1:.
-� C
-/ t-......(�....... .. ..
JUL 16 '93 12: 05 P. 01
MEETING AGENDA �
DATE - ' " ITEM #
July 16, 1993
FAX to: Mayor Penard& City Council Members of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Dear Mayor Penard& City Council Members:
I would like to object to the proposal to make property owners responsible for
water and sewer bills for the following reasons:
1. The tenants are users of the services not the property owners.
2. If I had no tenant I would simply stop the service rather than incur any bills for
something I was not using.
3. All other utility providers contract with the users of their services not the owners
of the property.
4. Why not charge the user a fee to start and stop service or a larger deposit which
could be deducted from in the event of a stop and start within a given period of
time.
5. If the tenants do not pay why should I be responsible for their bills? If I have no
money of theirs deposited for the bills, I'm stuck. Why would I want this or to have my
excellent credit standing with the city hurt in any way? When a tenant owes the phone
company for a bill they don't come after me.
One other objection I'd like to raise while I have the opportunity. In owning rental
property(as termed under the IRS guidelines), it is investment property, not a
private business. I do not file IRS schedule C for a business , I file schedule E for my
investment property. I am not conducting a business. It is insulting to pay a
business tag for having an investment.
Once again San Luis Obispo has created an environment which does not promote private
enterprise. The sad part is, you don't even seem to care. Good job!
A response to these issuse is requested.
/a;dt.
r p ?:
Cryd 0 F1 :c
327 McCarthy Ave EJ
Zc:r:::!'/:: [I ! L„ C1!.
Oceano, CA 93445
543-4366 1 :.F.s_-.0r:L
TING AGENDA
7
DME . _Z0-9� ITEM #
f"FarrefiSmyThInc.
A Real Estate Company
July 16, 1993
sof-ice, o:
` IT.A c E o n ❑
—�nc1 ❑ _J DlR
[ � CG FL\[C4
C!
FIRE, i!F17
City of San Luis Obispo t rte'' p n" aRri.
CT
n F;0LICEC11.
Attention: Linda Asprion ❑ c;rc,r .r,,;,.,i C7 .: c.Dl
C �D;L'c E-1UT11
P.O. Box 8100 i� J;R
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Re: Transfer Responsibility for Payment of Utility Bills
Dear Ms. Asprion:
As a property management company representing 500 units in the City of San
Luis Obispo we must voice our strong opposition to this measure. We have received
many calls from our clients expressing their concern and outrage at the thought the
City of San Luis Obispo would take this action.
The major concerns are in t.1-10 areas. One is that the owners feel that if they
are responsible for the water bill this will give the tenants a carte blanche to use all of
the water they wish and could jeopardize the entire conservation effort. Secondly most
individual owners are not set up to administer this type of arrangement. In our case,
as managers, we estimate an additional cost of $750.00 to $1,000.00 per month to
administer services that we do not supply.
We would like to make the following suggestion as an alternative to the
proposed plan. We feel that a wager turn on charge could be assessed to all non-
owners. This would put the cost on the true users of the service and generate the
income to keep the staffing position needed for administration. The fee could be
nominal, in the $20.00 - $25.00 range.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Larry=fl. Smyth7&�'
President
LDSjlmw
jut 1921 Santa Rosa Street, Suite 100 � 93
San Luis'7'2 FAX: 43301 x4SANy
305 543LU/S 08l'V Q CA
_ MEETING AGENDA
Di 0 ITEM #
IMP® TANT MESSAGE IIII/IP _ TAINT E AGE
]R li&
^—' FOR
A.M.
ATE P.M. DATE TIME__Q„pQ�7
M
OF
PHONE
HON
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
FO FAX
FAX
MOBILE y 0 MOBILE
' AREA CODE � � � ER TIME TO CALL AREA CODE NUMBER TIME TO CALL
TELEPHONEDPLEASE CALL ;<.: : TELEPHONED, PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN`: CAME TO SEE.YOU'. WILL CALL AGAIN
JJANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH .: WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH
RETUR I OUR CALL . SPECIAL ATTENTION RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION
AE S E MES
� e
s
31GNED SIGNED
OPS � FORM 3 TOPS 9 LITHO IN U.S.A.
LITHO IN U.S.A.
1 RTANT MESSAGE
]R / 1 PGI$ PJT MESSAGE
ATE I E " d� FOR
y A:
DATE C l TIME M'
Q M !1
HONE � ! �91le- OF 33S
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
FAX PHONE
MOBILE AREA cooE NUMBER EXTCNSION
AREA CODE NUMBER TIME TO CALL ❑ FAX -'
'ELEPHONED.:
_ I
PLEASE CALL ❑ MOBILE nREAcooE NUN.BER TIME TO CALL
.. �..
;AME TO SEEYOLI ` _' . .. . I.•WILL.CALLAGAIN. ." '' ' `'; - .LEPHONED'` PLEASE CALL
.. `.RUSH WILL CALL AGAIN
NANTS TO SEE YOU
CAME TO SEE YOU
aETI InNED YOUR C _ SPECIAL ATTENTION ;:. :WANTS TO SEE.YOU '`.. RUSH .
9Eb. AGE . RETURNED:YOUR, 'I SPECIALATTENTON
MESSAGE
PHOTO DRIVE UP #34 IDc_1-408-371-9319 JUL 1S '93 12 :23 No . 007 P .01
ZING AGENDA
DAfE 'ZD EM #
City of San Luis Obispo 7/16/93
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Linda Asprion or FAX OPERATOR
Revenue Manager
Subject: Responsibility for payment of SLO utilities.
I am a rental property owner in SLO and would like to make
the following points:
1- I received notice of the 7/16/93 meeting on the 15th,
(one day before the meeting) .
REQUEST THE MEETINGS BE RESCHEDULED TO A LATER
DATE, TO GIVE PROPERTY OWNERS ADEQUATE TIME TO
PREPARE.
2- The Renter is user of the utility and• is your
customer. The Renter is responsible for payment.
Pac Bel and P G & E do not require Rental Property
owners to pay for services to the Renters.
3- The proposal makes the Rental Property Owner a
Collection Agent for the City.
NOTE: PLEASE DELIVER ONE COPY OF THIS MEMO TO: COPIES TO:
❑, t ox3 Action ❑ FYI
CITY/COUNTY LIBRARY-COMMUNITY ROOM �f�u:cil ❑ �
995 PALM STREET FOR THE MEETING FIN.DIR.
AT 2:00 PM TODAY. A9 0Pc [�J F�INDIH
AND r ❑ Ll GEC.DIP.
C F.I.E ❑ L*rit DlR.
PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL u ❑
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL
990 PALM STREET
AT 7:00 PM, 7/20/93
If you are unable to fulfill this request, let me know.
Thank You,
Glen E. Fitzsimmons ��'-�-r� ^"• ;�
..:
1697 Willow Creek Drive
San Jose, CA 95124 1993
(408) 264-0492
C(T`f COUNCIL
SWLUIS 0515PO.CA
Mark Wheeler �cTIN Z� AGENDA
General Contractor DATE ITEM #
C74P.O. Box 1225,San Luis Obispo
California 93406
License Number:315734
Office:(805)543-9054
Home:(805)489-9193
7-15-93
Peg Pinard
City of San Luis Obispo . cvP1_sTO.
PO Box 8100c ❑�' o:esAcion ❑
San Luis Obispo Ca 93403 �/CDDDI.R
O uldd FIN.D'R.
'10 ❑ mr� -
.riL,, s
TTO Lll1 ❑ RV DIR.
re: ATTACHED NOTICE ' i CLF_R` L__ PC•LiCE�
/O?`-.
EJ r tUNIT T_,L^:I f 7 ,CL.DID
F1L2 L7 LrTTLD_2.
Dear City of San Luis Obispo:
I 'm sorry, but you're .NOT going to just "TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY"
for payment of all utility bills to the property owners of rental
property, at least not mine!
What youare proposing is a form of "co-signing" , or personally
guaranreeing someone (tenant) financially. I DO NOT co-sign for
anybody!
I, as a landlord, cannot turn off utilities for non-payment. It's
against the law. You can, as the supplier of those utilities.
If you are having trouble with collections of tenants, you might
try large security deposits. We do.
ark Wheeler
CC Allen Settle Ii` =:i. :eIV1-.L)
Bill RoJUL I 3 n 1993
Dave Romeromero
Penny Rappa clrY COUNCIL
Peg Pinard SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Linda Asperion
ii
i��l II III II I II IIIIII IIIIIIIIIAfti
hpl►►►il► 1 I�1� cit of stuiS OBIS
yPO
4Gi II [milli 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
�I
July 12, 1993
Dear Property Owner,
.i
According to.the City's records you are an owner of rentalproperty. This letter is to notify
you that the City is proposing to transfer responsibility for payment of all utility bills to the
property owner effective August 1, 1993. The proposed conversion of utility bills to property
owners is one of the service impacts necessary to reduce staffing levels enabling the City to
produce a balanced 1993-94 budget.
In addition to notifying individual property owners, a meeting will be held in conjunction
with the Property Owner's Association that is open to all interested parties on:
Friday, July 16, 1993
2:00 p.m.
City/County Library - Community Room
995 Palm Street
We encourage you to attend this meeting so that we may address any questions you have
regarding the transfer of utility bills to property owners.
This proposal will be heard in a public hearing by the City Council on:
Tuesday, July 20, 1993
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers at City Hall
990 Palm Street
We encourage your attendance and participation in the public hearing. If you have any
questions regarding this matter do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Linda Asprion
Revenue Manager
781-7126
/O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
v� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
"CETINGD`� AGENDA U
WATE ? Z 3ITEM # U
(IMPORTANT IVIES E'
FOR FA41P,,AA
.� A.M.
DATE M E P.M.
M
OF
PHONE
AREA COOa NUMBER EMENSION
O FAX
❑ MOBILE f
AREA CODE BER TIME TO CALL
_TE_LEPH0.NEPl LEASE,CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU, RUSH
RETURNED YOUR CALL' .-... SPECIAL ATTENTION::
MES A E &A ;
A /OWN
SIGNED
TOPS FORM 30025
LITHO IN U.S.A4
�'OFU-S TO:
❑'1 bw Action ❑ FYI
j d1 ❑ VR. 1
O FQV.D:R.
�yCe10 ❑ FIRE'--HM—
OR,NEY q FW DRcL:-:Rx/0R:c. ❑ POLICECH
n MGMT.T?'A H CJ REC DUL
❑ ❑
MDR
- n
MEEr'NG AGENDA
DAT: 93 ITEM #..-
IMPORTANT MESSAGE IMPO TANT MESS E
FOR ear- FOR
/ A.M. —
DATE n .TIME
�( Z .
P.M. DATE TIME !, P.M.
OF OF
PHONE =' PHONUE
AREA CODE NUMBER f EXTENSION AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
Cl FAX C3 FAX
0 MOBILE 11 MOBILE
AREA CODE BER TIME TO CALL AREA CODE N R TIME TO CALL
TELEPHONED.; PLEASE CALL. TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CAME TO.SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN CAME TO SEE YOU. CALL AGAIN
.,WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH WANTS TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION RETURNED YOUR CALLE§WILL
AL A NTION30
MEE + %CXMESSAG
O� Ph1q
SIGNED SIGNED
TOPS 17 FORM USA.
LTO IN U.S.A. TOPS 9 FORM 3002S
IH
LITHO IN U.S.A.
GE
F-I*IESD,d IMP -I �J E -
❑' sDA4.esAction ❑ FYI
SEC�'Kn
/ ❑,�DIM ° FOR r7
Df RL DATE / —� TME P.M.
i ❑ F1RE L7-IIEr
A ❑ FW DIR .
❑ Irfc'MT-TL•• ,,i C1 P.GCDIR .
0 D ❑ UTILDIR OF j�
''' `• EXT
FA COI Xz NUMBER�.q •I"� . ENSION
O FI"NWa '�T,cam-�'h.�T7"
W� o..e ^'• TIME.TO:CALI'Y,icf-. 5.�
,.'i'' EA'COOE �i.''�"�,..N.'�N•��i �i:=+¢.a..e.ra...w...'r•' 1.
IVI
SAG
JUL 16 '93 08:25 THE SPICE HUNTER INC P. 1/1
MF7-'NG AGENDA
DA ITEM #
16 July 1993
City Council
City of San'-Luis Obispo
990 Palm. Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Council Persons:
We recently received your form letter, postmarked 13 July,
regarding a Property owner 's Association meeting 16 -July, and -a
City Council meeting on 20 July to evaluate transfer of utility
bills controlled by the city. This is not what is considered
timely notification.
In regards to your predicament, why not charge an initiation fee
for service and at those times of heavy service changes- (.at the
beginning of- each academic quarter) you could -create revenue and
a -pa.-rt time position instead of attempting a slight of hand shift
of responsibility of general payment, which will have a negative
effect on conservation. This is based on an old system of economy
known as °Make hay while the sunshines ."
JS±Rceiely yours,
ramer
5L * zAnntEngelh dProperty Owner pery Owner
P.S.
If you are trying to generate the lost income due to the
individuals that walk on utility bills , you should have the
courage to state that. There is. a phenomenon known as a deposit
to initiate service and it is a fairly well accepted way of doing
business.
a PIES TO:
��.n Action
,�,�0 � ,
L F7N.D?R �Dilk ' �IV��
�O
0° c c. ° FWDm`�'.'E` ��!1 u 1993
n POLICE cx
T TT_.t^.s CJ rt c n1RCirr COUNCIL
D .Le O U77LDIR SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
07/15/1993 16:55 3105450186 LENZ PAGE 01
'ET1NG AGENDA
ATE "2—P"9 ITEM #
RICHARD H. LENZ
FAX
COPi i TO.
To: All Council Members ❑. `,Ammon
City Council of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo 06n L CgzDIR
990 Palm Street Post Office Boz 8100 o ❑D FJRE�J:
San Luis Obispo,'California 93403-8100 A_S ❑ FWDIR.
FAX: 805/781-7109 ❑ POLICE CH
❑ 1�li;MT.Trsnq ('� PECDIp
❑ n UTILDIF
FROM: RICHARD H. LENZFAX 310/545-0186
TELEPHONE 310/546-7493
SUBJECT.- Conversion of Water/Sewer Bills to Property Owners
DATE: Thursday, July 15, 1993
I own four rental properties in the Ciry of San Luis Obispo. I am opposed to the
proposed conversion of water/sewer bills to property owners for the following reasons:
Property owners are not in the utility business. The City has chosen to be in
the water/sewer business, so do your job! This proposal assumes that we will either bill
our residents for the cost of the utilities or absorb the cost in our rental income. I
do not want to bill residents for utilities. Collecting rental income and maintaining
our properties is enough trouble for us. Currently, i the resident does not pay the
bill, the City has the.ability to shut off the water. Ift he property owner tries to do
this, I can only imagine the potential legal liability. Should property owners be
allowed to mark-up the utility charges to cover the additional billing costs and losses
due to non-payment and uncollectability?If we must share in the losses we should be
allowed to share in the profits.
By including the water/sewer fees in the rent, the property owner would not be
promoting conservation. I have considerable experience with utility conversions from
master meter properties where the property owner pays the utilities to individual meter
properties when the resident pays the utilities Without question, when the resident
pays the bill, the consumption goes down. If the property owner provides a free utility,
the consumption goes up. Why bother to turn off the sprinkler system or use the washer
less if its not costing you anything?
I have been told that this proposal was introduced as a cost saving measure to
eliminate an employee in the billing department. If the City wants to be in the utility
business,you must provide the service and charge the required rate. If this employee is
needed, raise the rates to pay her. Do not try to force private property owners to go
into the utility business.
JUL 1 c 1993
,;ilY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISP.O, CA
AGENDA
6.11 E 'x'20 ITEM #
Mr. and Mrs. Allen Lannan
4411 Newton Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89121-6710
702.898.1555
July 16, 1993
Mayor Peg Pinard and SLO City Council Members,
We are writing this letter to express our dissatisfaction with the proposed
conversion of utility bills to property owners. We are owners of property in the city
located at 804 Bougainvillea.
We feel the proposal is very unfair and is nothing more than a penalty to
property owners in the city.
This is a customer service position being proposed for elimination. The
elimination of customer services defeats the purpose of customer service.
A better way would be to create a charge to cover the expenses to pay for
the employee to provide this service. This would be fair since it would be paid for
by the people needing this service.
We appeal to you not to allow this proposal to go through since it would be
an unfair and unjust way of handling a problem that could.be resolved in a far
better manor.
Sincerely,
Allen and Madelyn Lannan
COP13TO-
+/ EAction O.FYI
E , , MR.
JUL� 61993 X0 F'�CHIEF
- C1 FW orR.
COUNCIL ZK/Ofi;G, ❑ MUCE H
C
u►s os►sem.an r,RUnrr r,Lcl Eltont ouz
Ju 1. 14 193 13:50 (DOBE REALTY TEL 805549RQ" ING AGENbA Z
If 7--2d-8 ITEM #
Alex and Anne Gough /%4 Chorro St./San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 /549-8526
7/14/93
COMB TO: ,
❑' otcrActinn ❑
•
Peg Pinard, Mayor (1g' p oD�
City of San Luis Obispo MO
tx❑
990 Palm Street p �v L
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 rC. Q PGLICECR
❑ TEN ACIIZM- nip
❑ READFItE ❑ VrIL om.
Dear Peg: _ ,f p
1 recently received a letter stating that it is being pruposed that payment
for all utility bills be transferred to property owners.
Peg. one of the main reasons that we have our tenants pay their own water
bills is to keep down water consumption.
If you have payment of the water bill transferred to the property owner
this will discourage water conservation. Conservation may not be that
critical at the moment. but In the event of another drought, adoption of this
proposal will certainly discourage conservation.
Not only that, you will be placing owners in an absolutely untenable.
position if penalties are once again levied, Owners will be subject to the
penalty, and there will be no control over how much water a tenant uses,
There were three people in the city's water conservation office when I last
dealt with them. if staffing is so critical, how can this be justified with the
drought over? And I have not noticed reductions in planning and building
staff despite the decline in construction. Yet we are cutting a crime
prevention coordinator. and crime has certainly not gone away.
1 think It makes no sense to on the one hand promote (i.e. spend money) on
water conservation and on the other hand take action that will clearly
discourage conservation by people who rent.
Thank you for letting me share my thoughts.
4Yo
u aez Gou
8h
JUL 141993
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
MEETING AGENDA
DATE Z20 ITEM #8
CGPii310:
Smith and Company ❑°Dcnot:;,A&�on ❑ m
Real Estate Investment Ycotacl ❑"CDDDIR.
Development Coif)oration YCAO SLI "UN1.IY,I
LX AGiO D cIIL'7-LE
LyATI'Oii\TFe ❑ FW DM_
July 2, 1993 (__/CLEM,1../O':^. '1 TY-110EM.
CJ MCA4T.7"i•� 1. _ ':L•C.DIP_
❑ READFLE L ? UTILDM'.
Ms. Linda Asprion —
Revenue Manager
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street
Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100
Dear Linda:
SUBJECT: Parkwood Village Apartments/San Luis Obispo
This letter is in response to our conversation wherein the
City was considering master billing apartment buildings
that are presently separately metered.
While I believe the intention is good in cutting staff
because of budget constraints in the City's operation, I
believe that the Water Department is the wrong place for a
cut. This would be unfair to us as a singled-out property
owner and would be an undue financial hardship.
It would be entirely unethical to deal with a property
owner who has spent a tremendous amount of money installing
a separate water meter system in his apartment complex and
have the property owner bear the cost of master billing.
The following is a list of properties that we own, control,
or manage to give you an idea of the financial impact that
this change would have on our property, specifically,
Parkwood Village Apartments.
Valencia Apartments / student housing / 160 units
The Village Apartments / senior housing / 125 units
61 Broad Street / student housing / 51 units
Murray Street Station / student housing / 82 units
College Square Apartments / general housing / 36 units
South Bay Apartments / general housing / 76 units
Parkwood Village / general housing / 168 units
We were also directly involved with the construction of
Cedar Creek Village, 76 units of student housing, that was
originally built as student housing condominiums.
P.O. Box 283
San Luis Obispo.CA 93406
805/544-7343
Of all of the complexes listed above, are master metered
except Parkwood Village and Cedar Creek Village. The cost
of installation of separate metering, including the cost of
meters for this project, literally ran in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars. This separate system was installed
for several reasons:
1. Conservation -- The tenants paying their own bills
tend to monitor their usage much more closely than if the
owner of the property was paying the bill. Utilities are
one of the major costs of operations of any of these
complexes.
2 . Costs -- To recoup the cost of installation, it is
only fair that the utility bills be passed on to each
tenant that is utilizing the specific apartment. As an
example, we would not be able to charge any additional rent
for the apartment whether they paid the water bill directly
to the City, or it was included in the rent.
Most tenants, as they shop, compare the quality of the
apartment and the price for the apartment. They are not
concerned with the utility bills. For instance, a typical
apartment at Parkwood Village may rent for $675. 00 and a
similar apartment at Irish Hills/Hamlet, which is master
metered, may rent for $650. 00. The difference is not due
to the fact that one tenant pays water and the other does
not, but the actual quality of the unit, whether it has a
dishwasher, garbage disposal, or other amenities, such as
open space on to a balcony, etc. If we had to add the cost
of water to the rent, we would start to price ourselves out
of the market.
It would be nearly impossible for us to pass on the cost of
$25. 00 per month, which the tenants presently pay for sewer
and water at Parkwood Village, in the form of a rent
increase. As you are probably aware, the market has
declined substantially in terms of the number of tenants
and demand for apartment living, due to a decrease in the
student population at Cal Poly and the struggling economic
conditions for the State of California, since our city is
mainly government based for employment.
In reality, the cost increase for Parkwood Village alone
would be $25. 00 per month, times 168 units, or $4 , 200. 00
per month. This would be a drastic increase in our budget
of $50, 000 per year, or more, since conservation would be
out the window.
To be fair, it would seem that every multiple dwelling that
was sub-metered in this fashion, whether it be a
condominium project such as Cedar Creek Village, or Pine
Creek Village, or all of the condominiums along Los Osos
Valley Road numbering hundreds and hundreds of units,
should have the same type of billing procedure. only then
would it be fair and equitable. Otherwise, all of the
costs of installation for the metering system is being
pushed off on to a specific owner. This is not fair nor
equitable.
Finally, I believe that the Water Department should be able
to stand on its own from a budget standpoint. We have seen
nothing but rate increases for water over the past several
years, even though water has become more abundant due to
the recent rainy season. I would be more in favor of an
across the board increase in the unit water cost to help
with staffing, rather than a general billing that would
come to the property owner who has spent the money to meter
his property. In this fashion, all of the users in the
City would pay for the cost of the .workload.
Although we have many tenants in the complexes, our turn on
and off of water for Parkwood Village in any given month,
generally does not exceed ten units. However, in the peak
season, i.e. , in June, when we do have a certain number of
tenants that are students, this may increase to as many as
twenty-five. But it is not isolated to just Parkwood
Village.
In summary, I believe it would be unfair to request the
property owner to pick up an additional $50, 000 per year
expense without the probability of having this expense be
passed on to the user who is the tenant and causing us
economic harm.
Thank you for your consideration to my position regarding
this matter and please forward this letter to the City
Counsel if any hearings are to be held considering this
issue. I believe that the ramifications of this type of
ordinance would be many.
Sincerely,
SMITH AND COMPANY
a Real Estate Investment
Development Corporation
Patrick N. Smith
President and Agent
for Owner
: sln
fn:swood\asprion