Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pauses sanitary sewer rate process after staff finds errors in notices and rate categories
Summary
City staff told the council they found inaccuracies in rate categories and notices tied to a proposed sanitary sewer rate increase and will rework the study and mail corrected notices; no action was taken at the June 17 meeting.
City staff told the Salinas City Council on June 17 that an earlier process to increase sanitary sewer rates must be restarted after staff found inaccuracies in the rate study, the rate schedule and in the public-notice materials already distributed under California Proposition 218.
Chris (last name not specified in staff remarks) told council members the April 22 process "identified some inaccuracies in some of the rates and some of the rate categories that were identified both in the notice, in the rate study, and in the rate schedule," and said staff will prepare corrected notices and bring revised material to the July 1 meeting. The presentation explained the source of the error: Monterey One Water (M1W) bills some categories using actual measured flows while the city projected flat-fee categories, which produced inconsistent notice language and projections.
Council members and members of the public said they were concerned about the potential impact on seniors and low-income residents. Several members urged the city to pursue a tiered rate structure or a rate-assistance program. Council and staff also discussed bond covenants: councilmember Tony Mendez asked whether bondholders would react negatively to an extended timeline for rate decisions; staff said they had not heard objection but would continue to monitor bondholder communications. Staff noted the city will return with a revised rate study and new mailings; staff also said it will present options for a rate-assistance program with funding identified in the proposed budget.
No formal vote was taken; the public hearing remained on the agenda to allow residents who had come because of mailed notices to comment.
