Finance Highlights 2011 0304 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO STAFF REPORT DATE: March 3, 2011 TO: Stephen Hollister, City Manager FROM: Tracy Vesely, Finance Dire or BY: Mary Ann Perini, Budget and Compliance Manager SUBJECT PROJECT/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT RESIDENTIAL SEWER SERVICE RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 -2011 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The tax bills received by property owners for fiscal year 2010 -11 did not include the increased Residential Sewer Service Rates adopted by City Council on June 21, 2010 for single family homes and multiple family homes. Staff recommends that the Finance Committee approve billing residents the incremental increase for FY 2010 -11 on the FY 2011-12 property tax statements under a separate description, and authorize communication to City residents of the forthcoming adjustment. BACKGROUND On June 21, 2010, City Council held a Public Hearing to consider annual sewer rate increases, in compliance with Proposition 218 requirements that require the City to conduct a Majority Protest process when considering proposed rate increases. The rate increases are based on a comprehensive rate study as required by the State Water Resources Control Board's State Revolving Fund. Resolution No. 2010 -069 was unanimously passed by the City Council, approving the monthly maximum sewer rates for both residential and commercial services for five years beginning FY 2010 -11 through FY 2014 -15; the average annual increase for residential services is 5 %. The residential sewer rates are billed annually to San Leandro property owners by the Alameda County Tax Collector. By August each year, the City provides the County with the amounts to be billed by parcel number. Because the City failed to communicate the increased rates to the County, the FY 2010 -11 Alameda County Property Tax Statement reflected the FY 2009 -10 residential sewer rates in error. Consequently, the 5% increase was not implemented and the Water Pollution Control Plant Enterprise Fund did not receive the $268,109 in increased revenue for FY 2010 -11.