Utilities Rate Advisory Commission Special Meeting - February 11, 2015

The Utilities Rate Advisory Commission held a special meeting on February 11, 2015, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 915 I Street, Sacramento. The meeting included approval of previous minutes, introduction of two new commissioners, and a public hearing on proposed three-year rate adjustments for recycling and solid waste services. After hearing public testimony and deliberation, the commission voted unanimously to continue the hearing to February 25, 2015.

Consent Calendar

• Approved the minutes of November 12, 2014, by a unanimous vote (6-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Dave Balastari (property owner, midtown) stated that the city’s classification of residential vs. commercial properties for garbage service is unfair, citing a $1,000–$1,100 annual difference for similar properties.
• Rodney Wilson (homeowner, District 1) opposed the rate increase, arguing that bi-weekly recycling pickup discourages recycling and that rates should not increase without corresponding service improvements.
• Dennis Newfeld (from watchdog group "I on Sacramento") recommended capping rate increases at the local inflation rate (challenging the 2.75% CPI assumption) and noted the burden on low-income families.
• Nathan Sweem suggested reducing or eliminating the transfer of utility funds to the city’s general fund to cover the deficit.
• Susan Edelmeyer (Tahoe Park homeowner, retired) spoke against the increase, citing her fixed income and the cumulative effect of rising utility rates. She proposed creative solutions like sharing garbage cans.
• Brian Sprock (third-generation Sacramentan, former gardener) proposed alternating yard waste and recycling pickup weekly to save costs, and noted that yard waste does not need weekly pickup in winter.
• Landis Rayford (Westlake homeowner) opposed the increase due to cumulative rate hikes and noted that gated communities do not receive bulk pickup services, yet are charged the same.
• Joshua Foster (resident) urged the city to renegotiate labor contracts and itemize the 11% general fund transfer, suggesting these equal the proposed increase. He also called for incentives for high-recycling households.

Discussion Items

• Introduction of new commissioners: Vice Chair Carolyn Veal-Hunter introduced April Butcher (filling a citizen seat, District 6, executive director of Sacramento Public Library Foundation) and Brian Biering (filling a rate design expert seat, attorney at Ellison Schneider Harris).
• Three-Year Rate Adjustments for Recycling and Solid Waste Services: Staff presented the proposed increases: 3% in FY2015/16, 2% in each of the following two years, to address a $3.6 million shortfall and maintain a 90-day reserve. The proposal includes a weighted average increase of 3%, 2%, 2% across commodities (garbage, recycling, yard waste, street sweeping). Rates for a 32-gallon can would increase from $30.22 to $32.24 over three years.
• Commissioner questions and concerns:
  • Steven Archibald noted the commission typically has multiple meetings on rate proposals and expressed concern about the abbreviated schedule. He requested a "zero-based" analysis of what would be cut if no increase were approved.
  • Timothy Horner identified three key questions: fuel cost assumptions (previously $4/gallon, now lower), recycling program expense increases, and current reserve levels.
  • Carolyn Veal-Hunter asked about the deficit in 2010 when rates were last increased.
  • Kevin Schubert requested copies of contract escalators (labor, disposal, LNG).
  • April Butcher asked for analysis of alternative service models like sharing cans.
  • Brian Biering requested information on improvements considered but not implemented.
• Public hearing and protests: Staff reported 147 written protests received as of the meeting date (out of 157,000 Prop 218 notices sent), plus 7 verbal protests at the hearing. The commission formally closed the public hearing.
• Survey validity discussion: Commissioner Archibald raised concerns about the survey used to justify bi-weekly recycling, noting that 60% of respondents were age 55+ while only 20% of Sacramento adults are in that age group, potentially skewing results. Staff offered to have the survey contractor attend the next meeting.

Key Outcomes

• The commission voted unanimously (6-0) to continue the public hearing and discussion of the rate adjustments to the February 25, 2015, meeting at 5:30 p.m. (Motion by Horner, second by Biering).
• The hearing was closed, and the item will be reconsidered with additional information requested by commissioners, including: detailed cost drivers, contract escalators, alternative proposals (e.g., zero increase scenarios), and the survey contractor’s attendance.
• The next steps for the rate process (originally scheduled for City Council on March 3, 2015) may be affected by the delay.