Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 2009-06-15 - Special Meeting 134 City Council, Special Meeting Civic Center Council Chambers 777 Cypress Avenue Redding, California June 15,2009 5:15 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 6:27 p.m. by Mayor Bosetti with the following Council Members present: Dickerson, Jones, McArthur, and Stegall. I Also present were City Manager Starman, Assistant City Manager Tippin, City Attorney Duvernay, Electric Utility Director Hauser, Development Services Director Hamilton, Assistant City Clerk Mize, and Executive Assistant Stockwell. FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Utility Billing Review Committee; and RESOLUTION - Endorsing and disclosing standard procedures and practices for enforcement of codes relative to occupancy of residential dwellings when electric utility service has been disconnected for non-payment; and RESOLUTION - Amending City Council Policy 1402-Collection of Delinquent Utility Accounts; and RESOLUTION - Amending City Council Policy 1404-Late Fees and Utility Deposits; and RESOLUTION - Adopting Redding Electric Utility Customer and Field Services' Standard Operating Procedure No. 3/01-Customer Non-pay Process [E-090-125~U-566-gJ6;'^C-ll 0-1 00-400/^A-050-060-555] 13 -ofa -bOO City Manager Starman recalled that the ad hoc Utility Billing Review Committee (UBRC), appointed by the City Council on January 20, 2009, was comprised of Chair Todd Slaughter, Vice Chair Gary Cadd, Melinda Brown, Robert Merideth and Charlie Poole, who met a total of nine times, from February 6, 2009, to May 11, 2009. Mr. Starman explained that committee members worked with staff in reviewing the City of Redding Customer and Field Services Division's credit and collections process, in conjunction with a review of the Development Services Department's abatement process. I Mr. Starman relayed that the committee was directed by Council to work on three fundamental tasks: (1) work with City staff to examine and review the billing and collection laws, procedures, policies and practices of Redding Electric Utility (REU); (2) work with City staff to examine and review REU' s customer assistance programs and explore possible expansion of such programs; and (3) work with City staff to examine and review the Development Services Department abatement policies, procedures and practices regarding REU customers whose utilities have been disconnected due to nonpayment for services. The comniittee was asked to document relevant findings and conclusions and make any recommendations for changes or improvements in a final written report submitted to Council for consideration. On behalf of the City Council and City staff members, Mayor Bosetti and City Manager Starman thanked Chair Slaughter and the members ofUBRC for their diligence, hard work, and commitment in addressing the issues raised by the public, holding a series of public meetings, and preparing comprehensive recommendations for Council's consideration. Mr. Starman recommended that the City Council address the list of 15 staff and URBC recommendations one-by-one, vote on each individual recommendation in the order presented; and finally, consider approval of the following four resolutions: (1) amending I Council Policy 1402 - Collection of Delinquent Utility Accounts), (2) amending Council Policy 1404 - Late Fees and Utility Deposits), (3) adopting Standard Operating Procedure 3.01 (SOP 3.01) entitled Customer Non-Pay Process, and (4) endorsing and disclosing standard procedures and practices for enforcement of codes relative to occupancy of residential dwellings when electric utility service has been disconnected for non-payment. UBRC RECOMMENDATION #1: Extend the billing period with an unpublished grace period of one additional business day so bills deposited in the drop box on the due date will not be recorded as delinquent. Redding Electric Utility Director Hauser reported that this action would provide one (1) day of grace after the due date of the cuslomer's utility bill, delaying the generation ofthe late 6/15/2009 135 Notice (IS-Day Notice) and the application of the late fee by twenty-four hours. He continued that the customer's account would be considered late after 11:59 p.m. on the original bill due date. Mr. Hauser advised that if Recommendation #1 is approved, the potential revenue loss to REU is approximately $60,000 annually. Director Hauser advised that staff supports this recommendation and requested that Council adopt the policy changes associated with it via resolution amending Council Policy 1402 - Collection of Delinquent Utility Accounts, as proposed by staff. . I In response to Council Member Dickerson, Mr. Hauser clarified that this recommendation grants a one-day billing period extension to all forms of payment, not just deposits in the drop boxes at City Hall. Jim Degon disputed Mr. Hauser's contention that REU's potential revenue loss would be $60,000 if the billing period is extended by one day. MOTION: Made by Council Member Jones, seconded by Council Member McArthur, approving Recommendation #1 extending the billing period with an unpublished grace period of one additional business day so that all forms of payment deposited on the due date will not be recorded as delinquent and that City Council adopt a resolution amending Council Policy 1402 - Collection of Delinquent Utility Accounts. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes UBRC RECOMMENDATION #2: Change the content of delinquent and disconnect notices to provide more details on availability of assistance programs in a user-friendly manner and augment the REU internet site to describe the existing assistance programs. Mr. Hauser advised that staff supports this recommendation and requested that Council direct staff to implement the changes. I Karen Barnes voiced support for recommendation #2, noting that her experiences with Customer Service demonstrates a need for clear, comprehensive, and timely listings of assistance programs. In response to Council Member McArthur, Mr. Hauser supported her suggestion that pamphlets explaining the assistance programs be made available to the public in the Customer Service walk-in lobby. MOTION: Made by Council Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member Jones, approving Recommendation #2 and directing staff to change the content of delinquent and disconnect notices to provide more details on availability of assistance programs in a user- friendly manner and augment the REU internet site to describe the existing assistance programs. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes UBRC RECOMMENDATION #3: REU management should implement training recommendations proposed by Director Hauser for improving customer service. Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) should have greater flexibility in helping people with assistance alternatives. REU should convey a more customer-friendly attitude. I Mr. Hauser pointed out that these recommendations are already underway, utilizing funds budgeted to train managers, supervisors and line staff. He noted that some of the training is offered by the Northwest Public Power Agency. Mr. Hauser advised that staff supports this recommendation and requested that Council direct staff to continue with planned training activities. Karen Barnes voiced support for Recommendation #3, noting that her experience with REU revealed that CSRs need to be given more flexibility allowing them to provide information on assistance programs. Gary Cadd supported Recommendation #3. MOTION: Made by Council Member Jones, seconded by Council Member McArthur, approving Recommendation #3 and directing staff to implement training recommendations 6/15/2009 136 for managers, supervisors and line staff; to improve customer service and to convey a more customer-friendly attitude; and to allow Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) greater flexibility in helping people with assistance alternatives. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes UBRC RECOMMENDATION #4: The policy of imposing late fees for delinquent payments should not be changed. Mr. Hauser affirmed that staff agrees and supports this recommendation. MOTION: Made by Council Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member McArthur, approving Recommendation #4, that the existing policy of imposing late fees for delinquent payments remain unchanged. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes I UBRC RECOMMENDATION #5: Reduce the residential customer late fee for a first late notice from $16 to $10; and reduce the residential customer late fee for a second late notice from $20 to $15. Mr. Hauser recalled that the current charge associated with the Late Notice for residential accounts is $16 and the current charge associated with the Final Disconnection Notice is $20. He contended that a reduction oflate charge fees would reduce the economic incentive for making timely utility payments and would reduce General Fund revenue by $619,000 annually. Mr. Hauser related that staff does not support this recommendation by UBRC and recommended that Council maintain the current late fee structure. Gary Cadd pointed out that the UBRC struggled with this issue, but the consensus was that customers already struggling to pay would benefit from a lower late fee structure and recommended that Council follow the UBRC's recommendation. Jo Vayo, Pam Minor, Danny Hart, Mark Keyes, Jeen Wopat and Judi Lynch expressed support for UBRC's recommendation for lower late fees submitting: the present poor economy; that many public utilities do not charge late fees; late fees should be 1.5 percent of the bill; revenue generated should be used to offset costs not go into the General Fund. I Todd Slaughter confirmed that the UBRC struggled with this issue, considered percentages rather than set dollar amount late fees, but settled on recommending a lower, set late fee to assist ratepayers in making payment during these difficult economic times. Mr. Slaughter questioned REU's estimate of$619,000 in lost revenue and thought it inflated. In response to Mr. Dickerson, Mr. Hauser submitted that iflate fees are not charged, higher rates would eventually occur. Mr. Dickerson remarked that he would vote no on UBRC's recommendation, expressing concern that without late fees, all ratepayers would pay more in the long run. MOTION: Made by Council Member Jones, seconded by Council Member Stegall, approving Recommendation #5 to reduce the residential customer late fee for a first late notice from $16 to $10 and to reduce the residential customer late fee for a second late notice from $20 to $15. The Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Council Members - Jones, McArthur, Stegall, and Bosetti Council Members - Dickerson Council Members - None Council Members - None I UBRC RECOMMENDATION #6: Procedures should be implemented so any customer, upon request, is granted to a one-time annual waiver of accumulated late fees for one occurrence of delinquency. Mr. Hauser clarified that this one-time per year waiver is based on a rolling 12-month period, not a calendar year. 6/15/2009 137 Mr. Hauser advised that staff supports this recommendation and requested that Council approve the resource requirements and policy changes and direct staff to make the recommended changes via resolution amending Council Policy 1402 - Collection of Delinquent Utility Accounts. I MOTION: Made by Council Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member Jones, approving Recommendation #6 approving the resource requirements of one (1) full-time equivalent employee, and amending Council Policy 1402 - Collection of Delinquent Utility Accounts by resolution, so that any customer, upon request, is granted to a one-time waiver of accumulated late fees for one occurrence of delinquency per rolling, twelve (12) month period [one occurrence of delinquency will include one (1) monthly utility bill and the subsequent Late Notice (15-Day Notice) and Final Disconnection Notice (7-Day Notice) associated with that bill]. It is further approved that customers will be eligible for the one- time waiver regardless of payment history, as long as requests for waiver are made within thirty days of the late charges being assessed to the account. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes UBRC RECOMMENDA nON #7: Two recommendations regarding the deposit oflate fees into the City's General Fund received majority support : Alternative #7 A: A share of late fees equivalent to the proportionate share of the customer's electric bill should be retained by REU and applied to customer assistance program funding. For example, if a customer paid a $10 late fee and the electric portion of a consolidated utility bill (exclusive of water, sewer, trash and storm drain charges) is 60 percent, $6 would be retained by REU and applied to customer assistance program funding. . I Alternative #7B: As a component of the proposed "Economic Recovery Ratepayer Relief Program" (see Recommendation 12 below), 10 percent of all late fees currently deposited into the General Fund should be allocated to public assistance program funding to augment current funding as an emergency measure, and this should be reviewed annually to assess assistance needs, funding carry-overs or deficits, bad debt experience, and changes in the economic setting. Mr. Hauser advised that staff does not support this recommendation and alternatively recommended that Council maintain the current late fee disposition to the General Fund, with minor changes, via resolution amending Council Policy 1404 - Late Fees and Utility Deposits, as proposed by staff. Todd Slaughter stated that he did not support Alternative #7 A because he felt it was unlikely that Council would support reducing revenue to the General Fund by approximately $1,300,000. He concurred with Alternative #7B, which would channel a percentage oflate fees generated into public assistance program funding. He commented that requests for assistance funds have doubled. Mr. Slaughter pointed out that he authored a related policy entitled "Economic Recovery Ratepayer Relief Program" (UBRC Recommendation #12) that requires an annual review or "sunset clause" component. Tammy Guillen opined that red tag and late fee revenues should be directed toward REU assistance program funding. I Charlene Scates, Shasta County Workers Benefit Council Member, relayed that many ratepayers do not qualify for the present assistance programs but need help, and asked that there be more types of assistance programs. Jo Vayo stated that the practice of funneling late fee revenue to the General Fund should be stopped, contending that if the fees were retained by REU and REU stopped making loans to the City, rates would not increase. Russell Hunt maintained that since 1998 the City has not been in compliance with the requirements of Proposition 218, due to transferring REU late fees to the General Fund. He supported UBRC's recommendation #7 A and argued that the City should obtain an outside legal opinion regarding the transfer of REU late fee revenue to the General Fund. 6/15/2009 138 Council Member Jones moved for approval of recommendation #7 A, stating his belief that late fee revenue should remain with REU and that the assistance programs were greatly under-funded. The motion died due to lack of a second. Council Member Stegall supported staffs recommendation and stated that the City was in compliance with Proposition 218 because municipal electric utilities are currently exempt. She asserted that she could not support UBRC's recommendations at this time, noting that any reduction to the General Fund now would result in additional city employee layoffs. She asked Council to research the issue in depth over the next few years and suggested that a gradual change in late fee revenue allocation may be a good approach. Mr. Dickerson expressed concern about REU retaining late fee revenue, rather than directing it to the General Fund, because lower income people (who most likely pay most of the late fees) would be subsidizing overall lower utility rates for upper income people. I Council Member McArthur agreed with Ms. Stegall that it was not an appropriate time to reduce revenue to the General Fund; therefore, she would not support either Alternative #7 A or #7B. MOTION: Made by Council Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member Dickerson, rejecting Recommendation 7, Alternatives #7 A and #7B, and maintaining the current course of action depositing late fee revenue in the General Fund; instituting minor changes via resolution amending Council Policy 1404 - Late Fees and Utility Deposits; and encouraging Council's review of the current practice of directing late fees to the General Fund to explore the possible goal of REU retaining late fee revenue. The Vote: AYES: NOES:. ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Council Members - Dickerson, McArthur, Stegall, and Bosetti Council Members - Jones Council Members - None Council Members - None UBRC RECOMMENDATION #8: Endorse the changes proposed by REU Director Hauser to Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) No. 3.01, relaxing the criteria used to define "good paying customers"when assessing eligibility for payment extensions and payment plans, including the change to vest CSRs with authority to grant extensions of up to three days and to approve payment plans within the parameters of the revised SOP. Support the change proposed in section 1.4.2(5) of the SOP, giving the Manager of Customer and Field Services authority to further relax the payment extension and amortization parameters in cases of extreme and unusual hardship. I Mr. Hauser recommended that Council adopt the resolution proposed by staff approving resource requirements and policy changes associated with Recommendation #8, including the implementation of SOP 3.01 - Customer Non-pay Process, as revised and dated May 2009. MOTION: Made by Council Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member Jones, approving Recommendation #8 and endorsing policy changes and revisions to the Customer and Field Services Division's SOP. 3.01, as revised and dated May 2009, via resolution, relaxing the criteria used to define "good paying customers"when assessing eligibility for payment extensions and payment plans, including the change to vest CSRs with authority to grant extensions of up to three days and to approve payment plans within the parameters of the revised SOP; and further approving the change in section 1.4.2(5) of the SOP, authorizing the Manager of Customer and Field Services to further relax the payment extension and amortization parameters in cases of extreme and unusual hardship; and approving the resource requirement of one and a half (1.5) full time employees. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes I UBRC RECOMMENDATION #9: Make no change to reconnection fees. Mr. Hauser advised that staff supports this recommendation. He commented that UBRC recommended no changes to the present policy because the fees were cost-based, remain with REU, and are tied to the cost of the reconnection service. 6/15/2009 139 Mr. Degon gave an example of a reconnection fee issue and expressed support for policy changes that would give a manager, line staff, or field worker leeway to make allowances for unique situations. MOTION: Made by Council Member Jones, seconded by Council Member McArthur, approving Recommendation #9 to maintain existing policies regarding reconnection fees, with no changes. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes I UBRC RECOMMENDATION #10: Make no change to the current policy of requiring full payment of an outstanding balance at the time of reconnection. Mr. Hauser advised that staff supports this recommendation, but commented that it is a fairly complex topic. He recognized the initial desire to ease a customer's payment burden, but noted that if an outstanding balance is not paid in full prior to reconnection, ratepayers are negati vel y impacted because their debt would not be erased, just postponed, and would build up. MOTION: Made by Council Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member McArthur, approving Recommendation # 10 to maintain the current policy requiring full payment of any outstanding balance at the time of reconnection, with no changes. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes UBRC RECOMMENDATION #11: Support proposed changes to SOP 3.01, to relax the triggering events requiring payment of a deposit, and extend the amortization period of any required deposit from three months to four months. Mr. Hauser advised that staff supports this recommendation and requested Council to direct staff to make the changes via resolution amending SOP 3.01. I MOTION: Made by Council Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member Jones, approving Recommendation #11 and endorsing policy changes and revisions to the Customer and Field Services Division's SOP 3.01, revised and dated May 2009, via resolution; in particular, relaxing the triggering events requiring payment of a deposit, and extending the amortization period of any required deposit from three months to four months. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes UBRC RECOMMENDATION #12: It is recommended thatthe following proposal put forth by Chair Slaughter and enhanced with additions from other Committee members be approved by the City Council: ECONOMIC RECOVERY RATEPAYER RELIEF PROGRAM I In recognition of the current national, state, and local economic circumstances that include record unemployment rates, record home foreclosures, and increasing financial crises being experienced by citizens of this community, it is recommended that the City of Redding create additional funding for the Lifeline and CARES Programs to assist REU ratepayers who, because of economic hardship or circumstance, cannot fully pay their electric utility bill. The goal of this allocation is to reduce, to the extent economically feasible and as justified by the ratepayer's circumstance, the number of service disconnections and potential vacation of premises. This is an emergency measure and the allocations so adopted are to be reviewed annually by City Council to assess assistance needs, funding carryovers or deficits, bad debt experience, and changes in the economic setting. It is recommended that additional funding for public assistance be allocated from the following sources, which should generate an additional $500,000, to supplement the $500,000 existing allocation: 1. Ten percent (10%) of Late Charge funds currently allocated to the General Fund ($2.1 million in 2008); and 2. Twenty percent (20%) of the REU Rebate Program ($1.4 million in 2008). 6/15/2009 140 It is further recommended that the current maximum assistance for customers needing to utilize the CARES Program be increased from $200 per 24-month period to $250 per 12- month period. It is further recommended that the Lifeline Program be modified to increase the maximum kilowatts hours available at a subsidized rate from 700 hours per month to 800 hours per month. Finally, it is recommended that an advertising campaign be developed by REU, possibly in conjunction with the Power to Seniors Program, to inspire increased ratepayer contributions to the SHARES Program, which assists low income seniors, and that staff be directed to explore creating a voluntary contribution funding program to assist all low income customers. I Mr. Hauser recounted that the CARES program criteria currently includes income guidelines based on the number of individuals in a household and the impact of a temporary, unplanned financial hardship requiring funds that would normally cover utility debts. He added that CARES funding, which comes from Public Benefits Program funds, solely covers electric charges at a maximum of $200 every two years and requires the recipient to pay other utility charges including water, wastewater, solid waste, and storm drain as applicable. He advised that staff recommends and supports increasing the CARES Program assistance from $200 per 24-month period to $250 per 12-month period. The Lifeline Program discount, Mr. Hauser recalled, is presently available to qualified low income seniors (age 62 and over) and low income disabled customers, and provides a 25 percent discount on both the monthly utility service charge and the first 700 kilowatt hours of usage each month, up to a maximum of $20.39. Mr. Hauser advised that staff also supports and recommends that the Lifeline Program be modified to increase the maximum kilowatt hours available at a subsidized rate from 700 hours per month to 800 hours per month. I Mr. Hauser noted that the cost of implementing the changes to the CARES Program and Lifeline rate would be approximately $110,000 per year. According to Mr. Hauser, The "Simply Helping Another Receive Energy" (SHARE) Program is currently designed to assist qualified fixed-income seniors to pay their energy bills and is administered by Golden Umbrella, a community-based, nonprofit agency. He recalled that City of Redding customers may voluntarily make a contribution to the SHARE Program with their monthly utility bill payment, opt to make a recurring SHARE contribution in any amount with the monthly bill payment, or make a contribution with a payment through REU' s Online Bill Payment. He pointed out that since its inception in 2001, contributions to the SHARE Program total approximately $140,000. Mr. Hauser advised that staff does not support UBRC's recommendation to allocate ten percent of revenue generated from late fees to public assistance program funding. He recalled that this is consistent with staffs position on Recommendation #7, which is to maintain the current late fee disposition to the General Fund with minor changes via resolution amending Council Policy 1404 - Late Fees and Utility Deposits. As an alternative to UBRC's Item 2 of Recommendation #12, Mr. Hauser offered a staff recommendation: Beginning July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, commit $165,0000fn current Public Benefits Program funds (the approximate remainder of the allocation of $280,000 after the SHARE, CARES, and Lifeline changes) to augment REU's low income weatherization program. He relayed it was the opinion of staff that this public assistance option creates long-term energy savings for current and future occupants, rather than a one- time utility bill cash relief. I Ernest Hallmark requested that Council change the qualifying criteria for the CARES assistance program, to allow more individuals to utilize the program. 6/15/2009 141 Gary Cadd discussed the $2.8 million Public Benefits Program funds and stated that more funds could be accessed for public assistance iftotal revenues were viewed from both retail and wholesale funds. He suggested that the 20 percent (or $1.4 million) that UBRC recommended be redirected to public assistance programs, be funneled towards an energy efficiency program for low income ratepayers. I Dean Haltom, a heating and air conditioning business owner, thanked REU for advertising and outreach regarding energy conservation, energy efficiency education, and customer assistance programs, and supported REU's recommendation to commit $165,000 in current Public Benefits Program funds to augment REU's low income weatherization program. Todd Slaughter relayed that the committee thought that during these difficult economic times there has been a shift from utilization of rebate programs to a greater need for public assistance programs. He suggested that public assistance program funding should be doubled, noting that the proposed additional funding of $280,000 represents a 20 percent shift from the REU Rebate Program for a temporary period, subject to annual review. He did not support staffs recommendation for a weatherization program over short-term relief for ratepayers during the economic downturn. J een W opat suggested a voluntary contribution program as another way to obtain more public assistance funding. She supported UBRC's recommendation to increase funding for public assistance programs and supported staffs recommendation to explore creating a voluntary contribution funding program to assist all low income customers. She stated that she had drafted a revised REU billing statement and gave it to Mr. Hauser that invites customers to include a contribution to the CARES program with their payment. Council Member Dickerson favored Ms. W opat' s suggestion for a voluntary contribution program and had hoped staff and the UBRC would have made this their primary recommendation because it would have been a good assessment of the level of public concern. I Charlene Scates, Jo Vayo, Danny Hart, Russell Hunt and Jim Degon supported the UBRC's recommendations, pointing out that most ratepayers having financial problems do not qualify for the assistance programs offered by REU and supported additional public assistance programs that allow application by a broader range of ratepayers. Ms. Vayo asserted that Public Utility Code (PUC) 386 states that a public electric utility should provide low income assistance as needed and does not make a distinction regarding the type of ratepayer, such as elderly. Mr. Hauser responded that REU meets the intent ofPUC 386 and pointed out that REU's regular rates are lower than Pacific Gas and Electric's Lifeline rates as well as one of the lowest rates in the state. City Attorney Duvernay advised that PUC 386 establishes a goal for all municipal utilities to strive to maintain a rate structure that is affordable to its ratepayers, and staffs analysis is that REU has ensured a competitive and affordable electric rate. Jerry Wagar, Jay Gibson, and Terry Alvord expressed concern with the .UBRC's recommendation to divert 20 percent of rebate funds into public assistance programs, stating that conservation and weatherization are important tools in saving energy and providingjobs; that rebate programs assist in keeping rates down over the long term; and emphasized that the Public Benefits Program has been very helpful to the City, the public, and local businesses. I Kent Dagg, CEO of Shasta Builders Exchange, related that the Builders Exchange has provided an important public benefit through the Earth Advantage Program and a federal stimulus package-funded program geared toward retrofitting homes for low-income residents, and therefore opposed UBRC's recommendation but supported staffs recommendation. Council Member Stegall supported staffs recommendation to commit $165,000 in current Public Benefits Program funds to expand REU's low income weatherization program because it provides long-term energy savings to people living in older homes and/or apartments. 6/1512009 142 MOTION: Made by Council Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member McArthur, approving Recommendation #12 to increase the CARES Program assistance from $200 per 24-month period to $250 per 12-month period; that the Lifeline Program be modified to increase the maximum kilowatt hours available at a subsidized rate from 700 hours per month to 800 hours per month; and beginning July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, commit $165,000 in current Public Benefits Program funds to augment REU's low income weatherization program. Further, approving a one-year evaluation of a new voluntary contribution program, advertised through REU' s billing system, for funds targeted for all low income ratepayers who need assistance. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes UBRC RECOMMENDATION #13: Adopt a statement of policy that a resident of a dwelling in the City of Redding shall not be subjected to abatement procedures or code enforcement for the sole reason that the electric power service to the dwelling has been disconnected by REU. I UBRC RECOMMENDATION #14: (1) Direct REU to cease the practice of sharing the disconnect list with the Development Services Department for initiation of code enforcement measures, and (2) that REU train disconnect/reconnect personnel to identify (based upon faulty wiring, young children, elderly shut-ins, etc.) dangerous and immediately dangerous conditions and individually refer issues to the Code Enforcement Division. Development Services Director Hamilton alternatively recommended that Council adopt a resolution establishing new standard enforcement procedures as proposed by staff. Mr. Hamilton explained that the resolution endorses and discloses standard procedures and practices for enforcement of codes relative to occupancy of residential dwellings when electric utility service has been disconnected for non-payment. He related that UBRC recommendations #13 and #14 are closely associated and staffs recommendations for both items are covered by one resolution. Mr. Hamilton gave a PowerPoint presentation detailing the current safe occupancy enforcement process and staff responses to UBRC's recommendations. He cited the following 2008 Safe Occupancy Enforcement activity: 1,075 dwellings were referred to Building Safety/Code Enforcement due to utility disconnections of which 755 received compliance notices; 9 residential units were posted for "immediately dangerous" conditions which represents 0.8% of the total number referred. The 9 po stings resulted in no hearings to vacate because of "immediately dangerous" conditions and no Administrative Hearings Board decisions to vacate because of a "dangerous" condition. Additionally, no fines were levied for occupancy of a residence without utilities. I In regards to Recommendation #13, Mr. Hamilton summarized staff recommendations as follows: (1) adopt a clear enforcement policy via Council resolution (also a recommendation of UBRC), (2) provide support services information at the time of disconnect posting by REU, (3) eliminate the initial Compliance Notice and forewarning of fines, (4) Code Enforcement will receive the disconnect list and conduct an inspection in approximately 10 days, only if there is no confirmation that the power/utilities have been restored, (5) an enforcement case will be opened and Compliance Notice initiated only if the property is occupied, (6) on a "Substandard or Dangerous" condition determination, a compliance notice(with no fines) will be issued and a mandatory Administrative Hearing Board confirmation of action will be conducted (if not corrected), and (7) on an "Immediately Dangerous" condition determination, there will be a posting and a mandatory Administrative Hearing Board/Officer confirmation of posting within 72 hours. Mr. Hamilton explained that these modifications to the current process should eliminate the blanket approach of identifying all property owners or tenants as being a potential violation before an inspection is made to establish if a problem does, in fact, exist. He added that implementation of the REU recommendations should reduce the already small number of homes or apartments that must be posted for correction each year. However, he cautioned that the responsibility of the City to ensure safe occupancy of homes without utility services should not be completely eliminated. I In regards to Recommendation #14 (1), Mr. Hamilton responded that staff recommends that the Customer Services Division should continue to provide a list of properties disconnected 6/1512009 143 from utilities to Code Enforcement. He emphasized that the City has an obligation to exercise reasonable efforts to protect life and property when it is within the City's ability and knowledge to do so. He noted that code enforcement officers have extensive training in dealing with these situations, and that additional due process safeguards are included in this resolution to increase oversight by the Administrative Hearings Board to prevent any potential abuse of authority. I Mr. Hamilton related that staffbelieves that UBRC Recommendation #14 (2) should not be implemented due to the practical difficulties and potential legal problems associated with training REU disconnect/reconnect personnel to identify dangerous and immediately dangerous conditions and individually referring issues to the Code Enforcement Division. . In response to Ms. McArthur, City Attorney Duvernay contended that the City does not have a legal, but rather a moral obligation, to notify all interested parties when power has been shut off in a dwelling, although he believes there is an enhanced exposure to legal liability ifthere is no notification. He maintained that occupying a dwelling without power is contrary to state and local law, that the City has an obligation to exercise reasonable efforts to protect life and property when it is within its ability and knowledge to do so, and that there is no legal restriction prohibiting the sharing of a list of properties disconnected from utilities between City departments. He expressed concern that UBRC's recommendation was for Council to develop a categorical policy that the City will not enforce the law in certain circumstances. He further explained that there is a well-established concept in the law that states that law enforcement officials (including code enforcement officers) have "qualified immunity," which makes allowances for mistakes without City liability. He counseled that Council Members do not enjoy the protection of "qualified immunity," therefore City Councils do not establish categorical rules dictating when laws are and are not going to be enforced; rather determination is normally made utilizing the case-by-case judgment of the Code Enforcement Officer in the field. I Alida Adair, Stanford Pickard, Karen Barnes, Mark Keys, J 0 Vayo and Russell Hunt voiced support for Recommendations # 13 and # 14 and opposed disconnecting power to a dwelling due to non-payment of an electric bill because: citizens have no rights; government is too invasive; no one should be displaced from his dwelling for not having electrical power; the City should have compassion and help people to stay in their home; Code Enforcement should personally contact tenants prior to a disconnection; no other major city has an abatement practice due to disconnected electrical service; abatement should be abolished; and the California Constitution entitles a citizen to the right to privacy and objected to REU sharing ratepayers' records with Code Enforcement. Gary Reynolds supported the idea of voluntary contributions to assist those having trouble paying their electric bill and contended that the 4th amendment regarding the right to seize property would help in deciding whether to evict tenants who did not pay their electric bill. Gary Cadd objected to the City's position that a "substandard" dwelling condition was a legitimate reason to remove someone from his home and asked for further review of the $2500 a day fine when a tenant has not vacated a residence. Mr. Cadd described a 2005 abatement issue regarding Peggy Simonson, and contended that she was ordered to vacate her house for the sole reason ofthe electricity being turned off due to substandard conditions. I Todd Slaughter advised that the SHARE program only brought in about $11,000 last year in contributions and offered that voluntary contributions will most likely not be successful. He stated that he supported many of the recommendations made by the City regarding abatement policies and thought that UBRC was integral in assisting Development Services in modifying their approach. He supported the resolution offered by Development Services, but cautioned that most people living in dire circumstances would probably not take advantage of the recommendation for an independent review panel. Pam Minor urged the formation of a volunteer watch dog group to oversee the abatement process, rather than City staff, to provide objectivity. Council Member Jones supported UBRC's recommendations #13 and #14 and maintained that a resident of a dwelling should not be subjected to abatement procedures or code enforcement for the sole reason that electric power service to the dwelling has been 6/15/2009 144 disconnected by REV. Council Member McArthur also supported VBRC's recommendations, but asked that staff look at other communities to see how they handle power shut offs and abatement without associated liability. Council Member Stegall and Mayor Bosetti did not support Mr. Jones' motion, but did support staff s proposed resolution citing that it addresses many of concerns brought forth by the public and UBRC; spoke to the formation of a volunteer review committee that would look at each case on an individual basis; removes the brusque wording in disconnect letters; and provides assistance information to the occupants or property owners at the time of the disconnect notice. Council Member Dickerson advised he could not support Mr. Jones' motion because it would establish a City policy that it was permissible to live in a house without electric servIce. I MOTION: Made by Council Member Jones, seconded by Council Member McArthur, approving Recommendati~~ #1'4 and approving a statement of policy that a resident shall not be subjected to abatement procedures for the sole reason that the electric power service to the dwelling has been disconnected by REU; directing REU to cease the practice of sharing the disconnect list with the Development Services Department for initiation of code enforcement measures; that REV train disconnect/reconnect personnel to identify (based upon faulty wiring, young children, elderly shut-ins, etc.) dangerous and immediately dangerous conditions and individually refer issues to the Code Enforcement Division; and directing staff to look at other communities to see how they handle power disconnects and abatement without associated liability. The Vote: AYES: NOES: AI;3STAIN: ABSENT: Council Me~b~rs - Jones and McArthur Council Members - Dickerson, Stegall, and Bosetti Council Members - None Council Members - None MOTION: Made by Council Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member Dickerson, adopting Resolution No. 2009-62, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding, Endorsing and Disclosing Standard Procedures and Practices for Enforcement of Codes Relative to Occupancy of Residential Dwellings when Electric Utility Service has been Disconnected for Nonpayment; and directed the City Attorney to review possible City liability regarding requirements at time of disconnect to notify both the occupant and property owner as stated in the resolution, and amend as necessary. The Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: I Motion failed for lack of a majority vote. Council Members - Dickerson, Stegall, and Bosetti Council Members - Jones and McArthur Council Members - None Council Members - None VBRC RECOMMENDATION #15: As a means to enhance security, assure quality customer service and as an incentive to both customers and Customer Service Representatives to be professional and respectful, it is recommended that phone transactions be recorded for quality assurance and lobby transactions be video and audio taped. Staff recommends that Council adopt this recommendation and direct staff to implement the necessary changes. Mr. Hauser explained that current City policy allows the Customer and Field Services Division to perform random monitoring of customer transactions by recording telephone transactions with utility customers and video record customer transactions in the Customer Service Walk-in Center. He pointed out that though video monitoring equipment is currently utilized in the Walk-in Center, it is primarily used for staffing and workflow management. He estimated that there will be a one-time cost of$1 00,000 for the installation of transaction monitoring equipment in the Customer Service Call Center and Walk-in Center. I Karen Barnes supported UBRC' s recommendation because her past concerns with Customer Service interactions would have been documented for review by management. 6/15/2009 145 MOTION: Made by Council Member McArthur, seconded by Council Member Jones, approving Recommendation #15 that phone transactions be recorded for quality assurance and lobby transactions be audio and video taped as a means to enhance security, assure quality customer service, and as an incentive to both customers and Customer Service Representatives to be professional and respectful. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes I Mr. Hauser responded that, upon approval of the UBRC's recommendations and/or staffs responses and alternatives to the recommendations, staff proposes to fully implement the Council's direction within approximately ninety (90) days. He added that several of staff s responses indicate that the implementation is already in progress. Muriel Almquist spoke for Cheryl Waters who recommended a moratorium on utility disconnects, that any customer account terminated prior to or after the moratorium period be granted a waiver of reconnect fees, that the policy of red tagging end, that reasonable accommodations be made for payment plans, that the practice oflate fees stop, and that REU should thank customers who pay their bills on time. Gary Cadd described another REU case that was brought to the attention of the UBRC regarding utility customer Jo Wyatt, who was asked to pay $751.28 in back charges due to a non-working meter. Mr. Cadd opined that, since she was not at fault, the payment should be returned to Ms. Wyatt. Mr. Cadd and Jo Voya, also contended that the City needs a full- time, independent electric utility commission to deal with ongoing utility issues and oversee REU, citing that ten years ago the City had a Citizen Electric Utility Commission. Todd Slaughter thanked the people who served on the committee, commending them for their commitment, and thanked Council for the opportunity to serve as Chair. Stanford Pickard recommended that garbage and recyc1ables/green waste be picked up on alternating weeks, twice a month instead of weekly, to save money and reduce the work force. I Carl Amess did not see the need for a utility oversight committee citing that there were already professional, trained City staff doing a good job and the committee would have no regulatory and decision making power; it would only be a sounding board. Council Member Jones asked for a consensus from Council as to whether a utility oversight committee was appropriate and necessary. Mr. Jones, Mayor Bosetti, and Council Member McArthur voiced sUPP9rt for an oversight committee, citing the need for open communication and an independent sounding board, and that a non-regulatory advisory committee would work best. Council Members Stegall Dickerson opposed such a committee, citing that the Administrative Hearings Board is an independent review committee, and that it was the task of the City Council to pass resolutions pertaining to policies and regulations. Mr. Starman recognized that Council had approved through inference the related resolutions to some of the approved recommendations, but asked Council to formalize the following three resolutions by vote: I MOTION: Made by Council Member McArthur, seconded by Council Member Stegall, adopting Resolution No. 2009-63, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Council Policy No. 1402 entitled "Collection of Delinquent Utility Accounts". The Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Council Members - Dickerson, Jones, McArthur, Stegall, and Bosetti Council Members - None Council Members - None Council Members - None MOTION: Made by Council Member McArthur, seconded by Council Member Stegall, adopting Resolution No. 2009-64, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Council Policy No. 1404 entitled "Late Fees and Utility Deposits". The Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Council Members - Dickerson, McArthur, Stegall, and Bosetti Council Members - Jones Council Members - None 6/15/2009 146 ABSENT: Council Members - None MOTION: Made by Council Member McArthur, seconded by Council Member Stegall, adopting Resolution No. 2009-65, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Redding Electric Utility Customer and Field Services' Standard Operating Procedure No. 3.01 entitled "Customer Non-Pay Process". The Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Council Members - Dickerson, Jones, McArthur, Stegall, and Bosetti Council Members - None Council Members - None Council Members - None I Resolution Nos. 2009~62, 2009-63, 2009-64, and 2009-65 are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 10:26 p.m., Mayor Bosetti declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED ~C:t &)M Mayor ATTEST: I ~ilVYji~(, ~rrw Assistant City Clerk I 6/15/2009