Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0426.092Septeaber 17, 1992 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California < . . ,'''''~' _<i, .. ,7 •• ,:,::, • -~. .,. "'- StAtU. qf School Water Rates Members of the Council: 8eP9rt in Brief This ia an informational report providinq a backqround and an update on the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) water bills this pa.t fiscal year. Additionally, this report will discuss ~ request by the PAUSD for rate relief, which staff is processing in accordance with established "hardship application-procedures. No Council action is required. Di§QY§§ion The current water rata policy is meetinq the dual objectives of fairness and achievement of the mandated. conservation levels. This policy haa been and continues to be iaplemented by the utilities Department in full accordance ~ith procedures adopted by the City Council. IlDpleaentation of this policy, particularly through the hardship application process, has been fairly applied to all classes of customers and has been accomplished in a forthright and open manner ~ CUstomers, regardless of class, will tend to pay relatively higher rates :to:' outdoor irrigation purposes compared to indoor wa.ter usage. 'I'bis is a cornerstone of our drought management proqram and is driven by the mandated outdoor/indoor water use reductions required by the City's supplier, the San Francisco water Departaent~ In qeneral, this means that for P&lo Alto customers who use a: hiqher proportion of yater for indocr-versus outdoor purposes, they "Will experience relatively lower water bills. Thus, industrial customers, who generally use approximately 88 percent ot their water for indoor operational requirements, pay less than other customers who use 50 to 100 percent of their water for outdoor irrigation~ When customers have unique essential water requirements, the hard.ship application process is designed to ad.dress such circumstances. In 1990, the City's golf course and the PAUSD CHIl: 421: 92 1 t, • o facilitieB used that process to obtain apprcpri~te adjustments, as did many others. In May 1992, the PAUSD requested further rate relief to provide Eatfordable" ...,atsr to maintain their-athletic playing fields in a "safe" condi,tion. In accordance with the City's hardship ~pplication process, this request is beinq honored under the -safety· criterion. The Utilitil!s Depa.rtment will approve adjustments to the. Baseline Consumption Allowances tor the affected playinq fields. 80 that the r.8~ltin~ water bill. peid for these facilities will approximate the overall system-wide aver.aqe rete. This outcome will be based on an assumad increase in vater usage at such sites and will be influenced to the exterot actual vater usaqe varies from projections. Such adjustments are beinq .ade and will be camplet6d by september 30, 1992. Rot, Analysis The reasons the utilities Department supports the current drought rate schedules are because the -rate differentials" between the custaaer classes aro not unreasonable: a fair hardship e~emption proce'Js ia in place; and the ratea are achieving the primar) conservation goal without resorting to more disruptive water allocation programs. It is indisputable that with any inverted rate atructure, a comparison ot ~weiqhted-averaqe rates· between individua~_ customer tacilities will necessarily vary. During FY91-92, the conservation oriented drought rates ranq.4 from ,~.oo/unit to ,18/un1t. Because of this large rate ditferenti31, there were many customers who experienced average rates near $1.50junit while many others averaqed $9junit. These r9sultinq rate dit~erentia15 between the customer classes are reasonable and within expectations. In qeneral, the rate derived is e factor ot how such water is used, or for BCA customers, how ~ucb indoor/out~oor water conservation is aChieVed. This consumption variation continue.s to affect the ovsrall rate paid and remains vi thin the control of the cus.tomer. For FY91-92 the ·customer class average rates· were as follovs: customer Class Class 1 Sinqle-Family Residential Class 2 Multi-Family Residential Class 3 Commercial Class 4 Industrial ClASS 5 Publ~c Facilities class 6 city Departments Weiohted Average Class Rate $2.44/=it $1.91/=it $2.20/=it $1.a6/unit $2.10/=it $2.7S/=it Tbe weiqhted ·.y.tam av~raqe rate" for this period was $2.24/unit. As shown abov~, the resulting customer class average rate differential was $1.86 to $2.78. Not unexpectedly, city facilities, school sites, ami :r:esidents who used above average aaounts of water for outdoor landscaping, experienced the highest averaqe rates. For the same reason, individual customers within each of the SiK custo~er classes experienced relatively high or low ClIR:Uf:t2 av~ra9. rates. For example, residential customers who consumed saall, Jaedium, or larqe amounts of wat.~ e.xperienced average rates/unit of approximately $1.50, $1.75, and $6.50 reap6ctively~ The average rates tor specific City facilities ranged from approximate.ly $1.51 for the Junior Museum to $8.74/unit for irrigation at the Municipal service Center. The golf course 8ubstantially reduced its water usage and ended the fiscal year with bUb averaging $1.55/unit. The average rate paici by the PAUSO vas $2~5J/unit~ Tne ranqe of averaqe billing' rates applicable to school sites was $1.66/unit to $S.OO/u...,it. Jordan Junior High vas an exception as water was not used at all for many months, and that produced an artificially hiqh aver&qe rate due to the monthly service charge based on meter size. The same is true for City facilities which used less than one or two units per .onth. A final comment can be said reqaldinq the re~ent Palo Alto Weekly editorials on the subject of vater pricinq ror schools, the golf course( and the cond~ct of the Utility Department staff. There is overwhelDinq evidence that these editorials are factually incorrect, misleadinq, and based on conje~ture. This evidence is discussed in detail within an 8 page memo dated August 8, 1992 from Richard L. Young to the Utilities Adv;.50ry COlDlDission. This memo was dil5tributed as Exhibit 2 in a September" 2, 1992 trtilities Advisory casmission packet. It responds directly to the llll~~'t:'!~~:: r~isc.": by the editorial$. For that reason, it is attacbed to this report. Respectfully submittea, '-?' I~ ,-;; .. (~_~ W. RANDOLPH SALDSCHUN Assistant Director of utilities, AdminiBtrative services , ~.,J<.~ RICHARD L. YOUNGt/ ~ Director of UtilitiesC' PLElttNG Ass tant Ci ty Attachment: Ite:::ilo City Facilities· ClOt: 426: U ~Water Rates Applicable to Schools and / • TO: Utilities Adviso~ Commission FROM: Richard L Young DATE: August 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Water Rates Appncable to &..--hools and City Facil~ies The re09nt Palo Alto Weekly's ed~orials regarding t'1e manner in which schools are billed for water require some response. Perhaps this might also serve as an opportunity to clarity a complicated and relatively techr,ica! subject. In order to provide a background to this topic. a chronological order of factual events linked to this topic is presented here. Summary tn continuing response to the drought, a Basellce Consumption Allowance (BCA) was instituted in June, 1990 for approximately 4CJC() non-residential facriities based on average winter watGr usage specific to 9a~h facility. The BCA concept was developed as a tool to induce a 50 percent reduction in outdoor water use and a 10 percent reduction in indoor water use. This approach is patterned afier the formula that the City's suppfrer empfoys to arrive at our monthly ccnseNation targets. In general, this m82::lS that for Palo Alto customers who use a hig~,er proportion of water for indoor versus outdoor purposes, they will experience relatively lower water brils. thus. industrial customers who generally use approximately 88 percent of their water for indoor operaiion a' re quire ments, pay less than other customers who use 50 to 100 percent of their water for outdoor inigation. Determining t'1e appropriate lave~ of water consumption for a g:,ven customer facility often requires an informed judgement and working closely ",;!h the customer. The necessity to make such judgements has been dis~ssed in staff reports and L1e auulority is provided under provisions contair.ed on the applicable rate schedules. Recogn:zing that a ·one·size-~.s·all" SeA formuia woufd be unworkabre tor certaJ"r, customers, a direct ma~ing and subsequent neltice, requested each customer to notify the util,'Y d the assigned BCA seemed invalid, given the specrtic indoor/ooldoor seasonal reqUirements known 10 exist by that customer. This resu~ed In revisions to some SeA's. For example, on August 15, 1990 the Palo Alto Unified School District filed 15 "hardship app~catjons· for an it's faciftties seeking higher BCA's. The appilcations were processed and where the facts supported a change, BCA's on 11 of the 15 sites were raised significantly at that time. Wi'lh minor exception, these BCA's have remained unchanged. On that basis, the Palo Alto Wee!\!)' editorial's allega~on that the utility surreptit'lously modified school BCA's subsequent to their editorial of July 24, 1991 is not borne out loy the facts. In response to a PAUSD request in May, 1992, the Utility is again reviewing the SCA's asSigned to tM school s~es and furto.r adjcstments will b~ made as the facts indicate. : Wilh regard to the goif course, the methodology used te calculate ~ SCA was simDar to that employed for the Palo Alto Hills Go~ Course. Lawns for any gc~ cou,;e are an Inherent reason for being. Even the Palo Mo Weekly ea~o[izl takes subconscious accoont of that fact through the term 'green fees'. However, schools must also have safe playing fields. Under existing hardship exemption ~~Ies, the utii~ will conduct field aud"rts to assure that SCA's are se1 at a level which enabl"s the schoels to conduct sports activities .c.inder sara turf cono'itions. Oesp~e the Weekly'§ allegat;"" to t~e contrary, the ~,Ity verbally ootified the C~'s Fma.'1C8 Committee O~ June 2, 1992 of this 'administrative step' at a pubflc meeting. A final comment can be made on the 'conservation-crie,,!eo" drought rate structures ry./.fj and W-7) utilized during FY91-92 which have enabled the Cay to avoid the disruptive effects of watE".f rationing. Wrth any inverted rate structure, a comparison of -Wei ghted­ average rates-betv'leen indIvidua! customer facilities will necessarfly vary. Because of the large rate differential between S1 and $18 efiective FY91-92, there were many customers who experienced average rates nea, $1.50/unit while many others averaged $9/unit. In general, the rate derived is a factor of how much water is used, or for eeA customers, how much indoorioutdoor water conservation is achieved. This consumptinr. variation continues to affect the ovarslj rate paid and remains witnrn the control of the customer. Stifl, we recognize that it is ~portan! to continually evajuate BCA's to determine their valid"lty. This we have done and are continuing to do this year as we revis~ SCA's previously assi,med to facilitIes which seem to indicate they may be toe high or too low. Chronology of Scho9! Water Rates TQQLc June 1, '990: The City Council approved Drocght Rate Schedule W-7 insiii~ng a Basenne Consumption Allowance (SCA) for an non-single-family residential customers. The overall goafs of the SeA program are to achie'/8 cftywide conservation !argets as ma.ndated by the San Francsco Waler Department and to use toe hardship appfication process to address speCific customer safety, opera~lona~. and economic concerns Despite the anticipated drfficurtl€s associated with determirlitlg what amount 0; water is required by a wide variety of customers, the BCA concepl is preferable to other disruptive water anocatior: methods wtJ,d'l have simnar as weil as additiona~ problems of their own. The stat! repon (CMR:3020) and rate schedules contain specific references to mooifica!ion of a BCA and applying for a hardship exception based on the unique requirements of a CL1Stomer ~.e. health, operational, economic, or seasonal dem.9nds render the defau~ SCA methodology invafid). There are approximately 4,000 accounts assigned a SCA Through a special direct mailing in May, 1990, the UtilitJes Departrnent notified each non· residential custome:-of ITS unique Baseline Consumption Allowance and requested the customer to not.ty the UtJlity if the BCA seemed invalid, given the specific 2 : -Jo, .• ~. · ~ -~ , > . . -.. " indcor/outdoor seasonal req<Jirements known to exist by that customer. This resu~ed in numerous seA changes for a wtde range of custOrT'9rs. August 15.1990: The Palo Alto Unified Schoo! District (PAUSD) submitted 15 appficabons lor all its facilities req<uesting revisions be made to their SCA's. The SCA changes submitted were In acccrdance ~ estabnshed procedures. Alter review by the Utilities Resource Conservation Division, eleven of the fffteen sites were approved 'or a nigher BCA The percentage changes to their SCA's ranged from 0 10 5900 percent Waller Hays Elementary ScI100l had its SCA revised from 2 to 118, accounting for the 5900 percent increase. Coincidentally, the City's go~ course appfied lor a SGA revision in June, 1990 and was granted a revision from 1500 to 8462 representing a 454 percent increase which demoostrates the uselessness of SeA percentage incre2se comparisons. ~ is staffs opinion that the resulting percentage increase 01 a revised SCA is irrelevant in any analysis; however the Palo A~O Weekly made an issue of ~ in its ea-rtorial of 8/5/92. June, 1991: In response to anot"er Palo AltO Weekly reques~ t"e City provided customPor class water billing data for the period 7/90 to 6/91. The Water Salas Report indicated the 10lal water sales revenue and corresponding unITs of water billed for the six customer classes. From this data, t"e Paio M9 Weekly computed a "weighted average customer class rate' by dividing the total ciass revenu~ oy the units 01 water "old to that class. The results were: Customer CI ass Class 1 Singie-F am"y R asidential Class 2 Multi-Family Residential Class 3 Commercial Class 4 Industrial Class 5 Pubiic Facilities Class 6 City Departments Weighted Averjlge Class Rate $1.97/unit $1.83/unit $1.90/unit $1.77 lunit $2.08/unit $1.88/uC'it During FY 90-91, the aClua! drought rate schedules consisted 01 ~ye rateblocks w~,ich ascended.in price from $1/unit to S6junit as Llsage rises. The weighted ·system average rate" for this period was $1.90/unit and the pattern above reflected the intended aftect of charging higher prices fer OU'i:Ooor water use relative tc indoor water use. Class 5 includes federal, state, county, and school facilities. Schools account for approximately 40 percent 01 the total use of etass 5. July 17, 1991: From the aoove data, the Palo Mo.Weekly generated a story and conciL'Cled that 'Schoo Waler C.psts Soar'. July 24 1991: A PaloMo Weekly editorial entitled 'Correct Insquibes In School Water Rates' 'urged' the City Council to discontinue the rate policy of charging higher water rates for outdoor use as it applIes to the schoels. 3 '. -: / September 19 1991: In CMR:3B5:91 Wate, Rate Schedule, the City Manager responded to the editorial stating that "the editorial is factually lncorre:::t and draws mislee:ding ccnclusions ... neither allegation has any va"dity.' May 6 1992: Correspondence was received from the PAUSD requesting that their 'water rates be reduced substantially to encou'age development and maintenance of oc1dQO( playing and recreational spaces at public schOOl Mes.' May 14, 1m: L, CMR: 263:92 .E!:rulQsed Water Rate Increase, Council was provided at' update on school water bills indicatic.g that schooi water bills have changed little over the past three years and the perception that 'school water bills have soared' is unfounded. Staff notified Cooneil i.n this report or its intention 10 meet wtth the PAUSD on this matter. May 26. 1992 PAUSD and Utilities Department staff met to discuss water rates. The Utilities Department deniee • PAUSD request for a special discounted rate. However, ill accordance witl1 existing rules and reguiati""s, toe department agreed to audrt all school sites to 1) Oe1ermine if BeA's iemain reasonable and 2) Revise a SGA if it is determined that the present eCA is set too low to allow turf to be maintained in a safe playing condition withot..t creating an economic hardship. Field audits will be necessary. Upon completion of the audits, som& BCA's may be raised while othe," may be lowered. June 2. 1992: Before a joint Rnance Comr.1ittee and Utilities Advisory Commission meeting, the i..'tilftres staff provided a background on school water rates and Informed the committee that over a three year rericd (mos: occurring in 1990), adjustments to correct BCA's had been made. The staff further explained that, "the PAUSD had kept bills the same by reducing water consumption.' A!so, an update or the recent May 26th mee~ng with the PAUSD and the utilities staff was provided Finally, at this Finance Committee meeting, the staff pubncly stated its commitment that "there would be an adjustment to the BCA's so there was enough water to keep the schaal playing fields in a safe condition ".~ did not require a majOf poncy decision in the rate design; t~e same would be done for any C(;stomer with a hardship.' June 24, 1992; Palo AI:o _Weekly sto'Y entitled, 'Schools Pay More For Less' is misleading and factually incorrect. Tne Weekly stares, 'S:,nce schocls ... pay higher rates for water consumed that exceeds their a'iocauon, raisir1g allocations has the eHeet of Iowerii'lg bills. City staff omitted this crucial, detail in explaining the audit's results to the Council's Finance Committee." Here the WeekJ.Y has surmised that since the school water bills did not 'soar" during FY91,92 as 'they' had anticipated, then the Utilities Departmef)t "secretively' raised BCA's to prevent bills escalating for the Schools. The facts anct dates prove this PaI9..B~0 Weekly statement te be false. Billing records prove that the SCA's re!"lain virtuany unchanged sif)ce the initial batch of hardship applica:ions were flied and acted upon in August, 1990. Of the 33 water meter accounts covering 15 school sites, only four meters had a BCA revision during FY91·92. One of the four water meters serving Palo Alto High School received a SeA revision in August 1S91, Jordan Jun'ior 4 • ·?,f High had Hs SCA revised in February, 1992, EI Carmelo had Rs BCA increased in May, 1992 and one of Hoover Elementary School weter meters receivec::l a BCA rev:siQ(1 in .11m., 1992. The other 29 meters continued !o be billed under BCA's adoptad prior to !hs date of the Palo Mo Weekly editorial. July 1 1992: Palo Mo Weekly editorial entitled ·School Water Costs Remain Inequitable· alleges ·Palo Mo Utility Department's handling of school wate' 8nocaVons created unfaimess and misled the Citj Council.· This editorial contains numerous inaccuracies. The ~ conjectured that the staff had adjusted the school B!lSeline CCilsurnpUoo Allowances (BCA's) to lower their bills during FY 91-92 after the~ st<Y.y. In fact, records show thai PAUSD initiated appflcations and the BCA's for schools were changed in 1990, approximately eleeen months pric( to the first palo Me Weekly eartOl"ial dated 7-24-91. With minO/" e,.ception, the school SCA's are currently the same as those adopted in 1990 after the PAUSD submitted it's batch of 15 hardship appUcations. The editorial states, • .. we're [Palo AttoWee~ disturbed at the secretive way it is being done ... the staff had a duty to inform the Council of t'le administrative steps it was undertaking .. ." Again, the Weekly is misinfomled about BCA changes that were allegedly made. In a",-"'Ordance with the Hardship Exemption ApplicatiQrl procedures, the PAUSD initiated requests in 1990 for BCA changes, most of which were granted. On May 6, 1992, the PAUSO requested that their water rates be reduced. On May 14, 1992, the stat! immediatdly notified the Council of ns plano to meet wr.h the PAUSD on this matter (CMR:263:92). On June 2, 1992, the staff notified the Finan~e Committee and UtiItles Advisory Commission in a public meeting. ~ is worth noting tI1at the staff regularly reviews and approves or denies requests for a BCA adjustment for a diverse mix of customers. The same hardship appflcatiOO procedure is, of course, a\{a~able to the schools and there is nothing surreptitious about the process. Indeed, such adminlstrative procedures are warranted with any water allocation program including the BeA concept. Authoriza!ion for SL:ch procedures cai'l be found in CMR:302:0, CMR:352:91, and Resolution Nos. 6892, 7003, 7009, and 71 10 which adopt tne app»cable drought rate schedules describing th~se administrative procedures. FII1any, the eartorial states, • ... nO)!" is it in the community's best Interest to Mave schools adhere to their winter water consumptf on levels: On tt-115 lone po int, the UtiHties Department is in agreement. However, it is a moot issue srnce the school's major irrigation account SGA's were previously revised in 1990 based on a summer formula. July 29._ 1992: A Palo Altg.'!Yeekly story entitied 'Cheap Water For Golfers' makes a selective comparison of the golf course water bills with the school water billS and raises an equity issue based on the rate differential and other non-raie related circumstances. See discussion of golf course in this memo. . 5 I o August 5 1992: Another Palo_Alto Weekly editori.1 entnled 'Our Own Water-gate ?' OCl'ltinues their ongoing theme that school rates are unfairly high by citing the go~ course example for comparison_ During FY 1991·92 the 'average rates' paid by the schools • ."d the gc~ coorse were $2.59/unn and $loS5/unit respec~v.ly. The editorial correctiy recognizes thE • ... the actual cost per gallon can differ dramatically depending on a base allocation level esfaIbnshed by the utility department.' The Weekly chose to omH the fact that a number oIschocl aites had melens averaging below $lo75/unit. Some school s,tes have relatively low rates wt1~e othe's have relatively high rates. The same can be said for the 274 City water accounts. ~ is 1'1dispvtable that with an inverted rate structure, a wide range of '8Verag& rates' results because of varying respooses to the need for COf'servation and resulting consumption le·,els and BCA levels. This inescapable outcome is not convirlCing evidence to change course. tt can also be noted that each water rat'3 increase proposal for the past three )'ears notified the Cour1C11 of the potential percentage increases in customer bil:s. For example, the rang& 01 bin increases for customers of varying consumption levels for FY90-91 , FY91- 92. and FY92-S3 were 0 percent to 188 percent, 0 percent to 102 perc€r.t, and 7.5 percent to 49 percent respectively (CMRS: 302:90, 300:91, and 310:92). This same information was sent to ~ vtil'lties customer. Rate Analysis The reasons the Utilities Department support the current drought rate schedules are because the ·rate differentiaIs· cetween the customer classes are not unreasonable, a fair hardship exemption process is in place, and the rates are achieving the primary conservation goal. During FY91-92, the drought rates ranged from $l.00/untl to $18/untt However, given that wide of a range, it is staff's opinion that the resultjng rate differentials between the customer classes is reasonable and within expectations. For FY91-92 the ·customer class average. rates· were as follows: Customer Class Class 1 Single-Family Residential Class 2 M"It-Fam,y Residential Class 3 Commercial aass 4 Industrial Class 5 P-J bnc Facilnies Class 6 City Departments Y'lE:'jghted Average Class Rate $2.44/unit $1.91/unit $2.20/unit $l.86/unit $2.10/unit $2.78/unit The weighted 'system average rate' for this period was $2 24/unit Because the Crty adopted a conservation-oriented dr01...:ght rate structure with prices from $1.00/unit to $lB-OO/un~. a customer class average rate differential of $1-86 to $2.78 results. For the same reason, indi'liduc:.i customers ',.."itr,in each of the six customer classes wW experience 6 > relatively high or low average rales. For example, residenlial C\.Jstomers who consumed smar., medium,. or large amounts Of water would experience average rates/unit of approximately $1.50, $1.75, and $6.50 respectively. The average rales for specific City facilities ranged from approximately $1.51 for the Junior Museum to $8.74/un~ for irrigatioo at the Municipal service Center. The range of average biiling rates appncable to School sHes was $1.66/unit to $5.00junit. Jordan J~nior High was an exception as water W9S not used at all for many months wt1ich produced an artificially high average rate due to the morrthly service charge cased on meter size. The same is true for City facilities wt1ich used iess than one or two units per month. Go~ COurse In the case of the goff course, an economic hardship arises from allowing their greens and fairways to deteriOt'ate. !rngation is essential to their business. During this drought tihe go~ course has dlsconnected 25 percent of its sprinklers and al!OIved 40 acres of turf to die. if the golf course is not maintatned, the number of users will deciine impacting its financioo viability as an economic concern. There is now convincing evidence of this fact as this past year the number of rounds played declinetl8 percent causing a revenue loss in excess of $100,000. Thus, like a laundromat, car wash, and turf farm, the gaff course is in a unique water H1tensiv~ busb1ess whIch WQu~d be unfair to ignore. Acccrdingfy, a different BCA methodology was employed in 1990 lor this busi"ess from that used for the schools. The SCA formula applied to the City's golf course was a Similar methodology employed to calculate a BeA for the privately owned Palo Alto Hills Golf Course. A review of the City's goff ccurse HardShip Appncation submitted June, 1990 indicates that tihe SCA was based on FY89-90 water use data which included peak consu'Tlption levels of 22,000 and 14,000 units per month. On that baSis, a BeA of 8462 appeared reasonable. However, to their credIt, the goff course rlas reduced its consumption 34 percent with tihe highest monthly consumption dropping to only 10,000 unrts. This may account for the relatively low rate, however staff plans to include this account with many others tor investigation during this fiscar year. Water Rates For City F~cmt!es The 6/5/92 oortonaJ also imp"es that !he Utilrtias Department has favored City Departments in establishing SCA's. Not true. Evidence shows that the class average rate tor City Departments was $2.78/unit, which was highest of an customer classes. City Parks use large amounts of water lor outdoor use. So do some schools. Palo Mo's current monthly allocation from the San Francisco Wa.ter Department is based on a 50 percent reduction in O ..... 1.000f V'i'ate:-use. This outdoor W"8.ier us-e ir.dudes the irrigation of schools a"1d parks. The current drought rate structures are designed around tinis lac\. ACCOfdingly, customers who use relatively large amounts ot water for outdoor use compared to indoor use wm experience relatively higher rates. This has been and 7 o continues to be a cornerstone 01 Palo AIto's water pricing strategy. To require 2 d"lSproportionate indoor/outdoor water use red uclion that is ronlradictory to our suppro ..... • s formula could result in: (1) the City failing tn meet its monthly aliocation ta'gets and (2) prove cfrsruptive to OU<" customer's I~estyles and business operations ff much nigher reduCtions In indoor wa1er use are required. FinaDy. the 8/5/92 editoral st.tes t~at. "a look at the conduct of the Utilities mar.agemem staff also may be in order.. The lactual evidence demon wates thaI the utilities management has acted fairly and honestly in its dealings with the schools. City Departments. the Cou/1Cli. and the Palo AlIa Weekly. It should be noted that throU{;l1 an the difficulties attendant to the drought. the staff has not lost sight of the need to continue with a progr6lT1 that · .. m provide the level of conservation required of the City and has suocessful1y implemented such a program with the guidance and approval of the City Council. City Council William zaner. City Manager June Fleming. Asst City Manager Juroe Jerorre. Presiden~ PAUSD Walter Freema .... Business Manager. PAUSD Wimam Jol1nson, Pubrosher. Palo Aile Weekiy 8 Jc .. '£: '.