Response says
Partially disagrees: accepts 2016 changes but rejects a single undifferentiated rate and inherent inequity. Pages 11–12 describe 2023 Raftelis/advisory-committee tiered consumption rates and Proposition 218 cost-of-service constraints.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding CITY-F5
Tiered rates and cost allocation
What should residents consider about Finding CITY-F5: Tiered rates and cost allocation, and the County’s response?
City of St. Helena City CouncilResponse dated 2026-09-18Audit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
Explicit disputed scope with concrete tier/cost explanation and identified 2023 process and law. Scoring engagement does not validate allocation fairness or the response’s legal interpretation.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
4/4
Statutory elements
- Stated position
- 2/2
- Applicable disagreement elements
- 2/2
6/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 2/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 2/2
Explicit disputed scope with concrete tier/cost explanation and identified 2023 process and law. Scoring engagement does not validate allocation fairness or the response’s legal interpretation.
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Review the underlying documents
Public participation
Discuss the finding and response
Use Pol.is to discuss both the Grand Jury finding and the County’s response, see where participants agree, and add a perspective for others to consider. Participant statements do not alter this audit or verify factual claims made by any participant or source document.
Loading the Pol.is conversation...