The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05.b. (Handout) Responses to the Prop 218 Notice re proposed SSC increase2013 PROPOSITION 218 NOTICE SUMMARY OF RESPONSES WA W77" 5 b. (Includes all Responses — U.S. Mail, Email, Facsimile, and Phone Calls) As of June 20, 2013 (1 PM) RESPONSE CATEGORIES RESPONSES RECEIVED LEGALLY VALID PROTESTS OPPOSE: 1. Request Volume Pricing 3 3 2. Increase Exceeds Inflation /CPI 15 15 3. No Reason Specified 18 18 4. Request Further Cost Reductions 15 11 5. Hardship /Fixed Income 14 13 6. Other 10 7 7. Phone Calls* 4 n/a TOTAL 79 67 SUPPORT: 1. Rate Increase Justified 1 NEITHER OPPOSE NOR SUPPORT: 1. Request for Information 4 2. Other 0 3. Phone Calls* 1 TOTAL 5 TOTAL RESPONSES 85* * Phone calls are not a valid means of protest, nor are they listed on the attached log. 2013 PROPOSITION 218 RESPONSE LOG 80 6/20 Ronald E. and 124 Flame Dr, PH Method Protest Valid Doc Date Mary C. APN: Not provided of (senior citizens on Response Protest? # Rec'd Name Address or APN Receipt Purpose /Notes Category Yes /No 80 6/20 Ronald E. and 124 Flame Dr, PH Fax Protest Mary C. APN: Not provided (senior citizens on Sosnowski fixed income) 79 6/20 Samuel and 4831 John Muir Rd, Email Protest 0-3 Yes Amilia Nichols Martinez APN: Not provided 78 6/19 E. Hom 2120 Shasta Dr, USPS Protest 0-4 Yes Martinez 77 6/19 Joseph 21 Timberview Ct, Email Protest 0-4 Yes Mazuryk Danville (pdf) APN: Not provided 76 6/19 Barbara L. 301 Lava Ct, USPS Protest 0-5 Yes Minneman Martinez (retired ratepayer) APN: Not provided 75 6/19 Donald R. 1195 Bush St, Email Request for N -1 No (fwded Colbert Martinez information (unsigned) by M. APN: Not provided Scahill) 74 6/19 Jay Hohf No address provided Email Protest 0-4 No (fwded APN: Not provided (unsigned and by M. no address) Scahill) 73 6/19 Jacqueline No address provided Email Protest 0-6 No (fwded Cloidt APN: Not provided (unsigned; no by M. address) Scahill) 72 6/18 Ronald 2120 Shasta Dr, USPS Protest 0-5 Yes Mersham Martinez (fixed income) APN: Not provided 71 6/17 Brenda 3926 St. Mary's St, Email Protest 0-4 No Schmalenbach Martinez (pdf) (unsigned) APN: Not provided 70 6/10 Tom LaBasco No address provided Email Protest and request N -1 No APN: Not provided for information (unsigned; no address 69 5/1 Hal Samson 224 Powhattan Ct, Email 1) 5/1 Request for S -1 No Danville information; 2) 5/2 (unsigned) APN: Not provided Michael Scahill's email response; 3) 5/2 final email from Mr. Samson expressing support 68 5/3 Dianne No address provided Email 1) 5/3 Request for N -1 No Anderson APN: Not provided information; 2) 5/3 (unsigned; no Michael Scahill's address) email response; 3) 5/3 Final email from Ms. Anderson thanking for response 67 6/12 John Relic 2104 Pine St, USPS Protest 0-2 Yes Martinez (senior citizen on APN: Not provided fixed income) N:WDM/NSUPWDMINIDIST- SECIPROP 2181201312013 PROP 218 RESPONSE LOG.doc 612012013 1:21 PM 2013 PROPOSITION 218 RESPONSE LOG 66 6/12 Ed and Ruby 76 Via Floreado, USPS Protest 0-5 Yes Kissick Orinda (senior citizens on APN: Not provided fixed income) 65 6/11 Scott and 3796 Quail Ridge Email Protest 0-2 Yes Andrea Christie Road, Lafayette 64 6/10 Tatyana 35 Longhorn Ct, San USPS Protest 0-3 Yes Borovina Ramon APN: Not provided 63 6/10 Eric N. and 1241 Dewing Ln, WC Email Protest 0-4 Yes Heather E. APN: Not provided Shiozaki 62 6/7 Ken and Susan 508 Iris Ln, San Fax Protest 0-5 Yes Duley Ramon (senior citizens on APN: Not provided fixed income) 61 6/7 Michael P. 2 El Camino Moraga, USPS Protest 0-2 Yes Reaves Orinda APN: Not provided 60 6/7 Sheila Roberts 287 Montecillo Dr, USPS Protest 0-3 Yes WC APN: Not provided 59 6/6 John D. 2708 Oak Rd #1, WC Email Protest 0-6 Yes McIntyre APN: 172 - 201 -001 -2 58 6/6 Michael P. 49 Orchard Estates Email Protest 0-3 Yes Surls Dr, WC APN: 138- 080 -0092 57 6/4 Lisa and Gary 2830 Kinney Dr, WC USPS Protest 0-2 Yes Whitehead APN: 185-320-012 56 6/4 Yong Paik 35 Grandview Ct, USPS Protest 0-3 Yes Danville APN: None provided 55 5/30 lasmine 18 Lake Way, WC Email Protest 0-3 Yes Abdennabi APN: None provided 54 5/29 Blaine & 2090 Pine St, USPS Protest 0-5 Yes Georgia Martinez Bonacci APN: None provided 53 5/29 David 231 Greenbrook Dr, USPS Protest 0-2 Yes Annal Danville APN: 218 - 183 -011 -4 00 52 5/24 John H. 9 Darnby Ct, Orinda USPS Protest 0-6 Yes McDonald APN: 271 - 733 -013 -8 (John and 00 Elaine McDonald Trust) 51 5/24 Scott Dittman 5320 Likins Ave, USPS Protest 0-4 Yes Martinez APN: None provided 50 5/24 Donald E. 531 Marblehead USPS Protest 0-5 Yes Larson Lane, WC (senior citizen on APN: None provided fixed income) Ltr cc'd to Howard Jarvis Tax Assn. 49 5/23 James A. Dietz 39 Mariposa Ct, Fax Protest 0-3 Yes Danville APN: None provided N:WDM1NSUPWDM1N01ST- SECFROP 2181201312013 PROP 218 RESPONSE LOG. doc 612012013 1:21 PM 2013 PROPOSITION 218 RESPONSE LOG 48 5/21 Leyla 1520 Whitecliff Way, Either fax Protest 0-2 Yes Peymandoust WC or email, APN: None provided not sure 47 5/21 Leona 414 Legacy Dr, USPS Protest 0-4 Yes Huckestein Alamo (limited income) APN: None provided 46 5/20 Michael Petrin, 2586 Buena Vista Either fax Protest 0-2 Yes (attorney) Ave, WC or email, APN: None provided not sure 45 5/16 Mary C. 27 Hagen Oaks Ct, USPS Protest 0-6 Yes Burchell- Alamo Givens APN: None provided 44 5/17 James D. 650 Glorietta Blvd, USPS Protest 0-5 Yes Bradley Lafayette (seniors citizen on APN: None provided fixed income; suggests waiving fee for prperty owners over 70) 43 5/17 F. Edward & 1408 Harlan Dr, USPS Protest — Oppose 0-5 Yes Karen Bronsen Danville (seniors citizens on APN: None provided fixed income) 42 5/20 Sreenivas 6268 Murdock Way, Fax Protest 0-4 Yes Tejomurtula & SR Madhavi K. APN: 223 - 710 -012 -4 Durvasula 00 41a 6/19 Vija Lochridge Address: None Email (to Duplicate (fwded by n/a n/a (see above) provided RATES) M. Scahill) (unsigned APN: None provided and no address provided) 41 5/20 Vija Lochridge 4065 W Lakeshore Email (to Protest 0-5 No Dr, SR Elaine (senior citizen living (unsigned) APN: None provided Boehme) alone; barely making it) 40 5/20 Harold L. 8 Wood Court USPS Protest 0-2 Yes Fates, Jr. Alamo Ltr cc'd to CCTimes APN: None provided 39 5/20 Anita 2630 Meadow Glen USPS Protest 0-5 Yes Fasnaucht Drive, SR (senior citizen on APN: None provided fixed income) 38 5/20 Dulcie Wright 457 Moraga Way, USPS Protest 0-5 Yes Orinda (senior citizen; would APN: None provided create financial hardship) 37 5/15 R & L 28 Eastwood Dr, USPS Protest 0-4 No DeVecchi Orinda (unsigned) APN: None provided 36 5/13 Martha 1364 CanyonSide Fax Protest 0-3 Yes Albritton Ave, SR APN: None provided 35 5/13 Marino and 31 Ball Rd, WC Fax Protest 0-2 Yes Jennifer APN: None provided Linardon 34 5/10 James 44 Holiday Dr, Alamo Fax Protest 0-2 Yes Rodriguez APN: None provided 33 5/7 Unknown Address: None Protest 0-6 No provided (2 copies of (unsigned/ no same Itr) address) APN: None provided N: IADMINSUPIADMINIDIST- SECIPROP 2181201312013 PROP 218 RESPONSE LOG. doc 612012013 1:21 PM 2013 PROPOSITION 218 RESPONSE LOG 32a 5/10 CCCSD u5N5 Response to protest n/a n/a Response letter letter from Michael Scahill to Michael Ross - Sr 32 5/9 Michael Ross- 2723 Oak Rd Villa H, USPS Protest - Request for 0-4 Yes Smith (PDF WC Information; likes emailed to APN: None provided Pipeline. Ltr cc'd to Michael Scahill CCTirnes on 5/9) 31 5/9 Richard J. 955 Hawthorne Dr, USPS Protest 0-2 Yes Clarkson WC APN: 182- 182 -005- 05 30 5/8 Kathy Cabral 1471 Ramsay Circle, USPS Protest 0-2 Yes WC APN: None provided 29 5/8 Gary A. 24 Hickory Ct USPS Protest 0-4 Yes Schenck Danville APN: None provided 28 5/8 Michael L. & 188 Hall Dr, Orinda USPS Protest 0-3 Yes Elise J. Woods APN: None provided 27 5/8 Den Belillo 2305 Pine St, USPS Protest 0-6 Yes Martinez APN: None provided 26 5/8 Domenic 1559 St. Helena Dr, USPS Protest 0-3 Yes Cavallaro Danville APN: None provided 25 5/8 Rosalie 16 Kim Ct, Martinez USPS Protest 0-3 Yes Cavallaro APN: None provided 24 5/8 Franklin T. 428 Augustus Ct, WC USPS Protest 0-6 Yes Burroughs APN: None provided 23 5/8 Tony Malucchi Address: None Email Protest 0-4 No provided (Also faxed (no APN: None provided on 5/9) address /APN provided) 22 5/7 Ross W. Smith 109 Montair Dr USPS Protest 0-2 Yes P.O. Box 700 Danville APN: None provided 21 5/7 Patricia Curtin- 144 Bacon Ct USPS Protest 0-3 Yes Tinley Lafayette APN: None provided 20 5/7 James & Linda 706 Endsliegh Ct USPS Protest 0-4 Yes Zumwalt Danville APN: None provided 19 5/7 John L. Briggs 387 Castello Rd USPS Protest 0-6 Yes Lafayette APN: None provided 18 5/7 Diana DiPietro 601 Ridgeview Drive, USPS Protest 0-1 Yes PH (senior citizen living APN: None provided alone) wants volume pricing 17 5/7 I.P. Sicotte Jr., Property address: USPS Protest 0-3 Yes Trustee 5290 Horsemans Canyon, Unit # 5 -C WC APN: None provided N:IADMINSUPIADMINIDIST- SECIPROP 2181201312013 PROP 218 RESPONSE LOG. doc 612012013 1:21 PM 2013 PROPOSITION 218 RESPONSE LOG 16 5/7 Barbara M. 963 Hawthorne Dr, USPS Protest 0-5 Yes Carney WC (senior citizen on APN: 182 - 182 -004- fixed income) 800 15 5/7 Joseph G. 370 N Civic Dr, WC USPS Protest 0-1 Yes Zolinas APN: None provided (senior citizen living alone) wants volume pricing 14 5/7 Robert Collins 244 Morris Ranch Ct USPS Protest 0-2 Yes Danville (on fixed income) APN: None provided 13c 5/17 CCCSD 2n USPS Response to 2 nd letter n/a n/a response letter to Lawrence E. Englund 13b 5/15 Lawrence E. USPS 2n Request for n/a n/a Englund's Information follow -up letter 13a 5/10 CCCSD 1S USPS Response to Letter n/a n/a Response letter to Lawrence E. Englund 13 5/7 Lawrence E. 1821 Sunnyvale Ave USPS Request for N -1 Yes Englund (PDF WC Information emailed to M. APN: None provided Scahill for response on 5/7) 12 5/7 Henry Steven 1808 Sunnyvale Ave Email Protest 0-4 Yes Sarja WC APN: None provided 11 5/7 Freeda 3164 Somerset PI USPS Protest 0-3 Yes Cosenza Lafayette APN: None provided 10 5/6 Karl Haug 3068 Bowling Green Fax Protest 0-5 Yes Dr, WC (on fixed income) APN: None provided 9 5/6 (fax) Ara S. Alikian 430 Cranleigh Ct, SR Fax Protest 0-3 Yes 5/8(mail) APN: 211-370-067-4 (Rec'd again by mail 5/8) 8 5/2 Maruthi K. 357 Kami Ct, SR Email Protest 0-6 No Emany APN: None provided (no PDF; unsigned) 7 5/3 Elroy F. 3144 Ramada Ct USPS Protest 0-2 Yes Holtmann Lafayette (on Social Security) APN: None provided 6 5/3 David A. 2480 Buena Vista USPS Protest; wants 20% 0-6 Yes MacLean Ave, WC decrease in rates APN: None provided 5 5/3 Scott Gallagher 2398 Benham Ct USPS Protest 0-3 Yes WC APN: None provided 4 5/2 David W. 513 Boyd Rd Fax Protest 0-4 Yes Handy PH APN: None provided 3 5/2 Jamie Pehling 606 Daisy Ct Fax Protest; wants 0-1 Yes PH volume pricing for APN: None provided residential customers N:IADMINSUPIADMINIDIST- SECIPROP 2181201312013 PROP 218 RESPONSE LOG. doc 612012013 1:21 PM 2013 PROPOSITION 218 RESPONSE LOG 2 5/1 Wade & Jenny Tai 1854 Magnolia Way, WC APN: None provided Fax Protest - Oppose 0-3 Yes 1 a CCCSD USPS Response to protest n/a n/a Response letter letter to Bruce Nemanic 1 5/7 Bruce Nemanic 261 Evelyn Dr. USPS Protest — Request for 0-3 Yes (PDF emailed PH Information to Michael APN: None provided Scahill on 5/7) N:WDM1NSUPWDM1N01ST- SECFROP 2181201312013 PROP 218 RESPONSE LOG. doc 612012013 1:21 PM JUN -19 -2013 16:2e SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN 510 970 8105 P.01i01 June 19, 2013 To: Central Cont Costa Sanitary District Board of Dir4ctors I Re: Protest to; Pr*sed Increase in Annual Sewer Service Charge RECEIVED JUN 2 0 2013 CCCSD- Secretary of the District We are the residgz t homeowners of the property at 124 Flame Drive, Pleasant Hill CA 94523. We are working wni r citizens who have not had a cost of living increase or any other kind of wage increase forth ' ! last three years. We cannot afford ever increasing living expenses when our income is not risW. We expect the Sanitary District to submit to the same austerity measures that have bI en forced upon us. We protest the proposed increase in the sewer charges when the Sanitary Diptrict should be pursuing innovation for the sake of efficiency instead of spending more of of " money. Ronald E. Sosnowsl ji-ow�- . a; Mary C. Sosnowski ! (925) 969 -1849 i I, li } I� it !I i i I, it II ± I, TOTAL P.01 June 19, 2013 Samuel and Amilia Nichols 4831 John Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Central Sanitation District, R 41 ' i —WIN JUN 2 0 2013 CCCSD-Secretary of the District We are formally writing to protest the rate increase for sewer services in our area. Regards, Samue ols Amilia Nichols j4i�& �elkl'.Tl G' RECEI "J:ED JUN 19 2013 CCCSD - Secretary of the District ReCeIVED JUN 19 2013 CCCS&S ftret.ry of the Dfatdct 21 Timberview Ct. Danville, CA 94501 June 19, 2013 Prop 218 Compliance Secretary of the District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA Secretary of the District: These are difficult times. Please live within your existing $100 million annual budget means. Do not increase Sewer Service Charges as planned for residents nor businesses. It's amazing how little all our tax dollars directly benefit California residents and that you need to ask for more. Instead, appeal to the new State and Federal regulation authorities, prioritize and cut your expenses including debt service, salaries, benefits and draw upon revenue only from customer population increases or decreases. My e-mail, in pdf format, is representative of numerous discussions we've had with our neighbors and friends and who are in total agreement with my protest. Again, please do not increase Sewer Service Charges. Thank you, Joseph Mazuryk RECEIVED JUN 19 2013 MCSD•Secretary of the District 301 Lava Court Martinez, CA 94553 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Proposed rate increase.— Property served — 301 Lava Court, Martinez, CA I STRONGLY object to the proposed 18% increase in sewer rates. I am retired and living on a fixed income. A retirement income that is not nearly as generous as your Central Contra Costa Sanitary plan. Which, by the way, is what I believe to be the real reason behind this rate increase. When I retired in 2000, my sewer bill was $200. I currently paid $371. An 85% increase in just 12 years! And now you want 18% more ?! This is outrageous! i .6� �� arbara kLMmnernan Christina Gee From: RATES RATES Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:04 AM To: Donna Anderson; Elaine Boehme Subject: FW: CCCSD Proposed rate Increase ..... .... .... From: Donald r. Colbert [ mailto :arrowfindr(c)sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:57 PM To: RATES RATES Subject: Re: CCCSD Proposed rate Increase Michael, thanks for the quick response and you answered my questions. Greatly appreciated. From: RATES RATES <RATESCa)centralsan.org> To: Donald r. Colbert <arrowfindr@)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Fri, May 17, 2013 10:51:00 AM Subject: RE: CCCSD Proposed rate Increase Mr. Colbert, Central San's pension - related Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) currently stands at $109 million. Our UAAL in 2007 was $33.3 million, which was being paid down each year. The increased. liability occurred through Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association ( CCCERA), the retirement board that handles Central San's pensions. The current $109 million in pension unfunded liability is the result of two major factors. The first was the stock market crash in 2008 that resulted in a 28.35 % loss of CCCERA's market value. That loss accounts for a $42.4 million increase in our unfunded liabilities over the past four years. In addition, each year that CCCERA does not make its targeted return of 7.75 % on investments, the amount of the unfunded liability grows to cover that loss of earnings. CCCERA's investments actually earned only 1.76 % last year, 1.02 % over the past five years and 4.77 % over the past 10 years. The second major factor contributing to the pension unfunded liability was the depooling of CCCERA's assets in December 2009. The depooling required us to pay the actual cost of our retirement program rather than a pool average that had been shared by Contra Costa County and 16 other public agencies. The depooling of assets was made retroactive to December 2002 which raised our unfunded pension liability by an additional $34.4 million. Central San's 10 -Year Plan (which is updated each year) calls for additional payments toward the pension unfunded liability of $75 million over the next 10 years. Under new labor agreements employee will be contributing to their retirement (until last year covered by the District). Phased in over the next 5 years, employees will be paying the entire 6% of their pension rate. Under these labor agreements, any employee opting for a PPO healthcare plan must pay the difference between an HMO plan and the PPO costs (in the range of $500+ per individual per month). I hope this answers your questions. Michael Scahill Communication Services Manager From: Donald r. Colbert [mailto:arrowfindr n,sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:16 AM To: RATES RATES Subject: CCCSD Proposed rate Increase Donald R. Colbert, owner of Property 1195 Bush St. Martinez, CA 94551. I would like to know what the unfunded liabilities are and the amount $ for each of them and the time period that they have been unfunded. What was the first year that these unfunded liabilities occurred? I would like the total amount for each year that these unfunded liabilities occurred. Thank you, greatly appreciate your response. Take care Christina Gee From: RATES RATES Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:05 AM To: Elaine Boehme; Donna Anderson Subject: FW: Rate increase hearing on June 20 D �EOW' (el tot I 3 SOACA From: Jay Hohf [mailtoJayhohfCd)comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:30 AM To: RATES RATES Subject: Rate increase hearing on June 20 Since I cannot attend the meeting, I am sending this note to express my opinion that our rates should not be increased. I do not see enough efforts by the Sanitary District to reduce its costs for salaries and benefits and unfunded pension liabilities. All across the public sector, we taxpayers and rate payors are being crushed by excessive spending by our agencies. I respectfully suggest that our rates not be increased until serious negotiations are completed to reduce the overhead expenses. Best regards, Jay Hohf Christina Gee From: RATES RATES Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:03 AM To: Elaine Boehme; Donna Anderson Subject: FW: Public Hearing /Proposition 218 Compliance NEW From: I Cloidt [mailto: jfcloidt(-Ocomcast. net] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:05 PM To: RATES RATES Subject: Public Hearing /Proposition 218 Compliance Dear Sirs: I am so weary about hearing the never ending "unfunded liability of retirement' squall. Why is it my problem to fund your pensions? I funded mine without your help. I think you can do the same. Jacqueline Cloidt A 5«!3 Zr Iter,EivED JUN le 2013 CCC50,,XfeUry of the District 0/6/J0SG . 191VY //I/ SC— "GcJc`rrc' C/�•9/dtr.�� /PN.a Ti,"Z -- 7?iGT IV //mss .Q G= Errv�izous �3liOG�T ova/; /pD ��.c.�ioi✓ 111.1/ ,1r7.r-)zz RECEIVED June 17, 2013 JUN 18 2013 CCCSD -8 retary of the District Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of Directors Re: Proposed rate increase Dear Board members: I strenuously object to the proposed rate increase. The Board has already raised our rates in the last few years and it is too soon to do it again. You need to find another way to reign in your increasing pension and benefit costs and CUT BACK like the rest of us. This proposed increase is really deplorable. Regards, Brenda Schmalenbach 3926 St. Mary's St. Martinez, CA 94553 OAA cam` Donna Anderson From: RATES RATES Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:37 PM To: Donna Anderson Subject: Protest "letter" - I responded to his rhetorical questions anyway From: Tom LaBasco [mailto:tomlabasco(cbyahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 10:44 AM To: RATES RATES Subject: Proposed Rate Increases To Whom It May Concern: I am a concerned resident who will be financially affected by the CCCSD proposed increase in the Annual Sewer Service Charge. The proposed increases average about 9% annually for the next two years, far in excess of inflation. The notice distributed by the CCCSD announcing the proposed increases only generally explains the reason for the increased annual charge. Exactly how financialy do the new State and Federal regulations affect the CCCSD's costs? What must now be done, how much is that cost annually as a total, and about how much is that cost to the resident? What Operations and Maintenance costs have increased? These need to be documented so that the same excuse is not used in the future. The CCCSD implies that the annual charge increase is to continue to pay for salaries and benefits. These costs, as has been seen in various new outlets, are exhorbitant and must be reined in. What is the CCCSD doing to reduce these costs. How are the pensions being controlled? Why must the resident pay for mismanaged salaries and benefits. I would like to see that addressed before the residents' costs increase. Tom LaBasco Donna Anderson From: RATES RATES Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:53 AM To: Christina Gee; Donna Anderson Subject: FW: Rate increase From: hal samson [ma ilto :jpg rand ude(5)sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:05 AM To: RATES RATES Subject: Re: Rate increase Thank you very much. That is the kind of action that we need. I will support your request for the increases and will advise my friends and family to Hal Samson.ou. From: RATES RATES <RATES0)centralsan.orq> To: hal samson <jpgrandude(d)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thu, May 2, 2013 10:48:53 AM Subject: RE: Rate increase Mr. Samson, Right now our Unfunded Actuarial Accrued. Liability (UAAL) stands at $109 million. An actuarial report is due this summer when we do expect to see a reduction in how much is owed. The District plans to increase payments over the next 10 years to further reduce the UAAL. Additionally, new labor agreements call for employee contributions to their retirement (until last year covered by the District). Phased in over 5 years, employees will be paying the entire 6% of their pension rate. 1 hope this answers your question. Michael Seahill Communication Services Manager 925 -229 -7310 From: hal samson [mailto:jpgrandude a,sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 4:33 PM To: RATES RATES Subject: Rate increase Thank you for the information re the Public hearing re Proposition 218 I note that one of the issues is "Unfunded Liability ". I am aware that may entities such as the county's, city's and the state have substantial unfunded liabilities for pensions and the difficult problem of reducing the problem. 1 Can you tell me the present amount of the District's unfunded liability and the amount as of December 31, 2012 so I understand what progress has been made. Thank you Harold J Samson 224 Powhattan Ct. Danville, Ca. 94526 Donna Anderson From: RATES RATES Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:54 AM To: Christina Gee; Donna Anderson Subject: FW: Question - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Dianne Anderson [ mailto:kaidikari@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:28 PM To: RATES RATES Subject: Re: Question Dear Mr. Scahill, Thank you for your prompt and detailed reply. I truly appreciate the opportunity to ask questions. You cite some excellent steps in the right direction. Sincerely, Dianne Anderson Sent from my iPhone On May 3, 2013, at 3:21 PM, RATES RATES <RATES @centralsan.org> wrote: > Ms Anderson, > Our Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) presently stands at $109 million. An actuarial report is due this summer when we do expect to see a reduction in how much is owed. Moreover, the District plans to increase payments over the next 10 years to further reduce the UAAL. > Additionally, under new labor agreements employee will be contributing to their retirement (until last year covered by the District). Phased in over the next 5 years, employees will be paying the entire 6% of their pension rate. Under these labor agreements, any employee opting for a PPO healthcare plan must pay the difference between an HMO plan and the PPO costs (in the range of $500+ per individual per month). > I hope this answers your question. > Michael Scahill > Communication Services Manager > 925 -229 -7310 > > - - - -- Original Message - - - -- 1 y • From: Dianne Anderson [mailto:kaidikari @ sbcglobal.net] • Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 1:14 PM • To: RATES RATES • Subject: Question > What steps are being taken to reduce the unfunded liability and bring salaries and future benefits to a more realistic level? > Dianne Anderson > Sent from my iPhone June 7, 2013 RECEIVED JUN 12 2013 CCCS ry of the D1 To: Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District From: J. Relic 2104 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Subject: Proposed Annual Sewer Charge Consider this a written protest of the amount of increase in the proposed annual sewer charge for fiscal years 2013 -2014 and 2014 -2015. This increase constitutes a 17.6% increase over two years. This also constitutes a 41.6% increase over the past 5 years ($311 to $439). This more than triples the government's own reported rates of inflation for these years. As a senior citizen, I can attest to the fact that these kinds of rate increases are brutal on fixed income people. Please try and bring your increases more in line with normal inflation. Respectfully, �� eR� J J v we tol ao c 3 RECEIVED JUN 12 2013 CCCSD- Secretary of the District � ��w��1, c®Nk1�R ��►� S�NtX�R`i t7fs�"tztck Sol9 M Al +t NC- F CI o os� /k w D �zok�S� a►�' 6NGp�aSG �� "i ""� �—� A L E C U? AV _t,.3 14' g- K) rail- 3 4- �� ka � �o5 tA t 'Oki ��,�,s� p,w �� -c2-V t4E tea°- � Wou k, ow�� c.-) V�o C,o N 0 out, t, v9(�6� l P��4� rJ (� 11 iP�LvA�o Scott and Andrea Christie 3796 Quail Ridge Road Lafayette, CA 94549 925 -284 -4858 Board of Directors Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 (via email : eboelime @centralsan.org) RECEIVED JUN 1 1 2013 CCCSD- Secretary of the District June 3, 2013 Subject: Sanitary Sewer rate proposed increases for July 2013 & July 2014 APN # 244 - 081 -002, 3796 Quail Ridge, Lafayette Dear Directors, We currently have no issues with the services you provide but must protest the subject proposed increase. The proposed rate increases are 9.2% the first year, and then 8.4% on top of that the next year, amounting to nearly a 17% increase. I do not see significant justification in the Notice provided (e.g. "general improvements to buildings and vehicles ". We urge you to please determine other ways to pay for the cost of doing business, rather than the proposed large rate increases, such as increasing efficiencies or negotiating reduced staff benefits provided, in the same manner other public agencies have been forced to do over the last several years. Although you have the legal authority to approve such increases (unless the miracle occurs and you obtain protests from 50% of your customer base), we request that you at least not approve such a significant increase at this time. The current inflation rate is running I% to 2%, so it is hard to justify and approve such a drastic jump in rates, and it will create hardship for many who have seen no wage increases, and decreases in many cases. If you should have any questions regarding our concerns, please contact us at 925- 284 -4858. Thanks, Scott Christie � J RECEIVED JUN 10 2013 e CCCSU- Secretary of the District O V,elo7 /1 3 ;6 /1��9 /3Qro 35500 Xg/ RECE. JUN 10 2013 CCCSD•gecretarY of the District June 10, 2013 Secretary of the District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Proposed Sewer Service Charge Rate Increases Dear Secretary of the District, I am writing in protest of the proposed increases in Sewer Service Charges as promulgated by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) Board. I believe sequential annual 9.2% (FY2013 -14) and 8.4% (FY2014015) increases are unjustifiably unreasonable. We previously submitted a protest two years ago during the last rate increase and illustrated for you the impact of continued 9% annual rate increases — you are on track to hand your children $4,000 annual sewage bills if they plan to live in CCCSD's jurisdiction. Congratulations. Forget worrying about college expenses and 4.8% average annual rate increases — the trillion dollars in student debt will pale in comparison to the strategies currently proposed by CCCSD management and its board. Healthcare affordability is also likely to take a back seat to sewage expenses if CCCSD continues with its current proposal. Given CCCSD operates under a 10 -year plan that is updated annually, one would expect CCCSD to have greater visibility on its budget. Thus, CCCSD should have greater visibility into future rate hikes unless the planning and /or operational activities of CCCSD are substandard. For the sake of all stakeholders, let's hope that is not the case. Instead, let's have improved oversight and more transparency of the organization. We would strongly encourage the Board to reassess their strategy, including the exploration of ways to do more with less, rather than forcing the people they serve to reach deeper into their pockets. The Board must manage the EBMUD's operating costs and obligations. Sincerely, Eric N. Shiozaki 1241 Dewing Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Heather E. Shlozaki 1241 Dewing Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Jun 06 13 07:16p Duley Associates 925 - 736 -0359 p.1 jwi& 6, 2013 Secretary of thel D i tKct 5019Iwa wffPlace/ Ma*V",.erk; Cpl 94553 RECEIVED JUN _ 7 2013 CCCSD'Secretary Of the Diawct 7 I�h r k letter vk to- p rotest th& propa�edi �sn,creaje, iw our A u ta.LSewer Service, Charms . For yeark FBM D u4ekdw/ sa~ju.,WLL6ca;t'w*,w ftrr rates 6v area set; not eA&agJv d r0t�, Cv-M�&noltoo- MUJv a n& needd% fcw i*�a4traaf, & r&vai'YLev ty ' r ' ' • ' • I ' r • � I I I ° ' i ReSpect�uliy, Xery a uu/Su4a,w D m2ey 508 Iris- La w.1 ScwvXamo-vv, Cpl 94582 (925) 736 -0359 Michael P. Reaves 2 El Camino Moraga Orinda, CA 94563 To Whom It May Concern: tetary ot too 510Ct 05 -June -2013 I am writing to protest the proposed CCCSD rate increase being discussed for FY 2013 -2014 and FY 2014 -2015. A rate increase of 9.2% and 8.4% is usurious. I would suggest the district find cost cutting measures rather than increase the rates for residential customers. As a property owner, I am OPPOSED to this rate increase. Sincerely, Michael P//Reaves RECEIVED of the vistoct i A DE Mil Q4,<.< i - - - - - -- h k A r +�+ -- L e s - �'4 - - - - -- la a�v ad- A-ea 0 &A, D 4A�p A 4 mou -W CL) MeJ3 - - - -- - ----- --� -Il l�'Ct�i - -- BIN eY -- ��9�1�.�1�►�- - -, '► ``o _��2,��---- �?�?s� -------- - - - - -- I i iAe—,O- Q eu I- UO&.v dr&D WeX, A Jid �s 9 j 7 6/6/201312:43:39 PM ,✓ 4 TO: CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM:John D. McIntyre 2708 Oak Road #1 Walnut Creek, CA. 94597 APN# 172 - 201 -001 -2 1TI RY DISTRICT RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2013 =SD4 eretarf , f p' 011( dc, According to Article XIID ofthe California Constitution and California Government Code Section 53755,1 wish to express my written opposition to the fee increase to our sewer rates for the express benefit of paying for the underfunded Central Contra Costa Sanitary District pensions. pr i This is not a rate page "i's 'bie � of not paying enough for sewer services to cover these pension payouts, but an actuarial calcul tion issue of promising too high of a rate of return that is not in line with the reality of market i vestments. Thank you for taking my protest nder consideration. John D. McIntyre E Donna Anderson From: RATES RATES Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:05 PM To: Donna Anderson; Elaine Boehme Subject: FW: Emailing: Sanataion letter Attachments: Sanataion letter.pdf - - - -- Original Message---- - From: John McIntyre [mailto:iohn @channellumber.com] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 2:11 PM To: RATES RATES Subject: Emailing: Sanataion letter Sewer Service Charge Protest extra fee increases... Attached is my letter explaining my protest of rate increases. John McIntyre Johnmc20lO @att.net 925 - 787 -7944 Walnut Creek, CA. 94597 Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Sanataion letter Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e -mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. To: Contra Costa Sanitary District RECEIVED JUN - 6 2013 CCCSD- Secretary of the District I am writing this letter to Protest the proposed TWO -Year increase in the Annual Sewer Service Charge. I believe this is a bad idea. As a current property owner in the City of Walnut Creek, i see no reason to raise the Tax base for Sewer Services by 17.6 percent over the next Two years. My property is located at 49 Orchard Estates Dr, PARCEL # 138 -080 -0092. Please do not raise our tax base for this service. Sincerely, Michael P. Suris a_ Ah J RECEIVED June 03, 2013 JUN — 4 2013 Lisa and Gary Whitehead CCCSD•Secrstary of the District 2830 Kinney Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94595 -1059 925 - 937 -4529 Secretary of the District CCCSD 5019 Imhoff Place 40' Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Hearing on proposed increase to annual Sewer Service Charge dated June 20, 2013 Dear Secretary of the District, This letter is in protest to the proposed annual Sewer Service Charge rate increases. I understand there will be a Public Hearing on June 20, 2013. My husband and I are the property owners at 2830 Kinney Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94595 -1059, assessor's parcel number 185 - 320 -012. We have been owners and residents of this property since 1994. The Whitehead Family Trust holds the deed to this property now and I am the Trustee. We oppose your proposed increase for annual Sewer Service Charge. Increasing these rates by 9.2% in the first year and 8.4% in the second year is exceedingly excessive and inconsistent with the low inflation rate. It is ridiculous to demand that struggling elderly property owners support your lack of maintenance planning by raising our taxes by almost 20% for your facility upgrades, wage increases and normal maintenance costs. Our family income is not going up, yet you would like us to pay for wage increases for your staff. Our family income is not going up. Unfortunately, I lost my job in 2009 and I am not employed. My husband lost his business in 2011 and now works part -time for a small and struggling construction company. Needless to say, our wages are not going up. Therefore, your proposal for Sewer Service Charge rate increases of almost 20% in 12 months shows discrimination toward older homeowners. This is not OK with us. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, Lisa Whitehead RECEIVED JUN -42013 =SD-Secrebry of the District Subject: Protest to the proposed rate increases for Sewer Service Charge Date: 6 -2 -2013 To: Secretary of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553 I am against the proposed Sewer Service Charge Increases (for 2013 & 2014): (1) address: 35 Grandview Ct., Danville, CA 94506 -6100 (2) name: Yong Paik (3) signature v�� J Iasmine Abdennabi 18 Lake Way Walnut Creek, CA 94598 May 30, 2013 CCC Sanitary District Secretary of the District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Notice of a Public Hearing/Compliance with Proposition 218 Dear Secretary: RECOVER MAY 3 p Z013 ,=p.Seeretary of the District I am a resident owner of the property located at the address stated above under my name and I received the notice of public hearing regarding Proposition 218. The purpose of this letter is to state my protest against the proposed rate increases. Thank you for your consideration. I would welcome the chance to discuss the proposed increase. If you wish to contact me at (925) 226 -9043 we can schedule a meeting. Since ly, Iasmine Abdennabi Contra Costa County Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 RECEIVED MAY 29 2013 CCCSD•Secretary of the District May 23, 2013 I PROTEST the proposed increase of sewer fees. The district should reduce other operating costs. All other districts and Gov. Agencies are given too much in their retirement packages and too much salaries and perks to their higher management. Blaine & Georgia Bonacci @ 2090 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553 c • RECEIVED MAY 29 2013 =SD- Secretary of the Dletdct David Annal 231 Greenbrook Drive Danville, CA 94526 May 24, 2013 Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Protest of Proposed Increase in Annual Sewer Service Charge Property Address: 231 Greenbrook Drive, Danville, CA Parcel Number: 218 -183 -011 -4 00 Per the instructions included in your notice mailed May 3, 2013, consider this as my protest of your Proposed Increase of Annual Sewage Service Charges. While increases in line with the rate of inflation can be understood, the proposed increases of 9.2% in the first year plus a further 8.4% in the second year are far beyond what could be considered reasonable and acceptable. You should be embarrassed to even make such a proposal. David Annal .M May 23, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place MARTINEZ, CA 94553 -4392 Attention: Secretary of the District This is a Protest against the proposed rate increases as per attached. My parcel number is 271 - 733 -013 -8 00 Owner of Record: John and Elaine McDonald Trust RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2013 CCCSD. Secretary of the District These proposed increases are, in my opinion, inconsistent with what is going on in the marketplace. It's fine for your organization to state that you are complying with mandatory updates and you need to fund your pension plans and health plans; however, we, the consumers, are not able to accommodate these increases through Social Security or savings. For instance: 1. Social Security went up 2.3% but, in most cases, the insurance premiums offset that increase. 2. Consumers are faced with food and fuel prices that have increased dramatically. 3. Of course, California has 11.5% to 13% unemployment and a greater percentage in the ethnic groups. 4. California has the dubious distinction of being the #I spot of all the states in having the highest sales tax and highest income tax. Please register this Protest against either the 2013 and the 2014 increases. JHM:mI Enc. Jo Donald 1 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Protecting Public Health and 'the Environment 5079 imloff Place, Mortinez, California 9�55� °� Dear Property Owner and /or Customer: The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) provides sanitary sewage collection and treatment, household hazardous waste disposal, and recycled water services in its central Contra Costa County service area. The District operates within an annual budget of approximately $100 million. CCCSD collects an annual Sewer Service Charge from each property connected to the sewer system. The current residential rate of $371 per year per single family unit is billed as a line item labeled "CCCSD SEWER CHG" on your Contra Costa County property tax bill. CCCSD also receives approximately a $73 ad valorem tax per residence each year from the County's property tax allocation. The $73 is used to pay 100% of the District's debt service with the balance allocated to the capital improvement program. New State and Federal regulations involving water and air quality, additional testing, and treatment processes have financially impacted CCCSD and increased Operations and Maintenance costs. In addition, the District must continue to pay for salaries and benefits, pay down its debt service, and reduce its unfunded liability. The CCCSD Board must therefore consider an increase in the annual Sewer Service Charge of up to $34 (9cotgpe day) fi r FigesNaf (FY) 2013,2010of A total of up l $405 p@ry@3r@ff@CtlV@ July 1, 2013, And up to an additional $34 increase for FY 2014 -2015, effective July 1, 2014, for a total of up to $439 per year. FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, whether a single - family home, mobile home, townhouse, condominium, apartment, or other multi - family home, this would mean an increase in the Sewer Service Charge of up to 9.2% in the first year and up to 8.4% in the second year. FOR NONRESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, the service charge rates are calculated for each customer group based on the cost to provide service, considering both the quantity of sewage discharged and other sewage characteristics affecting the cost for treatment. The service charge increases being considered for this category are shown on the reverse side of this notice. The District operates under a 10 -Year Business Plan (Plan), developed by staff, which is updated annually and approved by the CCCSD Board. The Plan documents CCCSD operations, maintenance, facility needs, their associated costs, and the needed revenue for the District to meet its regulatory requirements and fiscal responsibilities. A failure to meet the regulatory requirements could impact CCCSD's mission to protect public health and the environment and result in fines imposed by state and federal regulators that could run into the milli n of dollars, In the next decade, the 015trict faces expenditures Qf opprox1mately $422 million in Capital Projects for rehabilitation and replacement of CCCSD's 1,500 -mile sewer system, mandatory upgrades to the treatment plant, general improvements to buildings and vehicles, and continuation of the recycled water program. The remaining operations and maintenance expenditures include normal costs and reductions in the unfunded liability of retirement and healthcare costs. Based on the results of the Plan, the proposed increases would allow CCCSD to meet its current regulatory and financial requirements. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on this matter in the CCCSD Board Room, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, California, on Thursday, June 20, 2013 at 2:00 p.m., at which time and place interested persons may appear and be heard. Only written and signed protests of property owners or customers that include the writer's address are to be counted to determine whether a majority protest to the proposed rate increases exists. Property owners or residents can mail their protests to the Secretary of the District at 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553; hand - deliver them to the Reception Desk at 4849 Imhoff Place; fax them to (925) 676 -7211; or e -mail a written, signed protest in PDF format to eboehme @centralsan.org. Protests must be received before the Public Hearing ends. A copy of the CCCSD Board Policy on filing a protest can be found on the CCCSD website at www.centralsan.org. 2 Questions about the proposed Sewer Service Charges can be directed to CCCSD's Information Line by calling (925) 335 -7702 or by e- mailing rates @centralsan.org. Notice mailed by May 3, 2013 i6tWk 011606M tfttA MtWl NMI AAM FAR NONRESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS USER GROUP Commercial and Other Non - Industrial Customers (per Hundred Cubic Feet (HCF)) Minimum Annual Charge Industrial Customers Special Discharge Permits and Contracts CURRENT MAXIMUM MAXIMUM RATE PROPOSED PROPOSED RATE RATE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013 JULY 1, 2014 $9.48 $10.35 $11.22 $7.16 $7.82 $8.47 $6.75 I $7.37 $7.99 $7.03 $7.67 $8.32 2 $3.44 $3.76 $4.07 $385,.00 $420.00 $456.00 $1.42 $1.55 $1.68 $789.00 $861.00 $934.00 $564.00 $616,00 $667.00 $170.08 $185.67 $201.25 $385,00 $420.00 $456.00 Determined Determined determined Notes- A nonresidential customer's annual sewer service charge is determined by multiplying the appropriate user group rate times the annual wastewater discharge volume measured in HCF (Hundred Cubic Feet), usually estimated from the property's water use. For example, a bakery discharging 250 HCF per year would pay an annual sewer service charge at the July 1, 2013 proposed rate calculated as follows: ($10.35 per HCF) x (250 HCF per year) = $2,587.50 Alternatively, for 2013 -14 you can estimate your annual sewer service charge by multiplying the amount listed beside "CCCSD SEWER CHG "on your 2012 -13 property tax bill by 1.09. If you are billed directly, multiply the amount on the 2010 -11 invoice by 1.09. For a 2012 -13 estimate, multiply by 1.18. If you have questions regarding the Sewer Service Charge program, or would like us to calculate a property- specific estimate of the sewer service charge for 2013 -2014 and 2014 -2015, please send an e -mail request including your name, Assessor's Parcel Number, address and phone number to rates @centralsan. org, or call the District's Environmental Services Division at (925) 335 -7739. Additional information is available on the District's website: www.centralsan.org. May 21, 2013 RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2013 Board of Directors =$D-Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Protest Against Proposed Increase in Annual Sewer Service Charge We protest any increase to service charge rates for any customer of the District. Please oppose further water quality controls and constraints, delay improvements, and otherwise reduce your operating expenditures. Most of all, convert you inflated and overly generous retirement and health care plans to those comparable to private businesses. Few private employers can afford the benefits you provide and your District should not provide them either. Thank you. Scott Dittman Property owner 5320 Likins Avenue Martinez, CA 94553 RECr- MAY 2 4 zu ij C"SD-S rotary of the Uisinct 531 MARBLEHEAD LANE WALNUT CREEK,CA 94598 (925)938 -9093 MAY 19,2013 CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 IMHOFF PLACE MARTINEZ,CALIF. 94553 ATTN: SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT DEAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS I WISH TO SAY "NO" TO YOUR PROPOSED RATE INCREASE FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. I UNDERSTAND THE COST OF EVERYTHING DOES RISE, HOWEVER 17 +% IN 2 YEARS IS JUST TOO MUCH. I ALSO HAVE TWO OTHER THOUGHTS, AS I AM A RETIRED SENIOR CITIZEN ON A FIXED INCOME. I KNOW MY INCOME WILL NOT INCREASE AND WITH OBAMA CARE TAKING FULL CHARGE OF OUR MEDICAL, IT WILL PROBABLY DECREASE. THEN, THE OTHER ITEM THAT ARISES IS IT IS ANOTHER WAY TO AVOID PROP.13 ON OUR TAX BILL. I BET IF YOU TRIED REAL HARD YOU COULD CUT SOME OPERATING EXPENSES. THANK YOU FOR ANY CONSIDERATION OF MY THOUGHTS. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED DONALD E.LARSON DEL /al cc: HOWARD JARVIS TAX ASSN. 05/22/2013 08:33 9258311057 JIM DIETZ #0111 P.0011001 To: Central Contra costa Sanitation District From: James A. Dietz Re: annual sever charge increase Date; 5/21/2013 To whom it may concern, RECEIVED MAY 2 3 2013 ...SD-Secretary of the District MAY LU13 CCCSp.Secretary of the District As a property owner and resident in Contra Costa County, I wish to submit this letter in protest of the proposed rate increase. Thank you, Sinc ely, James A. Dietz 39 Mariposa Ct. Danville, CA 94526 f May, 212013 Leyla Peymandoust 1520 Whitecliff Way Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Re: Protest to Annual Sewer Service Charge Dear Sir /Madam, I received your noticed mailed by May 3, 2013. RECEIVED MAY 21 2013 CCCS&Seeretary of the Dlstrkt As the property owner of above address in Contra Costa District, I hereby formally protest to your Annual Sewer Service Charge. The % increase proposed is way above inflation and any salary increase that we, working people normally receive. How do you expect us to afford it? Home Owner Leyla Peymandoust AR m Leona HuckesteiieCCSD. A l i 2013 414 Legacy Drive Secretary Of the District Alamo, CA 94507 May 18, 2013 Secretary of the District CCCSD Board Room 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA Dear Secretary of the District: I am strongly opposed and object to the proposed Sewer Service Charge of up to 9.2% effective July 1, 2013, the first year, and up to 8.4% in the second year, effective July 1, 2014. In my opinion, CCCSD has poorly planned its current regulatory and financial requirements. Employees, not customers should be paying for unfunded liability of retirement and healthcare costs. Previous increases, planned correctly, should have adequately covered rehabilitation and replacement of the sewer system, mandatory upgrades to the treatment plant and general improvements to buildings, vehicles and continuation of the recycled water program. I am strongly opposed to these increases and am on a limited income. Stop wasting our money, plan efficiently, and have employees pay for their own retirement and healthcare costs as they do in other businesses. Yours truly, l�uc�f� Leona Huckestein V I/ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 RECEIVED MAY 2 0 2013 cccSD- Secretary al the District Date: May 20, 2013 RE: Proposed Annual Sewer Service Charge Increase — Letter in Opposition to Proposed Rate Increase Dear Sir /Madam: As members of the Board of Directors, you are charged with the difficult task of balancing community needs and interests, while planning for and providing sanitary sewage collection and treatment, as well as household hazardous waste disposal and recycled water services, Historically, the Board has managed this process through a 10 -year business plan model, which enables the cost of improvements to infrastructure, new rules and regulations requiring additions or modifications to equipment, as well as staff and support funding, to be managed ahead of time to avoid shortfalls. The very purpose of a 10 -year plan is to enable reasonable forecasts of costs and expenses, and to disseminate the cost of new and unplanned for contingencies in the best manner possible to avoid overburdening of the taxpayers, primarily residential and commercial land owners, whose funding through property tax deductions support the Board and CCC Sanitary District operations. The proposed rate increases purported to be necessitated for compliance with Proposition 218 appear very excessive, with the first year rate increase being 9.2 %, and the second year rate increase being 8.4 %. This is an unprecedented increase, nearly 3 to 4 times the magnitude of the standard COLA (cost of living) adjustment (roughly 2 -4% in 2012) that is recognized as a necessary minimum percentage increase to account for inflation and monetary devaluation. For low and fixed- income home- owners and renters for whom the rate increase will likely be passed on, this large percentage increase would add yet another financial burden for a basic necessity, the proposed changes being for compliance purposes and not representing any improvement in features and /or services to the taxpayers. in addition, it appears from the proposal that some of the increase may be proportioned to pay down CCCSD debt and reduce unfunded liability, the increased rate being funded into the general budget. If so, this would represent an improper tax levy for the purposes stated unless the proposal specifically earmarks the funds obtained by the increase solely to complete required compliance upgrades directly traceable to Prop 218 specifications. Accordingly, I urge to Board to reconsider the proposed rate increases and instead develop a rate increase model that avoids such a precipitous jump in rates, and instead incorporates modest and reasonable rate increases over a longer time period to be fairer to your supporting taxpayers and also more consistent with a 10 -year business model whose purpose is to disseminate costs to avoid unprecedented rate increases. Thank you for your kind consideration, Michael Pet in Attorney at Law 2586 Buena Vista Avenue Walnut Creek, CA 94597 RECEIVED C-A MAY 1 p.wretary w aw �wtdd CCCS - , 27 James D. Bradley 650 Glorietta Boulevard Lafayette, California, 94549 925 -283 -1044 iimmyd.bradley @gmail.com Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Attention: District Secretary 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Sewer Service Charge Rate Increase Protest Dear Sirs: (1) Please reconsider the rate increase. RECEIVED MAY 17 2013 CCCSD.Secretary of the Dictrlct (2) Our location: 650 Glorietta Blvd., Lafayette, CA 94549. (3) Property owner: James D. Bradley. The annual sewer service charge rate increase of 9.2% is far too high especially for seniors on fixed income. It should be waived for property owners over the age of 70. Si V/ l $` F. Edward & Karen Bronsen 1408 Harlan Drive Danville, CA. May 15,.2013 Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA. 94553 Dear Board of Directors: RECEIVEC MAY 17 2013 CCCO- Secretary of tree ulstr:ct As Seniors on a fixed income we strongly object to the 18.3% fee increase you are proposing for residential service over the next 2 years. The amount of these increases is tremendous and shows no regard for current economic conditions and your rate payers. While we expect periodic rate increases. These increases are far in excess of the rate of inflation, the CPI and the average wage increases.. It appears that you have lost touch with the real world where your rate payers live. We expect you to manage costs and projects prudently and reasonably. You are failing to do this with these proposed rate increases. Please reconsider and scale back these excessive cost increases. Sincerely, F. Edward & Karen Bronsen J RECEIVED protest May 20th 2011 MAY 2 0 2013 ccco-secretary of the District To The central contra costa county sanitary District subject: Protest to the proposed increase in Annual sewer service charge Hi, I, SreenivaS Tejomurtula and my wife, MadhaVi K Durvasula, own the property at 6268 Murdock way, San Ramon, CA 94582 Parcel number of the property is 223-710-012-4 00, we "protest" to increase to "CCCSD SEWER CHG" in our annual property tax . Please consider implementing the projects and maintenance work based on the currently available budget. Regards (SR F,&NIVAS TEJOMURTULA) 66P-4 (MADHAVI K DURVASULA) Page 1 I/ Elaine Boehme From: Vija Lochridge <misc99 @sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:39 PM RECEIVED To: Elaine Boehme Subject: Rates MAY 2 0 2013 CCCSD•Secretary of the District NO ... NO .... NO ..... NO ..... ON RATE INCREASE!!!!!!!! I am elderly, living alone, retired and barely making it. These utility costs and constant increases are killing me. Please stop! Vija Lochridge 4065 W Lakeshore Dr San Ramon, CA 94582 Christina Gee From: RATES RATES Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:04 AM To: Elaine Boehme; Donna Anderson Subject: FW: Rates - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Vija Lochridge [mailto:misc99 @sbcgloba1.net] Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:34 PM To: RATES RATES Subject: Rates NO ... NO .... NO ..... NO ..... ON RATE INCREASEIIII M Harold L. Fates, jr. 8 Wood Court Alamo, CA 94507 May 16, 2013 Secretary Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Sir: RECEIVED MAY 2 0 2013 MCM- Secretary ur tt7e District The central Contra Costa Sanitary District is proposing an increase in the annual sewer service charge from $371 to $439 over 2 years. This is a jump of $68, or 18.3 %. I am opposed to an increase of this magnitude for the following reasons: 1) An 18.3% increase in a deflationary, weak economic environment is outrageous. I am retired, on a fixed income, and this charge, along with other elements of my property taxes, which have doubled since I bought my house, are gradually taxing me out of my home. 2) New State and Federal regulations you cite are unfunded mandates. Tell the respective agencies you will comply when they supply the funds to do so. In the meantime, figure out ways to work around and avoid those regulations. 3) The "unfunded liability of retirement and healthcare costs" says to me A) You have sweetheart deals with your employees and, B) you failed to put enough away to meet those "obligations" like every other California agency. If you want to take money from my pension to put in somebody else's pension that is not going to happen without a fight. That game is over and I want to hear how you are going to reduce the "obligation" not how you are going to put your hand in my pocket. Accordingly, a I% increase per year would be acceptable. Very truly yours, CC: Editor, The Contra Costa Times 4 w � May 14, 2013 Secretary of the District RECEIVED Central Contra Costa Sanitary District MAY 2 0 2013 5019 Imhoff Place CCCSD -Sec, Martinez, CA 94553 I am protesting the proposed increase in my Annual Sewer Service Charge. I am a Senior Citizen on a fixed income. The proposed increase would be a hardship for me. There are so many increases in the cost of living, and I cannot afford any increases. My Social Security income does not increase and yet you and other people are increasing the costs of living in Contra Costa County. There is something called reducing the cost of living where State and County organizations are supposed to cut back. Why can't you cut back instead of increasing costs? Sincerely, to Fasnaucht 2630 Meadow Glen Drive San Ramon, Ca 94583 RECEIVED MAY 2 0 2013 �CSD'%%Crsbry of the District Ate- - c C4 e- ,eC,Gr� /�h 7 Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear CCCSD Board of Directors, RECEIVED MAY 15 2013 CCCSD•Secretary of the District If your intent is to confuse, frustrate, and discombobulate your customers, and then ultimately have them give up and offer no resistance, then you may have succeeded. Not many customers will offer up any resistance to your proposed rate increases because most can't even figure out why. (Your notice of public hearing information document is full of charts, graphs, proposals, and asterisks which confuse even the most knowledgeable. Well, I'll offer up one thought for you. No more rate increases! We are past the point of being raped by you! That goes for all proposed rate increases. There is a drought, you raise rates! We conserve water, you raise rates! Infrastructure repairs and upgrades, you raise rates! Seismic upgrades, you raise rates! (Which is part of your own maintenance similar to my own property maintenance, but I can't raise rates). An elevation charge (which by the way is a bunch of b.s.) is a rate increase! Enough is enough. We are not an open checkbook. It is time for you to do exactly what we as homeowners /property owners have to do to survive in this economy... DO MORE WITH LESSI Stop wasting money and change your spending habits, by cutting back and eliminating waste. AND TREAT YOUR CUSTOMER FAIRLY! And by the way, keep in mind that you are not the only game in town that consistently raise rates almost yearly. PG &E, Waste Management, Comcast, Safeway, big_ oil, AT &T, and the list goes on and on .... and these are just so we can eat, have heat, drive to work, and communicate. So, in response to your "request' to raise rates, an emphatic NO! Sincerely. R & L DeVecchi Property owner 16132 Via Sonora, San Lorenzo, CA Property owner 28 Eastwood Dr., Orinda, CA Property owner 1920 Second St., Berkeley, CA 94710 J May 10, 2013 Secretary of the District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94533 REGEivarj MAY 13 2013 CCCSO- Secretary 01 tbs O, %k O RE: A proposed increase in your Annual Sewer Service Charge — Public Hearing Thursday June 20tH I am the owner of a residential property in San Ramon and have received this notification about an increase in rates of up to $405 per year effective July 1, 2013 and up to an additional $439 per year afterwards. I oppose these increases and this document is to serve as my protest to these increases. Martha Albritton 1364 CanyonSide Avenue San Ramon, CA 94583 MAY 10 2013 8:59nM LINnRDON Linardon Family 31 Ball Rd. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Cell: 917.640.0279 Email: marinonien@yahoo.com May 9, 2013 CCCSD 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Secretary of the CCCSD: 703 860 8533 P.1 RECEIVED MAY 13 2013 CM D-0, creiary vi taa 019toct I am writing to protest the proposed sewer service charge increase that would affect our property at 31 Ball Road in Walnut Creek, CA. The notice I received from the CCCSD seems to indicate that the proposed increase is 9.2% in the first year and 8.49 in the second year. These.,proposed rates of increase are outrageous considering inflation is approximately 2% per year and are completely inconsistent with the economic reality we are facing. Almost no enterprise in the world is able to raise rates by'such an amount and remain in business for long. I recommend you re- assess your strategic goals or find another way to achieve your goals more cost effectively. We vigorously oppose the proposed rate increases! Best regards, / rf Marino Llnar on Jennifer 'nar on MAY 09 2013 3:05PM GOLDEN STATE PRACTICE SAL 925 - 743 -9682 P.1 James Rodriguez 44 Holiday Drive Alamo, CA 94507 925 - 838 -8793 5 -9 -2013 CCCSD Board Secretary 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 RE: CCCDS Fee Increase RECEIVED MAY 10 2019 CCCS&Secretary of the District i am writing to protest the proposed fee increase. While infrastructure is important the real almost hidden agenda is the unfunded liabilities referred to in the newsletter, You are asking CCCSD customers to bail out the CCCSD worker union controlled retirement fund because they failed to get the expected return on invested funds. Well guess what, neither did the rest of us. Why should CCCSD workers be shielded from economic market risk when the rest of us are not. After all they had professional advisors to the fund. How could the rest of us possibly have done any better. My investment choices didn't work out as planned either. So you are asking for more money from the side of the well that suffered from the same economic risk. You are asking for just shy of 10% increases when core inflation is 1.5% and incomes have shrunk particularly for retired seniors. Checked the treasury and savings rates lately? From less than1% to 3% tops. If you were to ask for in- creases for infrastructure only it would be a different matter. The Board should never have approved or agreed to unrealistic compensa- tion /benefits and pension benefits in the first place. Jame !Rodrig z Jame 44 Holid Dr' Alamo CA May 3, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 -4392 To Whom It May Concern, ECLIi/ BY:_ MAY 0 7 2013 I can't swear that these dates and financial figures are absolutely correct but they are close enough and you will understand the point. In the Spring of 2008 I saw your ad for a materials handler or coordinator. The pay was $48,000 - $54,000 plus benefits including either 6 or 7% retirement. In 2009 I saw an ad on Craigslist that the job description was virtually identical word for word for a private industry job. The pay was $13.00 per hour. The "unfunded liability" of the CCCSD is based on a financial theory. Not physics, not science, not experience, not reality but a financial THEORY. The US Postal Service is in trouble because of unfunded liabilities from the same THEORY. Cities in the US have filed bankruptcy from the same THEORY. The social security system is in trouble because of this same THEORY. The richest men in the world, Warren Buffett and Carlos Slim, the Mexican cell phone tycoon know the THEORY won't work.. Why don't you? To you I say union no, HELL NO!!! You are overpaid already, as it seems are all government employees that have ZERO accountability, and you want more money for doing nothing after you quit working. I've been in two unions and I know exactly what they do. They do what the government does. They drive inflation. I understood decades ago that COLA allowances were dysfunctional. I understood decades ago that if General Motors was in trouble we were all in trouble. I'd come to your meeting to protest but you are the US government and you do what you want when you want, how you want. In sports there is a saying: the cream rises to the top. It means that the best players prove they are the best by playing the game better. In current America, especially in the government, there should be a new saying: shit floats!!! If you know your history there was a saying in the old west: One riot, one Ranger. It meant it took one Texas Ranger to control one riot. Watch the news. How often do you see excess numbers of cops, firemen, Caltrans workers standing around? America WAS a great country, now it's just a GREEDY country. I am an American, I am paying attention and I AM ANGRY! ! ! May 3, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 -4392 To Whom It May Concern, ECIV I can't swear that these dates and financial figures are absolutely correct but they are close enough and you will understand the point. In the Spring of 2008 I saw your ad for a materials handler or coordinator. The pay was $48,000 - $54,000 plus benefits including either 6 or 7% retirement. In 2009 I saw an ad on Craigslist that the job description was virtually identical word for word for a private industry job. The pay was $13.00 per hour. The "unfunded liability" of the CCCSD is based on a financial theory. Not physics, not science, not experience, not reality but a financial THEORY. The US Postal Service is in trouble because of unfunded liabilities from the same THEORY. Cities in the US have filed bankruptcy from the same THEORY. The social security system is in trouble because of this same THEORY. The richest men in the world, Warren Buffett and Carlos Slim, the Mexican cell phone tycoon know the THEORY won't work.. Why don't you? To you I say union no, HELL NO! ! ! You are overpaid already, as it seems are all government employees that have ZERO accountability, and you want more money for doing nothing after you quit working. I've been in two unions and I know exactly what they do. They do what the government does. They drive inflation. I understood decades ago that COLA allowances were dysfunctional. I understood decades ago that if General Motors was in trouble we were all in trouble. I'd come to your meeting to protest but you are the US government and you do what you want when you want, how you want. In sports there is a saying: the cream rises to the top. It means that the best players prove they are the best by playing the game better. In current America, especially in the government, there should be a new saying: shit floats!!! If you know your history there was a saying in the old west: One riot, one Ranger. It meant it took one Texas Ranger to control one riot. Watch the news. How often do you see excess numbers of cops, firemen, Caltrans workers standing around? America WAS a great country, now it's just a GREEDY country. I am an American, I am paying attention and I AM ANGRY!!! 44-1 RECEIVEE` MAY 09 20 CCCSD- Secretary of the - .._,,, May 6, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 -4932 Michael Ross -Smith 2723 Oak Road Villa H Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Dear Board of Directors I am writing this letter of protest to the increases on my property taxes. It is like you have blank check to increase the costs every year to place many in retirement out of our homes. What I want to see is a pie chart of your fmacial accounting to see where my dollar is going. I fear that much of the money is going for salaries and retirement. The firefighters wanted an increase of $75 and it was stopped cold. I bet the firefighters and their six diget salaries wish they thought up what Central Contra Costa Sanitary District has done to open up a free cart blanch on every tax payer and flusher. Present to the voters and taxpayers what you have done to cut expenses and show us what you have done to save us from excessive unregulated charges. What savings have you done in cutting costs, all this must be shown to the people and only then you can justify raising prices. How about a building tax on all new properties. It just seems unfair that those of us that have been paying every year for over 50 years have paid the price and now have been asked for more and more. I would like to end on a positive note to say, that I enjoy recieving your newsletter and so if you do a sensible presentation to the tax payers you will win them over to your way of thinking. Budgeting for these increase expenses with a very detailed financial review will prepare us for the shock on major increases in the future. Sincerely yours, Michael Ross -Smith cc:Editor Contra Costa Times I/ May 10, 2013 Dear Mr. Ross - Smith, We have received your protest letter, which has been registered and will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for their review prior to the public hearing on the proposed rate increase on June 20. I do want to assure you that our Board has never approached rate increases lightly. The proposed increase is necessary for a number of reasons cited in the notice you received. Increased regulations from both State and Federal agencies involve stricter air quality emission standards (an issue of concern given the number of refineries in the area where our treatment plant is situated); and stricter water quality controls requiring additional testing and increased removal of elements such as mercury, and potentially nitrogen. An increase from Fiscal Year 2012 -2013 to Fiscal Year 2013 -2014 of approximately $3.5 million in plant operations alone. That includes increases in the costs of chemicals, utilities, sludge disposal, repairs and maintenance, as well as professional services (legal, training, consultations, etc.). A projected contractual increase in salaries and benefits for the District of approximately $10.6 million. This figure, however, includes an additional $5 million being paid to reduce the District's Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (pensions). As for what more the District is doing to reduce costs? Our Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) presently stands at $109 million, approximately $70 million of which came from stock market losses and a de- pooling of assets by the Contra Costa County Employee Retirement Association — not through any fault of Central San. An actuarial report expected this summer should show a significant reduction in how much we owe. And the District plans to increase payments over the next 10 years to further reduce the UAAL. Additionally, under new labor agreements, employees will be contributing to their retirement (until last year covered by the District). Phased in over the next 5 years, employees will be paying the entire 6% of their pension rate. Under these labor agreements, any employee opting for a PPO healthcare plan must pay the difference between an HMO plan and the PPO costs (in the range of $500+ per individual per month). A rate increase is never pleasant for anyone. But for the service received, our rates are still among the lowest in the entire Bay area. I hope this answers some of your concerns. Yours truly, Michael Scahill Communication Services Manager 1 RECEIVED MAY 0 9 2013 J CCCSD, CCCSD•Secretary of the Dis- t May 6, 2013 This letter is to serve as my official protest to your propose rate increase. My name is Richard J Clarkson. My address is 955 Hawthorne Drive Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596 and I am the owner of this property. My parcel # is 182 - 182 -005 -05. A rate increase of 18% over a two year period is outrageous. I encourage you to find a way to trim your expenses. Sincerely, Richard J Clarkson I May 1, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, Ca. 94553 Attn: Secretary Re: Proposed Increase RECEIVED MAY 0 8 2013 CCCSO a X"Y of #* District Please consider this my formal protest against the proposed increase of your sewer service. Geeze Louise ......... I got a 1.7% increase in my social security and you want an 18% increase within a little over a year. EBMUD wants a 20% increase. Municipalities need to tighten their belts like the non - government people have had to do. Kath abral 1471 Ramsay Circle Walnut Creek, Ca 94597 J S X Gary A. Schenck RECEIVED 24 Hickory Court MAY 0 8 2013 Danville, CA 94506 CCC1D y of the Dig W May 2, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Proposed Increase Dear Members of the Board: I have just received you proposed increase in rate letter. The rate increase you are asking for is outrages. It's more than 9% a year. No other government agency would dare ask for this kind of rate increase. It's clear that your people do not know how to manage a business as a normal business would go out of business with these kind of increase. Being that you're County Government you feel you can just stick it to the public and they will just have to go along with the increase. It's interesting to note when you are having the meeting. Your meeting is in the middle of the day during a week day, when most working people cannot attend. Just another way to pass it by the public with little attendance. It's time your people start managing a business, with keeping the rate payer in mind. It's time to put a check on the high salaries and benefits you are paying your workers. It's time you review the costs of all of the fancy trucks and cars under your control. It's always amazing to look at your people working and see four people discussing the issue and one person shoveling. Regards, Gary A. Schenck CC: Board of Supervisors. ,6)F RECEIVED MAY O B 2013 �ofnmnwim v , V/ Ir ,, � d, C ty� - U--P� r� g,--, �/ /74xx Iz ---�.= I am against the rise in fees by CCCSD because 1) CCCSD spends way too much money on pretty offices, new cars & trucks, landscaping, and a private park on it's grounds. The people who pay for this don't get this Cadillac treatment at their jobs. 2) CCCSD did a very ugly patch job at my home when they worked on their line, and I got nothing but attitude from the woman in charge. I didn't feel that I got good service, and don't believe she would put up with bad work at her house. MA7Z�—(r,! E Z 94-ss3 J Secretary of the District 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553 May 5, 2013 Gentlemen: MAY U 6 NA3 CCCSD-S.'*"V of %a woo I hereby protest the proposed rate increases in the Annual Sewer Service Charge. Do enic Cavallaro 1559 St. Helena Dr. Danville, CA 94526 J Secretary of the District 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553 May 5, 2013 Gentlemen: RECOVED MAY 08 2013 ,%,SD.Secretary of the District I hereby protest the proposed rate increases in the Annual Sewer Service Charge. Rosalie Cavallaro 16 Kim Court Martinez, CA 94553 C ' May 6, 2013 Secretary Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Maritnez, CA 94553 Sir /Madam: RECEIVED MAY 0 8 2013 CCCSD- Secretary of the District I hereby protest and strongly condemn any effort on the part of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's to raise the annual Sewer Service Charge by any amount. Central Contra Costa residents already pay sufficiently for the services offered by the District. Please do not even consider any raise in the Sewer Service Charge. Yours sincerely, Franklin T. Burroughs 428 Augustus Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 J 05/08/2013 13:28 4158223148 rate increase - Yahoo! Mail " 00, MA IL cmit. rate increase From: "Tony MaluCChl" rtmaIucchI @yahoo.com> To: eboehme @centralsan.org Dear Secretary, DEVINCENZI MAY 09 2013 CCCSD.Secretary of the District PAGE 01/01 Page 1 of 1 Wednesday, May 8, 2023 2;25 PM With regards to annual sewer service rate increase I find it unacceptable to attempt to burden the customers with the cost due to complete miss management of funds. Unfunded liability is a direct cause of poor management and over sized pensions. Consider other means such as staffing cuts and benefit reductions to recoup the funds. I find it ludicrous that a public utility with no competition cannot and will not find a way to balance the books. Sincerely Tony Malucchi http://us.mcl 622.maii.yahoo.com/ me /showMessage?sMid =Q &fxd= Sent &filter.By= &.ra.nd =2... 5/812013 Elaine Boehme From: Tony Malucchi <tmalucchi @yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 2:26 PM RECEIVE' To: Elaine Boehme Subject: rate increase MAY 0 8 2013 CCCSD- Swetary of WV fttiiot Dear Secretary, With regards to annual sewer service rate increase I find it unacceptable to attempt to burden the customers with the cost due to complete miss management of funds. Unfunded liability is a direct cause of poor management and over sized pensions. Consider other means such as staffing cuts and benefit reductions to recoup the funds. I find it ludicrous that a public utility with no competition cannot and will not find a way to balance the books. Sincerely Tony Malucchi � r Ross W. Smith 109 Montair Drive PO Box 700 Danville, California 94526 Contra Costa Sanitary District Secretary of the District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Gentlemen RECEIVED MAY Q7 2013 CCCSD.Secretary of the District 2 May 2013 I protest your intention to raise rates of 9.2% in year one and 8.4% in year two. This is far beyond any inflation, and does not seem to consider that the economy is still depressed — badly. To propose these rates in the form of "pennies per day" is just nuts. We don't pay pennies we pay a whacking great amount for a system that is lumbered with too many overpaid employees doing too little real work. All one has to do is stand and watch them work. It is a study in slow, inefficient motion. No—do not raise the rates. We're still underwater around here! Ross Smith f RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2013 of Cho -Disbi CA c 7- Are _._._ . ..._._,..._ .................... __� ...... _..__ -- _ --_ L4 Lk �-�- RECEIVED MAY 00 7 2013 =SD- Secretary of the District �r�cll May 3, 2013 Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Protest of the Proposed Increase in Sewer Service Charge Honorable Secretary of the District: RECEIVED MAY 07 2013 CCCSD- Secretary of the Diet W Please accept this letter as our letter as our written protest of the proposed rate increases to sewer service charges for FY 2013 and FY 2014. The proposed increase in service charges over the next two years is excessive. Please consider additional oversight and strategic efficiency measures to lower or eliminate the need for the rate increases. Thank you for your favorable consideration. Res ectfully, James W. Zumwalt Linda J. Zumwalt 706 Endsliegh Court Danville, CA 94506 (925) 736 -4441 I RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2013 CCCSD•Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Sirs, May 2, 2013 I believe the main reason you are proposing a rate increase is to cover your large pensions which assumed unrealistic growth. You are now asking the rate payer to subsidize a grand retirement life style for yourselves. Government employees are ripping off the taxpayer so they can retire early with almost full salaries and full health care. I am against any rate increase. Sincerely, .d S Property Owner John Briggs 387 Castello Road Lafayette, CA 94549 -5606 RECEIVED MAY 07 2013 From: Diana DiPietro <DianaDeePee @aol.com> CCOMecrour x we District Subject: SEWER RATE INCREASE protest letter Date: May 2, 2013 11:18:17 AM PDT To: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District I am a seventy -seven year, retired woman living alone in Pleasant Hill. I would attend the public hearing on Thursday, June 20, 2013, BUT I do not particularly want to be identified as "an old lady living alone in Pleasant Hill" for obvious reasons. However, I do want to be heard. My contribution to the sewer system as a senior does not compare with that of a neighboring town house where there are f ive persons living, including three teenagers. As a senior, living alone, I find it terribly unfair to have to pay the increase in rates. I protest the increase!!!!!!!! Diana DiPietro 601 Ridgeview Drive Pleasant hill, CA 94523 RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2013 CCCSD•Secretary of the District PMB 170 1966 Tice Valley Blvd. Walnut Creek CA 94595 -2203 May 2, 2013 Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez CA 94553 Dear Sir or Madam: With reference to the proposed increase in the Annual Sewer Service Charge as outlined in your notice received earlier this week, the undersigned owner of the property described below protests the increase in this charge. The property owned by the undersigned is located at 5920 Horsemans Canyon, Unit #5 -C. Walnut Creek CA 94595, Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, CT') , I. P. Sicotte, Jr., Trust e Sicotte Revocable Trust dtd. 12/19/94 �e/3 RECEIVED MAY Q 7 2013 CCC8D-8ecretary of the District C � -64 'yl Z� 19 7'p, v RECEIVED Central contra Costa Sanitary District MAY 0 7 2013 Secretary of the District =SD41ereury of the District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 In reference to the hearing scheduled for June 20, 201'3. I am a senior citizen, living by myself, in a condominium in Walnut Creek. I feel it is unconscionable to be assessed the same amount as a parcel in which, perhaps, 4 or 5 people are impacting the sewer system. As a single person, my impact on the system is minimal. Thank you for consideration of this matter. 2 /�2/ Joseph G. Zolinas 370 N. Civic Dr. #503 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 f May 3, 2013 Dear Board of Directors: RECEIVED MAY 07 2013 CCC04offeWy of the District I would like to protest the proposed rate increase in my Annual Sewer Service Charge. For residents on a fixed income, a 17.6% increase over two years is extreme! I would hope that all factors involving employee's s3.laries and benefits, and other obligations would be re- examined and negotiated by CCC.SD before asking the public for any increase in charges. These are hard mimes for all of us. cerely, obert U�� Collins 244 Morris Ranch Ct. Danville, CA 94526 RECEIVED MAY 07 2013 CCCgD,Secretary of the DWI,; Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Board of Directors: MAY 0 7 2013 "CO- Secretary of the District Lawrence Englund 1821 Sunnyvale Ave. Walnut Creek, CA 94597 May 2, 2013 Re: Proposed Rate Increases FY's 2013 -- 2015 I have received and read the your Notice of Public Hearing to be held June 20, 2013 at which the District will consider proposals to increase sewer service charges. I wish to comment on said proposals, however, your notice does not provide sufficient detailed information for me to do so. More specifically, the notice does give any details related to (1) what additional costs above the costs incurred in 2012 from new State and Federal regulations are expected to be added in 2013 nor what these new regulations are, (2) what is causing the increased Operations and Maintenance costs, and how much do you expect these cost to increase over these same cost in 2012 (3) your estimates of increases to salaries and [employee] benefits for 2013 and (4) how much of the District's debt obligation is unfunded, the length of time which the obligations have been unfunded, how much is the annual serve charge for the funds, and when the obligations will become fully funded. In order to appropriately comment on the District's proposals, I request that written answers to my above questions be furnished to me a month before the June 20th meeting for my review, that is by May 20, 2013. Sincerely, Lawrence E. Englund �PbF %wanaC2aC fo 617113 Ob f 11 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District May 10, 2013 Lawrence Englund 1821 Sunnyvale Avenue Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Re: Prop 218 notice inquiry Dear Mr. Englund, As to your questions about the Proposition 218 Notice of a possible Sewer service Charge rate increase: 1. Additional costs expected in 2013 from new State and Federal regulations One of the major costs facing the District within the next 10 years is the potential requirement to remove nitrogen from our treated wastewater before its discharge into Suisun Bay. That cost is estimated to be in the range of $100 million. A portion of the Sewer Service Charge increase will be allotted to that funding should it come to pass. (Sacramento's wastewater agencies were required to start de- nitrification a year ago at the cost of over $1 Billion). Other increased regulations from both State and Federal agencies involve stricter air quality emission standards (an issue of concern given the number of refineries in the area where our treatment plant is situated); and stricter water quality controls requiring additional testing and increased removal of elements such as mercury. 2. Cause of increased Operations and Maintenance (O &M) costs and increase in costs over 2012 There is an increase from Fiscal Year 2012 -2013 to Fiscal Year 2013 -2014 of approximately $3.5 million in plant operations alone. That includes increases in the costs of chemicals, utilities, sludge disposal, repairs and maintenance, as well as professional services (legal, training, consultations, etc.). 3. Increases to salaries and employee benefits for 2013 -2014 The projected increase in salaries and benefits for the District is approximately $10.6 million. This figure, however, includes an additional $5 million being paid to reduce the District's Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (pensions). 4. District's unfunded liability Our Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) presently stands at $109 million. An actuarial report is due this summer when we do expect to see a reduction in how much is owed. Moreover, the District plans to increase payments over the next 10 years to further reduce the UAAL. Additionally, under new labor agreements employee will be contributing to their retirement (until last year covered by the District). Phased in over the next 5 years, employees will be paying the entire 6% of their pension rate. Under these labor agreements, any employee opting for a PPO healthcare plan must pay the difference between an HMO plan and the PPO costs (in the range of $500+ per individual per month). I hope this answers your questions. Yours truly, /s/ Michael Scahill Michael Scahill Communication Services Manager RECEIVED MAY 15 2013 CMD- Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Board of Directors: Lawrence Englund 1821 Sunnyvale Ave. Walnut Creek, CA 94597 May 12, 2013 Re: Proposed Rate Increases FY's 2013 -- 2015 Yesterday I received and read your letter to me dated May 10, 2013 with the District's answers to questions in my letter of May 2, 2013 related to the Notice of Public Hearing to the District's proposed increase to service charges. The answers that were furnished in the District's said letter of May 10, were very nebulous and uninformative for a number of reasons. First in order to review the District's answer and proposal, I need the percentages of the proposed increases over the last approved rate increase. Percentage increases in cost and expenditures, which is commonly given by all agencies when seeking rate increases, is not given at all in any written material sent to me and your other customers and I hereby request that you tell me the estimated percentage increases in expenses /costs for each of the four categories set forth in my previous letter of May 2. It would also be very appropriate to provide me with the total proposed percentage increase in service charges over the last approved budget. Secondly, I notice that in regard to the "Additional costs expected in 2013 from new State and Federal regulations ", your comments are based only on potential costs, that is to say, costs which may or may not arise. Basing the District's proposal on the basis of costs which only "may" increase, provides an open -ended method to increase the district's service charges on any figure the District chooses without any substantiation at all, except guesses. Thirdly, I want to know how did the District find itself with so much unfunded liability. Am I correct in assuming that the District did not realize that the economy is cyclical and that economic good times always end and y that the District should have, but did not plan for, those always recurring bad economic times? Assuming that I am correct, what is the District doing to assure that such funding mismanagement does not recur again in the future? Additionally, in my prior letter I asked for the year in which the District's unfunded liability would become fully funded, and your response did not provide me with a specific answer to that question. Since the District appears to rely heavily on estimates, please give me an estimated date on which the District's liabilities will become fully funded. In order to appropriately comment on the District's proposals, I request that written answers to my above questions be furnished to me a month before the June 20th meeting for my review, that is by May 25, 2013. Sincerely, �f0. Lawrence E. Englund central e Sanitary District May 17, 2013 Lawrence Englund 1821 Sunnyvale Avenue Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Dear Mr. Englund, Hr. E/?J lung's , f;i A Z; -40 Pr, le7tz �, j� a � The proposed increase for 2013 -2014 in the overall Operations & Maintenance budget is 13.93% over the 2012 -2013 budget. This includes increases in salaries and benefits, increases in regulatory permit fees, studies mandated by regulatory agencies (which will impact the issue of nitrification over the next 10 years), and pension obligations. The District is proposing to increase the Sewer Service Charge by $34 per household. This increase will generate approximately $4,100,000 to cover increases in the District's Operations & Maintenance Budget and Capital Improvement Budget. Specifics in terms of meeting more stringent State and Federal regulations: The Regional Water Quality Control Board which issues our NPDES permit to treat wastewater and discharge that treated water to Suisun Bay has mandated that Central San perform a number of scientific studies dealing with nitrification and its impact on the Bay. In 2012, these studies, which are funded from the Capital Improvement Budget, cost the District $450,000. An additional $272,000 in these costs is expected in 2013- 2014. Engineering and planning for new treatment facilities to meet nutrient, air quality, and greenhouse gas regulations will cost an estimated $675,000 during 2013 -14. Planning for renovation of the District's existing treatment plant and sewer system is estimated to cost $720,000 during 2013 -14. In a similar vein to State and Federal regulations, there are increases in Public Agency and Outside Organization fees for 2013 -2014. The Public Agency fees include our NPDES Permit Fee; Annual Fees for Bay Area Air Quality Permits and Facility Fees; and Annual California Air Resources Board Green House Gas Fees. Outside Organization fees are tied to ongoing research and environmental regulatory issues include Bay Area Clean Water Agency Special Projects; Clean Water Agency Fees; and Water Environment Research Foundation fees. FEES 2012 -2013 Budget Public Agency Fees - $367,700 Outside Org. Fees - $213,980 Total $581,680 2013 -2014 Budget Public Agency Fees - $429,949 Outside Org. Fees - $253,500 Total $683,449 That equates to a 17.4% increase in such fees over 2012 -2013. And as noted in my initial response to you, the projected increase in salaries and benefits for the District is approximately $10.6 million, an 18.29% increase over 2012- 2013. Increases include the following: Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (additional paydown) $5.OM Salaries (includes contract retro and current year adjustments) $2.8M Retirement (normal costs and regular amortization of 18 years) $2.1 M Healthcare and Dental $0.7M Total $10.6M As for the issue of the Unfunded Liability, Central San does not manage its own retirement program. That is done by the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association (CCCERA). Central San's pension - related Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) currently stands at $109 million as of December 31, 2011, the last actuarial valuation available. Our UAAL in 2007, payable to CCCERA, was $33.3 million, which is being paid down each year. The current $109 million in pension unfunded liability was largely the result of two factors. The first was the stock market crash in 2008 that resulted in a 28.3% loss of CCCERA's market value. That loss was the primary cause of a $42.7 million increase in our unfunded liabilities over the past four years. In addition, each year that CCCERA does not make its targeted return of 7.75% (7.25% going forward) on investments, the amount of the unfunded liability grows to cover that loss of earnings. Furthermore, although the December 31, 2012 valuation will be issued by the end of the summer, the District is anticipating an offset to the $109M UAAL due to the projected 14.7% investment returns earned in 2012. The second major factor contributing to the pension unfunded liability was the depooling of CCCERA's assets in December 2009. The depooling required us to pay the actual cost of our retirement program rather than a pool average that had been shared by Contra Costa County and 16 other public agencies. The depooling of assets was made retroactive to December 2002 and was the largest factor in raising our unfunded pension liability by an additional $33.4 million. As previously noted, Central San's 10 -Year Plan (which is updated each year) calls for additional payments toward the pension unfunded liability of $75 million over the next 10 years. Each years actuarial results are amortized over a eighteen year period. While paid down annually, the unfunded liability will remain part of our ongoing debt until such time as CCCERA policy changes and targeted market returns are met. .W . . .. I hope these figures help you to understand why we are seeking a rate increase. Sincerely, Michael Scahill Communication Services Manager RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District CCCSD- Secretary of the District May 3, 2013 eboehme @centralsan.org RE: Proposed rate increase: Opposed. As a lifelong resident, property owner and customer of CCCSD I am opposed to any rate increase as currently proposed or otherwise during this recession. Like every government organization the CCCSD is rife with excess, inefficiency, elevated wages, bureaucracy, mismanagement and waste. The very notion as put forth in the proposal, that debt should be 'serviced' as opposed to eliminated, exemplifies why the proposed rate increase must be denied. Treatment plants are now largely automated yet remain staffed at pre- automation levels. Any reduction in technical staff is immediately backfilled with unnecessary bureaucratic staff. Next the CCCSD will announce that its infrastructure is on the verge of collapse. It will no doubt propose a substantial portion of same become a part of the owner's /customer's property and responsibility just as the water district has done. The insurance companies' will then offer sewer insurance. The CCCSD will follow with bond initiatives, etc. to avert the crisis thereby expanding its debt. With a manufactured crisis properly propagandized the CCCSD will propose even more rate increases. Should recovery from the recession result in rising property values the CCCSD will attempt to demonize California's Proposition 13: The single greatest piece of tax reform legislation in history. Clearly no rate increase is warranted. The CCCSD needs to get its house in order first before seeking additional revenue. Efficiency, common sense business practice, waste reduction and recycling are what the CCCSD needs: Not another blank check. Just as its customers must tighten their belts to survive the recession so must the CCCSD. If this is beyond the CCCSD then privatization needs to be explored. Opposed, Henry Stev n Sari 1808 Sunnyvale Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 -1812 f RECEIVED Karl Haug MAY 0 6 2013 3068 Bowling Green Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94598 c(;c Secretary o tine District Tel. 925 - 945 -7784 E -Mail: haug(cD.astound.net May 2, 2013 Board of Directors Central CC Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA Re: Two Proposed Increases in Sewer Service Charges — Your Notice mailed by 5/3/13 ( ?) I am protesting the proposed increases, 9.2% in 2013 and 8.4% in 2014. All of the reasons you cited for needing these increases are ongoing obligations which you have been able to cover in the past from the existing revenue stream. My wife and I are retired and live off a fixed income which increases at very moderate rates and makes us look for and find ways to live within our budget. I would expect the district to adopt the same principles. If there are new mandates not previously covered and those represent incremental costs to the district I would expect that those incremental costs are disclosed to us before any decisions about when and by how much to increase service charges. Sincerely, J ARA S. ALIKIAN 430 CRANLEIGH COURT RECEIVED SAN RAMON, CA 94583 RECEIVED Tel: (510) 828 -4315 MAY 0 8 2013 CC 8040cretary of the District To The Board of Directors of the Contra Costa Sanitary District: I, Ara Samuel Alikian' property owner of 430 Cranleigh Court, San Ramon, CA, parcel number 211 - 370 - 067 -4, OPPOSE and PROTEST the proposed rate increases proposed by proposition 218. To be clear, I am protesting against any increase in fee or charge being considered by the Contra Costa Sanitary District for July 1, 2013 and /or July 1, 2014. Signed: Dated: Ara Samuel Alikian AAA S. ALIKLkN RECEIVED 430 CRANLEIGH COURT SAN RAMON, CA 94583 A" O � U + 2013 Tel: (510) 828 -4315 Aj LSD- &wretary of the District To The Board of Directors of the Contra Costa Sanitary District: I, Ara Samuel Alikian' property owner of 430 Cranleiah Court, San Ramon, CA, parcel number 211 - 370 - 067 -4, OPPOSE and PROTEST the proposed rate increases proposed by proposition 218. To be clear, I am protesting against any increase in fee or charge being considered by the Contra Costa Sanitary District for July 1; 2013 and /or July 1, 2014. Signed: 4t 4 /t Dated: 15 S y Ara Samuel Alikian 0 r� Elaine Boehme From: Maruthi K Emany <maruthi_emany @yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 2:23 PM RECEIVED To: Elaine Boehme Subject: Protest rate increase in the name of prop 218 MAY 0 6 2013 CCCSD•Secretary of the District I am a resident of San Ramon CA, address below. I here by protest the proposed rate increase for residential customers related to prop 218. Agreed that there will be additional cost increases for the district, but the district has to show how much cost savings or cost cutting they are doing now year over year before asking for more money. What is being done about high salaries and luxurous benefits offered to employees when all the paying customers themselves don't enjoy any of them from their employers. I am opposed to this move. Address 357 Kami CT San Ramon CA 94582 Phone: 925 556 1568 thanks maruthi emany J Elroy F. Holtmann 3144 Ramada Court Lafayette, CA 94549 925 - 937 -0308 May 2,2013 Secretary of the District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 RECEIVED MAY 0 3 2013 CCCSD -S(-, - `i'.. ")+strirt I am protesting all of the proposed rate increases in your undated mailing for FY 2013- 2014 and FY 2014 -2015. All of the proposed rate increases far exceed the cost of living index for the San Francisco Bay Area which is in the 2 -3% range. You are proposing a 9.2% and 8.4% rate increase which is completely unjustified. Most of your cost increases should not exceed the rate of inflation.. Seems like every project that comes along you ask for a rate increase instead of using moneys you are continuing to collect from previously completed projects! Are you people going to increase my social security income by 9.2% so I can pay the proposed rate increase? I urge the Board of Directors to vote down the proposed rate increases or at least put the question to a vote of the people. Let the people vote on the issue. Sincerely, �3u Elroy F. Holtmann Property Owner 3144 Ramada Court Lafayette, CA 94549 C N7RA Co 5r4 .5-.-Yvt rAA-Y � r s-R2fcr° REG'` z" mg 0 3 2013 / CCZcy °f the District vo <'e. &2-UeA4---e--Z /i e41446P S A MAc 4e" a .f op © 13 v RA AV-9- � } A CnJv C1LC elC -C, ?IS--?17 J -� 1` IED MAY p 3 w3 May 2, 2013 of the v'std�t Secretary of the District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Proposed Rate Increase 2398 Benham Court Walnut Creek, CA 9459E To whom it may concern, This letter is in response to the proposed rate increase. I protest rate increase. Very truly yours, ZZM� Scott Gallagher J RECEIVED MAY 0 2 2013 CCCSD- Secieia:y j hu uestrid David W. Handy 513 Boyd Road Pleasant Hill, CA. 94523 (925) 934 -8969 Home (510) 915- 0511 Cell dwhandy(a),yaboo.com May 2, 2013 To: The Central Contra Costa Sanitation District RE: Proposition 21.8 I formally wish to express my opposition to Proposition 218. While I recognize the sanitation district is in a financial bind, I believe it squarely put itself there. Many companies and organizations, including the CCCSD, were too liberal with their pension programs and should have realized long ago that they were not sustainable. To saddle that lack of responsibility on the rate payer is wrong.. That money will have to come out of your current operating budget and you will need to make pension adjustments. Re.-mectfiii tv: \J RECEIVED MAY 0 2 2013 Written, signed, and addressed protest of proposed increase in Annual Sewer %&kij= a District 2013 To the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District: I oppose the proposed increase not because of the increase itself, but rather because of its continuation of the existing, unjust residential pricing policy. Current CCCSD residential pricing is a flat rate, "one size fits all" charge, regardless of the actual volume of sewer discharges from a residence. This is analogous to charging everyone the same for electricity, or for water service, or for gasoline, regardless of how much they use. The proposed rate increase simply increases costs to residential users (which may well be necessary, and which is not the substance of my protest), while continuing the current unjust, flat rate structure. It may be contended that CCCSD charges reflect in part certain capital costs that should be paid equally by everyone. Even if so, total charges should reflect, at least in part, volume of use, as CCCSD's costs certainly increase if discharge volume increases. Such a scheme of pricing per volume is in fact the rubric CCCSD uses for industrial customers. Why not residential customers as well? The current flat residential rate structure discourages conservation measures, such as reduced shower, clothes washer, dishwasher, and toilet use. It in fact encourages the contrary from residents: reckless profligacy in water use, with attendant disregard for environmental quality and public safety through unlimited discharges into the public sewer system. The fact that CCCSD charges industrial customers according to the volume of their discharges demonstrates the feasibility of charging on a per use basis. The same methods described for estimating the volume of the discharges by industrial customers could be applied to residential customers. I oppose any change to the CCCSD residential rate structure that does not incorporate charge based on discharge volume. Thank you. Jamie Pehling 606 Daisy Ct Pleasant Hill CA 94523 -1626 5/1/13 RECEIVED MAY 01 2013 CM Secretary of the District Wade and Jenny Tai 1854 Magnolia Way Walnut Creek, CA 94595 To: Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 May 1, 2013 To Whom It May Concern: We oppose the increased Sewer Service Charge for FY 2013- 14 /Compliance With Prop 218 as described in the Notice of Public Hearing dated May 3, 2013. Sincerely, Wade Tai Jenny Tai J From: Bruce Nemanic 261 Evelyn Dr Pleasant Hill, Ca. 94523 925 683 -2345 Crownco @comcast.net lo: CCCSD Secretary of District RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2013 CCCSD- Secretary of the District PF 07t s - -7-13 Faeva qa& (�ooexan_ az'tu�h,�aC) I do protest the rate increase proposed in your May 3, 2013 letter. I request a full disclosure of planned expenses to be published in a local news paper and emailed to all service address' 30 days in advance of the final hearing. Thank you, Resident . 1 . May 8, 2013 Bruce Nemanic 261 Evelyn Drive Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Re: Rate increase protest Dear Mr. Nemanic, Your protest letter has been registered and will be forwarded to the Board of Directors before the June 20 public hearing for their review. However, on behalf of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, I must decline your request for planned expenses of the District to be published in a newspaper and emailed to all service addresses. First, a final budget will not be set until the rate hearing is held on June 20 when any increase will be voted on by the Board. (For a sense of our expenses, I would refer you to our website at www.centralsan.org. Under FINANCE you can view the 2012 -2013 budgets to see the breakdown of expenses. The new budget for 2013 -2014 will be posted when it is approved). Second, it would be a waste of ratepayers' dollars to publish our budget when it will be available on -line. Finally, an e-mail address list of all our ratepayers does not exist. Yours truly, Michael Scahill Communication Services Manager