Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12.a. (Handout) Propostion 218 Written Responses and Protest Letters
CENTRAL CONSTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT 2015 PROPOSITION 218 NOTICE SUMMARY OF RESPONSES Includes Written (Mail, Email, Facsimile) and Non - Written Responses As of 3:00 p.m. — June 4, 2015 WRITTEN RESPONSES RESPONSES RECEIVED LEGALLY VALID PROTESTS OPPOSED: 0 -1 General opposition 52 48 0-2 Fixed income/hardship/senior citizen 14 7 Total Opposed 66 55 NEUTRAL: N -1 Request for information 8 N -2 Other 1 Total Neutral g Total Written Responses 75 NON - WRITTEN RESPONSES PHONE CALLS: 11 Total Non - Written Responses 11 TOTAL RESPONSES 86 Includes 31 protests, one for each school in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. Phone calls are not a valid means of protest. * Phone calls are not a valid means of protest and are not itemized on the attached log; however, the total number of phone calls received is reflected above. I Donna Anderson From: anita fasnaucht <anitafasnaucht @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:33 PM To: RATES RATES Subject: You notice of rate increase Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I tried to call the number listed on the mailing which i received today. The voice message said "John Ross, the mail box if full, Goodbye ". What a rude voice message!! I was calling to voice my disapproval of a rate increase. I understand that you need to update your systems, etc. But I also know that all of your upper management has received pay increases over the last several years. Unfortunately, I do not receive a pay increase, as I am retired and on Social Security. I get a half of a percent increase sometimes, not always. Please cast my vote (if I have one) as a NO for a rate increase. Thank you, Anita Fasnaucht 2630 Meadow Glen Drive San Ramon, CA 94583 925 - 838 -8155 Donna Anderson From: Carl Crisp <crispc @sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 6:15 PM To: RATES RATES Subject: PROPOSED RATE INCREASE Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged DEAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS, The proposed rate increase for residential unit of $439 is unnecessary. We live on a fixed income. Our Sanitary District and its various contractors should exist on the fixed income that is currently in place. Nothing has changed at our home, so why the rate increase? We save the gray -water for the garden, so we have less water moving in the system. So why the rate increase? Carl and LaVonne Crisp Donna Anderson From: Don Powell <donpowell @sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:32 AM To: RATES RATES Cc: Powell Don Subject: New proposed rates, prop 218 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Re: My parcel # 192- 030 -056 -1 1427 Finley Ln., Alamo, Ca 94507 We received a recent mailer proposing a rate increase via prop 218. Referencing rate increases over the next two years. It appears the purpose of this increase is for treatment of "waste water" which is determined by the water useage amount delivered. My concern is my home is on a septic system and therefore there is NO discharged waste water delivered into the system. Does that create an exemption from prop 218 for myself and others on septic systems ? And to carry it further should it not be an exemption even as to the current charges as well as the increases ? Don Powell 1427 Finley Ln Alamo, CA 94507 (925) 937 -3048, (925) 935 -7728 Fax 1 C> Donna Anderson From: Bauhs, Teri <tbauhs @srvusd.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:54 AM To: RATES RATES Subject: High School proposed rate increase Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Why is the proposed per student rate for high school almost 3 times the current rate? Intermediate schools doubled? Elementary schools remain the same? I work and coach at San Ramon Valley high school and I do not understand these rate proposals. thank you, Teri Bauhs 925- 552 -3019 (copy center) Benjamin McKay 28 Shelterwood PI Danville, CA 94506 415- 602 -2363 April 21, 2015 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District eboehme @centralsan.org To Whom It May Concern, Please reconsider Proposition 218. The public is not an endless bank account from which you can make withdrawals at will. I oppose Proposition 218. General grievance At a time when the economy is crawling along at 2.3% a year, it seems egregious for anyone to ask for a 14.58% increase over two years. This is irresponsible policy making and demonstrates a lack of economic environmental awareness. The fact that you waited 50 years to start replacing pipes makes me wonder, why? Haven't we been paying your taxes for the last 50 years? Where is that money? Has there been an investigation into the mismanagement that allowed this to happen? You need to answer these questions before you should ask for more money. If the money was squandered in the past or misappropriated, won't the same happen to the new money? Process grievance My issues here relate to the notice. First, you should include the percentages in your notice. It seems obvious why you did not (because they are higher than any pay increase your constituents have seen in years) but you should include them as a matter of best practices. Secondly, you say what you do but fail to tell us how well you do it. Are you succeeding and deserving of more money or are you failing and need to show us that you have reformed your practices. Lastly, give us a sense of magnitude. How many citizens actually take advantage of your services? My guess is that data would show that citizens are subsidizing businesses based on usage. McKay Page 2 April 21, 2015 Please read this letter into the record or otherwise memorialize it. I urge much more transparency and better public management. Thank you. Sincerely, Benjamin McKay Elaine Boehme From: Alesia Rogers <alesia_star @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 1:23 PM To: Thomas Brightbill Cc: 'kstepper @danville.ca.gov'; 'mdoyle @danville.ca.gov'; Danea Gemmell; Chris Carpenter; Elaine Boehme; Roger Bailey; trharrels @gmail.com Subject: RE: Central Sanitation District's Prop 218 Notice - Danville Resident Questions Mr. Brightbill- I received your email response, very much appreciated. I guess I still have some major concerns and I will attend the public meeting in June. I will encourage my friends and neighbors to attend as well. FY 2016 -2017 you are estimated increased revenue of almost $11.9 million from 2014 levels. This seems like a substantial amount of additional revenue for an agency with 2013 -14 reported revenue of almost $89.9 mil. That's like 13 %. Also, the District raised SSC fees as recently as 2013 -14. Why was this not sufficient to support the District's budget, for a reasonable period of time, perhaps 5 years? What happened? I can completely understand the need to repair and replace deteriorating facilities and infrastructure and support the community paying for this endeavor. I just feel like we are owed a better explanation of why the District needs to impose such a large increase in rates and facts about specific projects our money will be used for. I am also deeply concerned about the rate increase on our school district. For example, San Ramon Valley High school has an attendance of 2,171. They alone will go from $13,612 for the SSC charge to $39,404; over a 34% increase in FY 2016 -17. It seems like a substantial financial burden is being put on our intermediate and high schools. Has the school district provided a total of what they think the increased expense will be? I'm sure this was discussed in the meeting you mentioned on April 24. Can you provide that number to the public? The fiscal report you directed me to in your email (Annual Financial Report for 2014) says, "Increases (in expenses) were mainly due to higher labor and benefit costs along with technical services for temporary staff. Labor costs increased due to employee benefit cost (primarily pension and healthcare), cost of living adjustments, merit increases, and filling of new positions." See Expenses, page 25 of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2014. It looks as though between FY 2012 -13 and FY2013 -14 labor and benefits expenditures increased $9 mil. This is the same period of time you instituted the last SSC rate increase. I'd like to know the District's estimated budget for employee pension and healthcare costs is for FY 2016 -17. 1 think rate payers deserve an open answer about exactly what the newest SSC increase is going to pay for and some assurances that we will not be asked to pay another increase in 2018. Thanks so much and see you in June. Alesia Elaine Boehme From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ms. Strauch, Thomas Brightbill Monday, April 27, 2015 8:30 AM 'alesia_star @yahoo.com' 'kstepper @danville.ca.gov'; 'mdoyle @danville.ca.gov'; Danea Gemmell; Chris Carpenter; Elaine Boehme; Roger Bailey RE: Central Sanitation District's Prop 218 Notice - Danville Resident Questions We received your questions and comments in response to our recent notice regarding our proposed increase in the annual Sewer Service Charge. We estimate that the proposed increases will result in an additional 6.6 million in sewer service charge revenue in Fiscal Year 2015 -16 and an additional 5.3 million in revenue for FY 2016 -17. The FY 2015 -16 budget will be presented to the Board of Directors for review and a public hearing on June 4. The budget document is still in draft form at this point. The best source of currently available financial information would probably be the operating budgets, capital improvement budgets, and our Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) contained in the Financial Information section of our web site, which can be found at http: / /www.centralsan.org /index.cfm ?navld =78 Comparisons with other agencies can be tricky when the services performed, the size of the service area, and the geographic location are all taken into account. As you have pointed out, labor is our largest cost. Our treatment facility is staffed 24 hours a day for seven days a week. Unlike some other wastewater agencies in our area, Central San owns, operates, and maintains our collection system which consists of over 1,500 miles of pipeline and 7 pump stations. Many of the collection system maintenance activities are labor- intensive as the sewer lines are cleaned and inspected on a regular basis to minimize blockages and overflows. Central San recently was awarded an award from the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) for 16 straight years of having no violations of our plant's discharge permit and our collection system was awarded the Collection System of the Year award for large systems by the California Water Environment Association in 2013. We have been able to deliver this award - winning service to our ratepayers while keeping our rates right around the average for other wastewater agencies in our area. The increased revenues will be used for both operating and maintenance as well as construction and rehabilitation of facilities. Our Capital Improvement Budget has increased while our 0 &M budget for FY 2015 -16 has actually decreased slightly. Specific facilities and projects are identified in our Capital Improvement Budgets and Plans which can be found in the Financial Information portion of our web site. In addition, we are in the process of soliciting proposals for an updated Master Plan to help ensure capital projects are properly prioritized and the level of spending is appropriate. Central San has been meeting with school districts and other large ratepayers who will be significantly impacted by the changes to our rate structure. Our meeting with San Ramon Valley School District staff was held Friday, April 24. Our staff will be reporting out to our Board of Directors at a future board meeting. We're not sure if SRVSD staff will be reporting out to their Board of Directors. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at the e -mail address below. Thanks, Thomas Thomas Brightbill, PE Senior Engineer, Planning and Development Services Division Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 229 -7338 tbrightbill @centralsan.orp, - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Alesia Rogers [mailto:alesia_star @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:28 AM To: RATES RATES; Elaine Boehme Cc: kstepper @danville.ca.gov; mdoyle @danville.ca.gov Subject: Central Sanitation District's Prop 218 Notice - Danville Resident Questions http: / /www.centralsan.org /documents /Prop_218_Notice.pdf Hi I live in Danville and got the notice regarding a public hearing about sewer rate increases. I had a couple of questions I am hoping you can clarify. I'll also come to the public meeting to get some more information as well. 1. What is the total annual increase in funding Central San is estimating it will receive from this increase in SSC rates for 2015 -16 and 2016 -17? 2. 1 see in 2013 -2014 SSC raised over $72 Mil. Where can I find information on CCCSD annual budget forecast for 2015- 2016 and 2016 -2017? 3. 1 see in 2013 -2014 you had total revenues of approx. $90 Mil and spent almost $59 Mil on labor and benefits. Is this typical for this type of agency? 65% to labor and benefits. Also about $18.5 Mil spent on repairs, materials, etc. or 20%? 4. Do you have specific projects this new funding is targeted for? Estimates of cost? 5. Has CCCSD met with the San Ramon Valley School Board about the rate increase? It seems like they will really be impacted (in turn all of us will be impacted). When were those meetings or are they happening.soon? Will they be open to the public? Thanks so much and I look forward to some more information on this. Myself and my neighbors are very concerned and would appreciate more detail and transparency. Alesia Strauch 1220 Dutch Mill Dr. Danville CA 94526 cell: 916 - 505 -3536 Donna Anderson From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: To Whom It May Concern: Joe and Wanda Sheehan <jw.sheehan @comcast.net> Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:24 PM WEBMAIL Rate Increase High Follow up Completed The continued sewer service charge increase are becoming a burden on seniors like us that are on fixed incomes! It is difficult to understand the continued increase in this still "depressed" economy and yet public entities like the Sanitary District still offer employee raises and benefits while raising the yearly fees! True operational costs increase but there should be some consideration given to seniors who are struggling to live on fixed incomes. There should be some "discount" offered to seniors as some other businesses offer! Please consider this request. Joe and Wanda Sheehan iw.sheehan @comcast.net cccsdprotest.txt cccsD - Prop. 218 Protest c/o secretary of the district, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinex, CA,94S53 eboehmeocentralsan.org - Prop. 218 Protest Date: Apr. 21, 2015 Assessor's Parcel #212-311-001-3 00 Address: Ronald Ko 3372 El suyo or. san Ramon, CA 94583 30��M Dear General manager, we are seniors and can't afford additional tax/fees increases on our home while living in small social security checks. we hereby protest the fee increase and hope that your district will live within your means like everyone of us. Thanks! sincerel V"> 7 Ronald Ko Page 1 Donna Anderson From: L Borton <Igborton @yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 1:06 AM To: RATES RATES Subject: Re: proposed water rates ok. Thank you for clarifying my confusion for me. On Monday, April 27, 2015 11:38 AM, RATES RATES <RATES(a)-centralsan.org> wrote: The multi- family charge is per unit, so a ten unit apartment building would pay $4,630.00 vs. a single - family home paying $471.00. The difference in the two per /unit costs is that the average number of residents in one unit of a multi - family building is slightly less than the average number of residents in single- family home. I hope that answers your question. If not, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Chris Carpenter From: L Borton [mailto:lgbortonna.yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 11:33 AM To: RATES RATES Subject: proposed water rates I just received and read the central contra costa sanitary district proposed water rate increase. My question is: Why are single family residential charges more than multi - family residential charges? It would seem that single family resident do not use as much sewer services as do multi - family. I would like to know the logic. Was there a mistake in the letter? Thank you. April 24, 2015 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Proposed sewer service increases Parcel #206 - 420 - 021 -1 -00 Address: 7104 Pelican St., Danville, CA 94506 Dear Secretary of the District: RECEIVED APR 29 2015 CCCSD - Secretary of the District I am writing this letter as a formal protest of your intent to increase sewer service rates. This is not hard to understand; post district directors gave away /spent monies without any foresight to future cost ramifications. With this lack of budget restraint in place, retirees are now collecting more money and benefits than when they were working. Year after year cost of wages and benefits have spiraled out of control lead by the labor union charge. The time has come to really show the ever - burdened rate -payer sincere change. Effective at the June 4, 2015 meeting, put into place a 10% reduction in all retirees, management and staff wages, salary and benefits. And the board should rescind approved Sept. 18, 2014 salary hike sheet. Enough is enough. Does not anyone else see the crafty scheme in the CCCSD abusive practices? Sincerely, Gary ickles 011 *Jk2 0 0 DALE A. FROST 3607 Brook Street Lafayette, CA 94549 April 21, 2015 Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Prop 218 Protest 3607 Brook Street Lafayette, CA 94549 APN # 241 - 180 -0200 Dear Board of Directors: RECE►VED APR 2? 2015 CCCSD- Secretary of the District As the property owner of the above referenced home, please consider this my formal protest of the proposed increase in the annual sewer service charge. I understand this topic is to be discussed at the Public Hearing to be held on June 2. Instead of increasing rates, please consider expense reduction ideas such as salary reductions, pension cuts, etc.!! I respectfully request you vote "no" on the proposed increase. :1�eA. cerely, Frost DAF:mbp 9P 1��F PARK PLACE ASSET MANAGEMENT April 15, 2015 A Limited Partnership Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Re: ExecuCenter — Prop. 218 Protest 2960 Camino Diablo Walnut Creek, CA 94597 APN #177 - 140 -051 -0 Dear Board of Directors: RECEIVED APR 2 7 2015 CCG Wftretary of the District As the property owner of the above referenced office complex, please consider this our formal protest of the proposed increase in the annual Sewer Service Charge. We understand this topic is to be discussed at the Public Hearing to be held on June 2. If sewer rates increase, we have no choice but to raise rents on our tenants to offset these rising costs. Therefore, we respectfully request you vote "no" on the proposed increase. It's bad for property owners and for our tenants. Please consider expense reduction ideas such as salary reductions, pension cuts, etc.!! Sincerely, EXECUCENTER, A California Limited Partnership By: Connor Walker, Inc., Its Gegeral Pprtner M REC:mbp E. Challey, Presid 2960 CAMINO DIABLO ■ SUITE 300 ■ WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597 • (925) 932 -7955 19P PARK PLACE ASSET MANAGEMENT A Limited Partnership April 21, 2015 Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Briarwood Apartments — Prop 218 Protest Property Address: 141 Golf Club Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Billing Address: 2960 Camino Diablo Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 APN #: 53- 084 -002 -2 Dear Board of Directors: J3 RECEIVED APR 2 7 2015 CCCSD•Secretary of the District As the property owner of the above referenced apartment complex, please consider this our formal protest of the proposed increase in the annual Sewer Service Charge. We understand this topic is to be discussed at the Public Hearing to be held on June 4. If sewer rates increase, we have no choice but to raise rents on our apartment tenants to offset these rising costs. Therefore, we respectfully request you vote "no" on the proposed increase. It's bad for property owners and for our tenants. Please consider expense reduction ideas such as salary reductions, pension cuts, etc.!! Sincerely, ALDERWOOD INV By: Heatherstone, M Da DAF:mbp California Li Partnership Its G al Partner rost, President 2960 CAMINO DIABLO ■ SUITE 300 ■ WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597 ■ (925) 932 -7955 ON REUIVED APR 27 2016 April 21, 2015 PARK PLACE ASSET MANAGEMEN;SSS©- Secretary otthe a A Limited Partnership Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Park Place Apartments — Prop. 218 Protest Property Address: 1310 Alma Avenue Walnut Greek, CA 94596 Billing Address: 2960 Camino Diablo, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 APN #: 184 - 530 -150 -4 Dear Board of Directors: As the property owner of the above referenced apartment complex, please consider this our formal protest of the proposed increase in the annual Sewer Service Charge. We understand this topic is to be discussed at the Public Hearing to be held on June 4. If sewer rates increase, we have no choice but to raise rents on our apartment tenants to offset these rising costs. Therefore, we respectfully request you vote "no" on the proposed increase. It's bad for property owners and for our tenants. Please consider expense reduction ideas such as salary reductions, pension cuts, etc.!! Sincerely, BOARDWALK INVESTORS, A California Limited Partnership By: Park Place Partners III, A California General Partnershi Its General Partner By: The Park Place Group, a California Limited ership, Its General Partner By: Heathery e,�, Inc. eral Partner M DAF:mbp DWA. Frost, President 2960 CAMINO DIABLO ■ SUITE 300 ■ WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597 ■ (925) 932 -7955 ,J RECEIVED APR 212015 CCCSD - Secretary of the District -�/ oot- /2G ;ice. 00 0 '''Y -� J Cvd' . 9�f.�•7 F. Edward & Karen Bronsen 1408 Harlan Drive Danville, CA. April 23, .2015 Secretary of District Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA. 94553 Dear Board of Directors: Subject: Protest of proposed Rate Increase RECEIVED APR 2 7 2015 As Seniors on a fixed income we strongly object to the 14.6 % fee increase you are proposing for residential service over the next 2 years. This follows your 18.3% increase in 2013. The amount of these increases is tremendous and shows no regard for current economic conditions and your rate payers. While we expect some 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 4/22/15 Secretary- of the District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Subject Prop 218 Protest Re: Assessor Parcel # 213- 160 -016 -1 00 Another outrageous proposal! #218 (can you ever stop ?) ...it -will burden more taxes on Customers and Nvill trickle down to many (those in business & not) Seniors and Single person households can't keep up with various proposals /parcel tax,etc.etc. Shame on those vs-ho find the time (usually self interest) to propose them!! So, (you sav ?) -move! Well that is easier said than done (for a multitude of reasons) MANY "Customers" ARE LUCKED IN .... ie: taxes on the sale of a business or home and subsequently must buy /rent another ,nd /or....well you can "shake a stick "at the reasons which would be prohibited.! FRANKLY, CHECK YOUR SALARIES for the funds you need for starters,and also check with other Counties that might have a similar condition, see how thev solve it'. Sincerely, Homeowner /one of which shares these ligitament logical ideas. file RECEIVED APR 2 7 2015 MCM- Secretary of the District RECEIVED APR 27 2015 CCC5D- Secretary of the Distri ct To: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District From: Neal Popp 37 Sunrise Lane Lafayette, CA 94549 Re: Sewer Rate Increase at service address 20 Carquinez Scenic Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 and 635 F Street and 637 F Street Martinez, CA 94553 Prop 218 Notification Date; April 22, 2015 I am formally on the record as opposing the Sewer Rate cost increase. I protest the rate increase and now on the record as doing so. My no votes are for 3 properties listed above. Please reduce and control upward spiraling employee costs by reducing salaries, moving all sworn and city staff to a 2%/60 retirement plan and increased employee pension contributions, those measures alone will keep the Sewer charges stable for 8 -10 years and there will be no need to seek any increases. Per the mailed notice received the week of April 13th, 2015, on page 2 (reverse side) per the instructions in the top paragraph, consider this as my protest and No vote on any intended sewer increase measures. RECEIV r, APR 29 2015 cccSD- Secretary of the District Sowref v/ D:tccta" CC- ,77`rs / Co 4tr,, Ces7`t t fC M. �t3'�j,FC✓ '. .c%jSESSor // w/'C3 209 4j.2 ooq o op °�'/ ese t�►e s��9cs1`e.✓ Se wry Scr� cc CAA Je . z 4,0" 'A � y % an ve� /•.+1;feo/ %aW nCe•»e W. t`i1 Sr /.our �r1fd:C•,1 C- "-(:/"4-7 IV "X4 'W.f l O)e W1 :'?CCP C gaiS 1e du/ - 1to�•c.•�er 3snq� .[ tied �rt^ R Cvs7feyy�c♦ o !' / �or ,3� �etrt My u1'c o� iC St Wei S�sJ°em j.5 uoncion 1�a a �i�ci %orncS / WTii 1or`f . /� k • Ws ♦n ✓ f.,,, . mew Geis •j i % "Ve g1Ont -ft ha/ `iOlisi• reed no one tjscy 7%ic SeWC., $ /jXc+„ ii rui ht�� 4nef �+Js✓ Cei15.a%/tAn e� f�!•S rYleilci •S �.11i1y ���ec•te;,e ,,e.w 5.,e r April 24, 2015 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Proposed sewer service increases Parcel #217 -450- 075 -7 -00 Address: 14 Sassafras Ln., San Ramon, CA 94582 Dear Secretary of the District: RECEIVED APR 29 2015 CCCSD- Secretary of the District I am writing this letter as a formal protest of your intent to increase sewer service rates This is not hard to understand; post district directors gave away /spent monies without any foresight to future cost ramifications. With this lack of budget restraint in place, retirees are now collecting more money and benefits than when they were working. Year after year cost of wages and benefits have spiraled out of control lead by the labor union charge. The time has come to really show the ever - burdened rate -payer sincere change. Effective at the June 4, 2015 meeting, put into place a 10% reduction in all retirees, management and staff wages, salary and benefits. And the board should rescind approved Sept. 18, 2014 salary hike sheet. Enough is enough. Does not anyone else see the crafty scheme in the CCCSD abusive practices? Si cereIv, y Nickles pwra2 cl��') Elaine Boehme From: Bill Dick <wjdick6l @comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 9:53 AM To: Elaine Boehme Subject: Prop 218 Protest Another knife in the back for Senior Citizens. A 7 %+ raise! Put that up against Social Security raise( ?) and even a very low I. Q. person can see the disparity. Between PG &E, EBMUD and now Central San, we are getting it on all sides. Thanks but no thanks. William Dick 84 Greenfield Drive Moraga, CA 94556 Donna Anderson From: Stephen Schwarcz <steveschwarcz @comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 10:47 AM To: RATES RATES Subject: rate increase proposal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Please supply the following information or a link to which I could find the information. 1. Salary and benefits costs, including pension details for all top managers 2. Salary and wage information for various level of workers, and the education level required for such workers such as college requirements, within the Dept. 3. Detailed pension benefits for all Dept. staff and detailed description of the type of Pension plan, annual contributions from staff vs. the Dept., etc. Your proposed increase in rates is likely directly related to your HR costs and if they are not reasonable then your rate hike may not be reasonable. Thanks Steve 1 May 4, 2015 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Protest Sewer Service Charge Increase 706 Endsliegh Court, Danville, CA 94506 �5 RECEIVED MAY 0 6 2015 CCCSD• ecretasy or t714 'aistrrct Please accept this letter as a written protest to the subject proposed fee increase as described in the Notice of Public Hearing, set for 7 PM, Thursday, June 4, 2015. The undersigned is the property owner of 706 Endsliegh Court, Danville, CA 94506. Si rely, James W. Z a CiD Donna Anderson From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Sanitary District Directors, SHIRLEYHOFFMAN <shirleyhoffman @comcast.net> Sunday, May 10, 2015 10:28 AM RATES RATES rate up Follow up Completed am a retired elderly woman that lives on social security in the city of Martinez. Your rate increases are going to create a great hardship when I pay my taxes. How can you justify charging me 14.5 %, when I barely use your services since I live alone. I never use my garbage disposal, dishwasher, do laundry once a week and because of the drought, flush the toilet as recommended. It would seem you need to charge per person, just as you are doing for the schools per student. It's all about money and you don't care if it effects the elderly. Regards, Shirley Hoffman P) May 6, 2015 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of Directors Re: Protest to the proposed Sewer Service Charge Increase RECEIVED MAY I 12015 CCCSD- 5ecieid,y u, we District Vcop , 2T9 PVDie. +) We are writing this letter to strongly oppose the increase of Sewer Service Charge. We are a family of two adults and two children with a single income provider. We are devastated by the prospective increase of Sewer Service Charge. If adopted, the new increased fee will create a significant hardship for our family budget and impact the quality of living of our children. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, r Chad and Elena Fischer The property owners of 317 Camaritas Way, Danville, CA 94526 W Donna Anderson From: Andrea Wilder <awilder @paradigmtax.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:51 AM To: RATES RATES Subject: Request for Information Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Good Morning, Can you please send me the formula you use to calculate the Sewer Service charge? T art��ou, Senior Practice Administrator 2 fo • 6320 Canoga Avenue Suite 1430 Woodland Hills, California 91367 (818) 436 -5731 Office (818) 436 -5728 Fax awilder @paradismtax.com f t in Atlanta * Austin * Boston * Buffalo * Chicago '* Cleveland * Dallas * Denver * Detroit * Fort Lauderdale * Honolulu * Houston * Indianapolis * Kansas City * Las Vegas * Los Angeles * Miami * Minneapolis -Saint Paul * New York City * Philadelphia * Phoenix * Pittsburgh * Salt Lake City * San Antonio * San Diego * San Francisco Seattle * Silicon Valley * St. Louis * Tucson * Washington DC Click here for Paradigm Tax Group's Email Disclaimer 1 RECEIVM MAY 12 2015 From: john ivy <jkivy@att.net> CCCSD-Secretary of the District Subject: Proposed SeiNer Service charge rate increase Date: May 8, 2015 10:49:04 AM PDT To. rates9centralsan.org There is a large problem with the proposed rate increase: This is due to poor management of investments and investment management, and should not fall on the backs of ratepayers. Please seek a solution to this deficit by adjusting wages & pension benefits of employees & management. Consider this a formal objection to your proposed increase in rates. alone is staggering and unacceptable. J--L John Ivy 11 Shady Lane Court Walnut Creek, CA 94597 The idea of $500/yr taxes for sewer rates �y�MAY 13 2015 "`^'Secrerary of the District David Annal 231 Greenbrook Drive Danville, CA 94526 May 10, 2015 Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 -4392 Re: Prop 218 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 in May 2015, register this as my protest of your Proposed Sewer Service Charge Increases. While increases in line with the rate of inflation can be understood, the proposed increases of 7.3% in the first year plus a further 6.8% in the second year are far beyond what could be considered reasonable and acceptable. This on the heels of increases of 9.2% in 2013 and 8.4% in 2014 means rates will have been raised in excess of 35% over a four year period. You should be embarrassed to even make such a proposal. To make the statement in the notification letter that the District is "being financially responsible" shows how disconnected from reality your organization has become. David Annal �3 May 9, 2015 District Directors REC�'�3ED Central Contra Costa Sanitary District MAY 13 2015 5019 Imhoff Place, CCCSD.Secretary Ofthe piste Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Objection to Proposition 218 New Service Rates Parcel: 187 - 312 -011 -5 00 Dear District Directors, I do not object to your need to raise sewer service rates to continue to maintain and improve our sewer services, but the timetable you propose needs to be spread over more than two years. People are still not seeing wage increases; businesses are only beginning to recover; and high schools will have to divert funds from classrooms at a time when they are just getting some funding back. Spreading out these big increases over 3 - 4 years would make them easier to absorb for all concerned. The Contra Costa Times sites one reason for this steep rise is the result of not having done "a cost -of- services study in a long time," according to Chris Carpenter. Perhaps, such studies should be done more frequently to provide for more gradual rate increases year to year. Thank you, -Z *&`� Nancy A. Williams Homeowner 2512 Appaloosa Ct. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Donna Anderson From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Mr. Carpenter, Thank you for your reply. KJR60@aol.com Tuesday, June 02, 2015 11:09 PM RATES RATES Re: Objection to the Proposed Rate Increase Follow up Completed wf I now want to add to my objection to the proposed rate increase. Nowhere in your reply do you mention needing more money for administrative costs. Somewhere in the administration of Central San, there is the cost of pensions. This is a gnawing issue particularly at a time of a rate increase. On May 29, 2015, Daniel Borenstein, staff columnist for 2015 Bay Area News Group posted an article for the Contra Costa Times where in part it reads ............ many public agency executives in Contra Costa whose heavily spiked pensions drew scrutiny.,. The posting goes on to read "Others included ................Jim Kelly, general manager of the Central Sanitary District, who left a $258,000 job for an annual pension the next day of $270,000. If Borenstein's posting is accurate; to think that a person in a civil service (very secure) job, can hold a $258K job and retire the next day at $270K is unconscionable. AND, I have to pay for it from my $10k pension. It doesn't make any difference to me as to who is the irresponsible party that allowed that pension to happen, as far as I'm concerned it's a cost originated in Central San and I'm stuck paying for it. I strongly object to the proposed rate increase. Kevin Reidy In a message dated 5/18/2015 9:16:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, RATES(cDcentralsan.org writes: Mr. Reidy, The District's Board of Directors does not take rate increases lightly, and your email message will be provided to them for consideration in advance of the public hearing. The proposed rate increase is necessary for a variety of reasons, beyond inflation. The permit requirements, services offered, and age of the CCCSD's infrastructure have all increased over the years, which requires additional revenue. The district is required to meet permit requirements for discharge of wastewater to Suisun Bay, which have become more stringent over the years. So far CCCSD has maintained 100% compliance for one of the most strict discharge permits in the country. Additionally, the District is responsible for meeting increasingly restrictive air quality and collection system permits. CCCSD is currently conducting studies on how to best P' accomplish nutrient removal which is an additional permit requirement on the horizon. A large portion of our infrastructure both at the treatment plant and the collection system were constructed 45 to 50 years ago. As our infrastructure ages, it will require more money to replace or retrofit pipes and equipment. The District has over $3 billion in existing assets that must continue to be maintained so that CCCSD can complete the job it is responsible for. So it is not that the District was neglecting the maintenance of infrastructure, it is that a larger percentage of infrastructure is needing to be replaced or renovated as it reaches the end of its lifespan. Financially, our operating budget for the coming fiscal year will remain flat. For the past number of years, the District has been spending down reserves to cover costs so that past increases could be lessened during the recession. The proposed increase will mostly cover capital improvements and reduce the draw from reserves for operating expenses. Unfortunately, the District is not allowed to offer a discounted rate for any particular customer group. Proposition 218 requires that Central San charge customers for the service that they receive, and not any more than that. The only way to offer a discount would be to charge another customer group the difference. If you have additional questions about CCCSD's operations or the proposed rate increase, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Chris Carpenter U3 3 P' From: KJR60Ccbaol.com [mailto:K1R60 @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 6:22 PM To: RATES RATES Subject: Objection to the Proposed Rate Increase Dear Sir /Madam: I am a residential customer and am writing to object to the proposed rate increase. The proposed rate increases of 7.3% over one year and 14.5% over two years are atrocious numbers. Has there suddenly been an awareness of a significant problem? I am a senior living on a fixed income. Increases such as those proposed hit hard. I respectfully request that you consider scaling down your proposed plan. Sincerely, Kevin Reidy �J Elaine Boehme Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Ms. Boehme, RECEIVED MAY 15 2015 CCCSD -Sec, ew Y of the District May 15, 2015 My wife and I are customers of CCCSD, and are homeowners in Lafayette, CA (Assessor's Parcel Number 230 - 030 -027). We are strongly opposed to the proposed sewer rate increases to be discussed at the Public Hearing scheduled by the District for June 4, 2015, for a number of reasons. Year after year after year, we're seeing dramatic increases in our sewer rates. Real underlying costs of sewer service simply cannot be increasing at the rates you're proposing. The proposed residential increases are 7.3% for 2015 -16 and 6.8% for 2016 -17. These rates themselves are far above the rate of inflation, but they pale when compared to the 2015 -16 increases you're proposing for Intermediate Schools (91 %), High Schools (170 %), or Supermarkets (114 %). Simply outrageous, and unjustifiable. At a minimum, there's a broken budgeting/planning function at the District when we're presented with annual rate increases of over 100 %. Perhaps your thinking is that the schools and markets might accept such a rate beating with less opposition than individual homeowners? And what is a primary driver of these predatory rate increases? Totally missing from the "How is the District being financially responsible ?" paragraph of your Proposition 218 Notification document is any mention of the long history of pension abuses, for which this particular District was described as the "poster child" by its own General Manager in 2012! 40% final -year salary spikes? Starting pensions that exceed final -year salaries? As Dan Borenstein noted for the Contra Costa Times back in June 2013, when this pension abuse was already in full flower, "Central Contra Costa Sanitary District officials plan to raise sewer rates 18 percent over the next two fiscal years. Simply put, it's a pension tax." Contrary to the title of this paragraph in your Prop 218 Notification, the District has in fact for many years been grossly financially irresponsible. Well, it's time for a pension tax revolt. The District must find some other means of making up for this long history of financial mismanagement. We protest your proposed 2015 -16 and 2016- 17 rate increases in the strongest possible terms. Sincerely, e " Edmond J. Wa taff 1 Gable Lane Lafayette, CA oq Donna Anderson From: Jim Rath <jimrath28 @gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 11:06 AM To: RATES RATES Subject: Sewer Service Charge Increases Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed The Proposition 218 Notification briefly mentions some ways the District is being financially responsible and states that the proposed rate increases are necessary for maintenance on old pipes. It fails to mention why more rate increases are required given the large increases that have been implemented over the last 15 years. The average residential rate increase over the last four years has been 9% per year. It has averaged 6% per year over the last 15 years. Those are approximately five times and 3 times the rate of inflation, respectively. If the sewer service charge had simply tracked the rate if inflation over the last 15 years, rates would be only $270. The current rate of $439 is 63% higher. If the charge had increased at double the rate of inflation, it would still be only $340. The current charge is 29% above even that. If there is a need for further increases in order to maintain pipes that had either not been replaced at the proper time in the past or reserves had not been established to do so, what happened to the tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars of rate increases above inflation? How can we be assured the District will be financially responsible with more revenue without knowing why its spending has increased so dramatically? Jim Rath Lafayette, CA Written Protest in Opposition to Proposed Sewer Service Charge Increases Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Dated and mailed: May 15, 2015 My property's parcel number: APN 366- 181 -003 -0 Signature of property owner: Scott Dittman RECEIVED MAY 19 2015 CCCSD-S retary of the 6...1'A This protest is in opposition to the proposed sewer service charge increases. The primary reason for this protest is that the District has not addressed: • How retirement benefits and medical costs for retirees is being reduced to be equivalent to private- sector business practices. The District is indicating that retirement costs are at least 10% of your total budget. Past mistakes still need corrective actions. • What annual benefit cost limits are in place for retirement benefits and the elimination of "spiking" and other artificial means of increasing retirement costs? Past mistakes still need corrective actions. • How do staff salaries compare to similar private- sector businesses and how they will be reduced to be equivalent to the private sector? Public sector comparisons are not usually valid due to escalation in similar organizations. • What are the total payments to current and past directors of the District and annual costs for same? I contend that directors should be reimbursed only for meeting attendance with no further salaries or benefits of any kind. They were elected to perform a public service and not for financial gain. Thank you. • Elroy F. Holtmann 3144 Ramada Court Lafayette, CA 94549 925 - 937 -0308 May 18, 2015 Secretary of the District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 RECEIVED MAY 21 2015 CCCSD.Secretary of the District I am protesting all of the proposed rate increases in your undated mailing for FY 2015- 2016 and FY 2016 -2017. 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 rate increase of about 7.5% which is completely unjustified. Are you people going to increase my social security income by 7.5% so I can pay the proposed rate increase? In 2008 your rates were about $300/yr. Since then your rate increases have averaged 7.85% per year. That is far above the rate of inflation. It is time the Board step up and put an end to these runaway costs. 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, Elroy F. Holtmann Property Owner 3144 Ramada Court Lafayette, CA 94549 G 36 RECEIVED Thomas L Hollister MAY 2 2 2015 39 Shetland Court, San Ramon, CA 94583 =SD-Secretary of the District Phone: 925- 828 -6630 Cell: 925 - 719 -7675 thomas.hol lister@yahoo.com May 19, 2015 Secretary of the District District Board Room CCCSD 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Property Location: 39 Shetland Court, San Ramon, CA 94583 I am protesting the increase in proposed sewer charges due to the fact that employees of the district are overpaid, over - benefitted and underworked. This results in increased fees. As a quasi - governmental operation providing service to the public, market pay and benefits should be paid to all employees... not union or prevailing wages. No payments or benefits above what one would have to pay in the open market should be made. Similarly, there should be no work rules or restrictions above those that would need to be made in the open market. I urge a rejection of any increases in water ratesand an immediate move to market wages and work rules for all non - management personnel. Sincerely, ;�74 l Thomas L Hollister Donna Anderson From: Whitney Devine < whitneyd @hallequitiesgroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 6:08 PM To: RATES RATES Subject: RE: 1250 Arroyo Way Walnut Creek CA Sewer Tax Bill Inquiry Hi Jolene, Thank you for the information below and speaking with us again today. You have been very helpful! As discussed, please send over the documentation for pulling the water /sewer permits and the breakdown of the costs associated with the charges. Thank you! Whitney Devine Multi - Family Portfolio Manager Hall Equities Group - CA -DRE #00241430 Office:925- 933 -4000, ext. 299 WhitneyD @halleguitiesgroup.com Confidentiality Note: This email and any attachments may contain confidential and /or privileged information. Except for use by the intended recipients, or as expressly authorized by the sender, any person who receives this information is prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing and /or using it. If you have received this email in error, please immediately delete it and all copies, and promptly notify the sender at the above telephone number or electronic mail address. Delivery of this email is not intended to waive any applicable privileges. From: RATES RATES [mailto:RATES @centralsan.ory] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 9:08 AM To: Stephanie McCallum Cc: Whitney Devine Subject: RE: 1250 Arroyo Way Walnut Creek CA Sewer Tax Bill Inquiry Good Morning Stephanie and Whitney, I was forwarded this email request and also received the voice mail message left by Whitney. I hope this email response will provide the information you need, but if you would like to talk further, let me know and I would be happy to call you back. The property on Arroyo Way will be charged $471.00 per unit or a total of $47,100.00 on the 15/16 property tax bill. This charge is for collecting and treating the wastewater collected from the property. These charges will be collected every year for services. Charges for the Fitness Center will be calculating using the water consumption reported to us by EBMUD. Since it is too early to measure the consumption for this fiscal year, an estimate based on square footage and use will be calculated and included on the tax bill. This charge should be less than $500.00. I hope this answers your questions. Please let me know if you need additional information or feel free to call me directly at 925- 229 -7115. Sincerely, Jolene Bertera ti Engineering Assistant From: Stephanie McCallum [ mailto: StephanieM (aOhallequitiesgroup.com] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 12:34 PM To: RATES RATES Cc: Whitney Devine Subject: 1250 Arroyo Way Walnut Creek CA Sewer Tax Bill Inquiry Importance: High Hello, We are finalizing budgets. Can you give us a range of what you plan to charge us for the sewer tax bill? Parcel number 178 - 412 -014 -7 0 Location: 1250 Arroyo way Walnut Creek, CA 100 units 4 public bathrooms 1 pool and spa Fitness center with showers Water features... Right for the 2014 -2015 taxes it shows 44,117.50. Do you have even an estimate you could provide? Please reply all. Best, Stephanie McCallum yy Community Manager Hall Equities Group- CA -LORI; #00241430 1855 Olympic Blvd., Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 "Tel: (925) 933 -4000 ext.250 I Fax: (925) 933 -4172 step lianiem(L�Dhal leg uitiesgroup.com The Arroyo I A haven of luxM in the heart of Walnut Creek www.thearrovowc.com The Arroyo Residences The Arroyo (a TheArroyoWC) I 'Twitter Confidentiality Note: This email and any attachments may contain confidential and /or privileged intbrmation. Except for use by the intended recipients, or as expressly authorized by the sender, any person who receives this information is prohibited born disclosing, copying, distributing and /or using it. Ifyou have receivedthis email in error, please immediately delete it and all copies, and promptly notify the sender at the above telephone-number or electronic mail address. Delivery of this email is not intended to waive anv applicable privileges. 3q May 30, 2015 Lisa and Gary Whitehead 2830 Kinney Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94595 -1059 925 - 937 -4529 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Secretary of the District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 -4392 Re: Hearing on proposed increases to sewer service dated June 04, 2015 Dear Sir /Madam, RECIFIVED JUN -s 12015 =Skiecretary at tits District This letter is in protest to the proposed Central Contra Costa Sanitary District rate increases for Sewer service for tax years 2015 -2016 and 2016 -2017. 1 understand there will be a Public Hearing on June 04, 2015. 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. This letter is in protest to the proposed Sewer Service Charge increases for Residential Customers. The huge increase that is proposed is a hardship for those of us who are nearing retirement. It is unimaginable that you need to increase our rates from $439 per year to $503 per year. Why do you need to rehabilitate all 600 miles of sewer pipes now? Why have you waited 50 years to consider this maintenance project? Perhaps this should have been an on -going project over the past 50 years. Please reconsider your "needs" and your costs. We have been in our home more than 21 years and we cannot afford to move. We are older and only have one income. Our expenses are already more than our income and there is no guarantee how long my husband will be able to continue to work. Your proposal for Sewer Service rate increases shows discrimination toward older homeowners. This is not OK. Thank you, Lisa Whitehead 0�0 Donna Anderson From: Elaine Boehme Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:38 PM To: Donna Anderson Subject: FW: protest Another, not legally valid however. From: Kevin Cabral (Walnut Creek) [ mailto :kcabral(c)clubsports.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:36 PM To: Elaine Boehme Subject: protest I do not support the proposed service fee rate hike from the Contra Costa Sanitary District. Live Healthy, Kevin Cabral General Manager Renaissance ClubSport Walnut Creek 2805 Jones Road Walnut Creek, CA 94597 P. 925.942.6309 F. 925.942.6348 E. kcabral@clubsports.com www.renaissanceclubsport.com I Donna Anderson From: Sent: To: Subject: And another, not legally valid. Elaine Boehme Monday, June 01, 2015 4:13 PM Donna Anderson FW: Protest From: Dimino, Karen [ma i Ito: Karen. Dimino(&interstatehotels.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 4:12 PM To: Elaine Boehme Subject: Protest I do not support the proposed service fee rate hike from the Contra Costa Sanitary District. Karen Dimino General Manager Holiday Inn Express Walnut Creek 2730 N. Main St Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Direct: 925 2641620 Main: 925 932 3332 Fax: 925 256 7672 Karen .DiminoOInterstatehotels.com Proudly inducted into `Hall of Fame' of Five -time Certificate of Excellence Winners on the World's Largest Travel Site HALL {+x `j FA N1 E The contents of this e -mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole pUrpose of delivery to the intended recipient: If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e -mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http:/ /www.mimecast.com SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 699 Old Orchard Drive, Danville, California 94526 I3 D: Business Services (925 ) 552 -2905 •FAX (925) 831 -9314 RECEIVED www.srviisd.net JUN 0 2 2015 June 2, 2015 . �recdry or the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Secretary of the District Ms. Elaine Boehme 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Re: "Sewer Service Charge Protest" 187 -190 -007 -0 Alamo 223 -1.10- 033 -8 Hidden Hills 198 -120- 020 -5 Rancho Romero 222 -240- 035 -6 Coyote Creek 222 - 240 -035 -6 Quail Run 199- 310- 011 -2 Montair 220 -660 -059 -1 Tassajara 202- 081 -001 -2 Green Valley 202 -162- 016 -2 Vista Grande 207 -231 -008 -5 John Baldwin Dear Ms. Boehme, 209 -030 -049 -8 Twin Creeks 209 -540- 001 -2 Bollinger 21.3 -030- 017 -7 Montevideo 215- 090 - 026 -0 Sycamore 217- 050.007 -4 Golden View 218- 140 - 0111 -6 Greenbrook 207 -081: -008 -6 Charlotte Wood 213 -132- 003 -4 Iron Horse 206- 020 -083 -5 Diablo Vista 196- 370 - 030 -5 Los Cerros 192 -150- 034 -2 Stone Valley 199 -330 -042 -3 San Ramon HS 199 -260- 003 -9 Del Amigo 196 - 370 -019 -8 Monte Vista 223 -400 -023 -6 Windemere 223 - 100 -001 -1 Live Oak 216- 220- 008 -9 District Office 218 -111- 004-6 Service Center 223 -010- 032 -9 Dougherty Val 222- 270 -019 -3 Gale Ranch 26- 030 -077 -5 Creekside The San Ramon Valley Unified School District is deeply concerned with the recommendations resulting from the recent Cost of Service Study and wishes to protest the proposed rate structure for schools. The study concluded schools were not paying their fair share currently and the proposed rates both correct this apparent issue and incorporate overall increases proposed for all customers. As currently proposed; the rates for elementary schools would increase 10.1°/x, middle schools 105% and high schools 1.89% by July 1 2016 with the majority of this increase taking affect by July 1, 2015 (less than 30 days from now). Our understanding is schools make up a small percentage of the CCCSD's total revenue and therefore we suggest the district consider raising school rates at a much more gradual pace over several years in order to soften this financial blow. We attended the meeting held by CCCSD in San Ramon last week to become more informed on the services provided by CCCSD and to better understand your current and future operational and financial challenges. This was an impressive presentation and we do understand all customers must do their part to ensure the continuation of the vital services your organization provides. We believe a more gradual increase in rates will both assist our district with staying focused on doing what's best for students as we recover from the recession and support CCCSD in a responsible manner. We urge you to reconsider the rate increase timeline for public school districts. Sincerely, Scott Anderson Chief Business Officer Donna Anderson From: Raine, Katrece <Katrece.Raine @marriott.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:16 AM To: RATES RATES Subject: Policy for the Submission and Tabulation of Proposition 218 Notice Protests. Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed The Pleasant Hill Courtyard by Marriott would like to protest the increasing rates for our area. Please count this in as a vote to NOT increase the rate. Should you have questions please contact me at the information below. 7ifTi1!�l KATRECE R RAINE General Manager o 925 691 1444 f 925 691 0616 Courtyard (Pleasant Hill) 2250 Contra Costa Blvd Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 VISIT OUR WEBSITE: www.marriott.com /oakcp C.. 3 ) This communication cnntair;s information from Maniou Mternati000l, In<_ thot maybe confidential. Except far personal use by the intended recipient, oras expressly outholized b sender, arty person vvho receives this information is proh,bited"rom .zsclosir ,, opyirq, di5t1ibuting, andfor using it. i f you nave received this communication in error, please irorne, delete it and all copies, and prormptly notfy the sender. No, hiny in this cornn,unic ation is intended to operate as an electronic signature under applicable taw. 1 Donna Anderson From: Elaine Boehme Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 10:32 AM To: Donna Anderson Subject: FW: Sewer Service Charge Protest Attachments: cy pleasant hill.pdf From: RATES RATES Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 10:12 AM To: Elaine Boehme Subject: FW: Sewer Service Charge Protest Elaine, Attached is a formal protest that was emailed to the District. I have responded to the sender letting them know that it was received, and that it will be provided to the Board. Chris From: Brown, Tamara [mailto:TShmerykowski reitmr.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 10:06 AM To: RATES RATES Cc: Raine, Katrece Subject: Sewer Service Charge Protest To Whom it May Concern, Please find the attached protest letter pertaining to Proposition 2018. Thank you. Tamara S. Brown (Shmerykowsky) Director- Asset Management Hospitality Properties Trust Two Newton Place 255 Washington Street, Suite 300 Newton, MA 02458 1 P' -, June 3, 2015 Hospitality properties Trust Two Newton Place, 255 Washington Street, Newton, Massachusetts 02458 -1634 (617) 964 -8389 tei (617) 969 -5730 fax www.hptreit.com To Whom It May Concern, Hospitality Properties Trust ( "HPT "), owner of the Pleasant Hill Courtyard by Marriott located at 2250 Contra Costa Blvd. Pleasant Hill, Ca. 94523, would like to protest against the July, 2015 and July, 2016 rate increases that Contra Costa Sanitary District is proposing to impose on the hotels within the market, including the Pleasant Hill Courtyard by Marriott located at 2250 Contra Costa Blvd. Pleasant Hill, Ca. 94523. HPT and Courtyard by Marriott, as manager of the property, would like to ensure our current rate of $4.07 remains. We do not support the proposed service fee rate hike from the Contra Costa Sanitary District now or in the future. Thank you for enter fur vote. Ethan Bornstein Senior Vice President Hospitality Properties Trust A Maryland Real Estate Investment Trust with transferable shares of beneficial interest listed on the New York Stock Exchange. No shareholder, Trustee or officer is personally liable for any act or obligation of the Trust. Pv June 4,2015 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Re Parcel: 233-120-10 Property : The Lafayette Park Hotel & Spa 3207 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Lafayette, CA 94549 This isa formal protest to the proposed rate increase for sewer service as stated in the proposition 218 notification. Though | understand the need for increased costs to cover infrastructure improvements and changes, | feel that raising prices by90% for 2O15 and 112% over a two year period isunreasonable. Lafayette Park Hotel & Spa paid over $64K in fees for sewer service in 2014. Though we are doing many changes at the property to conserve water, which will help reduce our waste, it's unreasonable to double the sewer fee as it will present a huge financial challenge for the property. Your consideraff to this protest is appreciated. Nick BozyCh Vice President ai4Generai manager Lafayette Park Hotel & Spa 32S7 Nit. Diablo Boulevard , 1-,af°yette,(A94549 ^ 9Z5-203-3700^Fax 925-284-1621