HomeMy WebLinkAbout06. (Handout) Prop 218 Responses Item 6.
(Handout)
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
2017 PROPOSITION 218 NOTICE'
Summary of Responses
Tallied as of 12:00 p.m. — April 20, 2017
LEGALLY
VALID
WRITTEN RESPONSES PROTESTS
Mail, email, facsimile, hand-delive RECEIVED
OPPOSED:
0-1 General opposition 21 15
0-2 Fixed income/hardship/senior citizen 4 4
Total Opposed 25 19
NEUTRAL:
N-1 Request for information 0
N-2 Other 1
Total Neutral 1
Total Written Qs
NON-WRITTEN
Phone not a valid means of eroLest
PHONE CALLS:
N-1 Request for information 3
N-2 Other 0
Total Non-Written 3
TOTAL RESPONSES 29
1 A total of 107,755 Proposition 218 Notices were mailed in March 2017 regarding the Sewer Service
Charge.
Cl)
(Not legally valid)
Elaine Boehme
From: John Pallavicini <jpallav@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 3:24 PM
To: Elaine Boeh me
Subject: rate increase
Fallow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status:- Flagged
I received your notification in regards to a potential rate increase. As you know it will not make any difference in the
process as you will increase them anyhow. Perhaps if you lowered you huge management salaries and got rid of the
lavished undeserved pensions you would not have to increase rates. Another good idea is not to schedule 12 men
working around a hole while one digs and the others talk on their cell phones and sleep in their trucks. It really
annoys people when we can see a san truck with worker inside sleeping at 10 in the morning
1
Prop 218 Protest March 7,2017
Central Contra Costa County
Sanitary District (`'Central San")
eboehme a@centralsan.org
RE: Prop 218 Protest
I am a resident of orinda, Contra Costa County, California. As such,I recently
received a.mailing relating to proposed rate increases for sewer service in connection
with a wide range of specified infrastructure improvements("Improvements"').
In my opinion, the Improvements are both substantial and long overdue.
It should come as no surprise to Central San that the Improvements are both
substantial and long overdue. why does Central San plan,then, to fund the
Improvements on the backs of its rate-payers through multiple yearly rate increases?
Why is there no mention of Central San having previously set aside a reserve fund for
this purpose? was Central San unprepared for this completely predictable funding
requirement? why is there no mention of the use of an infrastructure reserve fund or any
other funding source, including county, state or federal tax revenues?
If Central San has held itself responsible since 1946 for providing `safe and
reliable wastewater treatment for residents of Central Contra Costa County,' as is stated
in its mailing,why hasn't Central San provided itself with whatever is needed to carry out
its mission? In particular,why hasn't Central San previously been funding a sufficient
reserve rather than placing the burden on its rate-payers for maintaining a reserve and
funding the Improvements necessary for doing what it is responsible for doing11 ?
In addition, I see no reference to any auditing requirements and financial controls
m respect of the funds collected through these rate increases in.order to ensure that each
dollar is dedicated solely to the Improvements rather than general corporate purposes.
In light of the above,I hereby protest the rate increases requested by Central San
in regard to the Improvements. If Central San hasn't pre-funded these clearly
predictable requirements then it should not tale the easy route to financing these
foreseeable needs through rate increases. Moreover,however the funding is provided,
Central San must maintain rigorous financial controls to ensure its customers that the
added funding is used solely for the Improvements. 1
R/obert inch
30 Paintbrush Dane
orinda, CA 94563
3 a
930"no (Not legally valid)
oehme
From: SHIRLEYHOFFMAN <shirleyhoffman@comcast.net> .
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 10:58 AM
To: Elaine Boehme
Subject: Prop 218 protest
Board of Directors:
I am protesting against the proposed rate increases you have issued for the following reasons:
In 2014 basic homeowner charge was $439 a year.Then there was a 7.2 percent raise to $471 for the
2015 tax year
and to $503,for 2010 tax year.
Now you want a 7 percent raise again for 2017-18.
2014 Roger Bailey, general manager, salary plus benefits were $440,470, 2015 $450,300 an
increase of 15,830.
2014 Paul Seitz, systems manager, salary plus benefits were $344,279, 2015 $350,934, an increase
of 22,055.
It appears to me that you are asking for these rate-ups to cover your salary increases(which I'm sure
are even higher
now), instead of what you claim under Prop 218 to "charge on the cost of providing services".
Regards,
Shirley Hoffman
Elaine Boehme
From: Roger Bailey
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 6:03 PM _
To: 'shirleyhoffman@comcast.net'
Subject: FW: Prop 218 protest
Ms. Hoffman,
Thank you for reaching out to Central San about your concerns related to our upcoming proposed rate increase.We
value your input and opinion. our rate increase will cover a number of major projects, increases in operations and
maintenance costs and labor costs. We mentioned all of these in our rate notice, as transparency is the cornerstone of
maintaining trust with our customers.
Our work is not easy. It is complex, highly regulated,and requires consistency to maintain. Within an average year,
Central San collects and treats over 12 billion gallons of sewage, produces 1-2 million gallons of recycled water, operates
a full-time household hazardous waste facility, performs over 15,000 scientific lab tests, continuously replaces aging
infrastructure,cleans over Boa miles of pipe, all while having the best reliability record in the Bay Area.This is not
accomplished without highly trained and skilled staff. our scientists,engineers, operators, and other operational staff
are focused on protecting the public health and the environment,while providing exceptional service to our customers.
To continue to provide our customers with the level of service that they expect from us,we must attract the quality of
staff necessary to do so. While you may not agree with our salaries, our hope is that you are supportive of our service
levels.
For reference, the compensation information you provided in your email is inaccurate. I have included the State's
reporting link below for the most accurate information on employees compensation.
htt ublic a .ca. ov Re arts S ecialDistricts S ecialDistrict.as x?entit id=1974&fiscal ear=2015
Thank you for allowing us serve you.
Roger S. Bailey
General Manager
1
Elaine Boehme
From: Mary Williams <mkotsenas@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 11:18 AM
To: Elaine Boehme
Subject: Info request related to proposed Rate increase
Please provide the following information:
What %of the proposed rate increase will is to be allocated to labor costs including salary, benefits and
pension?
What percent of pay does the District contribute for employee pension and what percent of pay does the
employee contribute?
What is the unfunded pension liability for the District?
What are the amounts of the negotiated pay increases for the labor groups for 2017 and 2018?
What percent of the health insurance premium do employees contribute for health coverage?
Please let me know when I can expect the answers. This is a public records act request.
Thank you.
Mary Williams
Elaine Boehme
From: Emily Barnett
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 2:43 PM
To: Mary Williams
Cc: Elaine Boehme; Lupe Saldana
Subject: RE:Info request related to proposed Rate increase
Ms.Williams,
Thank you for your request for further information related to employee pay and benefits. Staff has compiled responses
to your questions which have been provided below.
Question:What%of the proposed rate increase will is to be allocated to labor costs including salary, benefits and
pension?
Answer:
The projected increase in salaries and benefits over the next two years is$6 million. The projected additional
revenue over the next two years from the Sewer Service Charge is$12.9 million.Central San also receives other
revenues, including from the City of Concord for treatment of that City's wastewater. Figuring in all Central San' s
revenue sources,41%of the proposed rate increase would be allocated to labor costs.
Please note that this information.is tentative, as the Board has not yet adopted the rate increase, nor the budget for
FY2017-18.The Proposition 218 rate increase notice that was sent out to customers was based on this financial
planning information that may change.
Question:What percent of pay does the District contribute for employee pension and what percent of pay does the
employee contribute?
Answer:
The amounts vary based upon whether an employee is categorized as either"legacy" or California Public Employees'
Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) (hired post 1/1/13 with no reciprocity). Presently, (as of 2/17/17 payroll end
date)82.7%(230 full-time employees)are Legacy and 17.3% PEPRA(48 full-time employees)
The employer normal contribution for Fiscal Year 16/17, as well as those for Fiscal Year 17/18 is noted below. These
contributions exclude ongoing or one-time contributions related to the unfunded liability(which arises from
shortfalls in investment returns from the actuarially assumed rate).
Fiscal Year Legacy PEPRA
2017-2018 17.08% 11.70
2016-2017 16.99% 12.06
The em to ee contributions are noted below: Please note that the legacy employees contributions are based upon
the age of entry. For purposes of summarizing,the numbers below are for a typical employee who entered the
retirement system at the age of 36.
Fiscal Year Legacy PEPRA
1 .
2017-2018 11-85% 11.70%
2016-2017 11.76% 12.069
Question:What is the unfunded pension liability for the District?
Answer: See table below:
Retirement Valuation as of December 31, Unfunded Actuarially Accrued Liability(UAAL)
2015 $8811820225
2014 $100,955,188
Central San has taken steps to reduce the UAAL by making additional payments in each of the last several years.
Question:What are the amounts of the negotiated pay increases for the labor groups for 2017 and 2018?
Answer:
Effective April 18, 2017,the labor agreements provide fora wage increase in the amount of the adjustment in the
Consumer Price Index(CPI)for the Bay Area (February to February) plus 1 percent. The CPI for this period was
announced this week at 3.4%. Our current agreements expire at the end of 2017. No determinations have been
made past this time.
Question:What percent of the health insurance premium do employees contribute for health coverage?
Answer:
The District covers the premium for HMO plans and employees share the cost of PPO plans.
Emily Barnett
Communication&Intergovernmental Relations Manager
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
From: Elaine Boehme
Sent: March 17, 2017 03:06 PM
To: Mary Williams
Subject: RE: Info request related to proposed Rate increase
Good afternoon. Thank you for your email. We are preparing a response and will get it to you on Monday.
Elaine Boehme
M..E~a i n e R. Boehmer CMC
Secretary of the District
Bras,(925)229-7303 r
Fax:(925)676-7211
eboehme C a1saneargcen"W1 C"t
2
OL
Elaine Boehme
From: Mary Williams <mkotsenas@hotmaii.com'>
Sent: Thursday, April 2o, 2017 9:21 AM
To: Elaine Boehme
Subject: Prop 218 Protest
Attachments: CCC Sanitary Dist
Please see the attached written protest and provide it to the Board prior to the public hearing today. i hope to
attend the hearing today as well.
Thank you.
Mary Williams
1
11 Woodford Drive
Moraga,CA 94556
April 20. 2017
Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: Prop 218 Protest
Dear Board of Directors:
I am writing to protest the proposed rate increase.
The majority of the proposed rate increase will be allocated to pension and labor
costs and the District has not taken adequate steps to manage and control these
costs.
I have worked in Labor Relations in a public sector jurisdiction and I am well aware
of the challenges of negotiating more reasonable and affordable employee pay and
benefits packages. I am not suggesting that Central Costa County Sanitary District
employees should not receive fair wages and benefits. However,the District must
take steps to properly control and manage pension and labor costs rather than
constantly coming to taxpayers to request increases to pay for these escalating
costs.
I realize that the Pension Reform Act made a small step toward controlling some
pension costs,but the District can and should do more to negotiate more affordable
pension benefits.The majority of the taxpayers who are paying for the extremely
generous public sector pensions do not have anything that comes close to the
District's pension benefits. Certainly given that people are living and working
longer and longer, it is reasonable to propose an increase to the age factor (and
other factors) in pension plans including for the pre-PEPRA employees.
The same can be said for sharing in the cost of health coverage.Again,the majority
of the citizens that your District serves are sharing in (or paying outright) the cost of
medical insurance premiums. Central Costa County sanitary District employees
contribute nothing toward the cost of the health premium for an HMO plan!And an
employee pays nothing for dependent coverage for an HMO.It is certainly
reasonable for an employee to contribute 10%of the cost of any premium for
medical coverage that the employer pays on the employee's behalf.
I realize that the Bay Area is an expensive place to live. But the District's wage
structure is very fair, and the negotiated wage increases are very generous.
I strongly object to the proposed rate increase based on the District's results thus far
in controlling pension and labor costs.
Sincerely,
/s/Mary Williams
Mary Williams
11 Woodford Drive
Moraga, CA 94556
Aleu/rd
Elaine Boehme
From: Amandeep Singh <amansandhu1003@grnai1.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 4:31 PM,
To: Elaine Boehme
Subject: Protest Letter for 2017 to 2018 Projects
March 11, 2107
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place,
Martinez,CA 94553
Subject: Protest Letter for 2017 to 2018 Projects
There are pump stations and treatment plant projects, and energy generation projects which include energy efficiency
such as variable frequency drives on pumps as reported in the Central San newsletter. These energy efficiency and
energy generation projects are eligible for he state incentives and on-bill financing through PG&E.The on-bill financing is
an interest free loan through PG&E (funded by CPUC through PPP charges paid by utility customers).The energy
efficiency and energy generation projects cost should be covered through the PG&E incentives and on-bill financing and
should not passed to the district residential and commercial customers.
Your PG&E'account rep can help you on the incentives and on-bill financing. I can help as well if required.
Best regards,
Aman
Sent from my Whone
1
ael RECEIVED
MAR 13 2017
MCS&Secrewry Of the District
David Annal
231 Greenbrook Drive
Danville, CA 94526
March%2017
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 in March 2017,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% in the first year plus a further 7% in the second year are far beyond what
could be considered reasonable and acceptable. This on the heels of increases of 9.2%in
20135 8.4%in 20149 7.3%in 2015 and 6.8%in 2016 means rates will.have been raised in
excess of 5 5%.over a six year period. You should be embarrassed to even make such a
proposal.
I see your rate increase notification no longer includes the statement in former
notices that the District is "being financially responsible"but I doubt you recognize how
irresponsible these kinds of continued rate increases demonstrate you to be. Any director
supporting such egregious increases should be'voted out of office.
In the interest of demonstrating a commitment to maintaining reasonable services
rates ongoing, I suggest the board and workforce accept a decrease in salaries and
benefits in the same percentage that service charge increases exceed the rate of inflation.
Then your plans and cost projections might garner some credibility for attempting fiscal
prudence.
Yours truly
David Annal
G
RECEI'VED
March 6, 2017 MAR 13 2017
CCCSD-SecreYaiy al the District
Central Contra Costa Sanitary Dist. Office
Board Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: 2630 Meadow Glen Drive
San Ramon, CA 94583
I am writing to oppose the rate increase for Sewer Service Charges.
I live on fixed income and I cannot afford a rate increase. I already pay sufficient charges for you
to maintain and must protest because I know that your current charges should be enough if you
budgeted properly and kept your administrative costs in check. You cannot keep raising rates
because it will cause some people to have to move from where they have lived for 30+years.
Sincerely,
Anita Fasnaucht
�--' RECEIVED 0
///''' MAR 16 2017
� oe, 0 � CCCBPSeciew,y Of the OI+MeI
�c
1
Pro1'�
7.
b- . C- b
a
945 �
�3�c�»
REcevEo
MAR 2 12
cccsas��g�� o�
March 11,201 rY the District
From: Arnulfo and Yamila Germes,3113 Valley Vista Road,Walnut Creek,CA 94598
To: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Board of Directors,5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez,CA 94553
5 u bj: PROPOSED RATE INCREASE
Board of Directors:
We are the property owners of 3113 Valley Vista Road,Walnut Creek,CA 94598.
Our correspondence to you regarding the proposed rate increase is a resounding: NO RATE INCREASE
Our reasons:
■ Increased technology
• Automatic system
• Less staff to operate system s
• Less Administrative costs
This should result in cost savings, not cost increases.
Please follow the will of the property owners: NO RATE INCREASE.
Respectfully submitted,
Arnulfo and Yamila Germes
3113 Valley Vista Road
Walnut Creek,CA 94598
925-639-4905
925-639-3184
to
RECEIVED
James & Leona Huckestein, TRE MAR Z 7 2017
Parcel No: 197-440019-2 00 CCCSD-Sec1eiary or the District
125 Alamo Springs Drive
Alamo Ca, 9.4507
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Office
Board Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Central San Board of Directors:.
Please honor this protest to the proposed increase in Annual Sewer Ser-vice
Charge Rates. We are on a limited income and find such increases a
hardship. We also believe these annual increases to be excessive, poor
planning, and financial irresponsibility on behalf of administration and the
Board of Directors. The solution to the problems can not always be to "raise
the rates".
Thank you for your attention,
vvl
Leona M. Huckestein
mes E. Huckestein
all
March 25, 2017 M
. �OCS�.Secrer�aty
O#X18��5��
Secretary of the District
Central contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff P lace
Martinez, CA
94553
Subject: Protest Proposed Rate Increase
Dear Secretary of the District;
I own the home at 724 Skyline Drive with my wife. I am opposed to the proposed rate increase.
1 do not believe that the District has done enough to manage salary and benefit costa. I believe
the benefits are much richer than those available to most of your ratepayers who work in the
private sector.
• Salaries for engineers, for example, appear to exceed those in salary survey data available for
the Bay Area by a large margin (e.g. Glassdoor),
The cost of health coverage, nearly$40,000 for one position, for example, is very high
compared to those in the private sector that have health benefits,
Retirement benefit costs exceed those available for most of your working ratepayers - most of
whom do not have defined benefit plans.
I urge you to reconsider the rate hike and consider my concerns in future labor negotiations.
Very truly yours,
Tom Patten
724 Skyline Dr
Martinez, CA
94553
0Z
, (Not legally valid)
:,-: �-: : � _ .�: -�•, -:: nom:
Ma re,e rn c�rrr
115 :Sra,f}a LLIC-I's S�
s.
Fes; 5
RECEIVED
APR 0 5 2017
Central Sanitary District Office/Board Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez,CA 94553
Re: Proposed-Increase/Prop 218 Protest
April 3, 2017
Dear Sir or Madam:
Writing in protest of the District's proposed increases. In this time with very
low inflation a 7%increase per year for 2 years is excessive. In reading your
handout I don't see any attempt of saving us,the ratepayers money. Have you
outsourced any of the tasks presently provided by highly paid employees that
can be done by a outside company more efficiently? It is time to think a little
differently before justifying such a hugh increase in our costs.
protest this rate increase.
Regards,
Jeff Rhodes
Parcel number 097-560-010-4 00
RECEIVED
William H. & Nancy C. Ise
APR 0 5 2D17
1500 Santiago Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 9250-4355. .,'(;GSU-6ecreiary of the District
March 31, 2017
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District office
Board Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Proposed Rate Increase--Public Hearing on April 20, 2017 1:30 pm
Dear Central Contra Costa Sanitary District: We are the owners of the property (a Single Family
Home) at 790 Crossbrook Drive, Moraga, CA 94556. We are writing concerning the upcoming
Public Hearing and your proposed rate increase.
We appreciate the fine work that the Sanitary District does and has been doing.
However, we would like to advise you that we think the proposed rate increase on Single Family
Homes is too high. You are proposing a 7 percent increase. The rate of inflation is far less than
that. only about 2 percent or less per the Federal CPI indications. The rate increase for Single
Family Homes should be no more than 2 percent in our opinion.
Moreover, Single Family Homes generate far less waste water than Commercial Businesses and
Industrial Users. The latter entities should shoulder the burden of paying much more for the
new facilities and upgrades that are needed. The rate increases for those entities therefore
should be adjusted upward so that the rate increase for Single Family Homes may reasonably,
appropriately and in fundamental fairness be adjusted downward to not exceed 2 percent for
each of the next two years. Keep in mind that Proposition 13 rate increases are 2 percent per
year and Single Family Horne owners Will be paying those increases as well over the next two
years. Please also bear in mind that the rate increases particularly hit the elderly home owners
very hard, as they are typically on fixed incomes and are frequently paying much more for their
health insurance, medical care and other necessities.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very Truly Yours:.
William H. Ise
CDR U.S. Navy (Ret.)
And
Nancy C. Ise
Captain, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Iq
Elaine Boehme (Not legally valid)
From: Elaine Boehme
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 3:58 PM
To: 'Vivek Kumar'
Subject: RE: Prop 218 Protest
Attachments: Elaine R Boehme CMC.vcf
Thank you for your comments. They will be passed on to the Board of Directors.
Elaine R. Boehme, CMC
Secretary of the District
Bus.(925)229-7303
Fax:(925)676-7211
eboehrne c tsan.org
W
From: Vivek Kumar [mailto:yiy&555 a amail,com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 3:55 PM
To: Elaine Boehme
Subject: Prop 218 Protest
Hi ,
I am writing to protest the rate increase proposed by Central San. Prop 218 is measure to help taxpaying residents
to reign in bloated public agencies like Central San and help them prioritize revenues correctly. Cut cost from
administration and allocate to infrastructure that is providing service that I pay tax for. The justification for rate does
not hold water.
Parcel: 223-300-057-5
Vivek Kumar(owner)
f
f �1
i
• Boehme (Not legally valid)
E�a�n
From: JOMUSTANG66@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2017 4:18 PM
To: Elaine Boehme
Subject: Prop. 218 Protest
Dear Sir:
I note that Central Sand is looking to bring the current rate ($503) for the single family home to$538 effective July
2017 and$576 effective July 2018. 1 object to the amount of this increase for each of these periods.
1 would like to see a lower amount for each of these periods. I would also suggest that you carefully look at your budget
and see where some cost cutting can occur rather than just continue to raise rates any time you want to fund projects and
labor.
Thank you. Joanne McCarthy, 151 Bolla Avenue, Alamo, CA APN 103 112 007 3
f
W
0-
Elaine Boehme
From: Elaine Boehme
Sent: Monday,.April 10, 2017 9:22 AM
To: 'Sangam'
Subject: RE: Subject: Prop 218 Protest
Attachments: Elaine R Boehme CMC.vcf
Thank you. Your protest has been received and will be forwarded to the Board of Directors.
Elaine R. Boehme, CMC
Secretary of the District
Bus.(925)229-7303
Fax:(92.5)676-7211
eboehme c atsamorg
From: Sangam [mailto:sanciamsinqh@gmaii.com
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 4:44 PM
To: Elaine Boehme
Subject: Subject: Prop 218 Protest
Please find my letter of protest for the rate hike attached.
Sangam.
1
1 �
Secretary of the Di strict}
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Office,
Board Room,
5019 Imhoff Place,
Martinez, CA 94 5 5 3.
Dear Secretary,
I ani writing to protest the proposed rate increase.
- The'proposed rate increase is way above the inflation rates,taxes payers have a limit as
to hoer much we can pay, you need to start understanding this fact.
Are these rate increases perpetual?The flyer says rate increases are for next 2 years,
but after 2 years would rates conte down to current rates? l doubt that,the new rate
increases will be on top of those. In fact, this is a perpetual rate increase.
- if these are capital expenditures, issue a bond or have the rate increases for a set
period of time.These rate increases will be used to other purposes such as labor costs,
pension costs etc.
- Has board exhausted all the possible ways to reduce expenses and waste. Has board
even looked into potential sources of savings and cuts. is there no waster or efficiencies
that can keep the rate increases minimal?
- There should be details about the proposed expenditure,hove much is going towards
labor costs, homer much towards pension costs. f can't find the details in that flyer.
- if you put this proposition on a ballot, it will fail, but by making the protest process
tedium and cumbersome you are claiming support from public. in fact, most people are'
just complacent and ignorant, but every dollar in extra taxes and fees impacts there.
I knot my letter is going to be completely Brasted and it will have affect on board's decision,
because board is using people's complacency to justify its decisions.
7Sa 'ngh
2123 Arlington Way,
San Raman, CA
94582
f
'�
Fr
APR 14 20'1
April 12, 2017 CCCSD-Secretary of the District
Central Contra Costa Sewer District, Secretary of the District
I have several issues with yet another 7% increase in our sewer bills. I understand you provide
a valuable service but I am frustrated with your tacit assumption that your customers are
continuously expanding resources. It's not fair that you just raise the rates year after year.
My 2008-2009 tax bill, my CCCSD sewer charge was$311.00. Your planned 7% rate increases
over the next two years will raise my bill to$576, an 85%increase over 10 years. Your
brochures talk about your infrastructure plans but your biggest expense is labor and that cost
has gone up 71% in the same time period. Your labor costs appear to be running about 60%of
your total budget, but the infrastructure repairs and maintenance is running less than 5%. Your
labor cost doesn't include the 9 million you have allocated to the pension fund, which by the
way is a labor expense.
I am concerned that the board and the district treat their rate payers as always being able to
fund whatever budget they put in place.
I'm very concerned about the upcoming labor contract for the same reason.
I understand you have put in place some efforts to control pension spiking and pension costs
but just how long will it take for your"progressively eliminate employee retirement costs"to
take effect? My estimate is about 40 years, based on currently life expectancies for your
retirees and their spouses. I think you need to do more to control your pension payouts. Will
putting those controls in place be unpopular with your retirees? Yes, but your customers desire
your best efforts since they are paying your bills.
And I find your communication skills remarkably lacking for an agency located in the Bay Area.
The only way to communicate with you in snail mail. Emailing you isn't an option because you
require a signature. An address or parcel number isn't good enough for you. That's just
archaic. But it's a good way to put people off from expressing opinions you don't want to hear.
Also your meetings are at 1:30 in the afternoon, who can get to a 1:30PM meeting? The
meeting time and your lack of communication options effectively seal you off from your
customers. I have watched you do pretty much whatever your wanted until the Contra Costa
Times called you out on the pension issues. Are you going to start making hard decisions or just
keep raising rates forever? You need to make some choices and sooner rather than later.
Loraine Pansegrau
51 Aleman Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Parcel number 171-250-054-3
April 14, 2017
2351 Achilles Dr.
Los Angeles,CA
TO: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Office
Board Room
5019 h Koff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
RE:PARCEL Number 169-351-020-6 and proposed Sewer DATE Increase
TO w1iom it may concern:
I ain the owner of 1879 Holland Dr, walnut Creek, CA 94597 and I protest any increase
in the sewer.charge, The charge is not equitable as it charges the same rate no matter how
niany plumbing fixtures are attached to the city sewer line. The charge should be based
on water usage as that is a more direct reflection of the shared cost. The current system
tilfaI--ly burdens resident who use less water and sewer.
Mike Witte
--POEM
April 14,2017
2351 Achilles Dr.
Los Angeles, CA
TO: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Dice
Board Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: PARCEL Number 171-361-024-2 and Proposed Sewer RATE Increase
TO whom it may concern:
1 am the owmier of 1665 Geary Rd, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 and I protest any increase in
the surer charge, The charge is not equitable as it charges the same rate no matter how
mane plumbing fixtures are attached to the city sewer line. The charge should be based
on water usage as that is a more direct reflection of the shared cost. The current system
unfairly burdens resident who use less water and sewer.
Mike Witte
f
N -
1 -
a�
{
5
April 14,2017
2351 Achilles Dr.
Las Angeles, CA
TO: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Office
Board Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA.94553
RE: PARCEL Number 148-500-009-3 and proposed Sewer-RATE Increase
TO whom it may concern:
I am the owner of 55 iron Horse Lane, walnut Creek, CA. 94597 and I protest any
increase in the sewer charge. The charge is not equitable as it charges the same rate no
matter how manor plumbing fixtures are attached to the city sewer line. The charge should
be based on water usage as that is a more direct reflection of the shared cost. The current
system unfairly burdens.resident who use less water and sewer.
mike Witte
Barbara L. Minneman
301 Lava Court RECEIVED
Martinez, CA 94553 2017
April 12, 20�. APR 18 7 _ .�t
MCO-Secy t UA ; :�, ��u1str�
Secretary
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Prop 218 Protest
Property at 301 Lava Court, Martinez, CA 94553
I STRONGLY object to the proposed $73 increase in rates for single family homes.
I am a retired teacher on a fixed income.
When I retired in 2000,my sewer bill was $200. Prop 218 would bring my rate to $576! An
increase of almost 290 % (If only my retirement would have increased so generously.) This is
an outrageous and almost impossible burden for seniors on fixed incomes.
Please Consider the economics of your aging customers as well as the aging infrastructure
when making rate decisions. we can crack under increasing usage too.
r
Barbara L. Minneman
N
Dave Lipnicke
3-141 Manor Ave
Walnut Creek CA 94597
April ltd,201"
Central Sanitary District
S�ecretary of the District
Dear Sir or Madan1,
frim writing to submit a protest Sewer Service Charge and/or Rkxycled Water Fee Protest.
Please confirm receipt and acceptance ni'my protest.
r
Regards,
Dave Upnicke
Elaine Boehme (Not legally valid)
From: Bruce Lagasse <blagasse15@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 630 PM
To: Elaine Boehme
Subject: Prop 218 Protest
To all concerned:
The proposed effective 2 year annual rate hikes are OUTRAOIOUS I t I do understand there is a need to keep up
with a failing infrastructure but to place this kind of a burden on your clientele is a complete numbness to the
care and support of those whom you are administering to. Those kind of increases are more than most could
ever continue to keep up with. When you way in the factor that there are ever increases in other utilities and
taxes which are compounding all the time. Adjust your proposals to more realistic changes that will garnish
some trust from your patrons.
Bruce Lagasse
15 Jolie Ln
Walnut Creek, Ca 94597
1
RECEIVED
APF 2 0 2017
To whom it may concern- CCCSD.Secretary of the District
I am strongly opposed to the rate increase proposed by the Contra Costa Sanitation district and
urge you to reject this.
At a time when the cost of living in California has become unmanageable for many, Californians
are being pummeled by non stop increase in taxes and fees from every direction.
Contra Costa County is the 5th most taxed county in California out of 58 counties.
We deserve a break, this has to stop, how about a reduction or a rebate instead.
We are seniors on a fixed income, yet all government agencies act like we have deep pockets
that can absorb anything.
In 2015 Contra Costa Sanitation hit us with big increases, 14%. Yet less than 2 years later
they're back for more.
Combined, by 2019, we're looking at about a 30 percent plus increase over 2015.And this is at
a time when inflation is less than 2%.
This is obscene.
And you know very well that they will be back in two years asking for another increase or
planning to make this increase permanent. You can never believe any government agency when
they ask for a temporary increase, lately it is always made permanent down the line.
It is a very safe bet that this increase will continue after this two year period.
This district, one sanitation district, has at least 220 people making 100,000 dollars or more, on
average in pay and benefits.The manager alone makes a half a million a year.
This is a fat and bloated jobs program.
What is the district doing to re-in in costs?
I see no mention of that in this mailer. Labor, pensions, contracts, pension reform.
They claim in this mailer that they promise to "maintain community outreach and transparency"
yet where is the transparency on cutting or containing costs to help consumers. Nothing.
Additionally, I question this entire process. There hearings always seem like a waste of time and
are only meant to placate residents, it always seems like the fix is in once this is announced.
However, I again implore you to reject this increase.
Sincerely,
Ty Allison
979 Hawthorne Drive
Lafayette, Ca. 94549
234-100-009-5 00
Edwin P. Wolf
30 Circle Creek Court RECEIVgD
Lafayette Ca 94549 APR 2 0 2017
acs"KrDJIM
925-937-2104 ���
4/19/2017
Prop 218 Protest,,
Dear, Central San Board of Directors.
STOP! ! Raising my Sewer tax.The rate payers need a time
out.
Sincerely,
Edwin P. Wolf
JW
Parcel #
177-100-042-700
Via email (eboehmeCa-kentralsan.org)
Dark W.Zu.ercher
85 Meadow`view Road
Orinda,C 94563
415-793-3211.
April 20,2017
Central Costa County Sanitary District
5 019 Imhoff Place
Martinez,CA. 94553
Atte: Secretary of the District
erect:. _..r9p_218 frotest
To Whom It May Concern:
1 ani writing to you to express my objection to your proposed two-gear increase in
the sewer charge for a single-family home. 1 have reviewed.the historical gates and
found the fallowing:
Period Rate
2010-11 $31.1
2011-12 341
20120-13 371.
2013-14 405
2014.1.5 439
2015-16 471
2016-17 503
2017-18 (proposed) 538
2018-19 (proposed) 576
The percentage increase from the period of 2011 to 2016 is 62%. The Bay Area
Annual Average CPl Index Call items) for sane time period was 14%. Now,you are
requesting an additional 7%per year for the next two years.
I consider Central Sanitary District's request totally without justification. instead of,
consistently requesting 7-10%annual increases,Central.San must look to ways in
which it can reduce expenses. Some items to consider:
Page Two
1. Active workers currently receive free health care coverage-forthem and their
dependents. Most ratepayers underwn'ting district employees"salaries and
benefits do not get that.
I Capital improvement programsmust be reviewed and reduced to eliminate
or minimize a need or a rate increase.,
I The district has not provided any substantial financial Justification for the
proposed increase. This lack of transparency is unacceptable.
4. The district's five-year labor contract expires in December. Before
ratepayers are stuck with exorbitant increases,district directors should
negotiate a labor contract fair to those footing the bill.
The history of rate 'increases and the two-year proposal gives this ratepayer the
impression that the district Board of Directors has been nonchalant in the manner in
which it approaches its business. Until further justification for rate increases is
;$ low V
provided along with.mean ingrui and measurable expense reductions,I will
continue to object to the proposed two-year rate increase. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mark W.Z cher
.............
................