Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2943 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2943) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/18/2012 June 18, 2012 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 2943) Summary Title: FY 2013 Budget Review Follow Up Items Title: Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget Review Follow-Up Items Public Hearing – Approval of an Ordinance Adopting the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget, including the Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Improvement Program, and Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule; Adoption of 10 Resolutions to: 1) Adopt a Dark Fiber Utility Rate Increase and Amend Utility Rate Schedules; 2) Amend Gas Utility Rate Schedules for a Rate Decrease and Amend Utility Rules and Regulations; 3) Adopt a Wastewater Collection Utility Rate Increase and Amend Utility Rate Schedules; 4) Adopt a Water Utility Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules; 5) Amend Storm Drain Utility Rate Schedules for a Rate Increase; 6) Amend Refuse Utility Rate Schedules for a Rate Increase; 7) Amend the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional and Council Appointees; 8) Amend the 2010-2011 Memorandum of Agreement for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); 9) Amend the 2010-2014 Compensation Plan for the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF); and 10) Amend the 2010-2014 Compensation Plan for the Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA) (Continued from June 11, 2012) From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Executive Summary The proposed Fiscal Year 2013 operating and capital budget was reviewed by the City Council on June 11, 2012. This report contains information the Council requested in regards to the City’s tree trimming and maintenance program, service level changes in the Community Services Department, and the Council Contingency balance for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2012. In addition to these follow up items requested during the budget review, during Council’s review of the Assessment for California Avenue Area Parking Bonds on June 11, 2012, Council also asked how many hourly parking spaces are available. This information is included in this staff report. June 18, 2012 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 2943) Attached to this report are the protest letters related to the Proposition 218 hearing on Utility rate changes. Recommendation As a continuation from the budget hearing on June 11, 2012 (staff report 2872), staff and the Finance Committee recommend that Council approve the following (the attachment and exhibit references below can be found in staff report 2872): A. Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A), which includes: 1. Exhibit 1: the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget, previously distributed in the April 30th Council Packet 2. Exhibit 2: Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget 3. Exhibit 3: Revised Position Changes and Position Allocation by Department 4. Exhibit 4: Amendments to the Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule B. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Dark Fiber Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 (Attachment B) C. Resolution Amending Gas Utility Rate Schedules G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-10, G-11, and G- 12, Repealing Utility Rate Schedule G-6 and Amending Utility Rules and Regulations 2 and 5 (Attachment C) D. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Wastewater Collection Rate Increase, Amending Utility Rate Schedules S-1 and S-2 and Adopting New Utility Rate Schedules S-6 and S-7 (Attachment D) E. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Water Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, and W-7 (Attachment E) F. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Increase Storm Drain Rates by 2.9 Percent Per Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit for Fiscal Year 2013 (Attachment F) G. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Utility Rate Schedule R-1 for a Refuse Rate Increase (Attachment G) H. Resolution Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Adopted by Resolution No. 9156 to Add Two New Positions (Attachment H) I. Resolution Amending the 2010-2011 Memorandum of Agreement for SEIU Personnel, Adopted by Resolution No. 9088 to Add Two New Positions (Attachment I) J. Resolution Amending the 2010-2014 Compensation Plan for the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Adopted by Resolution No. 9204 to Properly Record the Top Step Salary for Two Existing Positions (Attachment J) K. Resolution Amending the 2010-2014 Compensation Plan for the Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA) Adopted by Resolution No. 9234 to Reclassify One Existing Position (Attachment K) June 18, 2012 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 2943) Discussion Below are the follow up items requested by Council on June 11, 2012. Tree Trimming and Maintenance Program Prior to Fiscal Year 2012, the City’s Maintenance Program was split between the Public Works Department and the Planning and Community Environment Department. To consolidate the program, the position changes (add/drops and eliminations) that occurred over the past few years: Position 2010 2011 2012 2013 Urban Forester 0 0 1 1 Managing Arborist 1 1 0** 0 Planning Arborist 1 1 1*** 1 Project Manager 2 2 1 2**** Tree Maintenance Specialist 2 3* 3 2 Tree Trim/Line Clearer - Lead 1 1 1 1 Tree Trim/Line Clearer 8 7 7 7 *1 FTE Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer reclassed to Tree Maintenance Person **Managing Arborist reclassed to Urban Forester *** Planning Arborist moved from Planning and Community Environment to Public Works ****Tree Maintenance Person reclassed to Project Manager The Planning Arborist was moved from Planning and Community Environment to Public Works in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget process to complete the Urban Forestry workgroup. The Planning Arborist and the Managing Arborist in Public Works had worked closely together prior to the reorganization and work assignments were somewhat duplicative. Since they reported to different managers it created a challenge with coordination, communication and identifying priorities. The creation of the Urban Forester position was a reclass of the Managing Arborist position to a more senior level also as part of the Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The Planning Arborist now reports to the Urban Forester and has oversight and consults on all Private Development tree related matters along with being a resource for the Urban Forester for trees both private and City-owned. Additionally the Planning Arborist is now part of the Development Center Blueprint team and will have dotted line reporting to the Development Center Manager. June 18, 2012 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 2943) Having all Urban Forest staff under the direction and supervision of the Urban Forester has resulted in a highly coordinated effort to maintain and protect the City’s tree assets and create consistent relationships with our public partners such as CANOPY. The Fiscal Year 2013 proposed budget (p. 222, Note 1) contains a brief explanation of Public Work’s reason behind dropping a Tree Maintenance Person and adding a Project Manager. In Fiscal Year 2012, Public Works dropped one of two Project Manager positions. It became apparent during the year that due to the number of critical contracts along with oversight of four in-house tree crews that this could not be successfully accomplished with one position. The contracts include the annual Utility Line Clearing contract, the cyclical street tree trimming contract and also the stump grinding contract. In Fiscal Year 2012 Public Works hired temporary staff to supplement our permanent staff to ensure operations were not impacted. Once the Project Manager position is filled we will no longer use temporary staffing. With the vacancy of the Tree Maintenance Specialist, Public Works used the opportunity to re- evaluate assignments and priorities resulting in a request a reclass the Tree Maintenance Specialist to a Project Manager in the Fiscal Year 2013 proposed budget. The assignments for the Tree Maintenance Specialist will be absorbed by the two Project Managers, two remaining Tree Maintenance Specialists and the Planning Arborist. With the additional staffing adjustments in Fiscal Year 2013, along with hiring the new Urban Forester, Walter Passmore, it is anticipated that this new workgroup will provide a more seamless and effective service to the residents and private developers while also improving our collaboration with our Community partners. Number of Parking Spaces at the Ted Thompson Parking Garage Also known as Lot 3, there are 183 hourly parking spaces at the Ted Thompson Parking Garage. Community Services Department – Changes in Service Level and Delivery Customer Service at Lucie Stern Community Center The proposed budget includes freezing 0.75 FTE Program Assistant position. The position is currently vacant will be frozen through December 2012 to achieve cost savings. This position primarily assists with reserving picnic space in local parks, facility rentals for Lucie Stern and other community spaces available for rent, and some class registration. Currently the department only has online capacity for class registration and is exploring options for online software for other reservation services. Customers may alternatively register for classes and services at the nearby Art Center or Junior Museum and Zoo while this position remains vacant. The Junior Museum and Zoo is located across the main parking lot of the Lucie Stern Community Center. Art Center Reduction of Staff June 18, 2012 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 2943) A full-time Producer of Arts/Sciences is reduced from 1.0 FTE to 0.75 FTE. The Art Center Manager will provide more oversight and support of exhibitions, which may reduce her time available to manage the City's relationship with the Art Center Foundation and may require more hourly of exhibitions. This could require the Art Center to reduce the scope and frequency of its exhibition programs. Avoid Escalating Cost in Landscaping Contract Reduce the level and scope of service for landscaping contracts for City-owned properties. The goal is to prioritize maintenance of important gateway areas and neighborhood parks continuing the high level of maintenance currently provided, while reducing frequency of maintenance at less-visible facilities. This would be a cost-avoidance measure to avoid a $64,000 contract cost increase in Fiscal Year 2013 to cover previously negotiated annual increases and planned augmentation to scope of services. There will be some visible appearance changes to some City facilities, parks, streets, and medians. Council Contingency Balance As of June 13, 2012, the Fiscal Year 2012 Council Contingency Account balance is $154,489. Below is a summary of activity that occurred this fiscal year. Beginning Balance $250,000 HSRAP Admin funds, as directed during FY 2012 budget process (27,761) Palo Alto Gran Fondo, Echelon Challenge Relay, and Taste of Palo Alto event (staff report 1719) (40,000) High Speed Rail funding (staff report 2395) (125,000) CAO evaluator contract costs (5,750) Additional funds for Police Auditor (22,000) Midyear – replenish funding used for High Speed Rail 125,000 Ending Balance as of 6/13/12 $154,489 Attachments: Utility Rate Increase Protests (PDF) Prepared By: Christine Paras, Senior Financial Analyst Department Head: Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager ;1t··, 0'" '~ ';., Grider, Donna From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Palo Alto City Mayor and Council: Basant Khaitan <bkhaitan@gmail.com> Saturday, May 19, 2012 1:22 PM Council, City; City Mgr; Clerk, City; Fong, Valerie; Auzenne, Tom The proposed Utility rate increases; Council meeting on June 18, 2012 Palo Alto Council cc to PA Officials 05172102.pdf You are requested to review the enclosed letter which, as required, is also being mailed to the Clerk's office. Without risking being repetitive, I urge you to especially scrutinize skyrocketing fixed charges for water and refuse:. Good governance practices al$o require that many new and extraordinary increases, if justified, should have a sunset. Barring any unavoidable circumstances, I will also attend the Council Meeting on June 18. Meanwhile, please let me know if I can provide any further clarification. Thank you. Sincerely, Basant Khaitan 2973 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304 1 I ]) 6 (\1\' J-Gr'~der J m ~ t:.­ el..J'1 G ferl..... This letter is in protest of the proposed utility rate changes for the City of Palo Alto. With respect to refuse rate changes, I wonder what percent of households use an annual cleanup day and why not have those who use it pay for it rather than ammortize over the whole population. The proposed volumetric water charges seems to penalize low utilizers by raising the per ccf rate for the first 6 ccf by 26% and lowering the rate for high utilizers. --: . ~-:..t-. a p? P ('"'6 f-e..:;,:!-'-';j -rJ., <: I f'> c-r e t; ..) (' J , Robert H Feiner -/)" _ fl ~ SII2-JIL- APN 137-25-114 (..?<r:»rJ . L\ n 4. I\\\;P. tv\ €~A kV£ q'l7p~ i'V ::r=: :;:':&J --< I CD v ~3~ C,A) 0 C"'} -' c) " , 7: v) ' •. :,;;.:) , , -~, -rJ G'1 ,.-,. ~>" 1 ' .. -. . ; .. .-, --;:--c'-' " May 7, 2012 City Counsel Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Utility Rate Changes -Protest Dear City Council Members: RESIDENTIAL REFUSE RATES: I have read the proposed added charges of$9.90 for street sweeping, household hazardous waste and annual cleanup along with the decreased charges for my min-can $2.11 for an increase of $3.17. (I think I have figured this correctly. I have not been satisfied for years with the street sweeping Operation/operator and actually called in a complaint because of the nonuse of water and high rate of speed of the sweeper. Just stirred some dust/dirt around.) I appreciate the hazardous waste opportunity, and have never taken advantage of the annual clean up. I wonder how many do use this? I try to generate the least waste so feel the high waste user is getting the better bargain. WATER SERVICE CHARGES: Why do higher users get a smaller percentage rate increase? Wi General Residential-over 100% increase with W4 users will get less than a 50% increase. WASTE WATER INCREASES: I currently pay $27.91 with a proposed increase of $1.40. Comparing this to Commercial (per cef) and Restaurant use, it does not seem equitable to me. Averages taken January through March? And then spread out for the year? And finally, the aging VOLUMENTRIC WATER charges: Need more information on this other than the one paragraph. I am protesting these rate increases and hope you will go back to the drawing board. Sincerely, Anne C. Anderson 4044 Amaranta Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 #30032259 · May 14, 2012 City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Utility Rate Changes Dear City Council Members: '.,' L~p ALTO. C/\ ttih S Of FleE - Please consider these comments prior to taklng any action on the proposed rate changes at your June 18,2012 meeting. Residential Refuse Rates: It appears that adding charges for street sweeping, household hazardous waste and annual clean up day, combined with the decrease on single can collection represents a net increase of $7.89. In other words, this essentially represents a 50% increase in the "expanded" Refuse Rate category. The doubling of the overall rate, especially for those of us who have worked so hard to cut back on the amount of waste that we generate, is discriminatory and unfair. Please note that for those who continue to throwaway vast amounts of waste (example 6 32-gallon cans still pay the $203.52, plus the new Fixed Rate Components of $9.90. This means that a high waste generator sees less than a 5% increase in their overall bill. A flat rate increase gives a huge benefit to apartment houses and other high waste generators. Volumetric Water Charges: The numbers provided in the May 1,2012 Notice, do not provide sufficient information to understand the rationale for the increases and decreases listed. It is unclear the reason for any decrease in the Non-Residential Irrigation charge. If Palo Alto is spending money on Hetch-Hetchy and "replacing aging water mains," it is unclear as to the reason for the proposed rate changes. Water Service Charges: Again, the question that must be answered: Why do higher users receive a smaller percentage rate increase? A Wl, General Residential, receives over a 100% rate increase, and yet some W 4 users will receive less an 50% increase. In addition, the W7, Non-residential Irrigation, class for an 8" pipe receives less of an increase than the Wl, and the 2" gets a decrease. Where is the equity? Wastewater Rates: Forget the rate increases, what is the reason that Commercial and Restaurant categories pay nowhere near the current rate that residential users pay? It is also interesting that single family households are not only paying more already, but also are being asked to pay a flat fee that is nearly twice the Commercial increase and close to three times the Restaurant increase. Wondering why the 99% are protesting these days-take a look at your proposed rate changes. Please reconsider your rate increases as outlined in your May 1st Notice. Sincerely, I~ Hedy McAdams 1440 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 • ~~~T fjLJ/~/';>" {/ p~ y-~ :tt -< (3 7 -~;;).. -0-3 c:; YOt)5 c:. Aw\ PAI'"\,., l)fL, 'J<!\\o A Hv LA. 9 q Solo Richard C. Placone CiTY OF \ I . CllY P~!-9 AL.JB. CA 601 Chimalus Drive CLEhK S OFFICE 12 11AY30 AM I/:03 Palo Alto, California 94306 Voice: (650) 493-7217 E-mail: rcplacone@sbcgobalnet May 22,2012 City Clerk's Office 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 CC City Council Packet This letter is written to comment on the proposed rate increases and service changes for the Utility Department. I will comment on two items in the proposal sent to residents May 1,2012. 1. Proposed new charge of $6.66 per month for street sweeping. I am opposed to this increase because this is a service that properly belongs in the General Fund Budget, I assume under the direction of the Public Works Department. This is just one other service performed by that General Fund department that is being or has been transferred to the Utility Department billing system for purposes of collecting additional revenue which benefits the General Fund. I find this a dangerous, and disingenuous method of financing legitimate city government expenses. Street Cleaning is a benefit to everyone who lives in, works in, has a business in, or even passes through, Palo Alto. Therefore, to allocate the expense of this necessary city service to utility users only is unfair. There can be no end to this kind of expense transfer to a revenue center of which the users MUST have in order to survive in the modem world -water, power, sewage treatment and so on. Council is taking advantage of this fact to increase revenues to the General Fund, rather then learning to live within the General Fund revenue available from ordinary tax revenues. The city already siphons millions of dollars from the Utility Department "profits" to fund General Fund services. In doing so, residents have no direct say in the way council members use the utility revenues as a convenient cash cow. It would be one thing if these funds so transferred were used to fund identifiable and essential priorities in our aging and crumbling infrastructure, reduced public safety programs and the like. Instead, while the overall budget faces annual and increasing deficits, council continues to allocate millions of dollars for "nice to have" but entirely unnecessary projects. The art center plaza, the bike bridge over Highway 101, even the art center renovation, are examples of such unprioritized expenditures. Finally, where will this transfer of costs to the utility users end? Why not just charge 50% of the cost of running the Public Works Department to the Utility Department and increase the utility rates there to cover these costs. Think what the council could do with the millions of dollars thus freed up in the General Fund. I will add here, that as far as Chimalus Drive is concerned, we have street sweeping every Monday, I think. The service seems unreliable. The actual cleaning is not very good. I keep my own frontage far cleaner than any amount of street sweeping does. The city doesn't even have a posted schedule advising residents to keeps their cars off the street Sunday nights so the street would at least get a "clean sweep". Trust me, there is ample off street space for people to move their cars one night a week. I've looked. 2. Annual Clean Up Day In the 50 years I have lived at this address, I have used the annual clean up service twice that I can recall. In the earlier years, I hauled stuff to the dump or paid to have this done in the case of major projects. I really appreciate the service, but I think it is grossly unfair to charge everyone a monthly fee for a service they may never use. I talked to several neighbors and others who have never used the service, and by observation·ofChimalus Drive, it is rare that you see material staked on the street side for a free pickup. I agree this service should be paid for, and I would be willing to pay a fee at the time the service is used, and by that I mean a substantial fee related to the actual costs of the pickup. If I have to hire a service to haul furniture or other household junk to some remote dump, believe me I am going to have to pay $50 or even more. So I suggest a fee based on the size of the load -for example, half a pick up truck $10; full pickup truck $20, major hauling, $30. I leave it to the service to come up with a reasonable sliding scale. People I've talked to think such a plan would be reasonable. I want to end this letter on a positive note: In general I think the Utility Department does a good job. Since an unfortunate incident I hade with a utility worker two years ago, about which I lodged a strong complaint with Mrs Fong, the service in that regard has been vastly improved. The next time I had to call on a utility worker, the change in attitude was remarkable, and I so informed Mrs. F ong. Also, while I do not like to see the water rates going up, I support this increase for two reasons: a) we have the best water in the nation and I'm willing to pay for it; b) since the increase is going to pay 'for the Hetch Hetchy upgrades, these are costs we are just going to have to grin and bear it. Please consider my comments re the street sweeping and the annual clean up seriously. Thank you. Parcel Number: 137-08-054-00 Utility Account: 30012674 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\MyFiles\RICHARDPLACONE\UfILITYRATES2012.wpd City Clerk City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 May 12,2012 I am writing to you in protest of the Utility Rate Change, in specific I am protesting the Refuse, Water and Wastewater rate changes you proposed in your letter on May 1,2012. Regards. Gary Hall 200 Colorado Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 -< Ch ;::v:> .,....~-.., j ::::.~ U} <,~ .. ' c.')~ ... _ -rr! .... " .. .. .,.,"..,.,.,. (...) ;:;:""' t...G mSi .. r:;;·· I JOHN PAUL HANNA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DAVID M. VAN ATTA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILLIAM R. GARRETT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION May 3, 2012 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 HANNA & VAN ATTA G!1.Y OF PA~O ALTO. Cf CI1 Y CLERK'S fHFF/CE i ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS '·2. 'III Y -8 525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 600 nH AM 8: 46 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301-1921 TELEPHONE www.hanvan.com (650) 321-5700 FACSIMILE (650) 321-5639 Email: jhanna@hanvan.com Re: Utility Rate Change Protest Dear City Clerk: The undersigned protests the proposed increase in utility rates for refuse and water. One of the alleged advantages of a City owned and operated water system and waste disposal system is that the rates charged by the City to its residents will be or should be lower that would be the case if the utilities were supplied by a public utility company or someone other than the City. I have a number of reasons for the protest: • I am not convinced that the rates charged by Palo Alto are in fact lower than the rates in surrounding communities. Having owned at one time or another property adjoining communities, my experience has been that Palo Alto's rates are no lower and in some cases actually are higher than comparable rates in nearby communities. • I am not convinced that the utilities department is a model of efficiency, or, for that matter, that it operates as least as efficiently and as effectively as we have a right to expect. I know of a number of cases, including my own, where the City Utilities Department mistakenly sent out bills for huge amounts of water that could not possibly be consumed in anywhere close to the amount alleged, and when challenged, the City refused to acknowledge that there could have been any error, arid proposed as a remedy that the customer pay to have the meter removed and checked for accuracy arid then reinstalled. On one occasion I was billed for over 100,000 gallons of water for one 30-day period. The matter was never resolved. • It is logical to assume that one of the reasons for the increase in rate has to do with the increases in the City's budget due to the overly generous retirement benefit contracts that the City has agreed to over the years in its negotiations with unions, which retirement contracts are now causing not only Palo Alto but other cities to run large deficits. T:\WPWIN60\LETTERS\JPH\City Clerk [OS 03 12].doc '\ / City Clerk Re: Utility Rate Change Protest May 3, 2012 Page 2 • In the past few years there have been many allegations that the money collected by the Utilities Department has been used partially to fund the general operations of the City. I have yet to see a categorical denial of those allegations, supported by reliable data. Perhaps if the revenue derived from utility charges had in the past been used to create reserves to fund capital improvements to replace aging infrastructure, it would not be necessary now to raise rates. I hope that other citizens will join in protesting the proposed rate increases. Very truly yours, 2~~~ John Paul Hanna 51 Crescent Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 JPH:mdlh T:\WPWIN60\LETIERS\JPH\City Clerk [05 03 12].doc I I Palo Alto, CA May 4, 2012 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Gentlemen, ('I' Y (\r p li I ," \.Ir ALO AlT'O, CA ell Y CLERK'S OPF/CE 12 ~1AY -8 AM 8: 53 Proposed Utility Rate ChangeslResidential Refuse and Water Following review of the City's letter of May 1, we are writing from 2640 Elmdale Place in Palo Alto, Parcel #127-02-032-00. We object to all the proposed rate increases or new charges,e:xqept for some Street Sweeping fee. Belbw, we state our'reasoris and concerns ' , . The second primary objective of your service study reads: "assure the rates chargedto edch customer are proportional to the cost of providing services to that customer." We believe that objective is not being met because charges are apparently at a single, fixed, weekly or monthly rate, irrespective of the actual number of carts put out for collection or their fill level. The rates depends apparently only on the size and number of garbage (refuse) carts; the two other types of carts (recyclables and yard trimmings) are not charged separately. In our case, we have one 20-gal. cart for garbage, one 64-gal. cart for recyclables and three 64- gal. carts for yard trimmings. Occasionally, we only put out for collection the 20-gal garbage cart, but most weeks we also put out the recyclables cart. As for the yard trimmings carts, two or three times per month we put out 1 or 2 partially filled carts; all 3 carts are only put out, filled, 3-4 times per year. We do not understand the chart "Variable Rate Component;" we find it obscure (notably the footnote "These rates include ... ") and incomplete (no listing for four 64-gal. carts). Therefore, we need to ask how much more than currently we W9u1d to pay for refuse collection per year, according to the City's proposals. With regard to other aspects of the proposed :rate schedul~s, we note the following: 1) Refu~e would costus an additional $63.36 per year, if we are correct in our guesses about the meaning oftheobscure'schedule. We would derive no benefits from neither the Household Hazardous Waste nor the Annual Clean-Up Day program and, therefore, we object to the $38.88 we would be charged per year for those services. We would reluctantly accept the new charge of$6.66 per month for weekly Street Sweeping (an additional, annual cost to us of $79.92). 2) We pay for minimum 6 ccf of water even when we use less. The proposed increase of 94 cents for the minimum volume would raise our annual cost by $61.10, based on an actual consumption of6,500 ccf(equal to 48,623 gallons). We object to that increase. 3) The proposed 3/4"-meter-based, monthly rate increase of$8.28 would cost us $99.36 per year over current charges. We object to that increase. As long-retired, +40-year residents of Palo Alto, at this address, my wife and I are seniors on a fixed income. The proposed rate increases would add hundrds of dollars to our annual budget (how many hundreds depend on the meaning of the obscure refuse rate scedule). We feel that long-term Palo Altans like us should be recognized by the City Council and Administration and offered discounted utility service rates. Thank you for your attention and consideration. We await the City's response to our question as well as possible other comments and clarifications. Sincerely, if~~~ 2640 Elmdale Place PaloAJtQ, CA 94J03.3728 650/856 .. 6130 leifschaumann@yahoo.com City Clerk 25 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA, 94301 May 3, 2012 Re: Proposed Utility rate increases Al Johnson 340 Fl \!ermftj ttvre', Palo Alto, CA, 94306 Folks, the rate increases proposed are way out of bounds, and let me list them in the order of my protestations. 1) RESIDENTIALR), TI~&-ffhe current rate is $4.62 and you propose to raise it to $9.90. That is a r~ise of 114%! 2) RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES: The current charge for a %" line is $10.00 and you propose to raise it to $18.28. That is a raise of82%! 3) RESIDENTIAL VOLUMETRIC WATER CHARGES: For the 18t 6ccf the charge increases from $3.60 to $4.54. That is a raise of26%! Folks, I realize that costs go up with increased fuel prices, but this rate increase is beyond belief! Where do you come up with these numbers? Sincerely, Al Johnson 340 El Verano May 3, 2012 City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Utility Rate Changes Dear City Council Members: (}I'TY 8F PA.LO ALT©.,CA CITY CLER K'S OFfleE 12 HAY -8 AM 8: 31+ Please consider these comments prior to taking any action on the proposed rate changes at your June 18,2012 meeting. RESIDENTIAL REFUSE RATES: It appears that adding charges for street sweeping, household hazardous waste and annual clean up day, combined with the decrease on single can collection represents a net increase of $7.89. In other words, this essentially represents a 50% increase in the "expanded" Refuse Rate category. The doubling of the overall rate, especially for those of us who have worked so hard to cut back on the amount of waste that we generate, is discriminatory and unfair. Please note that for those who continue to throwaway vast amounts of waste (example 6 32-gallon cans still pay the $203.52, plus the new Fixed Rate Components of $9.90. This means that a high waste generator sees less than a 5% increase in their overall bill. A flat rate increase gives a huge benefit to apartment houses and other high waste generators. VOLUMETRIC WATER CHARGES: The numbers provided in the May 1, 2012 Notice, do not provide sufficient information to understand the rationale for the increases and decreases listed. Itis unclear the reason for any decrease in the Non-Residential Irrigation charge. If Palo Alto is spending money on Hetch-Hetchy and "replacing aging water mains," it is unclear as to the reason for the proposed rate changes. WATER SERVICE CHARGES: Again, the question that must be answered: Why do higher users receive a smaller percentage rate increase? A Wl, General Residential, receives over a 100% rate increase, and yet some W4 users will receive less an 50% increase. In addition, the W7, Non­ residential Irrigation, class for an 8" pipe receives less of an increase than the Wl, and the 2" gets a decrease. Where is the equity? WASTEWATER RATES: Forget the rate increases, what is the reason that Commercial and Restaurant categories pay nowhere near the current rate that residential users pay? It is also interesting that single family households are not only paying more already, but also are being asked to pay a flat fee that is nearly twice the Commercial increase and close to three times the Restaurant increase. Wondering why the 99% are protesting these days-take a look at your proposed rate changes. Please reconsider your rate increases as outlined in your May 1st Notice. Sincerely, Nancy Suddjian 703 Ensign Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 May 6, 2012 To: City of Palo Alto -250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Notice of Utility Rate Changes Hello, This letter is to protest against all of the proposed utility rate changes: • Refuse • Water • Wastevvater The protest is on behalf of Parcel #00335038: 1121 Greenvvood Ave. PaloAlto, CA 94303 Jessica Weng N :l: ~'ll' -< N 1.0 J:a ::r S? N ......, C~ -< '::It -." l~l l) ;;0) Ar" "r--<:.O~~ o~ 'lC ~r (=)':- !"T1' ... -,- • 1-----4+---=----~-----,---.-.---'. . t .~ ~ 1j . 1!i:i5!1a&b ~~----- I----++-! _____ £&h) CkVIo ~ ~,....::::...' ....:...p / ___ _ 12£rl.t~g f IJ , .AA.llT ~ "'j eM. '1 \JJ I' i IT e i/\ ~ nl fl ~ r \0 '\ it ,... 15 ;fA 'f ~d d It 7~ J 5.1 7 S 3 # "'I' {( vv eJrld Pf ~( e ~ (f)' ~ f'> ;;:::: ~'-- N F.;~; ~- Th~ '" v<-~ f J<{~5 $K,'oIIVler 6S()'-~()'f -~ s 7 6 6/6/2012 City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 J. ROBERT T AYLOR ATTORNEY AT Re: Utility rate change protest Dear City Clerk: The undersigned protest the proposed increases in utility rates for refuse collection and water. We are residents at 480 Marlowe Street, Palo Alto, Ca. The proposed increase appears to pay for general services such as street sweeping and hazardous waste service and are of a general nature. I believe this matter should be put before a vote of the citizens rather than arbitrarily added to our utility bills. Please follow the appropriate legal process to assess such fees. Sincerely, l'~~v(k---~'Robert Taylor lJ (650) 322-4506 FAX 322-4677 541-B COWPER STREET, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 I JoAnn Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 05/01112 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Written Protest to Refuse, Water and Waste Water Increases eLI'Y OF PALO ALTO, CA CITY CLERK'S tJFFICE r2 HAY -7 AM 8: 3' I am writing to protest the never-ending annual increases to our utility rates (refuse, water, waste water, gas, electricity, usage fees, etc.) in the strongest possible terms and to remind you that the Utility Department should exist to provide cost-effective reliable service -nothing more, nothing less. It is highly offensive to get never-ending COSTLY mailings urging us to conserve energy since the more we conserve, the higher the rates go because we've conserved TOO MUCH and thus don't have provide enough garbage to honor the city's commitments. It is both ludicrous and counter-productive; many people I know have stopped recycling in protest. I urge you to follow discussions on Palo Alto Online and elsewhere to see how disgusted people are. Remember for every written protest you get, there are many more who have given up trying to get you to stop raising rates to subsidize the general fund. ENOUGH, we say. The community is well aware we're paying more than surrounding communities. Enough. Refuse: We are paying more for less AND now WE have to haul our own refuse to the curb, a service the city formerly provided. As a two-person household, we NEVER use all three refuse cans weekly yet I'm charged for all three each week .. I only need to recycle MONTHLY, hence I should get a 75% discount since I could never fill the recycling bin weekly. WHY is there no option of shutting off service when we're on vacation or when we have no refuse? At my suggestion to the City Council, the Utility Department is supposed to be looking into this. Why they never thought of this themselves is beyond me since we have shut-off service for newspapers, mail, gardeners, etc. As a way of cutting rates, consider offering us: twice-monthly service rebates for vacation periods and/or when we have no refuse I am also attaching correspondence with the City Council and various members of the Utility Dept. regarding a $400 utility bill for February of this year when our house was dark and empty for half the month. Months later, I am still waiting for the promised return visit to check the puddles in front of our house that never drain even though we're paying for our own personal storm sewers. If someone shows up, we might know whether the problem is with the water lines or the waste water, Consider the absurdity of living in one of the most expensive real estate and not flushing after each use! Ridiculous. General: Providing cost-effective service should be the main objective although saving us money wasn't even a department objective. ENOUGH with the COSTLY games and apps about comparing usage with your neighbors. Conservation shouldn't cost us MORE. Most sincerely, <11)C-. Jo Ann Mandinach May 6, 2012 To: City of Palo Alto -250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Notice of Utility Rate Changes Hello, This letter is to protest against all of the proposed utility rate changes: • Refuse • Water • Wastewater The protest is on behalf of Parcel #00337043: 921 Newell Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94303 II:. ' o. !~-~ siaomei Weng -f\.) ~ -< f\.) \.0 l:a. .::lI' ?? f\.) ........ ~:; -<"' 0 ° r. -r') f"Tl Cll ;u .1;.­ ~r­ cA w 0);;­'1r: 2]3 o· me-) ..,.., August 22, 2011 City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 •• BERG & BERG ENTERPRISES, INC. 1 0050 Randley Dr:ve {~I ~:-T 'y r:~ !i ' _,~~ .l.! i -I'-I _ .. '. . . ~ ',,' ,l..,.'. . ' h L. '.) i·', L I U . L;:, Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 Ci I Y CLEEK'S OFFICt PI, (408) 725-0700 Fax (408) 725-1,6-}6.. I mcraw(ord@missionwest.com .... MA) 23 M111 =00 RE: Notice of Public Hearing for Utility Rate Change, Monday, September 19,2011 967 Oregon Expressway, Palo Alto, CA To Whom It May Concern: We protest the refuse and water rate change as proposed. The City is increasing the rates out of proportion to the cost of inflation and are not doing an adequate job of controlling their labor and out of proportion pension costs. If you have any questions, please ntact me. :~ r Email: mcrawford@missionwest.com Ph. 408-725-7633 10050 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 -Tel: 408-725-0700 -Fax: 408-725-1626 Palo Alto City Council Members, C,I r '( :Jf f'A \.. 6) A \..11°, C A ~!TY CLERt\,S OFfiCE 12 MAY -8 AM 8: 37 • May 3, 2012 I write to protest the proposed increase in monthly residl! ... ~ ...... --,water & wastewater service rates. As a Palo Alto home owner for over 40 years, I feel the council needs to revisit the budget numbers. My home address is 404 Oxford Ave, 94306 To increase these rates in addition to our gas & electric rates is too great of burden to put on families & those of us who are retired. Plus It dampens our enthusiasm for conservation, knowing that by reducing our refuse & water use, our monthly bills actually increase. .>',' In addition, street sweeping is a joke in my neighborhood, which is two blocks from California Avenue. My curbside has become a parking lot all day long as employees working in the commercial district park their cars from 8 a.m. in the morning to 6.p.m in the evening. Street sweeping is a NON-service in our area. We sweep our own gutters as the street sweeper is unable to do so. So count me a NO on the increase residential utility rates mentioned. There HAS to be a better alternative . . . 1 Marilyn Mayo, 404 Oxford Ave Shirley Nathan 66 Roosevelt Circle Palo Alto, CA 94306 e-maU': shirldn@pacbell.net May 31,2012 Donna J. Grider, MMC, City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: UTILITY RATE HIKES I urge the City Council to do the right thing and vote NO on all proposed utility rate hikes. One of the attractions of living in Palo Alto was the low utility costs and user friendly service. We are now one of the highest in the area. The increase in water rates is the most unfair, seeing usage has gone down. Thanking you, Sincerely, .~Ai~ Shirley Nathan City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Palo Alto,Iune 9,2012 Re: Utility rate change protest Dear City Clerk: The undersigned protest the proposed increases in utility rates for refuse collection and water. We are residents at 774 Seneca Street, Palo Alto, Ca. The proposed increase appears to pay for general services such as street sweeping and hazardous waste service and are of a general nature. We believe this matter should be put before a vote of the citizens rather than arbitrarily added to our utility bills. Please follow the appropriate legal process to assess such fees. Kurt and Patricia Mueller-Vollmer 12 JIJN 13 Mlli: 04 To: City Clerk, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 From: Brian Rossi Re: Protest of Utility Rate Changes Address: 4221 Suzanne Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Utilities Account Number: 30030206 I hereby protest all three of the proposed rate changes. I lost my job this year and can't afford such huge increases! Inflation is 2%Jyear, not the numbers I show below! Refuse: $23.52 from $20.52 (15.4% increase) Water: $27.35 from 13.00 (110% increase) + $27.24 from $21.60, (26% increase) Wastewater: $29.31 from $27.91 (5% increase) These increases are outrageous! Brian Rossi ~. 'fjj '~f,) lJo m-2- / -----===-----~- MayS; 2012 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear City Council, I am writing to protest the following utility rate changes: • Refuse • Water • Wastewater e I My parcel number is 127-{)5-036-O0. My City of Palo Alto Utilities account number is 30022571. Gordon Kotik 934 Van Auken Circle Palo Alto, CA 94303 May 15, 2012 From: Jose P. Joseph 3276 Waverley St. Palo Alto, CA 94306 To: The City Council 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 9430~ Dear City Council, 12 Mil Y 2 I Ail 8: 013 I object to the increase in both the refuse and water rate increases. I understand that the city should balance expenses with revenue. Instead of just increasing the rate by double digits every year, the city can also balance by cutting expenses. In addition, if expenses are matched to revenue for each service, the principle should be applied across all utilities such as electric and gas as well, and the rate should be cut for those services. Currently, they are higher than neighboring cities where the service is provided by for-profit entity, PG&E. C1fy L:! L.£7C/G) .. Z ·512 /1/1-11 (.L Ti?'IV 121/J;,~ PilLe C ll.?:rc"'· _LII1_Lf!.L£d'c'/. ,./ 70 .W/itJ.&4.Ir /.(dllx. .C4!:~A.!O/:;:l!"A/. :.. .J: .... tD8.;:T2;C.T.Zt2. # ~ '--... eiE.'7/7~,,"",,2'£ UuL Lr-y'.L"Oe~C.!-Il2N'4£U>'", Wli4r . rl/lS' 6'tPT7/1~~?<7y(JJr/JL9J.adj?471' JA/70 ..... / )1):ze;· J-/A//JA/C'j /lLI74'/!.£/ S' 'f /i");./.J:x.ce.B~7liA;TW/ib'£S' .. #.x.JP /?~/\~.2/(JA./ •. /-uA/i)p'P/1/o7cT cYj"/Y £'" /VI p LOY,c :z:.~5-J.,,~7d /S' /J/lI:-S"S~W/IJ' £::./2.tiJ:) TJ;;?J ./ 0 V ~7l7 H£ y,E.I9t2~9 " /J.J/ t P 7CiCy,ly CodA. "L;/ '-",S. Crll .. t'/'I/tv_ /j.J'1tJ .. "Tllt;''''OI:'l'W#AlL),J' I!JF 1/;l:j£ v'L/A-1£t?/2£L JJ,V/Q;/i.lj'l .. //ow' 7/7/,;;'-C/ly Ci1' t=-P/l£tJ/lL 77:") WI.L /~ /C1/l/Slr i/ l/ I-J.ly 1e.IlZli"5"! ~ '7;; X ,.f.;.-s/,/.;.-rc:. ... :J~r /,l~/L //74:-" C' fly /2 :::S~) 0 .£..1\/ / ·.:s ~7 /1# r W/ ~L­ '7/?/~4-C-/7 j?£ @ E /l LJ.OF 7/~,uLJf. J?;C~ () v3 L..L/VI S' ~ Now tV,.rS·PI C/18,D./:7". _I /cfl.Jc ;? r;,ItP:8.;..J_..t;.: . .c,:,:L 'ill_ /itJ-: tl!E . '7)1£ .... tIZZ .~./i'y JiJIJZ}.{ - J _______ _ _________ . ___ ._ ... __ iLJ?Q~~ __ t5~&C!e __ S ____ L?d~a~-Z _ .. _ -/J/:;;/Jd6!~~ _ -:/8i?~-.... 60 .... £~-. (Grider. Donna From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Palo Alto City Mayor and Council: • Basant Khaitan <bkhaitan@gmail.com> Saturday, May 19, 2012 1:22 PM Council, City; City Mgr; Clerk, City; Fong, Valerie; Auzenne, Tom The proposed Utility rate increases; Council meeting on June 18, 2012 Palo Alto Council cc to PA Officials 05172102.pdf You are requested to review the enclosed letter which, as required, is also being mailed to the Clerk's office. Without risking being repetitive, I urge you to especially scrutinize skyrocketing fixed charges for water and refuse. Good governance practices also require that many newand extraordinary increases, if justified,should have a sunset. Barring any unavoidable circumstances, I will also attend the Council Meeting on June 18. Meanwhile, please let me know if I can provide any further clarification. Thank you. Sincerely, Basant Khaitan 2973 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304 1 flf/-e ,,-/,:e:n ~ ]) 6 (\It.S. [,y.', a er ),In ~ L • C, ,J, c./erIL / This letter is in protest of the proposed utility rate changes for the City of Palo Alto. With respect to refuse rate changes, I wonder what percent of households use an annual cleanup day and why not have those who use it pay for it rather than ammortize over the whole population. The proposed volumetric water charges seems to penalize low utilizers by raising the per ccf rate for the first 6 ccf by 2?% and lowering the rate for high utilizers . .-; f"...y" J a",,", P ,-0(',.5/"'''; f '" <: I i"'> t.,('~ C' t; ~ ( J Robert H Feiner /?~v1;J .~~/ . S /I.>..JIL- APN 137-25-114 f?G' . E L\ 114. I\\~ tv\. €~A f><V q'l~Vi N (-) ~:~~~ j---I ~--'. co \ ::~:;~, (I) (., ..., §~::r ... :~c; 0:...... 101 ~ .. : .", .. ' co,;:: :::=i....;~~ -<"-( ~;~ r-q "t:; :::::J :c.}> ~r"'" vi C:) CT):;'> '1;-: ::!8 C)~ , fTlC") ~.Jo. May 7,2012 City Counsel Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Utility Rate Changes -Protest Dear City Council Members: RESIDENTIAL REFUSE RATES: I have read the proposed added charges of $9.90 for street sweeping, household hazardous waste and annual cleanup along with the decreased charges for my min-can $2.11 for an increase of$3.17. (I think I have figured this correctly. I have not been satisfied for years with the street sweeping Operation/operator and actually called in a complaint because of the nonuse of water and high rate of speed of the sweeper. Just stirred some dust/dirt around.) I appreciate the hazardous waste opportunity, and have never taken advantage of the annual clean up. I wonder how many do use this? I try to generate the least waste so feel the high waste user is getting the better bargain. WATER SERVICE CHARGES: Why do higher users get a smaller percentage rate increase? WI General Residential -over 100% increase with W4 users will get less than a 50% increase. WASTE WATER INCREASES: I currently pay $27.91 with a proposed increase of $1.40. Comparing this to Commercial (per cd) and Restaurant use, it does not seem equitable to me. Averages taken January through March? And then spread out for the year? ' And finally, the aging VO LUMENTRI C WATER charges: Need more information on this other than the one paragraph. I am protesting these rate increases and hope you will go back to the drawing board. Sincerely, Anne C. Anderson 4044 Amaranta Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 #30032259 C"IT' ' . L ~,X OF p~r 0 . GIT Y CL Ehk's ~UO.CA . ... .~ROTES~ ~~~INST THE WATER RATE CHANGf2 HAY 14 p,/:ICE To: TheClty of Palo Alto CouncIl 3 II From: Tony Svensson Re: Notice of Utility Rate Changes Date: 8 May 2012 CC: Jay Thorwaldson Keith Peters College Terrace Green Team Next Door College Terrace Thanks for the update! Most of your proposed changes appear quite reasonable so I won't go into those. However, the following does not make sense: The $0.94 increase per ccf for the first 6 ccfwhile there is a $0.28 decrease for anything over 6 ccf. Many of us have voluntarily invested tens of thousands of dollars in garden redesign, drip systems, plant selections, new appliances, low-flow shower heads, personal water use habits, etc. to reduce the impact on the environment and residential water use. It appears plausible that those residences that use above 6 ccf per month either have not made these investments or live on properties large enough to well afford an increase. In light of the city's environh1.entally friendly policies and initiatives, the proposed water rate changes are, at best, misguided thinking. This is my formal protest. Please provide an explanation and then vote down your proposed water rate changes. Sincerely, Tony Tony Svensson 2264 Bowdoin Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 494-1406 May 14, 2012 City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Utility Rate Changes • Dear City Council Members: • cp Y OF PALO ALrG, CA C/1 Y CLERK'S O(FI€'E 12 HAY 17 AM 10: 2' Please consider these comments prior to taking any action on the proposed rate changes at your June 18, 2012 meeting. Residential Refuse Rates: It appears that adding charges for street sweeping, household hazardous waste and annual clean up day, combined with the decrease on single can collection represents a net increase of $7.89. In other words, this essentially represents a 50% increase in the "expanded" Refuse Rate category. The doubling of the overall rate, especially for those of us who have worked so hard to cut back on the amount of waste that we generate, is discriminatory and unfair. Please note that for those who continue to throwaway vast amounts of waste (example 6 32-gallon cans still pay the $203.52, plus the new Fixed Rate Components of $9.90. This means that a high waste generator sees less than a 5% increase in their overall bill. A flat rate increase gives a huge benefit to apartment houses and other high waste generators. Volumetric Water Charges: The numbers provided in the May 1,2012 Notice, do not provide sufficient information to understand the rationale for the increases and decreases listed. It is unclear the reason for any decrease in the Non-Residential Irrigation charge. If Palo Alto is spending money on Hetch-Hetchy and "replacing aging water mains," it is unclear as to the reason for the proposed rate changes. Water Service Charges: Again, the question that must be answered: Why do higher users receive a smaller percentage rate increase? A Wl, General Residential, receives over a 100% rate increase, and yet some W4 users will receive less an 50% increase. In addition, the W7, Non-residential Irrigation, class for an 8" pipe receives less of an increase than the Wl, and the 2" gets a decrease. Where is the equity? Wastewater Rates: Forget the rate increases, what is the reason that Commercial and Restaurant categories pay nowhere near the current rate that residential users pay? It is also interesting that single family households are not only paying more already, but also are being asked to pay a flat fee that is nearly twice the Commercial increase and close to three times the Restaurant increase. Wondering why the 99% are protesting these days-take a look at your proposed rate changes. Please reconsider your rate increases as outlined in your May 1st Notice. Sincerely, Hedy McAdams 1440 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 • 12 M9" 10 f," -nil r 1 II' I I:) UYle:., e~V\I\ '''I I • a ~ ~8<?"-:e(:JCt:r 0/ t:;./~/d- {/ POl>(~ '=ft~, I ~ 7,-~~-0-3 Cf Li Oz:Y5 C l\ V\~ Pt~'l,.'\ /')'''-, ." ...... ). f )/,!\\o AHa CI\ L1 Lf "SoLo [PM' Q,.~ .• '" • Prof. Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski, Ph.D. 62 Churchill Ave .. Palo Alto, CA 94306 USA Protest against water rate changes announced May 1, 2012 To: City Clerk 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 I am protesting the proposed residential water rates announced by the City of Palo Alto on May 1, 2012 as discriminatory and counterproductive to the paradigm of conserving resources. The proposed water rates are much more punitive to households which are conserving water. Example: the monthly rates for a household using 6 ccf (%" meter) are proposed to increase by 44%, while a water guzzling household using 30 ccf will see. an increase of only 3.5%! There can't be any justification for such inverted logic. If instead, the current ccf rate of $3.60 for the first 6 ccf would be kept constant, and the over 6 ccf rate would be raised to a modest $8, and the service charge would be raised from $10 to $12 for %" meter, the monthly rate would be increased by 6% for the conserving household (at 6 ccf) and by 8.6% for the water guzzler with 30 ccf. Which signal does the City want to send to the water consumers? In all of this, one should also consider that any infrastructure cost will be driven more by the large-scale users instead of by the households conserving water. Since the City is raising rates partially because of the conservation efforts of its citizens, the payroll in the water department should be examined, since one would expect that less water consumed would mean less work. Besides reducing the payroll by layoffs and attrition, the City should look at the example of the State of California and the University of California, who haJLe been reacting to shrinking budgets and sometimes increased workload ~ furloughs, which were heavily tilted towards senior personnel, sparing much:tef the lower income employees. . ~ Sincerely \\JtA ~~ Hartmut Sadrozinski May 15, 2012 -·. City Clerk City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 May 12, 2012 I am writing to you in protest of the Utility Rate Change, in specific I am protesting the Refuse, Water and Wastewater rate changes you proposed in your letter on May 1,2012. Regards. ~~ Gary Holl 200 Colorado Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 --< JOHN PAUL HANNA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DAVIDM. VAN ATTA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILLIAM R. GARRETT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION May 3, 2012 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 • • HANNA & VAN ATTA C;·!l,\y' 1"1 t/~!;;: i~.·L.JO .. C/\ \>, I ,-,-U'(i'\ S Of-FICE ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS I? f'j,ij\l -8 525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 600 -fl! A; I 8= 46 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301-1921 TELEPHONE www.hanvan.com (650) 321-5700 FACSIMILE (650) 321-5639 Email: jhanna@hanvan.com Re: Utility Rate Change Protest Dear City Clerk: The undersigned protests the proposed increase in utility rates for refuse and water. One of the alleged advantages of a City owned and operated water system and waste disposal system is that the rates charged by the City to its residents will be or should be lower that would be the case if the utilities were supplied by a public utility company or someone other than the City. I have a number of reasons for the protest: • I am not convinced that the rates charged by Palo Alto are in fact lower than the rates in surrounding communities. Having owned at one time or another property adjoining communities, my experience has been that Palo Alto's rates are no lower and in some cases actually are higher than comparable rates in nearby communities. • I am not convinced that the utilities department is a model of efficiency, or, for that matter, that it operates as least as efficiently and as effectively as we have a right to expect. I know of a number of cases, including my own, where the City Utilities Department mistakenly sent out bills for huge amounts of water that could not possibly be consumed in anywhere close to the amount alleged, and when challenged, the City refused to acknowledge that there could have been any error, and proposed as a remedy that the customer pay to have the meter removed and checked for accuracy and then reinstalled. On one occasion I was billed for over 100,000 gallons of water for one 30-day period. The matter was never resolved. • It is logical to assume that one of the reasons for the increase in rate has to do with the increases in the City's budget due to the overly generous retirement benefit contracts that the City has agreed to over the years in its negotiations with unions, which retirement contracts are now causing not only Palo Alto but other cities to run large deficits. T:\WPWIN60\LETTERS\JPH\City Clerk [05 03 12].doc • City Clerk Re: Utility Rate Change Protest May 3, 2012 Page 2 • Inthe past few years there have been many allegations that the money collected by the Utilities Department has been used partially to fund the general operations ofthe City. I have yet to see a categorical denial of those allegations, supported by reliable data. Perhaps if the revenue derived from utility charges had in the past been used to create reserves to fund capital improvements to replace agIng infrastructure, it would not be necessary now to raise rates. I hope that other citizens will join in protesting the proposed rate increases. Very truly yours, ~.I~ John Paul Hanna 51 Crescent Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 JPH:mdlh T:\WPWlN60\LETTERS\JPH\City Clerk [05 03 12].doc • BrianMa 518 Driscoll PI Palo Alto, CA 94306 Parcel #137-37-009 Utility account #30011914 CHY OF PA LO ALTO,;C,A tHY CLERK'S @fFICE 12 MAY I 5 AM 9: 45 5111/2012 I am protesting the proposed increase in water service charges. I have a 1:' meter, and my fixed water service rate will increase from $13.00 to $27.35, a 110% increase. This increase in percentage terms is larger than the increases for all other residential meter sizes. (37.4% for 5/8",82.8% for %",85.3% for 1 Yz", 79.7% for 2", 43.4% for 3") Why is the 1" size being penalized so heavily compared to the others? Second, the increase is too large all at once across all meter sizes. This increase is in addition to the other rate increases for volumetric water, wastewater, garbage collection, etc ... , and is too much for residents to absorb all at once. Third, why should larger meters be penalized so heavily? I think costs should be passed on to heavy users in the form of volumetric water rate increases rather than unfairly charging owners with larger meters but who do not use much water. What is the true incremental cost of having a I" meter compared to a 5/8" meter if the total amount of water used by both is the same? Is it really $13.61 per month? ($27.35 vs. $13.74) Sincerely, B~~ Palo Alto, CA May 4, 2012 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Gentlemen, • , 2 I'I,~ Y -A II" 8' 5 3 .1 J NJ I " • Proposed Utility Rate Changes/Residential Refuse and Water Following review of the City's letter of May 1, we are writing from 2640 Elmdale Place in Palo Alto, Parcel #127-02-032-00. We object to all the proposed rate increases or new charges, except for some Street Sweeping fee. Below, we state our reasons and concerns The second primary objective of your service study reads: "assure the rates charged to each customer are proportional to the cost of providing services to that customer." We believe that objective is not being met because charges are apparently at a single, fixed, weekly or monthly rate, irrespective of the actual number of carts put out for collection or their fill level. The rates depends apparently only on the size and number of garbage (refuse) carts; the two other types of carts (recyclables and yard trimmings) are not charged separately. In our case, we have one 20-gal. cart for garbage, one 64-gal. cart for recyclables and three 64- gal. carts for yard trimmings. Occasionally, we only put out for collection the 20-gal garbage cart, but most weeks we also put out the recyclables cart. As for the yard trimmings carts, two or three times per month we put out 1 or 2 partially filled carts; all 3 carts are only put out, filled, 3-4 times per year. We do not understand the chart "Variable Rate Component;" we find it obscure (notably the footnote "These rates include ... ") and incomplete (no listing for four 64-gal. carts). Therefore, we need to ask how much more than currently we would to pay for refuse collection per year, according to the City's proposals. With regard to other aspects of the proposed rate schedules, we note the following: 1) Refuse would cost us an additional $63.36 per year, if we are correct in our guesses about the meaning of the obscure schedule. We would derive no benefits from neither the Household Hazardous Waste nor the Annual Clean-Up Day program and, therefore, we object to the $38.88 we would be charged per year for those services. We would reluctantly accept the new charge of$6.66 per month for weekly Street Sweeping (an additional, annual cost to us of $79.92). 2) We pay for minimum 6 ccf of water even when we use less. The proposed increase of94 cents for the minimum volume would raise our annual cost by $61.10, based on an actual consumption of 6,500 ccf (equal to 48,623 gallons). We object to that increase. 3) The proposed 3/4"-meter-based, monthly rate increase of$8.28 would cost us $99.36 per year over current charges. We object to that increase. As long-retired, +40-year residents of Palo Alto, at this address, my wife and I are seniors on a fixed income. The proposed rate increases would add hundrds of dollars to our annual budget (how many hundreds depend on the meaning of the obscure refuse rate scedule). We feel that long-term Palo Altans like us should be recognized by the City Council and Administration and offered discounted utility service rates. Thank you for your attention and consideration. We await the City's response to our question as well as possible other comments and clarifications. Sincerely, If 0 ,~"" c> ,. , i " 'I, cC"tJ1,v~111~ L~· Schaumann . . . :' . 2640 Elmdale Place Palo Alto, CA 94~03 .. 3728 650/856-6130 leifschaumann@yahoo.com City Clerk 25 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA, 94301 May 3,2012 Re: Proposed Utility rate increases Al Johnson ;we~!EtfVeranoAve. Palo Alto, CA, 94306 Folks, the rate increases proposed are way out of bounds, and let me list them in the order of my protestations. 1) RESIDENTIAL REFUSE RATES: The current rate is $4.62 and you propose to raise it to $9.90. That is a raise of 114%! 2) RESIDENTlAIYW.ATER SERVICE CHARGES: The current charge for a %" line is $10.00 and you propose to raise it to $18.28. That is a raise of82%! 3) RESIDENTIAL VOLUMETRIC WATER CHARGES: For the 1 st 6ccf the charge increases from $3.60 to $4.54. That is a raise of 26%! Folks, I realize that costs go up with increased fuel prices, but this rate increase is beyond beliefl Where do you come up with these numbers? Sincerely, Al Johnson 340 EI Verano May 3, 2012 City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Utility Rate Changes Dear City Council Members: Please consider these comments prior to taking any action on the proposed rate changes at your June 18, 2012 meeting. RESIDENTIAL REFUSE RATES: It appears that adding charges for street sweeping, household hazardous waste and annual clean up day, combined with the decrease on single can collection represents a net increase of $7.89. In other words, this essentially represents a 50% increase in the "expanded" Refuse Rate categmy. The doubling of the overall rate, especially for those of us who have worked so hard to cut back on the amount of waste that we generate, is discriminatory and unfair. Please note that for those who continue to throwaway vast amounts of waste (example 6 32-gallon cans still pay the $203.52, plus the new Fixed Rate Components of $9.90. This means that a high waste generator sees less than a 5% increase in their overall bill. A flat rate increase gives a huge benefit to apartment houses and other high waste generators. VOLUMETRIC WATER CHARGES: The numbers provided in the May 1, 2012 Notice, do not provide sufficient information to understand the rationale for the increases and decreases listed. It is unclear the reason for any decrease in the Non-Residential Irrigation charge. If Palo Alto is spending money on Hetch-Hetchy and "replacing aging water mains," it is unclear as to the reason for the proposed rate changes. WATER SERVICE CHARGES: Again, the question that must be answered: Why do higher users receive a smaller percentage rate increase? A Wl, General Residential, receives over a 100% rate increase, and yet some W4 users will receive less an 50% increase. In addition, the W7, Non­ residential Irrigation, class for an 8" pipe receives less of an increase than the Wi, and the 2" gets a decrease. Where is the equity? WASTEWATER RATES: Forget the rate increases, what is the reason that Commercial and Restaurant categories pay nowhere near the current rate that residential users pay? It is also interesting that single family households are not only paying more already, but also are being asked to pay a flat fee that is nearly twice the Commercial increase and close to three times the Restaurant increase. Wondering why the 99% are protesting these days-take a look at your proposed rate changes. Please reconsider your rate increases as outlined in your May 1 st Notice. Sincerely, I }J~~~-.- Nancy Suddjian 703 Ensign Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 May 6, 2012 To: City of Palo Alto -250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Notice of Utility Rate Changes Hello, This letter is to protest against all of the proposed utility rate changes: • Refuse • Water • Wastewater The protest is on behalf of Parcel #00335038: 1121 Greenwood Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Jessica Weng N :!t r~ -"'< N I.D ~"':EP ::it 6 N -..I G:> .... ~--'-' ... ~ ..... -< ~-< ,,"-,-. C") ~ ..• -~'l r .... - ;;"1 , --' ~t> ;:,;,: r··· -C./:: ''--' -, 0 ~. =q~~ ~.' '-.'..' .,..1 1.-:-:' ; " • sf . J ::;...-, . . //Y ... I .iIj;. vJ.(fe.~ ~hreS'-TO J r;li. R. ~ it C"'CI\V\~ e Oe~'-Gi'f'1 Gle"lt) VJ~ \ {\} £ A I'tT \~ :J 1M 'fW ,. I IT e i/\ ~ '" Tl ~r T"c <\ \I o F v,: l" 't I'~\C. <--Ill ot IAJe ~ >-15 ;fA 'f ~d d It 7~ I 5 ,I 7 ~ 3 /\A "'-f' (( vVd",J PI ~( (! jhOlV\ ~71 J C4.. yt.Af' s $. kjV\ V\ e r 65 0 '-~()'( -«1 s 7 6 ,-, J. ROBERT TAYLOR ATTORNEY AT L A W " L:lfY 8.F f)A LD ALT@, IJA CITY CL ERK'S OFFICE 6/6/2012 City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Utility rate change protest Dear City Clerk: 12 JUN '3 AM ": 05 The undersigned protest the proposed increases in utility rates for refuse collection and water. We are residents at 480 Marlowe Street, Palo Alto, Ca. The proposed increase appears to pay for general services such as street sweeping and hazardous waste service and are of a general nature. I believe this matter should be put before a vote of the citizens rather than arbitrarily added to our utility bills. Please follow the appropriate legal process to assess such fees. Sincerely, ~ (650) 322-4506 FAX 322-4677 541-B COWPER STREET, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 / JoAnn Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 05/01112 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Written Protest to Refuse, Water and Waste Water Increases t, DALTO, CAl F<1rS OFFiCE: 12 MA Y -7AH 8: 3' I am writing to protest the never-ending annual increases to our utility rates (refuse, water, waste water, gas, electricity, usage fees, etc.) in the strongest possible terms and to remind you that the Utility Department should exist to provide cost-effective reliable service -nothing more, nothing less. It is highly offensive to get never-ending COSTLYmailings urging us to conserve energy since the more we conserve, the higher the rates go because we've conserved TOO MUCH and thus don't have provide enough garbage to honor the city's commitments. It is both ludicrous and counter-productive; many people I know have stopped recycling in protest. I urge you to follow discussions on Palo Alto Online and elsewhere to see how disgusted people are. Remember for every written protest you get, there are many more who have given up trying to get you to stop raising rates to subsidize the general fund. ENOUGH, we say. The community is well aware we're paying more than surrounding communities. Enough. Refuse: We are paying more for less AND now WE have to haul our own refuse to the curb, a service the city formerly provided. As a two-person household, we NEVER use all three refuse cans weekly yet I'm charged for all three each week .. I only need to recycle MONTHLY, hence I should get a 75% discount since I could never fill the recycling bin weekly. WHY is there no option of shutting off service when we're on vacation or when we have no refuse? At my suggestion to the City Council, the Utility Department is supposed to be looking into tlus. Why they never thought of this themselves is beyond me since we have shut-off service for newspapers, mail, gardeners, etc. As a way of cutting rates, consider offering us: twice-monthly service rebates for vacation periods andlor when we have no refuse , Water & Waste Water: I am also attaching correspondence with the City Council and various members of the Utility Dept. regarding a $400 utility bill for February of this year when our house was dark and empty for half the month. Months later, I am still waiting for the promised return visit to check the puddles in front of our house that never drain even though we're paying for our own personal storm sewers. If soineone shows up, we might know whether the problem is with the water lines or the waste water, Consider the absurdity of living in one of the most expensive real estate and not flushing after each use! Ridiculous. General: Providing cost-effective service should be the main objective although saving us money wasn't even a department objective. ENOUGH with the COSTLY games and apps about comparing usage with your neighbors. Conservation shouldn't cost us MORE. Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach May 6, 2012 To: City of Palo Alto -250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Notice of Utility Rate Changes Hello, This letter is to protest against all of the proposed utility rate changes: • Refuse • Water • Wastevvater The protest is on behalf of Parcel #00337043: 921 Nevvell Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94303 o;/#-;U1~~ U~-~~.~ Itsiaomei Weng OJ -I"\.) C5 .. :=:S~ -.(--': i=.::-:~; Pj .:::r) =:".~ r'e Cl_)': ~i·J.r-: :2]6 ,..-, nl'~~ .;,~,:" August 22, 2011 City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ~RG & BERG ENTERPRISES. It 10050 Bandley Drive G!t( &f PA LO ALTO, CA Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 Gi l Y CLERK'S OFFICE Ph (408) 725-0700 Fax (408) 725-1,6.26. mcraw(ord@missionwest.com Z MA Y 23 AM": 0 0 RE: Notice of Public Hearing for Utility Rate Change, Monday, September 19,2011 967 Oregon Expressway, Palo Alto, CA To Whom It May Concern: We protest the refuse and water rate change as proposed. The City is increasing the rates out of proportion to the cost of inflation and are not doing an adequate job of controlling their labor and out of proportion pension costs. Myron Email: mcrawford@missionwest.com Ph. 408-725-7633 10050 Bandley Ddve, Cupertino, CA 95014 -Tel: 408-725-0700 -Fax: 408-725-1626 CiTY F ;:',i\LO ;\lJ(J,C/; CITY LEHWS OFFICE May 3,2012 Palo Alto City Council Members, I write to protest the proposed increase in monthly residential refuse. water & wastewater service rates. As a Palo Alto home owner for over 40 years, I feel the council needs to revisit the budget numbers. My home address is 404 Oxford Ave, 94306 To increase these rates in addition to our gas & electric rates is too great of burden to put on families & those of us who are retired. Plus It dampens our enthusiasm for conservation, knowing that by reducing our refuse & water use, our monthly bills actually increase. In addition, street sweeping is a joke in my neighborhood, which is two blocks from California Avenue. My curbside has become a parking lot all day long as employees working in the commercial district park their cars from 8 a.m. in the morning to 6.p.m in the evening. Street sweeping is a NON-service in our area. We sweep our own gutters as the street sweeper is unable to do so. So count me a NO on the increase residential utility rates mentioned. There HAS to be a better alternative. Marilyn Mayo, 404 Oxford Ave Shirley Nathan 66 Roosevelt Circle Palo Alto, CA94306 e-mail: shirldn@pacbelLnet May 31, 2012 Donna J. Grider, MMC, City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: UTILITY RATE HIKES ~1 '{ L oJ ;:~\ LT 0, ,C /\ CITY CLEiH{'S OFFICE 12 JUN -t~ PH f: 5' I urge the City Council to do the right thing and vote NO on all propo$ed utility rate hikes. One ofthe attractions of living in Palo Alto was the low utility costs and user friendly service. We are now one of the highest in the area. The increase in water rates is the most unfair, seeing usage has gone down. Thanking you, Sincerely, ~!V~ Shirley Nathan Andrew Martin 940 Scott Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 May 4, 2012 AnN: Palo Alto City Council RE: Protest of proposed Water Service charges APN: 120-17-082 Dear Sirs and Madams: CITY OF PALO ALTO, Cf\ CllY CLERK'S OFFICE 12 MAY -8 AM 8: 52 I am writing to protest the use of 'Meter Size' as a mechanism to set a base monthly charge for water service in single-family residential units. Due to new fire codes, our home was FORCED to upgrade from 5/8/1 to 1.0/1 water service even though our actual water usage will decrease dramatically due to greener design and decreased density. In essence, the proposed rates are asking me to pay a higher fee, in perpetuity, then my neighbors with standard 5/8/1 service for using the same or even less water. Single­ family homes that have been forced to upgrade as a result of the fire code should not charged a second time based on meter size when this meter size doesn't reflect their usage. The rational disconnect between meter size and billing can be illustrated in a second example: when we obtained our bill from the City of Palo Alto for upgrading our service to meet fire code, they added a $4,400 'Cap Fee' for the change in water meter size. 1.000030 I 70012352 .1 cap fee change 5/8" to 1" water meter 40013894 4,400.00 The idea behind this capacity fee was to charge businesses that use a lot of water for the water infrastructure improvements. Apparently I was the first one to point out to the water department that this fee was really unjust to a single-family home owner already paying a large sum for the service upgrade and fire suppression system. I do not think the fire department and the water department ever met to review the ramifications of fees like this in light of the new fire code. It is absurd that as a reward for spending thousands, or even tens of thousands of dollars to build a home which meets these new fire codes, I am being asked to burden both a one-time Cap fee and perpetual meter size fee from the city for water capacity I will most likely never use. Please devise a fair way to meet the budget without differentiating me from my neighbors by lumping me into the same category as a Laundromat or some other high-water utilizing customer for meeting current code. Sincerely, 650-380-3405 City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Palo Alto,June 9,2012 Re: Utility rate change protest Dear City Clerk: The undersigned protest the proposed increases in utility rates for refuse collection an~: We are residents at 774 ~_o Alto, Ca. The proposed increase appears to pay for general services such as street sweeping and hazardous waste service and are of a general nature. We believe tltis matter should be put before a vote of the citizens rather than arbitrarily added to our utility bills. Please follow the appropriate legal process to assess such fees. Sincerely, ~w1J1~.~V~ fYi~~' ~ -Va (JlnAr Kurt and Patricia Mueller-Vollmer • • To: City Clerk, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 From: Brian Rossi Re: Protest of Utility Rate Changes Address: 4221 Suzanne Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Utilities Account Number: 30030206 I hereby protest all three of the proposed rate changes. I lost my job this year and can't afford such huge increases! Inflation is 2%/year, not the numbers I show below! Refuse: $23.52 from $20.52 (15.4% increase) Water: $27.35 from 13.00 (110% increase) + $27.24 from $21.60, (26% increase) Wastewater: $29.31 from $27.91 (5% increase) These increases are outrageous! Brian Rossi \ . May 5,2012 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear City Council, I am writing to protest the following utility rate changes: -Refuse -Water -Wastewater My parcel number is 127-05-036-00. My City of Palo Alto Utilities account number is 30022571. Sinc:rety" 1I )...... Y;Lv9A "- Gordon Kotik 934 Van Auken Circle Palo Alto, CA 94303 May 15, 2012 From: Jose P. Joseph 3276 Waverley St. Palo Alto, CA 94306 To: The City Council 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 9430f Dear City Council, CI1"'rOF PALO I~LTO· C/\ CIT Y CLERK'S OFF(CE J 2 MAY 2, AM 8: 09 I object to the increase in both the refuse and water rate increases. I understand that the city should balance expenses with revenue. Instead of just increasing the rate by double digits every year, the city can also balance by cutting expenses. In addition, if expenses are matched to revenue for each service, the principle should be applied across all utilities such as electric and gas as well, and the rate should be cut for those services. Currently, they are higher than neighboring cities where the service is provided by for-profit entity, PG&E. i'/J'2Y 2 A ; ,.ff "Cl) C'/f y L! 1-1;71::/'--; 25.0 /(/l/f1/.L ~l\l Ilf<i PI; ,I., C> ll'?'fiz~_(ltl. £Z. LLdo/ _ l~,W/iC!#lIr!!'ldIlY~AlC~l1"'A/; .. " ,Icp8...:[2;~CL '7i3 ... /? ,L~();:=:7JlA'.JY£ li·r;LI.-r¥'I'-'06!~_C/-lIlLV4J;-QY ..Wd,£L -I-I/t·,J1 h't!T 7//4/ ?~ry er P/l~O /747C1 JJ1,/'7Q--Z&7e. h/ll/JAlG""II1? l7e'.l£';S' '1/7£ ,J:~C&8 ~ tjj Air W'..4 £''£5' ,19/..//) P~]\/)f'I/t'!A} , /-l.J/i/£)V' Pd /l) '7(:) ,C'/(Zy 4M P /.,,[ /~:z.·,s,,'R/S' /V//:.--;51'S~WIl01 c;e Ii#'} T.(;;u ./ (!it '~72, 7 it~-y"t::..I}IL Si /. ,01f2~ '']-0 Cl>ly C"c:u//\/'CY /L<S t;YIV?jILlt; /)./tc ItJli~ Ol:rJ1#.-1/~J'ttJE7/1~-VL/M£ti'L2ivl­ '..111// ~/Vf·S'J" ~"SVJ/ 'I/~~~ L'/;/Y ,(C!=~ /?/l£tJ/l?Tt" WI h k/c1 /-l/S'£ 41 l;./-. I iy /e/i 7li'""!J-I~ . '7/iX4:.-S/ ~-rc ~ :.J~T·-A,<&/L /I'-I~-' C" Ily /~#~Si J 0 .i2/\/7 s ~ 7/1 /i' r W/ k l­ .. 77j/44-0./1)2.,£ t!I F /l L.J.. OF U,til,if J:J~cv5'4~/vr [f~. f!(~W~'?:S·)//C/l$L~-:-., I_/l;,·~7-?~1i r;.Itl>a~-C-''T . to ·e /I L J-(l)F '7#.t-' L./ 72 ~ / ry. lailll?' ----- .... . .. :J.Q.4!~-PII.~~/.lYQz..?:.. { ............. mn .. . .. J:;;:.I.£~.W~:t4.Sf:1~I2-,:'X.~ ... Wi2~....... . .. '.. ...e/?~Q ... L2~ .. Zi2 ;/:. Cll.fl.~~~.-.. . I .1.2~S.>'~.LS&Oe ... s . .t?&/40~Z .............. . /lt0Mr8A-l:!~ :-l3.cS6Q·.fljl. . • May 7,2012 City Counsel Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Utility Rate Changes -Protest Dear City Council Members: • RESIDENTIAL REFUSE RATES: I have read the proposed added charges of$9.90 for street sweeping, household hazardous waste and annual cleanup along with the decreased charges for my min-can $2.11 for an increase of$3.17. (I think I have figured this correctly. I have not been satisfied for years with the street sweeping Operation/ operator and actually called in a complaint because of the nonuse of water and high rate of speed of the sweeper. Just stirred some dust/dirt around.) I appreciate the hazardous waste opportunity, and have never taken advantage of the annual clean up. I wonder how many do use this? I try to generate the least waste so feel the high waste user is getting the better bargain. WATER SERVICE CHARGES: Why do higher users get a smaller percentage rate increase? W1 General Residential-over 100% increase with W4 users will get less than a 50% increase. WASTE WATER INCREASES: I currently pay $27.91 with a proposed increase of $1.40. Comparing this to Commercial (per cd) and Restaurant use, it does not seem equitable to me. Averages taken Jam~ary through March? And then spread out for the year? And finally, the aging VOLUMENTRIC WATER charges: Need more information on this other than the one paragraph. I am protesting these rate increases and hope you will go back to the drawing board. Sincerely, Anne C. Anderson 4044 Amaranta Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 #30032259 May 14, 2012 City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Utility Rate Changes Dear City Council Members: (;I/~~~._ L.OA,l.Ie, CA L.j 1 Y LLtHK'S OfFICE' 12 Mil Y f 7 ArflO: 25 Please consider these comments prior to taking any action on the proposed rate changes at your June 18, 2012 meeting. Residential Refuse Rates: It appears that adding charges for street sweeping, household hazardous waste and annual clean up day, combined with the decrease on single can collection represents a net increase of $7.89. In other words, this essentially represents a 50% increase in the "expanded" Refuse Rate category. The doubling of the overall rate, especially for those of us who have worked so hard to cut back on the amount of waste that we generate, is discriminatory and unfair. Please note that for those who continue to throwaway vast amounts of waste (example 6 32-gallon cans still pay the $203.52, plus the new Fixed Rate Components of $9,90. This means that a high waste generator sees less than a 5% increase in their overall bill. A flat rate increase gives a huge benefit to apartment houses and other high I waste generators. Volumetric Water Charges: The numbers provided in the May 1, 2012 Notice, do not provide sufficient information to understand the rationale for the increases and decreases . listed. It is unclear the reason for any decrease in the Non-Residential Irrigation charge. If Palo Alto is spending money on Hetch-Hetchy and "replacing aging water mains," it is unclear as to the reason for the proposed rate changes. Water Service Charges: Again, the question that must be answered: Why do higher users receive a smaller percentage rate increase? A Wi, General Residential, receives over a 100% rate increase, and yet some W4 users will receive less an 50% increase. In addition, the W7, Non-residential Irrigation, class for an 8" pipe receives lessof an increase than the Wl, and the 2" gets a decrease. Where is the equity? Wastewater Rates: Forget the rate increases, what is the reason that Commercial and Restaurant categories pay nowhere near the current rate that residential users pay? It is also interesting that single family households are not only paying more already, but also are being asked to pay a flat fee that is nearly twice the Commercial increase and close to three times the Restaurant increase. Wondering why the 99% are protesting these days-take a look at your proposed rate changes. Please reconsider your rate increases as outlined in your May 1st Notice. Sincerely, Hedy McAdams 1440 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 • c;.ITY OF PA LO AlTD C'A (..I-I Y CLERK'S fiPFt'gE U11'U-eYV\ 12 MAY rO AM II: 's ~ 0~cJr f!t.,4/~/~ pO\ r~ ::ft~. (~7 -~'::J--o-3Cf 4oB'::> LA VV\ p~~ ~'\ j,)!2.-, 'VA\O AH-o LA q LJ ~LP City Clerk City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 May 12,2012 I am writing to you in protest of the Utility Rate Change, in specific I am protesting the Refuse, Water and WaStewater rate changes you proposed in your letter on May 1,2012. Regards. GaryHoll 2D~€olorado,Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 -.. May 3, 2012 City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Utility Rate Changes Dear City Council Members: • • G~:I·l'Y OF P/J.,.LD ;\LJ:"Ot:CA CiTY CLG<ffS OFfiCE 12 HAY -8 AM 8: 34 Please consider these comments prior to taking any action on the proposed rate changes at your June 18, 20~2 meeting. RESIDENTIAL REFUSE RATES: It appears that adding charges for street sweeping, household hazardous waste and annual clean up day, combined with the decrease on single can collection represents a net increase of $7.89. In other words, this essentially represents a 50% increase in the "expanded" Refuse Rate category. The doubling of the overall rate, especially for those of us who have worked so hard to cut back on the amount of waste that we generate, is discriminatory and unfair. Please note that for those who continue to throwaway vast amounts of waste (example 6 32-gallon cans still pay the $203.52, plus the new Fixed Rate Components of $9.90. This means that a high waste generator sees less than a 5% increase in their overall bill. A flat rate increase gives a huge benefit to apartment houses and ot4er high waste generators. VOLUMETRIC WATER CHARGES: The numbers provided in the May 1, 2012 Notice, do not provide sufficient information to understand the rationale for the increases and decreases listed. It is unclear the reason for any decrease in the Non-Residential Irrigation charge. HPalo Alto is spending money on Hetch-Hetchy and "replacing aging water mains," it is unclear as to the reason for the proposed rate changes. WATER SERVICE CHARGES: Again, the question that must be answered: Why do higher users receive a smaller percentage rate increase? A Wl, General Residential, receives over a 100% rate increase, and yet some W 4 users will receive less an 50% increase. In addition, the W7, N on­ residential Irrigation, class for an 8" pipe receives less of an increase than the Wl, and the 2" gets a decrease. Where is the equity? WASTEWATER RATES: Forget the rate increases,what is the reason that Commercial and Restaurant categories pay nowhere near the current rate that residential users pay? It is also interesting that single family households are not only paying more already, but also are being asked to pay a flat fee that is nearly twice the Commercial increase and close to three times the Restaurant increase. Wondering why the 99% are protesting these days-take a look at your proposed rate changes. Please reconsider your rate increases as outlined in your May 1st Notice. Sincerely, Nancy Suddjian 703 Ensign Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 May 6, 2012 To: City of Palo Alto -250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Notice of Utility Rate Changes Hello, This letter is to protest against all of the proposed utility rate changes: • Refuse • Water • Wastevvater The protest is on behalf of Parcel #00335038: 1121 Greenvvood Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Jessica Weng N ::r: ):<i!'AI .... < 1"" I..D ~ ~ a N -.,J Co ..... -.. ""--.... :~,-' ..... ,d .... < ~ ... , C) -. r- roC] ..... -"'" (/') c:, 0)"'" -nC ""1 c; c-) rt1~ -;,> __ .,~._ .... ..,.>."~,~,._ •. "~~ ... _.,,,, .. __ .,,,, .. ,,,>_ .. ~», ....... ~ _."' ..•. ~,_._ ...... ,. _.,_._ .... _ ...... " .. c •• _ ~. _ •••••• , ..... ,." ••••• ,. ••• __ ..... _ •• ~._,. ____ •••• >.~_._. __ , __ . ,. ," •.. __ , .. ~ , _~. V"_~"·. , __ • ,." ~._.~ •• , __ ,~ ••. _ ........ _ .. _.~ ... , ..• ~._ .• ,., ...• · .... ·.~.·~~~::::;=?3:;o~~ .... ,-.,,..-,~.,, .. ,., .. " -.. -... ,,,.," · ..... -,~. -·0~~&Z--1'·~~.~~~·~-· c: /. . . " ~. ". .. ." -' . -' .. _-~ ~,~~rL······-····T .. . H_.~;U£ ........ . .~~~...~ .........•.•.... : .. ;;~~. ..~ ...•.•• ~ •.••......... ~.==.~ .. ~~~~~=~~~.~-tlr ::::/~.~~.- .===.~:~.: .. =~~= .• :J/itiii-~ ... ~ ....... ~ ..... ~ ..... ~...= - ""'~"--.'. .~~-~ ..... ~., .. -... '".-,". ", _." ',-.. ' -.-.•..... -.. ~. ~.-.... -... .,._ ... , .~ ,~ .. " " .. ,_., ...... -•... -.~,._.~" ...... _ .. ,_.: ... : .. ,.~ .. _ ...... _ .. ~ .... _.. , ....... ~ .... -... " ... 7.~-~_.C2-ts4 ... _ ... ~ ... f.~.~!. .... " .... _ ....... "., ....... : ...... _. ~~~ rr-~~d--~~ ~ ~ .f-IJ. ~ '. ~ ,. T~.-:t:z; ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ /'-'--'~ c::J . . v . ~~~. \ ) f~(f~ ~/'7 ,L~~ p~~. Pea J ~ L..{ 3.0/ ... vJW!V\ ~~res"'-T1) Oe~,... G j-T'1 G (erli ) VJ{\$m~~ .. 1\1'\ 1 f" £ A l rr ~ "':1 1M 'f \IJ ,. I IT e til ~ ('f) rt ~( To c:{ l/ ~ .() ,I", q () .~-{ () I'tJ ,.. 15 ;fA 'f ~d d It 7$ I 5,' 7 S 3 ,AA til. r (( \III del J PI d\.( f! Ih~ V\ J,.(.7 / J'{ \JII'f) > K,'tII. Vl e (" 65 () -~() 'f -"1 S 7 b ---.! .. ,. -<.~,( r:2 S::; r-r-; ;:t:) / JoAnn Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 05/01712 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Written Protest to Refuse, Water and Waste Water Increases 12 riA Y -7 AM 8: 36) I am writing to protest the never-ending annual increases to our utility rates (refuse, water, waste water, gas, electricity, usage fees, etc.) in the strongest possible terms and to remind you that the Utility Department should exist to provide cost-effective reliable service -nothing more, nothing less. It is highly offensive to get never-ending COSTLY mailings urging us to conserve energy since the more we conserve, the higher the rates go because we've conserved TOO MUCH and thus don't have provide enough garbage to honor the city's commitments. It is both ludicrous and counter-productive; many people I know have stopped recycling in protest. I urge you to follow discussions on Palo Alto Online and elsewhere to see how disgusted people are. Remember for every written protest you get, there are many more who have given up trying to get you to stop raising rates to subsidize the general fund. ENOUGH, we say. The community is well aware we're paying more than surrounding communities. Enough. Refuse: We are paying more for less AND now WE have to haul our own refuse to the curb, a service the city formerly provided. As a two-person household, we NEVER use all three refuse cans weekly yet I'm charged for all three each week.. I only need to recycle MONTHLY, hence I should get a 75% discOlmt since I could never fill the recycling bin weekly. WHY is there no option of shutting off service when we're on vacation or when we have no refuse? At my suggestion to the City Council, the Utility Department is supposed to be looking into this. Why they never thought of this themselves is beyond me since we have shut-off service for newspapers, mail, gardeners, etc. As a way of cutting rates, consider offering us: twice-monthly service rebates for vacation periods and/or when we have no refuse Water & Waste Water: I am also attaching correspondence with the City Council and various members of the Utility Dept. regarding a $400 utility bill for February of this year when our house was dark and empty for half the month. Months later, I am still waiting for the promised return visit to check the puddles in front of our house that never drain even though we're paying for our own personal storm sewers. If someone shows up, we might know-whether the problem is with the water lines or the waste water, Consider the absurdity of living in one of the most expensive real estate and not flushing after each use! Ridiculous. General: Providing cost-effective service should be the main objective although saving us money wasn't even a department objective. ENOUGH with the COSTLY games and apps about comparing usage with your neighbors. Conservation shouldn't cost us MORE. Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach • May 6, 2012 To: City of Palo Alto -250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Notice of Utility Rate Changes Hello, This letter is to protest against all of the proposed utility rate changes: • Refuse • Water • Wastewater The protest is on behalf of Parcel #00337043: 921 Newell Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94303 .!/r~A"r!~ i~,<---...,.,._,--,"'-·'----,7 /"\ ~~iaomei Weng ,.J -f\.) ::JI: h..,. -< I'\.) 1..0 -;,..:.:", ,._( ;;:? !~;;- ... ,-0-(f) ' ... Palo Alto City Council Members, CiT'( OF i>/\LD ,\lJ'(J,CJ\ CITY CLERlrS OFFICE 12 t1flY -8 A~1 8: 31 May 3,2012 I write to protest the proposed increase in monthly residential refuse. water & wastewater service rates. As a Palo Alto home owner for over 40 years, I feel the council needs to revisit the budget numbers. My home address is 404 Oxford Ave, 94306 To increase these rates in addition to our gas & electric rates is too great of burden to put on families & those of us who are retired. Plus It dampens our enthusiasm for conservation, knowing that by reducing our refuse & water use, our monthly bills actually increase. In addition, street sweeping is a joke in my neighborhood, which is two blocks from California Avenue. My curbside has become a parking lot all day long as employees working in the commercial district park their cars from 8 a.m. in the morning to 6.p.m in the evening. Street sweeping is a NON-service in our area. We sweep our own gutters as the street sweeper is unable to do so. So count me a NO on the increase residential utility rates mentioned. There HAS to be a better alternative. Marilyn Mayo, 404 Oxford Ave Shirley Nathan 66 Roosevelt Circle (lalo Alto, CA 94306 e-mail: shirldn@pacbell.net May 31,2012 Donna J. Grider, MMC, City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: UTILITY RATE HIKES G!J Y Of P,c,LQ ALTO. C/\ €l Il Y CLE HWS OFFIGE I urge the City Council to do the right thing and vote NO on all proposed utility rate hikes. One of the attractions of living in Palo Alto was the low utility costs and user friendly service. We are now one of the highest in the area. The increase in water rates is the most unfair, seeing usage has gone down. Thanking you, Sincerely, ~!V~ Shirley Nathan To: City Clerk, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 From: Brian Rossi Re: Protest of Utility Rate Changes Address: 4221 Suzanne Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Utilities Account Number: 30030206 I hereby protest all three ofthe proposed rate changes. I lost my job this year and can't afford such huge increases! Inflation is 2%/year, not the numbers I show below! Refuse: $23.52 from $20.52 (15.4% increase) Water: $27.35 from 13.00 (110% increase) + $27.24 from $21.60, (26% increase) Wastewater: $29.31 from $27.91 (5% increase) These increases areoutrageous! Brian Rossi -5/' ~ l~o \"'t.- ~. '01 '~~ !~ m~ May 5;. 2012 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear City Council, • I am writing to protest the following utility rate changes: -Refuse -Water -wastewater O/'T1" OF p , ' C/'Ty GL rARb~ ... ALTO, C .. 'l c. 1\ <> OFFICE' 12 HAY -9 A .. lf . n 8:57 My parcel number is 127"()5-0.36--()0~ My City of Palo Alto UtiUtiesaccount number is 3(')022571. Sincerely, l\ L ~9/\'-- Gordon Kotik 934 Van Auken Circle PaJoAltO, CA94303 I . ! ; ~--- .. .' ( .. :~ C~iT Y 8F F'A L 0 ~LJO . .c}\ CiTY OLEHK'S O'PFIGE J 2 MAY 24 AM 10: 53 ___ A/fP Y 20 j 201 c.., ~-------, r----C / f y' L! L.£lC/t. ) 2. .6 0 II 11 M/ .L To IV illl£ ~_1?/lirJ2 11 1., Ti7 C! 11 9' ¥..:J 0/ , '" -----'---~-----,----------i---ZC; WlitJ#l II /ldI9Y 'L!LJAI(J.J;~AI:.. I Cf)8..:.J .12 <:!T 'TO 119 ,? '-aF 7/l£;f'f ~ ~ i~ __ rl/lS1 ih'OT --nlL L7/;lv@££!/iLOI7£-r{) , . ~ . LlJL' Ic 0 --/H.t:7.e I-/NAAla)I9~4'2C 12 'Z77L EXO£'tI1//D/u/ WA/;1£S' 19/JJ) P£N~/OAJ )-UAI'Z)\S" P~J2) 7CJ C'/7'y .£'M P ,i;tJ Y~L:S'., . I #LJi &J=~~ wI/a -------CJeQJ Tii72j (JIV.t:']l. '/ tI£-Y'J;.l9t~ 5'. , IJI/.l ____ T5 L"Llv 7 C'odIVClIL IS 11/ VJ/Llt; , 1)J1j) -11M: 01://4 /JA/ DJY ttlP 7~ vL/¥/G-~L IJ All tllJJ/i!_ . ~,0W //~ 6iy ~J=:P/l£tJ /lLTO WIt.L IiJ /l1J"£' //7/ L 1 7,,/ 7 leJ9112S:;;J 7L)(£ 6' /' ~ rc '*' :]~T £""diL /L~f cvlrv /Ce-S'IO£N/S---I 7d/Lr w,/,lL. T ' , . . --. -...-----77i/L~ C1V2,E t1I E /lL j, OF 11-/£1& '. __ ._--J-?£Qv3h£/Vr 8-Now l).rsgC/l8L--f, r 12£l?c#J -r: . .I" tl?1{:g~£CI 'yo • w-(J/P ~r Lin 21i¥_~1i7£ . ____ cJl/lJV4.c~ __ ~ ____ _ I ,------ I I 1_' .. _~·_._._~~~~-S~L S 'p/9;aa.e""Z i_____ 4/dAd8./::'-e. : 13C66Q 51j/ __ _ --~----.--- ----_._------_.------.--- ------- ._------_. ---- -------.------ c------­i -------- ---------------.. ----- r I I~---- 1--1 __ ~. __ _ I I ,----~---------------------------- ---------------- I