Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2D - Public Comment
Anthony Mejia From: K Magdalena Andrasevits <and rasevits@yahoo.com > Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 11:32 AM To: City Clerk Cc: K. Magdalena Andrasevits Subject: Agenda 2D Opposing the Extraordinary Rate Adjustment NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear Mayor, Council Members, and City Manager: As a resident of Palm Springs for over 15 years, I am responding to agenda item 2D for discussion on 09Dec2021. Unfortunately, I will be traveling and unable to personally speak during the Zoom call. would have preferred to express my comments in person. However, while understanding the prop 218 letter and changes in the recycling market, understandably rate increases within reason will occur. And while I support and appreciate the services conducted by PSDS over the years, I am not in agreement or a proponent for the passage of the Extraordinary Rate Adjustment proposed upon the residents of Palm Springs. I support annual CPI-U increases as related to the cost of living and for doing business but not for the ERA noted in this agenda item. We can all understand and agree upon reasonable increases based upon the annual CPI-U. But to hold the residents responsible for the previous fees incurred under the Extraordinary Rate Adjustment doesn't sit well for me due to the following circumstances. The Franchise agreement signed between the city and PSDS back in 2013/2014 included conflicting language on what could essentially be charged back to the consumer for which lawyers on both sides had to come to some agreement because the language in the agreement was conflicting. That's one issue. Further, when the fee changes were then brought forth to the city manager and council in 2016, the city continued to push the discussion out (continually delaying ), until a new city manager was in place. Inevitably, we the residents are being asked to pay for previous fees incurred over the course of 6 months for PSDS to fully recover. First, we all know that that number would potentially become the new standard rate, a new benchmark for the consumer. When was the last time any bill one had simply decreased with regard to established rates? Costs are always increasing thus the pass through to the consumer. As with any business, contract modifications happen all the time and could have been initiated as a change order which in essence occurred when PSDS alerted the city back in 2016 of these new/increased fees. But since the city delayed and/or strung out these negotiations for the last 6 years, we the residents are being penalized in two ways: with a lump sum to pay over the next 6 months while it also took our tax dollars for the city to hire a consultant and auditor as well as PSDS having to do the same on its end. Attorneys were the real winners in this deal. I would also inquire that during the initial pandemic phase many businesses received federal funding under the Covid bills passed and I can't imagine that wouldn't have helped to offset PSDS for those incurred costs (losses) as well as tax benefits for any business loss and yet the consumer does not have this information to review. 1-z-a-2,0-e- 1 ?U,b G(, r✓d'mr k- IT M NO. Zp If the extraordinary rate adjustment is allowed/passed we will also have (2) new increases to be ready for which will include the 2022 annual rate adjustment as well as the new mandatory organics fees passed onto all Californians. That extraordinary cost/expenditure will remain and not go away no matter the promise. I truly hope that further discussion will occur so that we the residents of Palm Springs aren't penalized or left to bare the brunt of the extraordinary rate adjustment. In the end, every city gov't has a fiscal responsibility to its citizens as well as the businesses contracted. PSDS has been a staple in this community for years and their work is commendable. This isn't about taking away from anyone's livelihood or to lessen PSDS impact upon our community - it's about reminding folks there is a collaboration between public and private entities whose main stakeholders' are the residents of Palm Springs. Many thanks for your time. Sincerely, Magdalena Andrasevits Uew k, ©f 'ct- S %o E� To �' o� lam( Paw, r7,4,y,1 s� Cft q2�2 d 0/,F o t pet,�� er�oqs �4 atl.,4jf- 140ra.�C), w,,oL&4 30 r4-ts T�v� s I�1-f�/ 1 s -�-�'''r►� a.1 �roft� f- rro-4-e Uoll�,r�►��. s9�'� �fe . Pa,t� ��� s G,fc�3 � 0- 2, 0 I �CJ r K� e 00*tAl LT CAr /\to W'ck; r� CIA- 92?l6 L C: tt.l TEEM NO. 2-D Patna a P. 5e S41VIC, 2601 E. San Juan Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 November 30, 2021 Office of City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Letter & Addendum of Protest RrCEIVED CITY Q,r ',,,; �,� �°" SPRfuc's "21 DEC - 7 Atf D: 2 7 FICc ' Tfir C` " •-� My name is Patricia El Sharei, and I am the property owner of record and resident at 2601 E. San Juan Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262. I am opposed to the manner in which the City of Palm Springs distributed/mailed the Notice of Public Hearing, scheduled for December 9, 2021, to my address via USPS because there was: --No mail date stamp on the envelope, and --No release date printed on the Notice of Public Hearing document As a result, it was impossible to discern if the Notice of Public Hearing had been mailed by the City via USPS at least 45 days in advance of the December 9, 2021 public hearing date, as required in Section 6 (a) of Article XIII D of the California Constitution. I am also in opposition to the current proposals by the City of Palm Springs and its waste disposal contractor, Palm Springs Disposal Services (PSDS) to the following: A. Assess/collect a one-time Extraordinary Rate Adjustment in the future (from 1/1/2022 through 6/30/2022) to recover costs for recent past years beginning in 2016, in which reportedly the recycling market was deeply impacted by diminished processing capacity, stricter quality standards, and environmental policies of other countries. B. Consider adopting increases to the rates for collection and handling of solid waste within the City. Please refer to the attached addendum that further details my opposition to the -- Manner in which the Notice of Public Hearing was distributed/mailed and -- An example of how the One -Time Extraordinary Rate Adjustment is absurd. Res ectfully, C� Patricia P. El Sharei Enclosure: Opposition Addendum 12-el- 2-621 ?VolcL V, ctn�yyw' fI+- UEM NO. 2-3> Addendum —Letter of Protest Attn: Office of the City Clerk City of Palm Springs November 30, 2021 I, Patricia El Sharei, am the property owner of record at 2601 E. San Juan Road in the City of Palm Springs, CA 92262, and am submitting this letter of protest with addendum to the City of Palm Springs in objection to the following: I. The manner in which the City of Palm Springs distributed/mailed the written Notice of Public Hearing scheduled for December 9, 2021 to property owners/tenants via the US Postal Service (USPS), and II. The current proposal by the City of Palm Springs and its waste disposal contractor, Palm Springs Disposal Services (PSDS), to charge/collect a one-time Extraordinary Rate Adjustment in the future (from 1/1/22 through 6/30/22) for recent past years in which PSDS reportedly incurred unanticipated excess expenses in the amount of $ 573,587 for the processing of mixed recycling from residences and $ 694,683 for the recycling from businesses. I. Rationale for My ObJe ion,/Protest to the manner of mailing/distribution of the December 9th Notice of Public Hearing by t__ he City of Palm Springs According to Section 6(a) of Article XIII D of the California Constitution, referenced in the 6th paragraph of page 1 of the City's Notice of Public Hearing (reportedly mailed via the United States Postal Service to all residents and tenants listed as PSDS customers), the public hearing for such proposed rate increases should be held, "not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed fee or charge to the record owners of each parcel..." Upon close analysis of the mailing envelope, received via USPS containing the Notice of Public Hearing from the City of Palm Springs, the following was apparent: --No official USPS mail date -stamp appeared anywhere on the envelope (see scan attached), and --No published release date appeared anywhere on the Notice of Public Hearing contained within the envelope. Furthermore the online announcement for the Notice of Public Hearing posted on the City of Palm Springs Website at www.palmsl2ringsca.govalso contained no official publication/release date. Since documentation of dates and times are critical to the authentication of all legal processes, I believe it is valid to question whether or not the City of Palm Springs actually complied with Section 6(a) of Article XIII D of the California Constitution, by mailing the Notice of Public Hearing document without any publication release -1- date, or verified mailing date on the document or envelope to permit recipients to verify that the notice was mailed in a timely manner (at least 45 days prior to the scheduled upcoming hearing date on December 9th of 2021). Proposed Remedy to Eliminate Concerns Regarding Mailing To eliminate any compliance questions about the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing, a proposed remedy is to re -schedule the Notice of Public Hearing, currently scheduled for December 9t', 2021, to late February or early March of 2022, and mail new notices for a revised public hearing date after the 2022 New Year's Day holiday. Numerous property owners/tenants in the City of Palm Springs are still being impacted by the effects of COVID-19 and others may be out of town during the current holiday season. Extending the date of Public Hearing into February or March of 2022 would help to ensure that more property owners/tenants receive adequate notice of impending waste disposal rate increases, and therefore have the opportunity to submit written protests in response. From the statement below, found in the 3rd paragraph of the current Notice of Public Hearing under the heading, Public Hearing and Protests, it is apparent why it might be advantageous for the City of Palm Springs to omit official publication/mail dates on all hard copies of Public Hearing notices, and omit publication release dates on all digital copies of the published Notice: "If written protests against the proposed Extraordinary Rate increase and Annual Rate Adjustment are not presented by a majority of the property owners of the identified parcels upon which the rates are proposed to be imposed and tenants directly responsible for the payment of the solid waste service fees, the City Council will be authorized to impose the Extraordinary Rate increase and Annual Rate Adjustment as outlined.,." In other words, if the City of Palm Springs does not receive written protests from a majority of property owners/tenants subject to the proposed increases within the allotted window of time, the City Council can/will be automatically authorized to impose the Extraordinary Rate Increase and Annual Rate Adjustment as proposed. So it actually benefits the City of Palm Springs and Palm Springs Disposal Services if fewer property owners/tenants are notified of the proposed increases to be able to respond/protest. Once again, the fair and equitable remedy is to allow more stakeholders within the City of Palm Springs to have an opportunity to be notified of the proposed rate increases in waste disposal services, by postponing the public hearing until late February or March of 2022 and to disseminate new notices (with accurate date documentation) of the re -scheduled public hearing, via mail and online that are compliant with the 45-day notice rule under Section 6(a) of Article XIII D of the California Constitution. -2- II. Rationale for ounosition to the current DroDosal by the Citv of Palm SDriRes charge/collect a one time Extraordinary Rate Adjustment in the future (from 111122 through 6.130122) for recent past years, in which PSDS re op rtedly incurred excess expenses in the amount of $ 573,587 for the processing of mixed recycling from residences, and $ 694,683 for the recycling from businesses. It's obvious today that prices for all consumer goods and services have been increasing. As stated under the heading Extraordinary Rate Adjustment in the City of Palm Springs Notice of Public Hearing, the City and PSDS reportedly began examining the cost impact of "diminished processing capacity and stricter quality and environmental standards" in 2016. Subsequently PSDS reportedly submitted an application for cost recovery and the City performed an audit. Evidently, the "audit" continued until just recently (in 2021) because in the City's own words, "The recently concluded audit found that PSDS incurred unanticipated excess expenses of $573,587 for the processing of mixed recycling from residences and $694,683 for the recycling from businesses." Why then did it take until just recently in late 2021 from 2016, approximately 5 years later, to reportedly "complete the audit" and to identify the unanticipated excess expenses totaling $1,268,270 ? Essentially, someone or an entire group of "some ones" in City Hall "dropped the audit -ball" from sometime in 2016/2017 onward and now as inflation has recently increased, the current City's property owners and tenants are being hit with a proposed 6-month "Extraordinary Rate Adjustment" from January 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, in addition to proposed regular monthly increases in waste disposal services. This is criminal! It's as if a consumer purchases (on a 5-year contract) an automobile and payments are established and made monthly, only to get to the end of the contract and the consumer is told that the dealership just completed a recent audit and there were additional costs/fees on the car that should have been passed on to the buyer, but weren't. Now 5 years later, when the purchaser of the car has almost paid off the vehicle, he/she is told that as the buyer, he/she must pay for the unpaid fees from 5 years ago (even though the dealership made the error and didn't add on the additional costs/fees). Although this example may seem ludicrous, the City of Palm Springs and Palm Springs Disposal Services are essentially attempting to do the very same thing, by proposing to charge property owners/tenants in 2021 & 2022 for increased costs incurred 5 years ago. Every stakeholder in the City of Palm Springs should be asking to see the completed Audit! Mectfully Submitted, �� /_rua� Patricia P. El Sharei -3- k � 2 Patsiats A St Scheel 2601 E. San Juan Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262 MEMORANDUM Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 To: Office of City Clerk City of Palm Springs Re: Protest Letter & Addendum Mailed Via USPS Certified Mail Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2021 at Palm Springs USPS On Tuesday, Nov. 30th, at approximately 2:15 pm I mailed and certified with request for return receipt, a Letter& Addendum in Protest (see copies attached) of the rate increases proposed by Palm Springs Disposal Services (the Palm Springs contractor for waste disposal services) in the recent past and those beginning in 2022. I chose to send the letter/addendum utilizing USPS Certified Mail with date tracking, because my letter had questioned whether or not the City's Notice of Public Hearing on proposed increases scheduled for Thursday, December 9, 2021, had actually been mailed to property owners/tenants 45 days prior to the Public Hearing (as required in Section 6(a) of Article XIII D of the California Constitution). This concern was raised because the Notice of Public Hearing that I received had: --No published release date --No date stamp on the mailing envelope Furthermore, the online announcement of the Notice of Public Hearing at www.palmsl2ringsca.gov displays no public release date. In the absence of posting/mailing dates, there is no opportunity for stakeholders to be sure that the Notice was mailed 45 days prior to the scheduled Public Hearing. As of yesterday, Monday, Dec. 6th, I had not received confirmation via tracking that my USPS letter/addendum had been received, so I went to the Palm Springs post office around 1 pm in the afternoon, only to discover that postal officials were unable to track/identify where my Nov. 30th letter was at that time. Next, I called the City of Palm Springs and spoke with Tiffany. She is absolutely awesome! She said she would check to see if the letter had been received and would call me back. As promised later in the afternoon, Tiffany called again to confirm that the letter still had not been received as of the time of her call. Shortly after speaking with Tiffany yesterday afternoon, Francis, from the Palm Springs USPS called to let me know that she still could not confirm the location/status of the Nov. 30th letter. Suddenly, last night to my surprise, via the USPS late residential mail delivery around 7 pm, I received the actual "return receipt" from the Nov. 30th Certified mailing reporting that the City's "agent" had received the mailing on 12/3. i'Z-Cl- 24 2,( Ptr��/ G� A t , o rY► ITEM NO. L Page 2 Memorandum to the Office of the Palm Springs City Clerk December 7, 2021 This morning, however, upon checking USPS tracking, it showed the Nov. 30th letter as being "Delivered/Picked Up" at the postal facility (Palm Springs) at 7:12 am this morning,12/7—contrary to the return receipt left in my residential mailbox last night stating the date of delivery as 12/3 by the City's agent. Then this morning, Dec. 7, at 9:20 am, while composing this memo, Tiffany from the City called to let me know that my Nov. 301h protest letter had been received this morning in the City Clerk's office —confirming USPS tracking information I had also received this morning. After thanking Tiffany, I told her of the sudden appearance last night of the Certified return receipt, stating that the City's "agent" had received the Nov. 30th letter on Friday, December 3rd --which was apparently in error. Although I don't believe it would serve any positive result to further question the details of what happened in the delay of my protest letter from reaching the City Clerk's office any sooner, I now have a greater concern that any responses/letters of protest from other stakeholders within Palm Springs may not reach the Palm Springs Postal Station and be picked up and delivered by the City's agent to the City of Palm Springs on or before the December 9th required deadline. I do believe, however, that whatever occurred with the Certified mailing of my protest letter is evidence that supports the following as a proposed remedy, to ensure all stakeholders within the City of Palm Springs have adequate time/opportunity to review/respond to the rate increases, as proposed by Palm Springs Disposal Services. --The need to re -schedule the Public Hearing now scheduled for December 9, 2021, to late February or March of 2022, and --The need to mail new notices (with posted release dates) to help ensure more stakeholders within the City of Palm Springs are notified of a new Public Hearing date/time, so as to allow stakeholders to have adequate time to receive the notices and mail their respective responses in a timely manner. In closing, I have attached copies of the following: A. The Nov. 30Uh protest letter with USPS Certified Mail confirmation B. A copy of the Certified Return/Receipt received evening of 12/6 via USPS, and C. USPS tracking showing that the 11/30 letter was actually picked -up and delivered this morning,12/7, at 7:12 am. Respectfully, Patricia P. El Sharei Property Owner/Resident 2601 E. San Juan Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262 4,J CD L 07 Q) C v CL LJ — s V 0 � U orl nJ ru Ln m r4 ru r-1 Q 4 v Ot �vCIO �tJ 0�') v V �! `� n ' Q9 i'Oorrtptete items 1, 2. and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the maUplece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addmwed toc CAJ �S CA III��111IIIIIII II Itlllll Inl� A. X ptAddmasee Ek relved by ) C. Date of Delivery D. as dit;m t from IMM 1? 13 Yes IP iter dWvery eddresa below. p No 0„� _ EVIMO OrMaff- 0 taan Reef WW LMNW 9590 9402 67961074 7309 61 0 coftmum- 0 009ent on Deemy 0 ewMtwe cam 2. Amide Number OhVefar flvm servke /abed) 0 CoW cM DWWy RnWoftd DOM PMWDWDdM ❑ mewed MIND 7021 0350 0001 1213 3522 0kiewedMdPA doWdoOMY Ps Form 3811, July 2020 PSN 75SM-00MO 3 Domeft Return Receipt ; USPS TRACKING # 6 L 9590 9402 6796 1074 7309 61 United States Postal Service First -Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 • Sender. Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4® in this box* ._)v. C— CA IIII1II111111111F31Iif III IIIIIILIis IIIIIIIII IIlIts l'IIIII,III w r • r �r 111 �gf d e e h s x m E a EL �o P m N N � WWa •V n m v ? � 0 {0 ro a 10 U IL C O N fV CO) ^ N N% N N � Q �U O z O iq Z c G d o m rn N m S O mC � O N E °N z �i 32 mE .0 u y V 7 Anthony Mejia From: William Deschner <WHDaKaLL@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 1:10 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Proposed increases to solid waste services rates by PSDS INOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. I would like to express my opposition to the proposed rate increases foe solid waste services. While I can appreciate the changes in the processing of recyclables and increased cost of doing business, the proposed rate increases seem excessive. The proposed increases far exceed both CPI and inflation, which is historically high. I would propose a much more modest increase over a longer time period say 12 to 18 months. My monthly rate, if I read the tables correctly would go from $18.38 to $25.89. That represents a nearly 25% increase. I think a $2.00 per month increase for 12 to 18 months is much more palatable. This might not recoup all costs but would give time to adapt both for customers and PSDS and markets for recycling. Thank you Bill Deschner 152 West El Camino Way Palm Springs, CA 92264 cell # - 206.819.6732 whdakall@hotmail.com r2-�-&� YtW1 %G comv A'k- ITEM N0. October 31, 2021 Dear City Clerk, My name is Steven Ciceron My address is 2127 E. Racquet Club Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262 My Parcel # is: 501321014 As a Senior Citizen, I object to the proposed increase in the rates for solid waste services. Please consider this my written protest to the proposed rate increases. Sincerely, Steven Ciceron Owner RECEIVED Jz-q-z,t)z{ NOVO22021 ·pl,1;,}? i 1 'l lDYYlrn..e,n I--Office of the City Clerk ITEM N O. 1, 1".:7 Anthony Mejia From: Sent: To: Subject: Warren Gabriele <weg2013@gmail.com> Friday, October 29, 2021 11 :21 AM City Clerk Proposed solid waste rate increase NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. I find this proposed rate increase excessive! 40%! ! This should be voted down Warren Gabriele 560 S Beverly Palm Springs Sent from Warren Gabriele \-Z,-Cl--z-c-z l 1 ' \)IN\o \ l (, lb V\I\ 1/V\LV\.+- TTF o.L-b 10/25/2021 City Clerk's Office 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 CIT y oR ECE IV £D F PALJi SPRINGS .. 2021 OCT 27 PM 2: 42 OFFICE OF - I HE CITY CL G?; Re: Protest to proposed rate increase for Solid Waste Services Rates (AB 361/Proposition 218) To whom it may concern: I am vehemently opposed to the proposed rate increases for Solid Waste Services Rates and submit this protest letter as per instructed. After reviewing Exhibit A, provided in the notice mailed to homeowners, my calculations indicate rate increases of various services in excess of 20%, 50%, 70% and 148%. The current existing annual adjustments as stated in the notice to homeowners are annually adjusted based on the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Area. Per the notice, the stated change for all customers was 0.97%. Exhibit A indicates the current rate and norm al annual adjustment rate increases for various services are from roughly 8% to 27%. Again, I am in completely in opposition to these rate increase s and hereby protest the proposed action for further rate increases beyond the current and annual adj ustments andl find them to be exorbitant and go excessively beyond what is reasonable, customa ry and fair. Respectfully submitted, Guy Brydon, Homeowner 6147 Arroyo Rd #4 Palm Springs, CA 92264 APN: 681-342-004 '1.-01-'2. t)-z ( ~\~0LDVV\~ ITEM NO . 2.J) Anthony Mejia From: Sent: To: Subject: Randolph Paschke <rcpaschke@cpa.com> Monday, October 25, 2021 12:24 PM City Clerk Solid waste services rates NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. I am writing in regards to the proposed rate increases to the rates for the solid waste service fees. I think the rate increases are quite high and in particular what I find unacceptable is the fact that as a part-year resident I was told that I could not put my solid waste services on a vacation hold for the six months when I am not at my Palm Springs home. So now not only will I pay significantly more each month, but I continue to pay for 6 months of services which I do not use. At my Michigan residence, I am able to put my disposal services on hold and I am not charged when they are not picking anything up for six months. I would be more acceptable to these increases if I was allowed to not pay for the periods when I am not getting any disposal services. Please allow them to permit us to put our disposal services on vacation hold when we are away. My address is: 1822 E Belding Dr Palm Springs CA 92262 Randolph Paschke -Owner Mobile: 313-618-6550 rcpaschke@cpa.com 1 \2-et--z..,o~t pt,v\;> l ~ c., U> ·i-v\. ~ ITEM NO. _2..J_..t),;..__ __ City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Sir/Madam RECEIVED NOV O 1 2021 Office of the City Clerk I am submitting this letter to protest any increase in cost for the collection of Solid Waste Services at my residence in the city. I would also like to take this opportunity to address an issue that has long bothered me. I have a second home in the Rose Gardens complex but am rarely there, thus very little trash. I only have one trash container which I put out for collection probably twice/year. I suspect there are many second home owners in Palm Springs in a similar situation. Yet we are paying for full trash collection. I contacted the Palm Springs Disposal Service with my desire to eliminate trash collection at my unit as I could easily handle any disposition of trash myself. I was told this could not be done. I really feel some accommodation should be made for we "very seldom there" residents and either reduce our fees, or better still, let us handle the disposition of trash ourselves. Sincerely, {:f~~~ Charles Fisher 1135 Tiffany Circle South Palm Springs, CA 1506 E. OAK AVE EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 \?-q -"1-A.)'-l 'PLNb\\~ <-<..:>~ ITEMNO. '2-b November 1, 2021 To members of Palm Springs City Council Re: Notice of Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Increases to Solid Waste Services Rates As a resident of Palm Springs since 1989, I object to Palm Springs Disposal Service's proposed rate increases. I currently pay $55.14 per quarter and would pay $77.67 per quarter if the increase is approved. That is a 41 percent markup, which seems outrageous to me, especially compared to the 5.9 percent cost-of- living increase I can expect in Social Security for 2022. I have long felt that I pay too much for trash service when I don't even generate enough trash, recycling, and green waste to put my bins out every week; indeed, I probably put two and possibly three of the bins out once a month. The percent of increase is even higher for some categories of customers, based on the Exhibit A chart sent with the city's Notice of Public Hearing. I called Palm Springs Disposal Service to inquire about the Extraordinary Rate Adjustment charge that the notice says is "to be collected through the rates for a period of 6 months." I was informed that there was no definitive expiration of that adjustment, so it is possible it could continue beyond six months. I understand that Palm Springs Disposal Services is challenged by higher fees it has to pay, but I think administrators should look for ways to curtail expenses or find less expensive processes rather than simply lay all the burden on its customers, who have no alternative. Perhaps someone with a bit of imagination could at least come up with options for customers such as myself who don't require the same amount of service as others. Thank you for your consideration of the above points. l~:~~/Jvt_mud6 Homeowner of assessor's parcel No. 67724i012 Lot 37 MB 040i049 Barbara Tract Unit 2 RECEIVED \ ~ ~rA NOV O 4 2021 . <--1.--Z.O'Z l f'U-\::,\ l LCC> ~ce of the City Clerk ITEMNO . ·2.b Anthony Mejia From: Sent: To: craig ... <craigb981@hotmail.com> Monday, November 8, 2021 11 :31 AM City Clerk Subject: Proposed rate increase and service on solid waste disposal NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. To: Palm Springs City Council Members Re: Proposed Rate increase on solid waste While I understand the need to adjust rates due to higher costs associated with gas, insurance and employee costs, I am not sure the rate increase amount is fully justified. Since this is a contracted service that the city oversees I would assume that the rate increase has been fully and financially analyzed to make sure that the requested amount changes are in line with the increases in providing the service. An additional point I would like to have the council members verify (and a confirmation of this is expected), is how the service fee can be levied/ collected even when a property is not occupied. As a part time resident I am expected to pay for a service that more than half of the year I am not utilizing. For any other utility such as my electric, gas, cable, I do not pay for service that I am not consuming. Further to this point, when I leave my other residence and suspend my trash collection, my charges are as well suspended. I am struggling to understand how this can be legal requiring a resident to pay for service that they are not using. Awaiting your response, Craig Brinkman 690 Quincy Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 1 \·2-q-2...0'"2.-\ f tAJb l t C-CO h'l~ ITE M NO. _1:,::;;.,:t, __ _ Anthony Mejia From: Sent: To: Subject: Brandon Lindley <emailbrandon@msn.com> Monday, November 8, 2021 6:46 PM City Clerk Public Comments regarding: PROPOSED INCREASES TO SOLID WASTE SERVICES RATES NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear City Council, I am Palm Springs resident and business owner. As the rate increase will affect me directly as a resident and likely a special assessment from my Landlord, I am writing quite concerned about a liability in excess of $1 million dollars that the city has accumulated due to increased costs. Now is not the time to hit residents and businesses with this cost from an Extraordinary Rate Adjustment. As residents, we pay additional sales tax when buying goods in our city limits, and as a business owner we collect sales tax that includes funds allocated under Measure J. As there are unallocated funds in Measure J which has a purpose, as passed by the voters, "to help preserve city services" -I feel the costs incurred to recycle and keep our city clean and beautiful through this particular city service can be justified and payment satisfied without further costs to the residents and businesses of Palm Springs by utilizing a one-time payment from Measure J funds from the unallocated reserves. Warm Regards, Brandon Lindley, CMP, CSEP, CPCE 1150 E Palm Canyon Drive, Unit 25, Palm Springs, CA 92264 Managing Member I Sweet Bossa LLC Havaianas I Palm Springs -San Diego -Scottsdale m: 760.808.1262 I e: emailbrandon@msn.com 1 Anthony Mejia From: Sent: To: Subject: Arlene Rosenthal <rose1944@aol.com> Wednesday, November 10, 2021 9:53 AM Anthony Mejia Palm Springs Disposal Services NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear Anthony, After years being involved as a client and in other ways with Palm Springs Disposal I would like this letter to go to all on Council. Thank you, Arlene (Rosenthal) To: Palm Springs City Council Palm Springs Disposal deserves your approval on their request to support them in any manner that will continue helping them offer the best services here in this valley. Not only are they good at their job, but they are intrinsically involved philanthropically in our community. They are deserving of their requests so they can maintain their excellent services. I support their request for the PSDS Annual Rate Increase and ERA. Arlene Rosenthal 1 l-Z.-&\---Z.--0""2..t "\A.,,\;>\ ie, u,~ ITEM NO. 2 l) CD lZ0Z I Z AON Nov~ 2.o, "10~1 l"Z--0\-""Z.b u ft.tblit Cb~ (i[" ITEM NO. ZJ:> ® RECEIVE D CITY OF P J\ Ui SPRINGS 2021 NOV 22 AM 8: 0 I OFFICE OF TH£ CITY CLE RV A.L Matthew Jennings PO BOX 12005 Riverside, CA 92502-2205 4080 Lemon St (1st Floor) Riverside, CA 92501 RIVE RSI DE COUNTY ANN UAL 312UU Go paperless with our new E-Billing feature! Just visit our website, click the E-Billing link and use the following E-Billing Enrollment Code to receive future tax bills on this assessment number via email. Your Enrollment Code is 8919669. • Riverside County Treasurer-Tax Collector Telephone: (951) 955-3900 SECURED PROPERTY TAX Bl LL .. ____ v_is_it_o_ur_w_e_b_sit_e_: w_w_w_.c_o_un_tyt-re_as_u_re_r.o_r_g ----, Toll Free Number: l (877) 748-2689 From area codes 951 & 760 only For Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 October 21, 2021 through June 30, 2022 Property Data: 669378062 UNIT 464 CM 037/104 INT IN COMMON IN LOTS 3 & 4 TR 17377 ... (Pl ease contact the Assessor for more information) Address: 75 1 N LOS FELICES CIR UNIT 207 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 Mailed to: DELMAS ROBERT EARL 284 CHERYL DR PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2100 1 II 1111 11 • 111 1 • 1 • 11 11 I 11 11 • 11111 I 11 11 11 11 • 11 I I• 11 • 1111 ~ 1 •III 1111 1 SCAN QR CODE TO PAY ONLINE IMPORTANT MESSAGES · •.•-• I!] I!] ,. : .._ ___________________ _ I llllll lllll lllll 11111111111111111111111111111111111111 PIN BUI Number Assessment Number BUI Posted Date Tas: Rate Area 669378062 2021002251229 2021-669378062 09-14-2021 011-005 Owner(s) January 1st, 2021 "Et al" means other owners are oresent on this narce] DELMAS ROBERT EARL CHARGES LEVIED BY TAXING AGENCIES FOR INFORMATION CALL AMOUNT General $1,119.41 03-5128-D PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED B&l 1992-A 760-416-6126 $168.25 03-9001-D DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE 760-773-2513 $44.22 04-5121-D DESERT WATER AG 760-323-4971 $111.94 *** TOTAL AD VALOREM TAXES $1,443.82 68-1378-FC FLD CNTL STORMWATER/CLEANWATER 800-969-4382 $1.70 68-1864-FC CSA 152-PLM SPRINGS STORMWATER 866-810-0255 $9.50 68-2617-FC PALM SPRINGS SEWER CHG 800-676-7516 $240.00 *** TOTAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND FIXED CHARGES $251.20 PLEASE KEEP TOP PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS NO RECEIPTS WILL BE ISSUED -YOUR CANCELLED CHECK IS YOUR RECEIPT IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE Land Structures Full Taxable Value Exemptions -Homeowner Exemptions -Other Net Taxable Value Tax Rate Per $100 Value Taxes Special Assessments & Fixed Charges Total Base Tax Amount Add 10% penalty after 12-10-2021 $847.51 Add 10% penalty plus cost after 04-11-2022 $28,280 $83,661 $111,941 $0 $0 $111,941 1.2898 $1,443.82 $251.20 $1,695.02 $847.51 \--Z-t\-20-it ~ l,ll\:j\ \ 0 tb~ ITEMNO . 'l, p A.l Matthew Jennings Riverside County Treasurer-Tax Collector PO BOX 12005 Riverside, CA 92502-2205 4080 Lemon St (1st Floor) Riverside, CA 92501 RIVERSIDE COUNTY ANNUAL · 31199 Go paperless with our new E-Billing feature! Just visit our website, click the E-Billing link and use the following E-Billing Enrollment Code to receive future tax bills on this assessment number via email. Your Enrollment Code is 6869647. Telephone: (951) 955-3900 Toll Free Number: 1 (877) 748-2689 From area codes 951 & 760 only SECURED PROPERTY TAX Bl LL ___ ....;.v_lsi ... t o_u,;,..r w.;..e_b_sit_e:_w_w_w_.co_u_ntv_t_re_a_su_re_r.o_rg _____ _, October 21, 2021 Property Data: 504380013 .06 ACRES IN LOT 13 MB 392/028 TR 31940 Address : 284 CHERYL DR PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 Mailed to: DELMAS ROBERT EARL 284 CHERYL DR PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2100 For Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 SCAN QR CODE TO PAY ONLINE •1111 11 11 1•1111 111l 11 11111 11 l•ll 111 11••1•111 111 1•11•1f•11l11111 11 IMPORTANT MESSAGES • l!l, ,. : ._ ___________ _. .. ________ _ 111111111111 111111111111111 IIIII 11111 1111111111 11111111 PIN Bill Number Assessment Number Bill Posted Date Tax Rate Area 504380013 2021002156076 2021-504380013 09-14-2021 011-066 Owner(s) January 1st, 2021 "Et al" means other owners are present on this parcel ~ DELMAS ROBERT EARL CHARGES LEVJED BY TAXING AGENCIES . FOR INFORMATION CALL AMOUNT General $4,950.30 03-5128-D PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED B&I 1992-A 760-416-6126 $744.03 03-9001-D DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE 760-773-2513 $195.54 04-5121-D DESERT WATER AG 760-323-4971 $495.03 *** TOTAL AD VALOREM TAXES $6,384.90 68-1378-FC FLO CNTL STORMWATER/CLEANWATER 800-969-4382 $1.30 68-1864-FC CSA 152-PLM SPRINGS STORMWATER 866-810-0255 $9.50 68-2617-FC PALM SPRINGS SEWER CHG 800-676-7516 $240.00 68-2636-FC CFO 2005-1 PALM SPRINGS 800-676-7516 $486.40 68-4556-FC COACHELLA VALLEY MOSQUITO & RIFA 866-807-6864 $14.38 *** TOTAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND FIXED CHARGES $751.58 PLEASE KEEP TOP PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS NO RECEIPTS WILL BE ISSUED -YOUR CANCELLED CHECK IS YOUR RECEIPT IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE Land $125,503 Structures $376,528 Full Taxable Value $502,031 Exemptions -Homeowner $7,000 Exemptions -Other $0 Net Taxable Value $495,031 Tax Rate Per $100 Value 1.2898 Taxes $6,384.90 Special Assessments & Fixed Charges $751.58 Total Base Tax Amount $7,136.48 Add 10% $3,568.24 Add 10% $3,568.24 penalty after penalty plus 12-10-2021 cost after 04-11-2022 orn= $3 568.24 n11r: s~ 568 .24 '· r2-q-2.1>zt f w\:> \ \ t, Ct>~ ITEMNO. £-D November 18, 2021 Office of the City Clerk CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Robert E. Del Mas 284 Cheryl Dr. Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-323-7625 RE: PROPOSED INCREASES TO SOLID WASTE SERVICES RATES To Whom It May Concern: CIT y oR Ep Ei V ED FF/', LM SPRINGS 2021 NOV 18 Af1 8: OF ~ -52 FICt O,c THE CITY CL£;;,· I hereby submit my written protest and opposition to the proposed increases to solid waste services rates. I am the owner of record of the following properties: APN# 504-380-013 / 284 Cheryl Dr., Palm Springs, CA 92262 APN# 669-378-062 / 751 N. Los Felices Cir., Unit 207, Palm Springs, CA 92262 Very truly yours, Robert E. Del Mas Enclosures 12-q-70·2( 'y(;t.blle, Lo~ ITEM NO . ..=.2-:::.......:-D __ Anthony Mejia From: Sent: To: Subject: Kelly Donahue <janebond98@hotmail.com> Tuesday, October 26, 2021 11:17 AM City Clerk Proposed Increase to solid waste service rates NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear City clerk, My partner and I are opposed to an increase to solid waste service rates. Palm Springs has been raising prices in many of the departments where we have to pay taxes or increased rates to the city and if this trend continues residents will get priced out of the city. PS already makes millions from taxes in short term vacation rentals. The city should get creative in dispersing funds already brought in and not penalize the residents who are working extremely hard to make a living. Kelly Donahue and Divya Soni 2872 E. Ventura Rd palm Springs CA 92262 1 ~ I 12-q-2--D'U pl,,lb 1 ; c. Lb \M.~ ITEM NO. 2 .. ·D Anthony Mejia From: Sent: To: Subject: Sarah Shyn <sishyn@yahoo.com> Wednesday, November 24, 2021 1:49 PM City Clerk Comments regarding public hearing regarding proposed increases to solid waste services rates NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear City of Palm Springs, I received a letter in the mail about your Dec 9th hearing to propose increasing rates on solid waste services and I would like to submit my written request strongly opposing this. I already pay for trash services even when I'm not using the home and am out of town entirely and don't need trash services, they still charge me as if I do use the service so it feels incredibly unnecessary and obscene to be charged more when I am not currently using the service at all. If you're going to up the fees, it should be for people who actually utilize the services since I still pay without being here. There should be exemptions for cases like this. If I were actually participating and utilizing the trash, that would be a bit more fair but as I've said, I'm paying and not even using the service but it's a second home and I don't rent it out and keeping up the costs are strenuous especially when not needed. Happy to elaborate anytime if needed. Best, Sarah Shyn Ayala 310-463-8585 resident of 888 S. Calle Santa Cruz, Palm Springs, CA 92264 1 12-0J-~~ ?wblle,to~+- ITEMNo. 2 -D . Anthony Mejia From: Sent: To: Subject: Norman Kerewsky <npkerew24@gmail.com> Saturday, December 4, 2021 4:02 PM City Clerk Public hearing 9 december 2021 NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Subject: Proposed increase in PSDS fees. I OBJECT totally to this proposal. 1. For the City of PS to cover PSDS inefficiency, by screwing residents, is NOT what we want the City to do. 2.This family needs professional help in controlling expenses, not white washing their inability to only provide services they can't afford. 3. ONE SIZE does not fit all. As a single person household ( with a kitchen disposal, and no food discard), ONCE a month service is adequate. Have some options available so service meets the needs of residents.What does increased "tip fees", from residents of 78.8%, mean???? (A slightly biased analysis: I pay $52/Year to LATIMES for 4X/week delivery, and $211/year to PSDS to cart the paper away!) 4. Let residents OPT OUT of service, with the City providing a facility for individuals to dispose of waste. 5 The City council is too enamored with themselves to be politically correct (?), and a "leader of sustainability" , disregarding their obligations to balance self importance with fiduciary responsibilities. Thank you considering my concerns. 1 \ '2·-l'I-2-o"Z..\ f-u bl i c, C Ol'V\~ ITHMNO. 2 D Norman Kerewsky 1445 Via Isla Palm Springs, CA 92264. 2 Anthony Mejia From: sgreen5590@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 8:01 AM To: City Clerk Subject: Garbage Increase NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. I find the garbage increase to be way too high. We are on a retired limited income. We cannot afford this type of increase. We also live in a community and they said they will have to increase our monthly dues to cover these increases. We cannot afford this high of an increase. Thank you Sue Green �i>,t/b t`L C. Dmr►V$ rMM No. 'i> Anthony Mejia From: MMoran <mmoran1 @twc.com> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 11:50 AM To: City Clerk Cc: Mark Moran Subject: Palm Springs Disposal Services Rate Change Item 2-D INOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Honorable Mayor and City Council: December 9, 2021 Good evening to you all and I hope that all of your families are healthy and safe. My name is Mark Moran, I grew up in Palm Springs, attending Palm Springs High School and after College I became a Palm Springs Police Officer in 1972. 1 left the Police Department in 1978 to open the first Runaway Group Home Shelter in Palm Desert called Turning Point under the management of Children's Home Society and contracted with Riverside County Probation Department and the California Youth Authority. Later, in the 1980s I became the Executive Director of the Palm Springs Senior Center, which at the time, was located on North Palm Canyon Drive. Before I left, I negotiated with the City the present location of Sunrise and Ramon Rd. I left the Senior Center to pursue a career in Consulting work that brought me back to Palm Springs constantly. More recently representing Verizon, FiOS. Although I presently live in La Quinta, I still consider Palm Springs my home. With that said, I support the effort by Palm Springs Disposal Services to change rates and in this tumultuous time, change rates as issues for waste disposal change Statewide and Nationwide. I know the Cunninghams and their long association of serving the City fairly and with dedication. Thank you for your consideration and again please stay healthy and safe. Mark Moran P.O. Box 1305 La Quinta, Ca. 92247 (760) 805-1602 mmoran1 atwc.com 2 — 6i — Z�o Z1 '?UAAQ, I'TI;N NO. 21> Anthony Mejia From: Ron Lewis <docronps@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 11:38 AM To: City Clerk Subject: AGENDA ITEM 2-D NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. To the Palm Springs City Council: I am writing to you to express my support of the minimal rate increase proposed by Palm Springs Disposal Services (PSDS). I have been a homeowner in Palm Springs for over 15 years. The increase proposed is very reasonable due to the fact that all businesses are experiencing increasing costs and for PSDS the recycling costs are even more so. I am very satisfied with their service. Therefore, I fully agree with PSDS rate increase proposal. Sincerely, Ron Lewis, MD 1991 S. Ana Maria Way V '�)1 C. CDm 1f�1�ru� ITEM NO. � Anthony Mejia From: pspate@earthlink.net Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 11:58 AM To: City Clerk Subject: Comments for Dec.9 Public Hearing NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. To: All Palm Springs City Council Members My name is Patricia El Sharei and I am the property owner and 25-year resident of 2601 E. San Juan Road in Palm Springs. In reference to the proposed rate increases for solid waste disposal services, I am opposed for the following reasons: The City and Palm Springs Disposal Services (PSDS) are proposing significant monthly rate increases for 2022 and attempting to charge customers for past years beginning in about 2016 via an Extraordinary Rate Adjustment. This is outrageous! It's as if a consumer purchases an automobile on a 5-year contract with established monthly payments and then just before the contract ends, the dealership performs an audit, discovers additional costs/fees that should have been added to the original contract and bills the consumer for the error. Question: Why did it take until just recently, in late 2021, to conclude an audit (reportedly originating from 2016) and to identify unanticipated excess expenses totaling $ 1,268,270.00 ? According to Section 6(a) of Article XIII D of the California Constitution (as referenced in the City's Notice of Public Hearing for December 9), the public hearing for proposed rate increases should be held "not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed fee or charge to the record owners of each parcel... �Z-d) '`ZA-2--1 �wbi%, L cbmn�.R 1TEA/i N0. 2 J When I received a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing via the USPS at my residence, there was no official mail date -stamp on the envelope, and no official release date printed on Notice. It should also be noted that when I checked the City's online Notice of Public Hearing at (http://www.palmspringsca.aov) there was no release date published. Since documentation of dates and times is considered critical to the authentication of all legal documents in our society, the absence of dates on the City's Public Notice documents leads stakeholders like myself to question the intentions of the City. It is also difficult for stakeholders to determine whether or not the notices sent were mailed 45-days in advance of the scheduled Public Hearing as required. Ten days ago on November 30th, I sent (via USPS Certified Mail with return receipt) a formal letter of protest regarding the proposed rate increases to the City of Palm Springs. According to the City Clerk's office, my protest letter was not received until Tuesday, December 7th—exactly 1 week later. Additionally, I received several conflicting tracking dates/notices via the USPS. I have only to believe, therefore, that since it took an entire week for the City to receive a Certified letter via USPS with special handling instructions, other letters sent via regular USPS mail by stakeholders within the last few weeks may not reach the City Clerk by today's December 9th deadline —especially with impacts caused by excess holiday mail. Therefore since it is now December 9 and there has been no change in the date of public hearing, I respectfully request that the Palm Springs City Council: -- Consider the information provided in this e-mail -- Vote to move any final decisions regarding increases in waste disposal fees to late February or early March of 2022 & schedule a new Public Hearing Date -- Send out new Public Hearing Notices via USPS with an official release date, and -- Provide a mail -date stamp on each envelope Respectfully, Patricia P. El Sharei Anthony Mejia From: Eric Egy <ericjegy@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 9:09 AM To: City Clerk Subject: agenda item 2D NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. have been a resident and homeowner in Palm Springs for the past 16 years. I recently received a notice of a rate increase from Palm Springs Disposal. I was actually surprised that the increase wasn't higher. I'm sure the operating costs have gone up due to the price of gas and overall inflation. I've lived in other cities from Los Angeles to West Palm Beach Florida, and the cost of my trash service has always been higher than Palm Springs. I also have received the best service from Palm Springs Disposal. I will close by saying even with the increase it's still the best deal in town! Sincerely Eric Egy 4104 Vista Dunes Palm Springs, Ca. 92262 Please read to City Counsel 12--� Uz I Anthony Mejia From: Eric K. Christensen <ekc@dc.rr.com> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:22 AM To: City Clerk Subject: Palm Springs Disposal NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. To Whom It May Concern, According to Palm Springs Disposal (PSD) the documents you sent out regarding current rates are inaccurate and wrong. I personally heard both these words used in relation to the documents you sent out about this rate increase. The rates shows about $18 for the first can. Then about $6 each additional can. Those are the rates as shown on the document that was mailed out. Also, if you go to the website for PSD it's shown exactly the same. I have referenced these rates both on your documentation and on the website to PSD. They say that this is wrong. The rates are $18 per unit, per can, per month on the billed property and not the $6 additional. I asked PSD several times to show me some documentation that reflects a charge per unit to the property. I said this should be on a current rate sheet like other cities such as Palm Desert and Cathedral City have. Those cities publish rates online for anyone to view at anytime. PSD doesn't offer any documentation of current rates, nor will they provide it because it allows them to pick and choose what provides them the best benefit. If you go into McDonald's and there are no menus, how are you to know what you are suppose to pay? This allows McDonald's to pick and choose what rates and rules to apply to each person. This is similar to what PSD is doing. Instead of raising rates why isn't the city soliciting offers from other refuse companies so customers get the best benefit for the price they pay? Why are we not looking at other providers who are not deceptive or deceitful with it's customers? �iMo 1 C- (.01v4yi I will consider at some point a complaint with the Attorney General so that this matter can be addressed properly. Thanks, E. Christensen (acct # 1-0021597-7)