Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7/7/2010 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.D.
Dune Apartments, LLC "10 „ 24655 Outlook Drive A I ' 42 Carmel, CA. 93923 Telephone& FAX(831)626-0386 Ted A.Tobey, Manager July 11, 2010 Jay Thompson Palm Springs City Clerk, City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA. 92262 RE: WWTP Dear Mr. Thompson, We are the owners of Deepwell Apartments on E. Palm Canyon Drive. We STRONGLY OBJECT to the imposition of new fees for waste water treatment, given our understanding of the actual costs for waste water treatment and how these fees have been spent in the past. Apartment owners are struggling now to keep these businesses afloat with the collapse of housing prices and rental rates. Please copy each council member this letter to notify them that we will actively participate in campaigning against every council member who votes for this upcoming proposal when the next general election season starts. Sincerely, Ted A. Tobey Wesley . Wagner June 29, 2010 City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Proposed Sewer Rate Increase 608 S. Roxbury Dr., Palm Springs 92264-8210 Parcel#502293015 To: City of Palm Springs To begin with,we just received your notice of the proposed increase for sewer service rates and the meeting scheduled for June 16, 2010. I wonder how many other Citizens have been affected the same way and what time period was given for written opposition. As such,please provide a written answer as to the date notifications were allegedly sent out. I now get a chance to voice my displeasure over the way things have seemingly been run by the City of Palm Springs. Even though I am paying$10.36 sewage I have to question: what are the specific projects which will include $67 million ($45 million in next 10 years) for capitol improvements and where can I get a copy of the engineering study? Pardon me for being skeptical but through reading the newspaper/attending Council meetings and watching the preferential treatment certain areas of Palm Springs receive compared to others; I have to question and ask that you please explain what has been going on over all the years and: • Why no money was ever set aside for future growth and expansion? • Why no money was ever set aside for fleet maintenance and improvement(if this is part of the cost)? • What is the basis by which your engineering study costs are estimated? • Was the engineering study& independent consultant study put out to bid? i If yourr costs-sireAerived-from an-engtneertug sMdy Mttrey u-se a bid process and have there been three contractors bidding? • Has there been any attempt at"Grants" if this is such a dire emergency? If this is put to a vote, I will vote NO for the reasons listed above. ed, ern Bauer& Greta K. Duke S. oxbury Dr. Palm Springs, CA 92264 a Cc: Desert Sun Newspaper, letter to editor X: �a May 3, 2010 Dear City of Palm Springs, RE: Sewer Rate Increase We are writing this letter to Protest AGAINST the Proposed sewer rate increase for the next several years. We are on a fixed income and cannot afford a tax increase. Thank you, The Steeniebop Trust 6150 Montecito Drive #5 Palm Springs CA 92264 TAX ID Assessment and Parcel # 681342057-6 3 � a,o� o 4-3 q T I P. S�� C¢} 1 Z262 �n Pip p9s J2-.O� 4Q�IW4L4,ji,,Q- Zht�rew-AQ- �- �^�-- t " � 43 Lv ql� V..e v �— �N�C11S�aia-e� �olc Prp-w a-r l"�q� G4 ,Cif. U U CA.,o C)K,,. Y-0 rVI awy%-N� May 4, 2010 ,'f( ' City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm. Springs, CA 92262 RE: Parcel#669395009 To Whom It May Concern: In regards to the"Proposed Sewer Rate Increase"we opposed of the - increase-rates Please accept this letter as my official written protest against the rate adjustment increase. Sincerely, U Hessie Holland Gloria Holland Thompson, Trustee Zolo .•-�6.L-��r��jruyt F ..�Yn--vt.-l�C ..Gsa�.C., �-14 .r'LQ�� /H' L �(y.�.. •�t.c)-Tx-�IJ'L-L�w��j .C�^�` We'N 4- dANC /<fZAU5� ,� 5 s C-55 ores j7h e c rc..- !:P-- S© °% 7 3 0 3 0-- 3 T a i� ?tom 7�V 10 haa LO s em- D " e`414 /innOOW / 'en"�L/V �itr a., V,,�pvklw 4w -A� /� /, 191� dof-113 CIPIt � as .r�t %�� For Fiscal Year July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 �o Lemon Riveerrside,1CA925 2-2205)a Offices in„w Riverside,Palm Springs and Temecula k" t� ' j. rTelephone:(951)955-3900 1 or,from area codes 951 and 760 only g tall free: 1(877)RIVCOTX(748-2689) I 1 Bill Number ASSESSMENT NUMBER Property PSL 274 Data 000006757' 00961145E-6 2700 GOLF CLU13 DR NO 2 PALM SPRINGS 92264 Tax Rate Area Parcel Number Owner, JANUARY 1, 2009 FREEBAIRN, J RICHARD TR & SUZETTE S 011-005 681293023-4 FREEBAIRN, J RICHARD TR & SUZETTE S TR O 09/22/2009 9 S I LVERB I T LN All questions about ownership,values or ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274-4225 exemptions must be directed to the II�I�JI��t�tl�ilt�t1.I..1.It�i,�l�l�J�I�i�ltli�t�itltttll�tl Riverside County Assessor at(951)955-6200. UNPAID PRIOR-YEAR TAXES µ (See Item#6 on reverse) Tax bill requested by loan Identification Multiple Bills NONE 11, 931 7,7 1% TAX LIMIT PER PROP 13 i 716 05' STRUCTURES 59, 674 UNIFIED SCHOOL DEBT SV 90.42 TRADE FIXTURES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEBT Sv ! 14 .28, TREES&VINES DESERT WATER AGENCY DEBT SV (760) 323-4971 57.28 CITRUS PEST VALUE CSA 152-PLM SPRINGS STORMWATER (888) 683-5234.7 i 9.50' B[%SiNESSPERSONAL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS SEWER CHG (760) 322-8372@ j 124.32; PROPERTY 1 PU.LL VALUE 71,605 EXEMPTIONS f NA RATE PER$100 VALUE 1 .2 2.6 00.5 23 TAXES A�( "0 t Special Axsessmcnts J 3 3. $2 r &Fixed Charges $ ............ . TOTAL AMOUNT 1,011.8 6.. i $505 .93 ` $505.93 i I Add 10% Add 10% penalty after penalty plus cost 12/tOf2009 after 04/1 012 0 10 -- - - - 1 $505 .931 $505.93 c� i �y� t r �� «� OWi. � n/n J May 6,2010 The City Clerk City of Palm Springs City wan 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 RE. Proposed Sewer Rate Increase(Against) Dear Sirs, This is my written notification to you that I o_biect to the proposed sewer rate increase announced by the rec nt mailing I received in the mail. h D L wis, Property Owner 1 Po�a erosa Way Pal Springs,CA 92264 Parcel#680531037 F PALAa I ;>° y City of Palm Springs _ N 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way g CS FIRSTLASRSS MAIL Palm Springs, CA 92262 US POSTAGE PAID 46206 URS-I No I I f I f f I I 1 ! € I ( r J J # �1}I}}}}lll}}I}Ifll3}}lllll}+ll11311111�11111}}I}+ll itlll lllll 186••=•**YAUTO"SCH 5-DIGIT 92263 I PARCEL#: 680531037 LEWIS,DANIEL EUGENE 4 f 1641 PONDEROSA WAY f PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-3535 fI 1 I I NOTIFICATION OF PUSLfC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE f NCR EASE S ELAINE KIRK 4267 COOLIDGE AVENUE OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94602 May 6, 2010 City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, Califonria 92262 Re: Proposed Sewer Rate Increases Dear City Clerk: I am a property manager for commercial properties in ten states, a homeowner in Oakland, California, and owner of the residential condominium unit at 1212 Martinique Circle,Palm Springs 92264. 1 have reviewed your proposed sewer rate increases with interest,and find the amounts you have proposed to be modest within the context of your proposal. However, I must and do protest the concept and practice of charging a fixed rate for sewer services per customer class or property type. There is a much more equitable approach, which pairs the cost of the service with its actual use. It is already customary in many localities to charge sewerage based on and proportional to actual,metered water consumption. (Where separately metered, irrigation water is of course exempt from sewer charges.) Please consider this basis for billing the sewer service. Many localities, including particularly cities which have not privatized their water services, impose a separate charge for storm drain maintenance on the water and sewer bills. Rates for storm sewerage are generally proportional to a given parcel's ratio of impermeable surface and its potential to generate run- off. I highly recommend this proportioned approach: it consistently rewards those who conserve water, and it adjusts costs for seasonal businesses to reflect their patterns of slack and peak usage. It works to encourage conservation and good maintenance practices on the part of consumers. And—most importantly—it is fair. California's years-long water shortage is a good reason to consider changing how to present the public with a needed rate increase. When sewer charges are perceived by people as a significant component of their cost of using water,then they can change their own behavior instead of protesting another tax increase imposed by their local government. Very truly yours, &&L 6�4_ Elaine Kirk 2010sewerchgs.ltr copy: Sunrise Villas Owners Association c/o Desert Management May 13,2010 `i'i Y 17 Ah 9= 31 Palm Springs City Council 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way I. Palm Springs.CA. 92262 Attn: City Clerk Sirs, This letter is to protest the proposed sewer rate adjustment. This property is owned by William and Consuelo L.Gills 2001 Camino Parocela Condo C21. Pahn Springs,Ca. 92264 ?lease consider this protest at your open hearing on June 16,2010. Thank you, William R.Gills Consuelo L.Gills 3 - C°,�Lc- U:.G'LU� ws'-•f 1 �-j L c2CY r c� c� 2533 Junipero Avenue Palm Springs,CA 92262 ) r",; '' M'ri 7 j"I} May 10, 2010 City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 Dear Sir or Madam: I am sending this letter in opposition to the proposed monthly sewer service rate adjustment. While I can understand the possible need for a rate increase based on a number of factors,an almost doubling of the current rate by July 1,2011 is too much a burden on taxpayers who are already struggling, particularly the elderly and fixed/low income families. My recommendation is to implement a less aggressive increase for the first three years. Thank You for your time. Sincerely, 4r Tom Gas dy Assessor's Parcel Number: 504072002-8 JVi1114 L. 01LUJE3 2066 Tamarisk Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 May 10, 2010 City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Sewer Rate Adjustment To The City of Palm Springs: I am opposed to the proposed Sewer Rate Adjustment. While the City of Palm Springs may have the lowest sewer rates in the area past city councils have borrowed, spent and not repaid sewer fund reserves in the past. What is to prevent the current or future city councils from doing the same thing? Is there a written guarantee that will prevent current or future councils from raiding the sewer reserves? Put in something in your action that protects the ratepayers from irresponsible city council actions. Why not just lease the sewer plant to the Desert Water Agency? At least they are creditable. incerely John D. Stiles L . warzA- I Jr&- , Ile I'I Se � d j ►tea1k, rl s� A gaAG� =; A Ss e s s w,,e A.,,+ 00 qG 0 7 R 3 . lv k-� Clki n c.Q a + e. a e sp o ve yzC) �7r a ®S e� SPLVerL -T'a� Y I ti c 9 ,e CL sC, k rL s S1 7/i o -2 Mr.& Mrs.Bruno Pavan 319 San Domingo Dr Palm Springs,CA 92264 L-7 L7 L Mario Carbini P.o.Box 622 ;!as;6' �` ' '" I A 9 35 Palm Springs, Ca 92263 May 6, 2010 City Clerk City Hall 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Dear Sir: Re: Sewer rate increase -- Assessment # 009610398. I don't understand why you guys have been waiting 17 years to increase the rates when it could have been done gradually; that ' s mismanagement! Your rate increase is pure madness and I 'm totally opposed to it. It 'd be carried out comfortably in many more years. Best r ards. Mario Ca ini/owner f ....._...... ...... ... .... _..._._..... I ....... _ i. Cf - I�. ,y .......... ... I .... ._.. ..............._ . .......... .. I �'.2 Z tT C),q c/01, Z �J 1.1150a : r, May 4, 2010 City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Parcel#669381018 To Whom It May Concern: In regards to the"Proposed Sewer Rate Increase"we opposed of the increase rate. Please accept this letter as my official written protest against the rate adjustment increase. Sincerely, Gloria Holland Thompson a' June 1, 2010 20�11 J I1 3 filt 1 Ill: 11 PROTEST to proposed sewer`i*ate tax) increases! Property Owner: Paul T. Foltz Assessment number: 501362001-2 Property Address: 2697 E Verona Road I vehemently protest any city rate increases at this time. With home foreclosures at an all time high, unemployment close to 20% in the immediate area and commerdal businessm ckaing at a faster growing pace,the city now want to burden the tax payers of Palm Springs with additional taxes. With Mfy 3g apartment building permits issued in the last 9 months we do not need to expend 23 million dollars in the next 5 years. What we need is a piss that wiN keep the sewage plant functional until better finaneW time are upon us so the tax increase burden can be born by the taxpayers of Palm Springs without potting their families, property or business in ,jeopardy. Sincerely an] T. Foltz Resident City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way , iM' ( _3 AN 10: 17 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Attn: City Clerk From: Peter David Harris Alejandro B. Hernandez Date: June 1, 2010 Re: Proposed sewer rate hike July 1, 2010 We are sending this letter to protest the proposed sewer rate increase. With the poor state of the economy, we feel that this rate increase is inappropriate at this time. We are all struggling to meet our responsibilities. Therefore, we are opposing this proposed rate sewer rate increase. We reside at 1702 Grand Bahama Drive West Palm Springs, CA 92264. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, r 1 eter avid rris Alejandro B. Hernandez Debra A. Geissler Susan L. Gagnon 2860 E. Ventura Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 [' .6`,;.':' " ,,1 10: 16 May 28, 2010 To: City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Attn: City Council of Palm Springs Re: Proposed Sewer Rate Increase for: Property: 5300 E. Waverly Dr., #H4 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Parcel # 681292013-2 Owners: Susan L. Gagnon & Debra A. Geissler Please accept this letter as our vote "against' the proposed sewer rate increase. In this present economy we feel an increase in any part of our property taxes and increases will only hurt our city more. Thank you, Debra A. Geissler Susan L. Gagnon Date l " � Date / Debra A. Geissler 'usan L. Gagnon 2860 E. Ventura Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 2910 lu!! -3 Ali110. 16 May 28, 2010 To: City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Attn: City Council of Palm Springs Re- Proposed Sewer Rate Increase for` Property: 5300 E. Waverly Dr., #4101 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Parcel # 681440021-6 Owners: Susan L. Gagnon & Debra A. Geissler Please accept this letter as our vote "against' the proposed sewer rate increase. In this present economy we feel an increase in any part of our property taxes and increases will only hurt our city more. Thank you, Debra A. Geissler Susan L. Gagnon Date 0-8 o- Date X�0Z�lb Debra A. Geissler Susan L. Gagnon 2860 E. Ventura Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 2010 J!.' ' - 3 it 110: 16 May 28, 2010 To: City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Attn: City Council of Palm Springs Re: Proposed Sewer Rate Increase for: Property: 2860 E. Ventura Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 Parcel# 501373016-0 Owners: Susan L. Gagnon & Debra A. Geissler Please accept this letter as our vote "against' the proposed sewer rate increase. In this present economy we feel an increase in any part of our property taxes and increases will only hurt our city more. Thank you, Debra A. Geissler Susan L. Gagnon Date �� a �l Date .CU I U Regarding: the increase in the sewer utility tax. I do not feel at this time this is necessary. No mention of deteriorating conditions when you were considering selling to Desert Water Agency. You are saying this money will go to reclamation funding. However, it does not say it will not be used for any other purpose. Money supposedly for that purpose has been used for various other whims over the years. With jobs scarce, business and homes for sale throughout our city, I feel your thoughts should be about making life better for our citizens. If money is needed so badly perhaps you should be looking at reducing David Ready and the City Attorneys salaries. If they can not produce results perhaps they should be terminated. I vote N4 for this unnecessary tax. Kari Hahn 2605 E Verona Rd Palm Springs, CA 1. May 5, 2010 City Clerk City of Palm. Springs 3200 Tahquitz McCallum Palm Springs, California 92262 Gentlemen: 1 am 83 years old, and with the economy the way it is now, the City should not raise the sewer rate at this time. Thank you . Henry M.7Sire,.s 1177 South Farrell Drive Palm. Springs, California 92264 4. AY 27 AM 9 i �5 & � Cl T Y l LE, f �- G. 8 1,3.2,J11s�- le ............. ... .. . j . . : May 23, 2010 City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 To Whom It May Concern: We would like to protest against the proposed sewer rate adjustments (increases). The proposed increases are 100% in two years, which is substantially above the estimated inflation rate for the next two years of 2.0% per year. Also, if the City of Palm Springs is having deficit problems, they should cut the wages of city employees. The current recession has resulted in a decrease in income for private sector workers and it would be appropriate for public sector workers (city workers) to have a cut in pay to balance the city budget. Sincerely yours, T. . ; ..µ D nald C. Qp Lutis Ruth L. De Lutis 1374 Invierno Drive Deepwell Ranch Palm Springs, CA 92264 May 19, 2010 City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Proposed Sewer Rate Increase / Property Address: 1453 E. Gem Circle, Palm Springs APN 501572018 Please let the record show that as the owner of the above property, I am opposed to the sewer rate increase. Ronald G. Beverly 'Te) � c10 .j y &r: - C Y 1 1 C�^) p i°i h& S; 14 1• eiq t l i jay �l e r Lvk Walter&Jean Norwood 51/ 1� 1420 E. Via Escuela f::'ti 1 18 1;r'1 lo- 13 Palm Springs, CA 92262 i , City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Subject: Protest of Proposed Sewer Rate Adjustments This letter will serve to notify you of our protest of the rate increases being proposed by the City. Owners: Walter Norwood and Martha Jean Norwood APN: 501540019-9 Address: 1420 E. Via Escuela, Palm Springs, CA 92262 Sincerely, J Walter Norwood f� si, C,� . 9Zz6z- ITS f CcdO'L�' Gam- G� �,y �i�!/�•r�c, �.�, c4k W/ (4ow 4 4 /�,L 7,114 760 3zo• /67S r...y CO , � "k 1 -oj r u C C June 9, 2010 t 1 James Thompson Palm Springs City Clerk 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs CA 92262-6959 Subject: Protest of and/or objection to the proposed sewer utility rate increase Property: 1990 N Hermosa Drive Palm Springs CA 92262 Dear Mr.Thompson: The purpose of this letter is to express my protest of the proposed sewer utility,rate increase;which is scheduled for public hearing on or about June 16, 2010; before the Palm Springs City Council. I do not support the measure before the city council and want my protest to be registered before the Palm Springs City Council; pursuant to California State Proposition 218 and as outlined in the recent notice to Palm Springs residents. I am a retired Navy veteran who is 100%disabled. I live on a fixed income as I can no longer work. I cannot afford the rate increases proposed in the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Rate Study. In addition,the mere fact that other municipalities charge more than Palm Springs does—is not a valid argument, at least in my opinion,for Palm Springs consumers to be charged more. The fact that the Palm Springs City Council passes on this logic—speaks poorly for them as our community leaders. To suggest that we need to raise our rates—just because"everyone else is doing it" smacks of"peer pressure" of a sort. I suggest the city council find a better way to pay for the proposed improvements and would support a less expensive measure if were to be proposed. The current rate proposal is unacceptable. I am the owner o Property t enoted above. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, U-1 qFloylCa n Dyke Copy to: file oc�,�w fyreln t-) ltr4bfm a O-m not- ptz4?-1--fi Yu V()/ 6,e-. 61A,� LO-11.11 City of Palm Springs3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Parcel#5011233013 Palm Springs, CA 92262 owner I am aware of your proposition for sewer rate increases, and I oppose it greatly. Gallegos Flavia m Let's pretends we had 10,000 structures in Palm Springs, and every structure paid $10.36 every month. 10,000x$10.36=$103,600 Monthly. $103,600x12months=$1,243,200.yearly 12x50=600months 600months=50years $1,243,200x600months=$745,920,000e Every residence or structure pay at least 7,000 to 10,000 dollars to be connected to the city sewer $7000x 10000 structures=$70,000,000 Or $10000x 10000 structures =$10,000,000e Plus commercial & industrial charge, hotels rooms, mobile home parks, Septage dumping fee, new construction fees etc. ... The survey you sent does not specify populations, yearly rain conditions, monthly expenses, and monthly wages, which are strong factors in making a good survey. Question: Where is the money we, the citizens, paid for the last 50 years? Instead of thinking of raising sewer rates, propose eliminating the greedy broken sacks you have at your service. Or at least teach them to work, and stop them from being leeches. You compare Palm Springs to others cities only in its sewer rates. I overhear and compare Palm Springs in many ways, e4xample: people are afraid of the, narrow, greedy, selfish, minds behind the name of Palm Springs. They say, "Palm Springs is the hardest city in the desert to work on." Is Palm Springs open to the best development to get what the city needs? Around 50% of house owners in Palm Springs are seniors. Seniors need a helping hand, not an abusing one. No matter what, they are the founders of Palm Springs. Recently Palm Springs voted to increment house taxes every year .I saw many seniors struggling to pay house taxes, and now, they want more increments on sewer. No enough, stop this proposition. As a citizen I want to see the city expenses on sewer every month, the extra monthly wages as well as the accountability of the pass 50 years regarding sewer. Hoping that the money you talk about so much and that you may have it in an honest way, so on the day of your death you can take it to your grave. Sincerely, `A' Flavia Gallegos . a Lo 65 �. PALM PRESORTED of Spy City of Palm Springs FIRST-CLASS MAIL � a�� �, U5 POSTAGE PAID (3 1+ _ 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way 46206 Palm Springs, CA 92262 UR5 HNB cqZ/FOR\A\P y pra d �— p rv,9vsef s-edJe !f"7 �cx,r�' ,�. ILI����LI�� , ,Il���sl, ,ll„II����1�� AA1111AIIIIII�IIIA11 10455""*".....AUTO-5-DIGIT 92262 PARCEL#: 507195022 18 BERARD],CYNTHIA A 343 1-VIA COLUSA PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-6048 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES Dear Property Owner or Tenant, The City of Palm Springs' sewer rates have not been adjusted since 1993 and are currently among the lowest in California. After 17 years of no rate increases, the City is proposing to phase in a series of sewer service charge increases in upcoming years to provide adequate funding for wastewater system operations and critical infrastructure needs. Residential customers currently pay a sewer service charge of$10.36 per month ($124.32 per year), which is less than one-third of the statewide average. This notice provides information on the proposed rate increases, why they are needed, and information about a public hearing on the proposed rates. WHY RATE INCREASES ARE NEEDED? The City's wastewater treatment plant was originally built in 1960 and is now 50 years old. A recent engineering study identified the need for substantial rehabilitation of the treatment plant including replacing aging equipment and infrastructure, and improving outdated and inefficient treatment processes. The engineering study identified over $67 million of capital improvements needed over the next 20 years, including over$45 million of high-priority projects needed in the next 10 years. Additionally, the City's operating and maintenance costs have risen over the past 15 years with no corresponding rate increases. The City's wastewater utility is a self-supporting enterprise funded primarily from sewer service charges. A financial rate study conducted by an independent consultant has m n - h ' 1 r t r '1 n recover he full cost of orovidin wastewater service in Paul D. Langley 300 North Orchid Tree Lane Palm Springs,Ca. 92262 2 N C tc'°'`Y 2 6 A��I I I (808) 557-5291 SV KING RICH ARUCa)YAHOO.COM j { May 19, 2010 To: City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, Ca 92262 From: Paul D. Langley Re: Sewer Rate Increases Parcel 502051012 To Whom It May Concern: I have received your notice of the proposed sewer rate increases. I hereby object to any said increases. We pay enough in taxes, fees, etc. without this. What is the City and County doing with our tax dollars anyway? We need less social programs and more services. r Si i e y, Paul D. Langley r' 12 Summerfield Circle Mechanicville, NY 12118 f9 "!1`, . ,E $ May 27, 2010 City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Dear sir: My wife and I, the owners of a condo at the Mesquite Country Club located at 2701 E. Mesquite Ave, Unit GG-181, Palm Springs, CA 92264, protest the proposed sewer rate increases scheduled to be considered on 6/16/10. We do not think a sewer rate hike is appropriate during this time of state and nation-wide economic hardship. Very truly yours, Michael N. Codner Karen M. Codner PUBLIC HEARING: WASTEWATER TREATEMT PLANT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) RATE STUDY PAY RESPECTS TO MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF: (ESP) DAVE BARAKIAN AND MARCUS FULLER/GENEROUS OF THEIR TIME HAD MAYOR ODEN NOT PUSHED FOR THE SALE OF OUR WWTP 5 YEARS AGO, WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. STOPPED HIS SCHEME TO SELL THE WWTP WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE BY OBTAINING GOVERNORS VETO OF SPECIAL LEGESLATION THAT WOULD HAVE DISENFRANCISED THE CITIZENS! THE CIP IS DIFFICULT TO CHALLENGE. HAVING STUDIED THE COROLLO ENGINGEERS AND, MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE BARTLE WELLS STUDY, CLEAR TO ME THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY ENIGMA/ LESS THAN 60% CAPACITY NOW AND FORESEEABLE FUTURE BUT THE SYSTEM FAILURES IF NOT REPAIRED AND IMPROVED. e5;410clolD _X7tx4 1,6 IT IS THE FUNDING PLAN THAT, IN THE STAFF REPORT, ISA FLAWED IN THAT IT DOES NOT EXPLORE THE TIMELY NOTION OF SAVING MONEY BY COMBINING & CONSOLIDATING SERVICES......DISOLVE THE DESERT WATER AGENCY WHICH IS NOW THREATENING A 2 ND RATE HIKE IN AS MANY YEARS!! THE CITY SHOULD, IN MY VIEW, EXPLORE THE PROCESS OF DISOLVING THE DWA AND, LIKE MANY CITIES, MANAGE THEIR OWN WATER DISTRICT, WITH VEOLIA UNDER CONTRACT TO MANAGE ALL OF OUR WATER NEEDS. (GO INTO VEOLIA AND PROCESS) lf7 ZD _ _ -� n Jf r QN67 .......... zv J s L .� f•�' f� -fit,/ �'f � 9 ��.. �� L �,(y C/, , Cw PS CA Henry B. Lamb 2510 „; 1 ;a 4a' 11* 18 1275 Calle De Maria Palm Springs Ca 92264 Ph. 760 323 0773 To City Council Members Reference Public hearing, Wednesday June 16 Increase in sewage fees. think the City Council and City Manager is making a grave mistake in even considering increasing sewage fees of up to 90% on Apartment owners in these difficult economic times. I am an apartment owner who has had a 50% Vacancy rate. I have had to reduce my rent by 30% to keep existing tenants and to fill vacancies. - In this economy we expect our City Council members and the City Manager to find ways to decrease city expenses and not find ways to increase revenue by increasing fees to a minority sub group of businesses. - If it is absolutely necessary (in these economic times) to increase expenditures, why not increase revenue based on consumption to everyone. Is this not a fair alternative? - If you really need to increase revenue and can justify it to Palm Springs residents, go to the people directly with a ballot measure that is equitable to all residents of Palm Springs. - Do you really need in these hard economic times a new administrative building. I thought in these economic times you were reducing employees that would free administrative positions, providing more, not less office space. - Have you had someone else outside the city staff, look at alternative proposals that would delay upgrades until the economy turns around? - What are the alternatives you have considered in raising revenue? would like you to send me your response to my questions. Sincerely Q /L V� Henry B. Lamb June 11, 2010 City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Sewer Rate Increase Dear City of Palm Springs, I was shocked when I received, and read your proposal to raise sewer service charges. You should be proud of yourselves that you have been able to keep the rates down.. That shows good money management. Instead, you want to raise the rates because yours are the lowest in the Coachella Valley. Of all the stupid things I have ever heard, this ranks right at the top. This county is in a mess,thanks to greed and stupid money management. Coachella Valley is one of the hardest hit areas in the State of California, and yet you want to raise your rates. The City of Palm Springs is a total disaster. Just look at Palm Canyon. All the nice shops are gone, thanks to the stupid City Council. Just building more hotels is not the solution. When people want to shop they will go to Palm Desert. The city council is too ignorant to realize this simple fact. Please do not raise the sewer taxes. This country, state and county are a financial disaster, due to stupid, greedy money management. Please do not add your name to the list of greedy money grabbers. Instead„use common sense, and realize that the people have been stretched to the breaking point,financially and emotionally. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.. S'ncennre''ly, arilyn . Carson 1000 St.Thomas Circle Palm Springs,CA 92264 r � � June 9, 2010 James Thompson 2 1111 0 ! L A,1111LI: 43 Palm Springs City Clerk _. .,; 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way c I Palm Springs CA 92262-6959 Subject: Protest of and/or objection to the proposed sewer utility rate increase Property: 586 S Sunrise Way Palm Shrines CA 92264-7852 Dear Mr.Thompson: The purpose of this letter is to express my,protest of the groposed sewer utility rate increase;which is scheduled for public hearing on or about June 16, 2010; before the Palm Springs City Council. I do not support the measure before the city council and want my protest to be registered before the Palm Springs City Council; pursuant to California State Proposition 218 and as outlined in the recent notice to Palm Springs residents. I am a disabled person who lives on a fixed income—as I can no longer work. I cannot afford the rate increases proposed in the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Rate Study. In addition,the mere fact that other municipalities charge more than Palm Springs does—is not a valid argument, at least in my opinion,for Palm Springs consumers to be charged more. The fact that the Palm Springs City Council passes on this logic—speaks poorly for them as our community leaders. To suggest that we need to raise our rates—just because "everyone else is doing it"smacks of"peer pressure" of a sort. I suggest the city council find a better way to pay for the proposed improvements and would support a less expensive measure if were to be proposed. The current rate proposal is unacceptable. I am the owner of the Propertv noted above. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Stephen J. Brown Copy to: File u .. 2010 P T CITY CLERK, CITY HALL 3200 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 FROM: M. LINDA PERKINS, Property Owner 337 MARISCAL ROAD PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 Ia he property owner o 'the above address who wishes to protest the proposed sewer am p p Y .f P p 1' rate adjustments. y mailing address is: 5853 South Keniston Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90043 Thank you, i � I M. LINDA KINS r :;ti z- cx� eArM PRESORTED of Sp Cityof Palm Springs FIRST-CLASS MAIL US POSTAGE PAID ' N 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way46206 URS-HNS-HNB .P-.rEo Palm Springs, CA 92262 Cq!I Fp RN�P X 1 10594**`**. *AUTO" 5-DIGIT 92262 PARCEL#: 607245003 18 y' ANDERHOLT,ALICE ANN 1481 N OPUNTIA RD c PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4731 , C. NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES Dear Property Owner or Tenant, The City of Palm Springs' sewer rates have not been adjusted since 1993 and are currently among the lowest in California. After 17 years of no rate increases, the City is proposing to phase in a series of sewer service charge increases in upcoming years to provide adequate funding for wastewater system operations and critical infrastructure needs. Residential customers currently pay a sewer service charge of$10.36 per month ($124.32 per year), which is less than one-third of the statewide average. This notice provides information on the proposed rate increases, why they are needed, and information about a public hearing on the proposed rates. WHY RATE INCREASES ARE NEEDED? The City's wastewater treatment plant was originally built in 1960 and is now 50 years old. A recent engineering study identified the need for substantial rehabilitation of the treatment plant including replacing aging equipment and infrastructure, and improving outdated and inefficient treatment processes. The engineering study identified over $67 million of capital improvements needed over the next 20 years, including over $45 million of high-priority projects needed in the next 10 years. Additionally, the City's operating and maintenance costs have risen over the past 15 years with no corresponding rate increases. The City's wastewater utility is a self-supporting enterprise funded primarily from sewer service charges. A financial rate study conducted by an independent consultant has _ de-monstrate-dthat the_Ctys cAime.nnLrates will not ra.rrnrPr the full._�c� __o rovi ingg..wastgwa er_service in the near future and can not fund the required capital improvements. Survey of Regional Monthly Residential Sewer Rates $50 E, L ' Rf Ca $40 The City's monthly residential sewer rate of$10.36 is among the lowest in the state 30 $20 41 U) ... ' 2N AN� 0 $10 C 2 $0 2 �If ° IF 6:�� a �� a��c Jam° O`, a �Q vp�e �' 0 �c10 G ��` ����a \� G 601 G ``1 Va v G k,� ° 0V ter® ,�0 G Ja �`Ur G GO 1 Charge varies by area within City or District. 3 Serves areas in and around Hemet&San Jacinto. 2 Serves areas in and around Indio. 4 Serves areas of Temecula and Murrieta. VAiM PRESORTED �F Sp City of Palm Springs FIRST-CLASS MAIL 4 -��y'� US POSTAGE PAID 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way 46206 h Palm Springs, CA 92262 URS WNB * a*•oa CqI I FO R��P ;1**I�i�ll,s��l�l�l„11�,�1��I1����111�,1�,��I1�1J�1 9677• '•AUTO""5-DIGIT 92262 f' PARCEL#: 504242012 17 p ANDERHOLT,G,EDWARD 1481 N OPUNTIA RD r- PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4731 `- NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES Dear Property Owner or Tenant, The City of Palm Springs' sewer rates have not been adjusted since 1993 and are currently among the lowest in California. After 17 years of no rate increases, the City is proposing to phase in a series of sewer service charge increases in upcoming years to provide adequate funding for wastewater system operations and critical infrastructure needs. Residential customers currently pay a sewer service charge of$10.36 per month ($124.32 per year), which is less than one-third of the statewide average. This notice provides information on the proposed rate increases, why they are needed, and information about a public hearing on the proposed rates. WHY RATE INCREASES ARE NEEDED? The City's wastewater treatment plant was originally built in 1960 and is now 50 years old. A recent engineering study identified the need for substantial rehabilitation of the treatment plant including replacing aging equipment and infrastructure, and improving outdated and inefficient treatment processes. The engineering study identified over $67 million of capital improvements needed over the next 20 years, including over $45 million of high-priority projects needed in the next 10 years. Additionally, the City's operating and maintenance costs have risen over the past 15 years with no corresponding rate increases. The City's wastewater utility is a self-supporting enterprise funded primarily from sewer service charges. A financial rate study conducted by an independent consultant has demonstrated that the City's current rates will not rwcovpr_.he_full cost of-providing wastewater service in the near future and can not fund the required capital improvements. Survey of Regional Monthly Residential Sewer Rates $50 a:n Ca $40 The City's monthly residential sewer rate of$10.36 is among the lowest in the state c.� $30 rn L v.i 3 $20 d a' $10 c g $0 Ll - �1 5 �o �►� O ew wo o'` ^�� �0 1 O �w J�o O`' Qua �Ot y� �p Gc� G�°pO ` `,6� �O �Oe �t a� o� a�� 0 � � �tia J� �'� o� ok A a o i� t� 5 0 a t� �a 0�lQ` co yam �c �aZ` G oti � yt G rop \`5 �' G� 60 G Oo� �a G�c1 r G Goa 4rm `o0 1 Charge varies by area within City or District. 3 Serves areas in and around Hemet&San Jacinto. 2 Serves areas in and around Indio. 4 Serves areas of Temecula and Murrieta. oe ?AL/1 sp FIRSTR-CLASSEMAIL �' City of Palm Springs ti �ti�� c US POSTAGE PAID 0 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way 46206 ' Palm Springs, CA 92262 URS HNB CqL I F0 RN\P {�✓` 1j ` '� 11394' """""AUTO"'5-DIGIT92262 tmm - �1 PARCEL#: 510130014 19 �. ANDERHOLT,G,EDWARD 1481 N OPUNTIA RD aryl PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4731 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES Dear Property Owner or Tenant, The City of Palm Springs' sewer rates have not been adjusted since 1993 and are currently among the lowest in California. After 17 years of no rate increases, the City is proposing to phase in a series of sewer service charge increases in upcoming years to provide adequate funding for wastewater system operations and critical infrastructure needs. Residential customers currently pay a sewer service charge of$10.36 per month ($124.32 per year), which is less than one-third of the statewide average. This notice provides information on the proposed rate increases, why they are needed, and information about a public hearing on the proposed rates. WHY RATE INCREASES ARE NEEDED? The City's wastewater treatment plant was originally built in 1960 and is now 50 years old. A recent engineering study identified the need for substantial rehabilitation of the treatment plant including replacing aging equipment and infrastructure, and improving outdated and inefficient treatment processes. The engineering study identified over $67 million of capital improvements needed over the next 20 years, including over$45 million of high-priority projects needed in the next 10 years. Additionally, the City's operating and maintenance costs have risen over the past 15 years with no corresponding rate increases. The City's wastewater utility is a self-supporting enterprise funded primarily from sewer service charges. A financial rate study conducted by an independent consultant has .demonstrated.that the City's current rates will not rerrwer the full cost of providing wastewater service in the near future and can not fund the required capital improvements. Survey of Regional Monthly Residential Sewer Rates $50 a� U $4q The City's monthly residential sewer rate y of$10.36 is among the lowest in the state c� $30 rn 3 $20 iO) $10 " a ' $0 a" Id L *o" o` `,'�0�P `1p �1d �1 � J�0� a oN ao Go C,4 o ` �� � V �c1 � G�a�` 00o '(40 0`0 0GG NJ` , O`1 le 1 Charge varies by area within City or District. 3 Serves areas in and around Hemet&San Jacinto. 2 Serves areas in and around Indio. 4 Serves areas of Temecula and Murrieta. f eArM sp PRESORTED o City of Palm Springs FIRST-CLASS MAIL US POSTAGE PAID 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way 46206 Palm Springs, CA 92262 UR5 HNB ry`bk•ax CqC I FO ROB\' 111111AIItoI vigil 111111111111111111111111111111111111I1IAll) 6393• *'*******AUTO"5-DIGIT 92262 ASSESSMENT#: 009605039 12 ANDERHOLT,G.EDWARD I� 1481 N OPUNTIA RD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4731 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES Dear Property Owner or Tenant, The City of Palm Springs' sewer rates have not been adjusted since 1993 and are currently among the lowest in California. After 17 years of no rate increases, the City is proposing to phase in a series of sewer service charge increases in upcoming years to provide adequate funding for wastewater system operations and critical infrastructure needs. Residential customers currently pay a sewer service charge of$10.36 per month ($124.32 per year), which is less than one-third of the statewide average. This notice provides information on the proposed rate increases, why they are needed, and information about a public hearing on the proposed rates. WHY RATE INCREASES ARE NEEDED? The City's wastewater treatment plant was originally built in 1960 and is now 50 years old. A recent engineering study identified the need for substantial rehabilitation of the treatment plant including replacing aging equipment and infrastructure, and improving outdated and inefficient treatment processes. The engineering study identified over $67 million of capital improvements needed over the next 20 years, including over$45 million of high-priority projects needed in the next 10 years. Additionally, the City's operating and maintenance costs have risen over the past 15 years with no corresponding rate increases. The City's wastewater utility is a self-supporting enterprise funded primarily from sewer service charges. A financial rate study conducted by an independent consultant has demonstrated that the_City'S Current rates will not rerover the full cost of providing wastewater service in the near future and can not fund the required capital improvements. Survey of Regional Monthly Residential Sewer Rates $50 r� L V $40 The City's monthly residential sewer rate y of$10.36 is among the lowest in the state v $30 77 $20 $10 O $0 L, 8; O 9, *4 ��w'a4`cwo J�O0 O`,y1 �a�o `���O �yw G wd°G�� `1 a '� O O � O �Q"�e a oo�a� 0�G �, a° d`0aa G � c�a ``,,� `��'"1�G`�d` d` a``�� G0 0 G� GJ 011 b�ya`\g q va,Ea G � v �a r GN G�4e Grata Gycot J G ' Ja 1 Charge varies by area within City or District. 3 Serves areas in and around Hemet&San Jacinto. 2 Serves areas in and around Indio. 4 Serves areas of Temecula and Murrieta. ?ALAI PRESORTED QF Spy' City of Palm Springs FIRST-CLASS MAIL c US POSTAGE PAID N 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way 46206 Palm Springs, CA 92262 URS HNB rh sI d 10216.......""AUTO-5-DIGIT 92262 PARCEL#: 507054011 17 —a AL10E A 1481 1481 N OPUNTIA RD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4731 t.� NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES Dear Property Owner or Tenant, The City of Palm Springs' sewer rates have not been adjusted since 1993 and are currently among the lowest in California. After 17 years of no rate increases, the City is proposing to phase in a series of sewer service charge increases in upcoming years to provide adequate funding for wastewater system operations and critical infrastructure needs. Residential customers currently pay a sewer service charge of$10.36 per month ($124.32 per year), which is less than one-third of the statewide average. This notice provides information on the proposed rate increases, why they are needed, and information about a public hearing on the proposed rates. WHY RATE INCREASES ARE NEEDED? The City's wastewater treatment plant was originally built in 1960 and is now 50 years old. A recent engineering study identified the need for substantial rehabilitation of the treatment plant including replacing aging equipment and infrastructure, and improving outdated and inefficient treatment processes. The engineering study identified over $67 million of capital improvements needed over the next 20 years, including over$45 million of high-priority projects needed in the next 10 years. Additionally, the City's operating and maintenance costs have risen over the past 15 years with no corresponding rate increases. The City's wastewater utility is a self-supporting enterprise funded primarily from sewer service charges. A financial ,rate study conducted by an independent consultant has demonstrated.ihaLthe City's-current rates_wil!T�rover. .the full cosf-of-providing wastewater service in --- the near future and can not fund the required capital improvements. Survey of Regional Monthly Residential Sewer Rates ,v $50 cn L V $40 The City's monthly residential sewer rate (D of$10.36 is among the lowest in the state $30 3 $20 $10 C 'a �. LA ` .�a° �`` S q 40' wo 4;w ,y1 .19' a `1 OF° `eiGC;O �a� �� � A q,V � a `e 8 o G G 5 G G J�` G G� G � °G c� ya '° K° oG G� 1 Charge varies by area within City or District. 3 Serves areas in and around Hemet&San Jacinto- 2 Serves areas in and around Indio. 4 Serves areas of Temecula and Murrieta. PALM PRESORTED °� S°�, City of Palm Springs FIRST-CLASS MAIL U5 POSTAGE PAID F'- 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way 46206 Palm Springs, CA 92262 uRs Hlva Cq//FOR�4`P - - 1111����IJ�J�1�11111.111111111�1�1�1�I11�J11111111111111111 6388"""""";'AUTO-5-DIGIT 92262 ASSESSMENTk 009605030 12 KRUEGER,THOMAS PALM EEL PALM SPRINGSINGS CA CA 92262-325S 40 1. NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASES ` Dear Property Owner or Tenant, The City of Palm Springs' sewer rates have not been adjusted since 1993 and are currently among the lowest in California. After 17 years of no rate increases, the City is proposing to phase in a series of sewer service charge increases in upcoming years to provide adequate funding for wastewater system operations and critical infrastructure needs. Residential customers currently pay a sewer service charge of$10.36 per month ($124.32 per year), which is less than one-third of the statewide average. This notice provides information on the proposed rate increases, why they are needed, and information about a public hearing on the proposed rates. WHY RATE INCREASES ARE NEEDED? The City's wastewater treatment plant was originally built in 1960 and is now 50 years old. A recent engineering study identified the need for substantial rehabilitation of the treatment plant including replacing aging equipment and infrastructure, and improving outdated and inefficient treatment processes. The engineering study identified over $67 million of capital improvements needed over the next 20 years, including over $45 million of high-priority projects needed in the next 10 years. Additionally, the City's operating and maintenance costs have risen over the past 15 years with no corresponding rate increases. The City's wastewater utility is a self-supporting enterprise funded primarily from sewer service charges. A financial rate study conducted by an independent consultant has demonstrated thatlhesitys zurxe-nt rates—will. runt rprover the full cost of pr..omiding wastewater service in- the near future and can not fund the required capital improvements. Survey of Regional Monthly Residential Sewer Rates $50 �v V $40 The City's monthly residential sewer rate v of$10.36 is among the lowest in the state $30 3 $20 CO) $10 C , O E $0 , `<,O, w •`co �`1 O yeti `two �Q a`Cc/`c��tios ecy`ae�O��o�Q,ma�a 0`�ee�ic+ac a•y�a��O y u,l e Cia`�e���G�a� �ao *. aSao� a O`1 og 'o ;ek AG Gd V � 40 `e, s� � F C' a � Jab o' ne *\o `�o ore 1 Charge varies by area within City or District. 3 Serves areas in and around Hemet&San Jacinto. 2 Serves areas in and around Indio. 4 Serves areas of Temecula and Murrieta. u v+ k k �RPO(AiE c�`'F°R�'`� city council Staff Report Supplemental Date: July 7, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING Subject: PROPOSITION 218 MAJORITY PROTEST HEARING ON THE MATTER OF INCREASING SEWER SERVICE CHARGES From: David H. Ready, City Manager Initiated by: Public Works and Engineering Department On Thursday, July 1, 2010, staff met a final time with Jim Jones and Tim Radigan, representatives of a membership of apartment complex owners, regarding the proposed increase in sewer service charges. Staff discussed the recommendation as outlined in the original July 7, 2010, staff report, and the representatives continued to express concern with the City's proposal to continue rate increases for the long-term to cover Priority 2, 3 and 4 WWTP CIP projects, and preferred that the City focus on Priority 1 projects only and reevaluate any further sewer service charge increases upon completion of the Priority 1 projects. The Priority 1 projects have been reassigned to include the critical headworks and odor eliminating "quality of life" related projects. The Priority 1 projects that have not already been completed or budgeted are listed as follows: PRIORITY 1 New Headworks $5,920,000 Two New Primary Clarifiers $9,050,000 New Primary Effluent Pump Station $2,910,000 Secondary Clarifier Upgrade $2,010,000 Electrical System Improvements $3,600,000 Water System Upgrade for Fire Protection $500,000 Filtrate Pump Station Upgrade $500,000 Digester No. 2 Dome Replacement $1,050,000 New Sludge Centrifuge $1,490,000 Subtotal $27,030,000 Less currently budgeted funds ($5,137,519) Required Funding $21,892,481 Average Annual Funding (over 7 years) $3,127,500 07 fo �lZa� a "TeM /.Z .UPe4E;weAi-A4 City Council Staff Report-Supplemental July 7, 2010 - Page 2 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing The 2009/2010 wastewater fund budgeted $4,000,000 towards the renewable energy project (funds to construct the methane bio-gas treatment system and purchase of a fuel cell). Pursuant to direction from the City Council VW TP sub-committee, the renewable energy projects have been reassigned to a lower priority. These funds are being carried forward into the 2010/2011 fiscal year budget and can be used towards Priority 1 projects. The 2010/2011 fiscal year budget also shows approximately $1,100,000 in unscheduled capital projects which can be applied to the reassigned Priority 1 projects. Therefore, there is approximately $5,100,000 in funds available for Priority 1 projects. Extending completion of Priority 1 projects over a 7 year period will prevent the wastewater fund from ending a fiscal year with a negative fund balance. A monthly sewer service charge of $20 per EDU will generate sufficient revenue to complete the Priority 1 projects, however, Priority 2, 3 and 4 projects can not be funded without additional sewer service charge increases to offset projected increases in annual O&M expenses. After the completion of Priority 1 projects by the 2016/2017 fiscal year, assuming $0 additional capital expenditures, the wastewater fund would generate a surplus of approximately $3,300,000. However, annual surpluses would gradually decrease until a projected deficit occurring in the 2025/2026 fiscal year due to increasing annual O&M expenses. If the monthly sewer service charge of $20 per EDU is maintained, a wastewater fund balance would be projected to reach approximately $22,000,000 by 2024/2025, but would be insufficient to fund the remaining VW TP CIP projects, and would diminish by increasing annual O&M expenses. Therefore, if the City Council should determine that sewer service charges be established at rates sufficient to fund Priority 1 VW TP CIP projects only, an alternative recommendation for City Council to consider is as follows: 1) Open the Public Hearing and receive public testimony; and 2) Close the Public Hearing, consider protests received and determine if a majority protest has occurred pursuant to Proposition 218; and 3) On the basis that a majority protest has not occurred, consider and approve the adoption of increased sewer service charges as follows: Year 1 (2010/2011): $10.36 to $14 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") Year 2 (2011/2012): $14 to $17 per EDU Year 3 (2012/2013): $17 to $20 per EDU 4) Implement a revised sewer service charge rate structure for residential properties for the 2010/2011 fiscal year as follows: Single Family Residential ("SFR") and Condominium Units = 1.0 EDU Multi-Family Residential Apartment Units = 0.75 EDU City Council Staff Report-Supplemental July 7, 2010 - Page 3 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing Resulting in a reduced increase to the monthly sewer service charge for multi- family apartment units as follows: Year 1 (2010/2011): SFR/Condo = $14 Year 1 (2010/2011): Apartments = $10.50 5) Direct staff to initiate a study of the sewer service charge rate structure to determine appropriate equivalent dwelling unit ("EDU") relations by type, with Multi-Family Residential Apartment Units established at a rate of 0.75 EDU or less, to be implemented permanently for the 2011/2012 and subsequent fiscal years. Upon completion of the Priority 1 projects by 2016/2017, staff would analyze the wastewater fund's actual revenues and expenditures to determine if sewer service charge rates would need to be maintained at the monthly rate of $20 per EDU, dependent upon Council's direction at that time on funding for Priority 2, 3 or 4 WWTP projects. VILLA SERENA LL C I I I I TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY,SUITE 201 T t?60 320 4200 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 r` j� �)rA7,�7 3�.Q-���' 5 7820 July 3, 2010 Palm Springs City Council 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Increase WWTP Fees Dear Sirs: My name is Michael Heathman. I am the managing member of Villa Serena LLC, the owner of Villa Serena Apartments, a 78 unit apartment complex, located at 900 E Saturnino Road, Palm Springs California. I am writing in opposition to the proposed doubling of the Waste Water Treatment Fees. Apparently your staff has already visited the timing problem of both the landlords and tenants and have decided, in all their wisdom, that the economy is perfect for enacting such an increase. It is, therefore, unnecessary to pursue that aspect of the proposal. What disturbs me, at this point, is that the reason given for the increase is to fund improvements at the sewer facility. I don't think so. I believe that the reason is that staff has found a "cash cow" to fund other projects that have nothing to do with the operation of our sewer system. I further believe, that after a thorough review by the council, that: 1. the improvements set forth by staff as needed are in fact not needed, 2. any maintenance costs can easily be funded by the positive cash flow of the existing sewer operation, assuming the city does not redirect the funds for other needs, and, 3. the city, upon utilizing another consulting firm, will find that the estimated costs of the proposed improvements are highly inflated. Let us not rubber stamp this one. Yours truly, Michael W. Heathman MHEATHMAN@DC.RR.COM A L M$ASP �Z v v f �Cd 936 A RATEO IFOIt City Council Staff Re Dort Date: July 7, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING Subject: PROPOSITION 218 MAJORITY PROTEST HEARING ON THE MATTER OF INCREASING SEWER SERVICE CHARGES From: David H. Ready, City Manager Initiated by: Public Works and Engineering Department SUMMARY On April 21, 2010, the City Council reviewed and approved a comprehensive 20-year, $67,000,000 Capital Repair and Rehabilitation Plan, commonly referred to as a Capital Improvement Plan ("CIP") for the City's wastewater treatment plant ("WWTP"). The City Council also reviewed and approved the corresponding Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Study ("Rate Study"), authorized staff to proceed with Proposition 218 majority protest noticing, and scheduled a Public Hearing for June 16, 2010, to consider the matter of increasing sewer service charges in accordance with the Rate Study. The Public Hearing was opened on June 16 and continued to July 7, 2010. This item is the Majority Protest Hearing at which time the City Council can consider the protests received, and in accordance with Proposition 218, approve and adopt increased sewer service charges. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open the Public Hearing and receive public testimony; and 2) Close the Public Hearing, consider protests received and determine if a majority protest has occurred pursuant to Proposition 218; and 3) On the basis that a majority protest has not occurred, consider and approve the adoption of increased sewer service charges as follows: Year 1 (2010/2011): $10.36 to $14 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") Year 2 (2011/2012): $14 to $17 per EDU Year 3 (2012/2013): $17 to $20 per EDU Year 4+ (2013/2014): $20 to $21 per EDU increasing to $35 per EDU maximum by 2028/2029 ITEM NO. �_ City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 -Page 2 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing 4) Implement a revised sewer service charge rate structure for residential properties for the 2010/2011 fiscal year as follows: Single Family Residential ("SFR") and Condominium Units = 1.0 EDU Multi-Family Residential Apartment Units = 0.75 EDU Resulting in a reduced increase to the monthly sewer service charge for multi- family apartment units as follows: Year 1 (2010/2011): SFR/Condo = $14 Year 1 (2010/2011): Apartments = $10.50 5) Direct staff to initiate a study of the sewer service charge rate structure to determine appropriate equivalent dwelling unit ("EDU") relations by type, with Multi-Family Residential Apartment Units established at a rate of 0.75 EDU or less, to be implemented permanently for the 2011/2012 and subsequent fiscal years. STAFF ANALYSIS: On April 21, 2010, the City Council took action on several items related to the City's WWTP. A full and complete copy of the April 21, 2010, staff report is included as Attachment 1. The City Council approved the 20-year WWTP CIP, which identified $58,000,000 in capital projects at the WWTP and $9,000,000 in future collection system upsizing, for a total capital investment of $67,000,000. The City Council unanimously agreed with the need to invest in the City's WWTP as outlined in the 20-year CIP, and emphasized a desire to prioritize the capital projects that will mitigate odors generated at the WWTP (primarily, a new headworks and primary clarifier system, and new solids handling processes). On June 16, 2010, the City Council opened the Public Hearing and took testimony related to the recommended increase to monthly sewer service charges. The Public Hearing was continued to July 7, 2010. The City's current monthly sewer service charge of $10.36 per equivalent dwelling unit ("EDU") has not changed since 1993, and is insufficient to fund the 20-year WWTP CIP, or future operating and maintenance ("O&M") expenses of the WWTP, escalating utility costs, and other wastewater fund expenses. The Rate Study reviewed the 20-year WWTP CIP and determined that the City can appropriately finance the recommended capital projects, as well as on-going O&M expenditures associated with the WWTP, by initially increasing the current monthly sewer service charge of $10.36 per EDU to $20 per EDU over three years, and subsequently at a rate of approximately $1 per EDU per year to a maximum monthly rate of$35 per EDU by 2028. 2 City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 - Page 3 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing As noted in the April 21, 2010, staff report, the recommendation to increase the monthly sewer service charge to a maximum of $35 per EDU by 2028 would establish it at a rate in 2028 that is below the 2009 statewide average of $36.58 per EDU. The following chart shows the recommended initial 3-year phase in of the sewer service charge increase in comparison to the annual statewide average: City"I" prings Historical Projected Sewer Service Charges per EDU'(per Month) 17,e t l„ Statewide average Monthly Charge'" 41.15 E 3�1.5di «. 1403653 �3&17 a3.82 311.86 2b 08 24.03 22.25 911.15 19. 14.43 19.72 19.72 19.82 2046 1993 Rate + 3.52% 80 $20 1b 30 w w * - - . 14.0/0 $10 10.36 10.36 10.36 10.36 10.36 W35 10,36 10-36 1036 1@ 16 10.36 10.36 10.36 10,36 10.36 W36 10.36 Projected'. Historical Rates Rates 44 W„ Rates fect'VE JUIy •13aserXgwl, tenter User Charge Sane, Pe 2009,plus 4%projected ancreas , :0 ,O„777770 The following chart shows the recommended long-term phase in of the monthly sewer service charge increase to the suggested maximum of $35 per EDU in comparison to the annual statewide average: City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 - Page 4 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing Chart E Citof Paiw m 20-Year Projected Severer$ery ,,O ig's po EDU Cpe ' $80 The Oty' i«�2ye - rate of$35 per month: Statewide Average -remains the current e t With 3.5 Escalation ;670 -is IeSs than halt of the est fuhre sWMde a $60 $50 Statewide Average $40 Monthly Charge" ------ .cai-en-t StaIa deAvq---A-atox ___-.��..�_____ _. $30 3s 3100 ze:DO 20.00 2d.OQ 2100 2200 ,7( 20-Year gate Projection $10' 1400 36 7H7istorr7ic"a7lRate 1�. � µy 7SEW ,V Rates! act a Ally i Used on Stag Water Resources Control Board,Wastewater user Charge Pay „ "Pay As You Go" or Deb Servicing? The wastewater fund currently carries no debt, and therefore, has no annual debt service payments. As indicated in the April 21, 2010, staff report, to determine how debt servicing might reduce any required sewer service charge increases, the Rate Study analyzed alternative financial projections. The alternative analysis in the Rate Study indicates that debt could be strategically used to result in a more gradual phase in of rate increases, especially in the near term. For example, with debt financing monthly sewer service charges could be gradually increased to a level equal to $20 per EDU over 5 years, as opposed to over 3 years without debt financing. However, with debt financing higher rate increases over the long term would be required (to a maximum of monthly rate of $38 per EDU by 2028), to generate approximately $3,000,000 more per year for annual debt service payments until the debt was gradually paid off. Therefore, the alternative analysis in considering $38,000,000 in debt financing of the $67,000,000 20-year WWTP CIP demonstrated these important facts to consider: 1. The initial increase of sewer service charges from $10.36 per EDU to $20 could be phased-in over 5 years instead of 3 years. 2. Annual debt service payments of $320,000 would begin in 2011, increasing to $3,040,000 by 2025. 4 City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 -Page 5 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing 3. Monthly sewer service charges would need to increase to $35 per EDU by 2026 to a maximum of$38 per EDU by 2028. Staff discussed the 20-Year WWTP CIP and Rate Study with the City Council WWTP subcommittee (Mills and Weigel) prior to presenting the information to the City Council on April 21, 2010. Staff recommended, and the City Council WWTP subcommittee agreed, that debt financing of the 20-year WWTP CIP should not be considered strictly as a means of prolonging the initial phase-in of the sewer service charge increase, as it does not appreciably lengthen the period of time, and debt financing ultimately requires a higher sewer service charge in the long term to cover annual debt service payments. It was staff's recommendation that the initial 3-year phase in of monthly sewer service charge increases from $10.36 to $20 per EDU, with additional annual rate increases of approximately $1 per EDU to a maximum of $35 per EDU by 2028 be approved. This recommendation was included in the Proposition 218 noticing, and is summarized in the following chart: TABLE 10 - R E 11OON 1iL. :S ' rRWCE HARt�ES Cusotmer Billing Effective Date July 1 Class Unit Current 2010 2011 2012 Residential Per unit $10.36 $14.00 $17.00 $20_00 Commercial& Industrial Per fixture unit 1.02 1.38 1.68 1. 8 Minimum charge 10.36 14.00 17.00 2100 Hotel-Rooms Without Kitchens Base charge+ 10.36 14..00 1700 20..00 Per room 3.53 4.77 5.79 6.81 Hotel-Rooms With Kitchens Per room 6.81 9.20 11.17 13.14 Mobile Home Parks Per unit+ 10.36 14.00 17.00 20.00 Per fixture unit 1.02 1.38 1.68 1.98 Recreational Vehicle Parks Per space+ 2.54 3.43 4.17 4.91 Per fixture unit 1,02 1.38 1.68 1..98 eptage Dumping Pee For loads tip to 1,000 gallons Within City limits Per load 35.00 47.30 57.44 67.58 Outside City limits Per load 70.00 94.59 114.86 135.13 Properties Adjacent to City Rates for customers outside of City limits are 150%of the standard established rates Sewer Permit Fee Per application 1,000.00 1,351.35 1,640.93 1,930.51 For discharging septage at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant Small annual rate increases of roughly$1 per month per residence or EDU projected for future years_ Subsequent small increases were recommended annually to the maximum of $35 per EDU by 2028, as shown in the following Table: rJ pa4u;-7—i jawax-m rM"jo P590-6u&pqmp-- 91?'RLC-c Z619vt cl-M,f K Z661 is 969'Z 8r6sL,z ;1,!Q1,z ZZNTZ 69-60;z 69609-z Wl"OKI 11-di -4�XLW614 MAWR mupwismapa Ampum aW.W ftm1—4-1 4 to dpw-M=;Ma J(4 geled Ala ci wzodpv cowdolti wgpz 39-Ru 99,6tz z5,E-a7 qizw M,96L VTR! WZ81. Z1,19LL ZfrUl DM AA sluM Alc-aMsm az 131.t 06 Alt E?6" 91 rut bE ta ou Eb L9 76 ?Z,L 98 LE 99LB prq"d 54un A40 um- m ,Z-ffc§OW4 W m q-w-- -j Uoulfic a6v4das ..........-——------------------------................ .................... WE RE E rz E PC c ffiz 9RZ ot-z WZ 89 z KZ guneingkiad 99'8 09-8 we 99 i WrL WL P53 99-9 1Y9 I'V9 +aDcd3.md 54JEd&,*WN 1CLIOW-U36t! SVC BCE EZ E sc c 1@6 z sa-z 3L-z 99,Z 952 eTz vun ajrqxg oo, DO W,zl; GUIC DD cc OD6Z DO 00'a 00-9Z moz -IKM Kati SWA MOM Blom PTfz BEZZ ot,tc Olp,9Z PL:61 606i Cp 8L 91'-F t OVLI, CVLL uxxu 16d UM4)uf 4m SADolb- Elof- 161t Is'l.l go-11 wet Iz ot LR'6 CG'S 61-6 39-9 99V in=jQj M,GF 30-K 097f W If offoc WAZ 00,9Z Wiz Gc,9z W9z 3M3 Owe suao"InDULM SUMOM-Wil, OYSE DOW 09'a oc,It MCC (low War oo-.kz 00 9z Wlaz cBmtp wr%uiwr4 WC ac c cz-c WE 96Z GRZ RL z 99Z os-Z ss z 4cn avW%jad FUL4snpul v pemau� OD92S an off Kla 00 IES m fleg oa&71 goats W US OUQZs mw_s Im A4 lelluaMe� am 91oz czoz 6m V-M AWC4 fiq,F)05,Z 9!-SW-, e9-9 LCLZ OVOWZ Ll3,ZZVZ tTLZCVZ $6-WV C6 W-,I S£'#s£`t mov1 Lvq-Xklr-mj OQ4 I!UUaj"An VQejpWftcL?JVa OAMW am"%=&WUU4&0 x#as=2jmA=3j(x Mau A*at pwdpV saWadoid C)) ZL,9Lt 96 got OZ'Zot lovs9l, saw Mllpi OVAl KVI I. W-* ma puq s4m 4c apses 99 La R*09 01'L2 zi i1 u 96& 2419 "ll; of It, MW P MEIN An URM -'aimc ON';al clb spmjl-- aai 5-k-o abvA-, s9z Rtr,z K Z gz,z st z 90,Z WL 99,L WI zai lunainKoej 11179 9t9 t6 5 9G-S, O's %s Lip LIV EYE v9z {ems 54=d a�l%IvUuxe�adb Z 897Z 8*'Z K,Z az z 13t z STZ 86,F 89' 1RE mt 74uniW44-Od a- 00-oz DD!;z 00 tz OCTZ mzz oTi,z WDZ 00.L I 00-4I wet -VWAJ SwId aujoHGNOW >1 0 7L-- CL 01.lt "9t gild Wii 9p;ll MU 17V" L1 Ll oz 6 ta I-P UKXA,mod sud4a"4M 5,tmH-WOH 0 F sola 19,8 Ll'a Md. 6111 SVL MR 61'S Li't ESE uKxN JQd 0(),QZ Do,9z oo,trz GC-EZ Wzz OD,tz 00,3z 00-i 1 00 K WTI ak-42 a-a RURLPV TCAW same-. .....IRCH ...... ca CL 0ou 9c DO SC ou-n cc EZ ED U- ou ir. 00,3Z oull 00 Vt VE a efump unumm U) C) N OTZ Bt z BEZ V -C 8Z,Z EZ 80 Wt 89' SE-I zqt 4un ejrwg M-Ampul It FmeUlWOa , C C) LD DOWS Do-Gzs 00'*ZS GCTZT mzm (331M 00,3ZI 30,L11 00 fts welt A4 Maviseal N = 0 noz ?M 11oz vW 1,AMrO C) r�- 0 BMW 3 3 D4A'dGS'83AA33 XIHINOW dO N0110�1 rObd W -5 NOI L I 51SVI� City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010- Page 7 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing Debt Financing of Priority 1 Projects Only? One option for the City Council to consider is to raise sewer service charges in an amount necessary to fund only those projects listed under Priority 1 (Years 1-5) of the 20-year WWTP CIP. The priority projects consist of those that are critical to the on- going operation of the WWTP, including: new electrical system, new headworks, new primary clarifier, new primary pump station, and new secondary clarifier, among others. The value of Priority 1 projects is over$20,000,000. To confirm the findings of the alternative analysis performed in the Rate Study, staff coordinated with the City's Financial Advisor, Suzanne Harrell (Harrell & Company Advisors), on preliminary sewer service charge projections considering debt financing of $20,000,000 Priority 1 WWTP projects only. Suzanne's projections resulted in required sewer service charge increases (per EDU) as follows: Year 1 (2010/2011): $10.36 to $12.86 ($2.50 increase) Year 2 (2011/2012): $12.86 to $15 ($2.14 increase) Although the two-year phase in of monthly sewer service charges to $15 per EDU would generate sufficient revenue to issue debt financing of $20,000,000 paid over a subsequent 20-year period, additional sewer service charge increases would be required to fund increases to future O&M expenses. In addition to the increase to $15 noted above, additional annual increases for Years 2 through 8 would be required, such that a total sewer service charge of $20.44 is reached by 2019 to satisfy debt financing and O&M expenses. However, the wastewater enterprise would incur annual debt payments of $1,860,000 until 2031 as the debt is paid off. Ultimately, the wastewater enterprise would incur over $35,000,000 in debt payments to satisfy the $20,000,000 debt issue; and the other Priority 2, 3 and 4 WWTP CIP projects would be postponed or deferred until sewer service charges were increased again. Therefore, focusing on funding for only Priority 1 projects with debt financing does not appreciably lower the required sewer service charge increase, and does not address other priority WWTP projects that will ultimately be necessary in the long term. Proposition 218 Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act", was approved by California voters in November 1996 and is codified as Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. Proposition 218 establishes requirements for imposing or increasing property related taxes, assessments, fees and charges. For many years, there was no legal consensus on whether water and sewer rates met the definition of "property related fees". In July 2007, the California Supreme Court essentially confirmed that Proposition 218 applies to water rates. The prevailing legal consensus is that Proposition 218 also applies to wastewater rates. 7 City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 - Page 8 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing Proposition 218 establishes certain procedural requirements for adopting rate increases. These requirements include: • Noticing Requirement: The City must mail a notice of proposed rate increases to all affected property owners. The notice must specify the basis of the fee, the reason for the fee, and the date/time/location of a public rate hearing at which the proposed rates will be considered for adoption. • Public Hearing: The City must hold a public hearing prior to adopting the proposed rate increases. The public hearing must be held not less than 45 days after the required notices are mailed. • Rate Increases Subject to Majority Protest: At the public hearing, the proposed rate increases are subject to majority protest. If more than 50% of affected property owners submit written protests against the proposed rate increases, the increases cannot be adopted by the City Council. Pursuant to the City Council's authorization, on April 30, 2010, 26,296 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing notices were mailed to all property owners and rate payers who receive sewer service from the City of Palm Springs. The notices were mailed to the owner of the property receiving sewer service, as indicated on the latest Riverside County tax rolls in accordance with state law. The pertinent section of law the City is required to follow is California Government Code Section 53755, which states: (a) (1) The notice required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 6 of Article Xl/l D of the California Constitution of a proposed increase of an existing fee or charge for a property-related service being provided to a parcel may be given by including it in the agency's regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing by the agency to the address to which the agency customarily mails the billing statement for the fee or charge. (2) The notice required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 6 of Article Xlll D of the California Constitution of a proposed new fee or charge may be given in the manner authorized for notice of an increase of a fee or charge if the agency is currently providing an existing property-related service to the address. (3) If the agency desires to preserve any authority it may have to record or enforce a lien on the parcel to which service is provided, the agency shall also mail notice to the record owner's address shown on the last equalized assessment roll if that address is different than the billing or service address. (b) One written protest per parcel, filed by an owner or tenant of the parcel, shall be counted in calculating a majority protest to a proposed new or increased fee or charge subject to the requirements of Section 6 of Article Xlll D of the California Constitution. City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 - Page 9 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing (c) Any agency that bills, collects, and remits a fee or charge on behalf of another agency may provide the notice required by Section 6 of Article Xlll D of the California Constitution on behalf of the other agency. (Note, Proposition 218 once enacted was codified into state law as Section 6 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution, as referenced in the cited Government Code). In accordance with Section (b) of the cited Government Code, one written protest, filed by an owner or tenant of a parcel receiving sewer service, shall be counted in determining if a majority protest exists. Section 6(a)(2) of Article XIII D of the California Constitution (Proposition 218) outlines the procedures for increased property related fees or charges, and states: (2) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed fee or charge not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed fee or charge to the record owners of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed fee or charge. If written protests against the proposed fee or charge are presented by a majority of owners of the identified parcels, the agency shall not impose the fee or charge. Thus, Proposition 218 would require that the City receive written protests from a majority of the 26,296 parcels that received a Proposition 218 Notice. As of the writing of this report, the City Clerk had received 54 written protests (or 0.21%), well below the legal threshold of 13,149 (or 50.01%). Therefore, the City Council is empowered to approve and adopt increases to the City's monthly sewer service charges as indicated in the Proposition 218 Notice (increasing from $10.36 to $20 per EDU over an initial 3-year period, and subsequently to a maximum of $35 per EDU by 2028), or such other increases not exceeding the increases noted in the Proposition 218 Notice. Protests to Increased Sewer Service Charges Staff recognizes that the current economy is not conducive to raising sewer service charges, and the protests received have legitimately raised this issue. The suggested initial three-year increase of $10.36 per month to $20 per month doubles the sewer service charge over a three year period. The Rate Study demonstrated that the City's currently low rates require a substantial increase in order to establish sufficient reserves to fund the critical capital projects identified in the first 5-year period (estimated at over $20,000,000). As indicated earlier in this report, alternative analysis performed in the Rate Study evaluated the use of debt financing to offset the required initial rate increase. The alternative analysis, assuming $38,000,000 in debt financing over the 20-year period, continued to demonstrate that the required initial rate increase remains substantial, with the initial rate increase to $20 per month occurring over a 5 year period rather than 3 years. Subsequent financial analysis of $20,000,000 debt financing for Priority 1 WWTP Iq City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 - Page 10 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing projects only revealed that the initial rate increase to $20.44 would be required within 8 years, and does not address the entire 20-year WWTP CIP. Staff has met with representatives of a membership of apartment complex owners regarding the proposed rate increases on three separate occasions.' They have indicated to staff that the substantial rate increases will harm some apartment complex owners who otherwise have no ability to recover the increased charges, in their opinion, due to the fact that apartment vacancies remain high. They have requested that the City Council defer adopting the recommended sewer service charge increases and that less substantial increases be considered. One of their suggestions is to use a hybrid approach to funding the 20-year WWTP CIP using debt financing rather than a "pay as you go" approach. However, as has been demonstrated, debt financing does not lower the required rate increases and actually requires a higher monthly maximum rate ($38 per EDU) in the long term. Staff has provided balance sheets for the wastewater fund and other financial data to the representatives as requested. In staffs last meeting with the representatives on June 24, 2010, staff proposed the currently recommended option related to increasing sewer service charges, which effectively reduces the first year rate increase to $0.14 per month for apartment units. Staff recommends that the City Council consider the option recommended, or direct staff as appropriate. It should be noted that a further continuance of the item beyond July 7 may not provide staff sufficient time to provide the revised sewer service charges to Riverside County to coordinate levying them on the 2010/2011 tax roll.2 Options to Consider 1. Adopt increases to the sewer service charges as originally recommended: Year 1: $10.36 to $14 Year 2: $14 to $17 Year 3: $17 to $20 Year 4+: $20 plus $1 annually (on average) to $35 maximum by 2028 2. Adopt increases to the sewer service charges considering a hybrid approach, using a combination of"pay as you go" and debt service financing to reduce the initial required increase, as follows: Year 1: $10.36 to $12.50 Year 2: $12.50 to $14 Year 3: $14 to $16 1 Jim Jones and Tim Radigan; June 2, 15 and 24, 2010 2 The Riverside County Assessor requires property-related charges to be submitted in August for levying on the 2010/2011 tax roll. In the event staff is unable to submit increased sewer service charges to the County in time for levying on the next tax roll, it would be necessary to defer all unbudgeted WWTP CIP projects one year. IQ City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 - Page 11 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing Year 4: $16 to $18 Year 5: $18 to $20 Year 6+: $20 plus $1 annually (on average) to $35 maximum by 2028 It should be noted that the alternative analysis in the Rate Study demonstrated that the maximum monthly rate would need to be $38 per EDU by 2028; however, legally the City is limited to adopting a maximum monthly rate of$35 per EDU by 2028 as this was the maximum rate indicated in the Proposition 218 Notice. This would require that some WWTP projects be deferred as necessary for the lower maximum sewer service charge rate to sufficiently fund an overall reduced indebtedness (the lower maximum rate would not allow the City to incur up to $38,000,000 indebtedness included in the alternative analysis of the Rate Study). 3. Adopt increases to the sewer service charges considering a hybrid approach, using a combination of "pay as you go" and debt service financing, but reduce the initial required increase to sewer service charges by distributing the overall required increases over the 18-year period (2010 to 2028) equivalent to 7% annually, and generally defer all unbudgeted WWTP CIP projects until sufficient funding is available (through reserves or debt financing), as follows: Year 1: $10.36 to $11.09 Year 10: $19.05 to $20.38 Year 2: $11.09 to $11.86 Year 11: $20.38 to $21.81 Year 3: $11.86 to $12.69 Year 12: $21.81 to $23.33 Year 4: $12.69 to $13.58 Year 13: $23.33 to $24.97 Year 5: $13.58 to $14.53 Year 14: $24.97 to $26.71 Year 6: $14.53 to $15.55 Year 15: $26.71 to $28.58 Year 7: $15.55 to $16.64 Year 16: $28.58 to $30.58 Year 8: $16.64 to $17.80 Year 17: $30.58 to $32.73 Year 9: $17.80 to $19.05 Year 18: $32.73 to $35.00 This option requires 10 years of annual increases to occur until sewer service charges reach the monthly rate of $20 per EDU. This option would delay Priority 1 WWTP CIP projects 5 years or more until rates are high enough to provide revenue to pay debt financing on those projects. Ultimately, completion of the 20-year WWTP CIP would be delayed 10 years or more (beyond the 20 year program) given an inability to bond as much as was assumed in the alternative analysis in the Rate Study ($38,000,000) which demonstrated monthly sewer service charges would need to be $20 per EDU by Year 5 and $38 per EDU by 2028 in order to complete the 20-year WWTP CIP in 20 years. 4. Adopt an increase to the sewer service charges as directed; and direct staff to reevaluate the City's existing sewer service charge rate structure which may include consideration of the following issues: City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 - Page 12 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing i) Segregate the "residential customer class" by type (single family home, condominium unit or apartment unit) to determine appropriate equivalent dwelling unit ("EDU") relations by type. ii) Consider domestic water consumption as metered by DWA to correlate sewer service charges for residential and/or commercial users. iii) Reevaluate all equivalent dwelling unit ("EDU") assignments by user type. The City's existing sewer service charge rate structure (shown as Table 10 on Page 5 of this staff report) has not been changed in many years. The rate structure defines all residential customers (single family, multi-family and mobile home parks) as the same EDU, in this case each residential use is 1.0 EDU. Some wastewater utilities establish multi-family use at a rate less than 1.0 EDU. For example, Mission Springs Water District ("MSWD") currently charges a monthly rate of $22.43 for sewer service for single family residential ("SFR"), and a monthly rate of $17.18 for multi-family units (about 25% less than SFR). It is common for sewer service charges to be established at a rate dependent upon the volume of domestic water used, on the basis that much of the water used passes through the wastewater system. Both MSWD and the Coachella Valley Water District ("CVWD") charge residential customers a flat monthly rate, but charge commercial customers rates based on the volume of their domestic water use. It should be noted that this option would require that DWA, a separate governmental agency, coordinate with and make available its individual metering data to the City, and would not be feasible without their participation. It should also be noted that, with any reevaluation of the City's current rate structure where changes to EDU assignments by residential use type occur, some users would see their rates decrease (it has been suggested that multi-family residential use should be assigned an EDU less than that for SFR); while others (commercial users) would see their rates increase above what has already been proposed. Having some user rates decrease and others increase is a result of the need to maintain the overall gross wastewater fund revenue to the City to cover the projected expenditures analyzed in the Rate Study. Therefore, in considering a new rate structure which reassigns EDU by user type, and where certain properties would see an overall rate increase, the City would be required to initiate new Proposition 218 proceedings to implement the revised rate structure as the subject of this Majority Protest Hearing is limited to the City's current rate structure as indicated in the Proposition 218 Notice. 6. Direct staff as appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT: The wastewater fund does not have sufficient reserves to fund the significant capital improvements at the WWTP that are recommended over the next 20 years. On-going O&M expenditures will soon exceed annual revenue, requiring General Fund subsidy in 12 City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 -Page 13 Proposition 218 Majority Protest Hearing the absence of any increase to sewer service charges. The Rate Study has demonstrated that funding the recommended 20-year WWTP CIP will require increases to the City's current monthly sewer service charge (with or without debt financing); without an increase, all unbudgeted WWTP CIP projects will have to be indefinitely deferred until sufficient funding is made available through long-term savings (reserves). SUBMITTED: Prepared by: Recommended by: qk4,t,tIt,O 42al—, � Marcus L. Fuller David J. Barakian Assistant Director of Public Works Director of Public Works/City Engineer Approved by: A J Thomas J. Wil n, Asst. City Manager David H. Ready, Cjt-y°jd rt. 1� F pp►LM S,e -'° �- City of Palm Springs Office of the City Clerk 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs,California 92262 (+ P.</FO Tel:(760)323-8204 • Fax: (760)322-8332 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov qRN� NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Regular Meeting of June 16, 2010, Public Hearing Item No. 1.B. PROPOSITION 218 MAJORITY PROTEST HEARING ON THE MATTER OF INCREASING SEWER SERVICE CHARGES By a unanimous vote of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs the public hearing was continued to Wednesday, July 7, 2010, Council Chamber, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING State of California ) County of Riverside ) ss. City of Palm Springs ) I, James Thompson, Assistant Secretary of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs, California, certify this Notice of Continuance was posted at or before 6:30 p.m., June 17, 2010, as required by established policies and procedures. mes Thompson City Clerk NOTICE OF CONT-2010 06-19 Sewer Charges.doc 1.4 Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743