Exhibit CC 09-06-2016 Item No. 23 Written Communications regarding San Jose Water Company increase in water rates CC 09/6/16 Item No. 23
Desk Item- Water Rate Increase Comments
Resident Contact Comments Date &Time Spoke to
Information
Customer #27 Dear Cupertino City Council: 9/1/16 Email
I reside on Madera Drive in Cupertino and am writing to express my 10:10 am
strong opposition to the proposed 8.6% rate increase. I have been
tracking water rate changes for a while and would like to list them,based
on the initiation dates:
Water bill date:
2/25/13: surcharge initiated
6/21/13: surcharge initiated
10/21/13: surcharge initiated
6/24/14: surcharge initiated+rate increase
8/21/14: surcharge initiated+rate increase
2/26/15: rate increase
4/25/15: surcharge initiated
6/24/15: rate surcharge initiated
8/21/15: rate increase
2/22/16: revenue increase
Seems like all we get are rate increases and surcharges, with the
proposed one being retroactive to January 1! I am retired and on a small
fixed income. When I start to add up the increasing rate and tax
burdens, increasing congestion and loss of all the things make Cupertino
a great place to live, the only option seems to move away. What can be
done to put off this rate increase?
Sincerely, Cupertino Resident
Customer #28 I am against the water rate increase retroactive to Jan 2016. 9/1/16 Email �
Below are my reasons: 11:39 am �
1. It is unfair and undemocratic. No Public Company will ever go back to
ask customers for more money once the product leaves the door. Please
ask Apple, Seagate. Only government entities is pulling this kind of i
stunt.
2. It punishes people w110 have monthly budget and adhere to it
3. The income shortfall is simply the mismanagement on supply and
demand by the water company. They know all along last year that
people are using less water and therefore, they will receive less income.
They did not adjust to market condition like trimming expenses or laying
off people.
Cupertino Resident on Lomita Ave
Customer#29 Hello, 9/2/16 Email
I do not agree with attempting to put in place retroactive water rates in 1:48 pm
Cupertino. We never received any information in the mail about this
and we live in Cupertino. I saw the letter to the editor in the paper this
morning and was totally shocked. It makes no sense to collect money
back from January this year up until now. We live on a fixed income and
have just about enough money to make bills, rent, utilities as it is. My
mother, who lives next door, agrees also. Please don't make this
policy. It would be like your doctor or dentist trying to collect money
later after services. We pay enough for water already as it is.
T'hank you
Customer #30 Hello, 9/2/16 Email
Please do NOT approve San Jose Water's 8.6% - retroactive to January 7:24 pm
2016 - rate ulcrease! No rate increase for water should be retroactive in
any case. Monta Vista customers have been reducing water use as home
landscaping turns brown and trees die. We've been conserving more
than any time in the past and should not be blindsided by this retroactive
rate increase.
Thank you. Cupertino Resident on Monte Ct.
Customer#31 Hello, 9/33/16 Email
Do not increase the water rates retroactive. 10:14 am
Cupertino Resident on Lauretta Dr
Custorner #32 I am adamantly opposed to any rate increase. Let's be truthful about the 9/3/16 Email
water shortage in California. I understand that the truth may be a 10:44 am
foreign concept to some of you considering the state of politics these
days. The water shortage in Califomia is man-made. I am a native of
_ _ ____ ._
� California and we have had droughts before, worse than this despite
what is being said. Again, truth is hard to come by these days. We
weathered the droughts because we had people in government that
cared more about the people and farms, and less about fish that are not
native to California.
We have seen a 50% increase in population in California in the last 20
years with no improvements to our water storage capacity despite
passing billions of dollars in water bond measures. All of this money
went to special interests groups that pay for political campaigns to the
people that vote for this stuff. At some point cities and counties have to
push back against this cronnieism unless you are part of the problem.
How much is the City of Cupertino getting from this outrages rate
increase?
Customer#33 Dear City Counsel, 9/3/16 Email
We are owner and residence on Byrne Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014. 3:57 pm
We are writing this email to Oppose on water rate service fee increase!
Our family already paid surcharges on water bill because the monthly
regular priced water quota is based on one house doesn't matter on
house size and family member.
I think the water price already high enough!
Thanks for consider our opinion!
Customer #34 I will not be able to attend the council meeting on Sept 6, 2016 and would 9/5/16 Email
like to voice to the council mv objection to this large increase and that 4:29 pm
the increase is retroactive from January of 2016.
Also it is very disturbing that this increase is for operational costs and
that we can also be charged for capital improvements.
Over 25 years as a Cupertino resident...
Customer #35 Dear City of Cupertino, 9/6/16 Email
I wholeheartedly oppose the Water Rate Service Fee Increase, especially 1:30 p.m.
the retroactive to Jan 1 aspect. Without clear explanation of what
necessitates the proposed retroactive increase, I am concerned that
Cupertino residents will face future SJWC increases will be proposed and
approved by the CPUC. Cupertino Homeowner on November Dr
Custorner #36 To Whom it May Concern, 9/6/19 Email
I do not believe it is ethical to pass a water rate hike that is retroactive. 2:20 p.m.
The ability of public works departments to retroactively charge residents
additional fees is a bad precedence and should not be allowed. The
public utility should be able to forecast future fund requirements and
built that into their annual budget and not expect the citizens to accept
an "after the fact" tax. I understand that gov offices and utilities struggle,
but it seems too convenient to tap the citizens for additional funds after
we have already used and paid the original cost of the service. Like any
service, citizens should be guaranteed that the cost of the service is as
stated during use without fear of added costs nearly 9 months later.
Regards.
Toni Oasay-Anderson
From: David Brandt
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 9:20 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: CONCERN
Attachments: WebPage.pdf
From: lohn Kolski [mailto:
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 6:21 PM
To: David Brandt<Davidb@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks<rodsinks@gmail.com>
Cc:Jk gmail Jk gmail <
Subject: CONCERN
ACTUALLY THE PINLIC SHOULD BE READ THIS SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT NONE OFTHE
RATE INCREASE MONIES EXEPT FOR VECHILE IS BEING USED IN THE CUPERTINO SERVICE
AREA THAT SJW LEASES.
JOHN KOLSKI
httt�://docs.ct�tic.ca.�ov/PublishedDocslEfile/G000/NI159/K87?/1�9872016.PDF
. I
i
Toni Oasay-Anderson
�
From: David Brandt
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 9:19 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: UNDERSTAND
Attachments: D - Cupertino Rate Increase Request 2016.pdf
From:John Kolski [mailto:
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 6:06 PM
To: David Brandt<Davidb@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <rodsinks@gmail.com>
Cc:Jk gmail Jk gmail <
Subject: UNDERSTAND
APPROVING THE RATE INCREASE IS FINE, BUT THE RETROACTIVE CHARGES BACK TO
JANUARY 1 ST IS UNACCEPTABLE.
I WII PROTEST THIS CHARGE AND I ONLY HOPE OTHERS DO, AND THE COUNCIL DOES NOT
APPROVE THESE.
IF AS THEIR APPLICATION STATES IT WAS A PUC DELAY, THEM LET SJW EAT THE CHARGES.
JOHN KOLSKI
i
Attachment D
San Jose
Water
Company
110 W.Taylor Street
San Jose, CA 95 1 1 0-21 31
April 28, 2016
David Brandt
City Mana�er
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 9�014
RE: Request for Water Rate Increase for Cupertino Municipal Water System
Dear Mr. Brandt:
In accordance �vith the provisions in the A�reement for Lease of Real Property
(Water System) betweeil the City of Cupertino (City) and SJWC executed on Octobel-
l, 1947, I write to seek the City's approval to implement the 2016 increase to
customers of the Water System.
The California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) Proposed Decision (PD) for
SJWC's 201� General Rate Case Application grants an 8.56% increase for- 2016. For
the averaae customer using 15 ccf per month, the monthl}� �vater bill will increase bv
approximately $7.04 oi- $0.2�1 per day. We anticipate new rates to become effective
on or about June 1, 2016. The next billii�� cycle for the Water Systein customers ���ill
be on June 22. 2016.
The PD can be viewed at the link provided belo��� and a summary of the proposed rate
schedule chai�ges is as follows: �
Residential Customers with �/8x3/4-inch Meter
� zois I 201� ►
� For Total Monthly Usage fi�om 0 to 3 ccfs � $3.2103 $4.0366 �
� For Total Monthly Usage fi•om 3+ to 18 ccfs � $3.5670 � $4.48�1 �
� For Total Monthly Usage over � 18 ccfs � $39237 � $4.9336 �
I Service Charges per Meter per month � �/8x3/4-inch meter � $21•07 � $23.84 �
Please note that because of the processii�g delay at the CPUC, interim rates �vere
impiemented effective Janua�y 1, 2016, for all customers incl�iding those served by
the Water System. The actual rates in place from 2015 did not chanbe as a result of
this action. New rates approved for 2016 will be retroactively applied to January l,
2016, for all Water System customers.
Mr. Da��id Brandt
April 28, 2016
Page 2
�'e �er�� much appreciate the opportunit� to provide hi�h qualit}' and reliable �vater
and eaceptional customer service to the City's residents and look forward to
continuii�g our partnership.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact John Tan�� at �t08-279-
7933 or john.tang@sjwater.com.
Sincerely,
�-.
�
i
i1ti �{��/--�..�
V �.
Palle Jensen
Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs
PD: http://docs.cquc.ca.��ov/SearchRes.aspx?docformat=ALLRdocid=160019=�18
c: T. Borden, City of Cupertino
R. Lee, City of Cupertino
J. Tai1g, SJ W C
Lauren Sapudar
From: Toni Oasay-Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 9:06 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: San Jose Water Co
-----Original Message-----
From: Heather Dean [mailto:
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 9:33 AM
To: City Council<Cit��Council@cupertino.org>
Subject: San Jose Water Co
I arri sorry I arrt unable to attend Tuesday's meeting. I cannot believe the water company is asking for a rate increase of 8%+
retroactive to the first of this year. I sincerely hope I can count on M1'city council to amend this request to something more
reasonable. The water company already has a hefty service charge to allow for aging infrastruchire needs. What is this
request for...because we, the citizens, have done such a good job conserving. Please represent us in a frugal manner.
Thank you for your service...
Bark Less, Wag More...iPad
I
�
i
Lauren Sapudar
From: Toni Oasay-Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 9:06 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: San Jose Water Company Rate Increase
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary or John Koeppen [mailto:
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 9:02 PM
To: WaterRates<waterratesC�cupertino.arg>
Cc Barry Chang<BChang@cupertino.org>;Savita Vaidhyanathan<svaidhyanathan@cupertino.arg>;Rod Sinks
<RSinks@cupertino.org>; Gilbert Wong<gwong@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul<DPaul@cupertino.org>
Subject: San Jose Water Company Rate Increase
I cannot attend the Council's public hearing September 6, so I'm submitting my comments.
I oppose any rate increase. I arrt not satisfied with the San Jose Water Company and look forward to the end of the 25 year
lease agreement between the City of Cupertino and the San Jose Water Company in 2022.
1. Periodically, usually in December and January, the water source is supposedly s�n�itched to ground water. The SJ Water
Company advises the �n�ater may taste different,but is safe. It is so bad,we buy bottled water for drinking and cooking. The
water from the tap leaves a fuzzy scum on the dishes washed in the dishwasher and on our bodies from the shower. The
San Jose Water Company does not provide a credit for the unacceptable water.
2. The San Jose Water Company's invoices are not inhiitive. In addition to the service charge and quantity charges there
are 13 additional charges. I have no idea why there are eight separate charges for ground water and purchased water from
2013 through 2016. On the inost recent invoice these charges exceeded $30. Why are there charges far past years? In
addition there is a "2013 Interim Rate True-up Surcharge." What is this? All I want is one fee for CCF used at a specific
rate, and maybe a charge for CCF over allocated drought usage.
Until, the San Jose Water Company can provide a more transparent invoice, the City of Cupertino should not approve any
rate increase. As I recall the Cupertino municipal water users would not see any increase�vhen Cupertino entered into this
long terin lease. How inany of you were present at the Council meeting��hen this lease agreeinent was railroaded? It is
tiine to plan alternative suppliers.
Mary Koeppen
Sent fram my iPad
i