Exhibit CC 02-21-2017 Item No. 9 Water System Potable Water Rates and Charges - Written Communications CC 02-21-2017 Item No. 9
From: WaterRates
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW:Water rate increase-Voting NO
Date: Tuesday,February 21,2017 8:53:40 AM
For item #9
From: Ruby Bal [mailto:rubybal@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:21 PM
To: WaterRates <waterrates@cupertino.org>
Cc: Ruby Bal <
Subject: Water rate increase-Voting NO
Dear Cupertino Community council chamber.
I am not in agreement with the rate increase on my
water bill. we have had plenty of rain this year which
has gotten rid of the drought. You must use your
existing funds to build more dams and not charge the
residents. this is not fair. we are already paying
exhorbitant rates on our property tax bills for living
in Cupertino.
Thanks
Ruby
Ruby Rekhi Bal
Cell #
CC 02-21-2017 Item No. 9
From: Julia Kinst
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: RE THE PROPOSED SJW RAT INCREASE PLEASE POST
Date: Tuesday,February 21,2017 8:52:36 AM
Julia Kinst
City of Cupertino I Public Works
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 9501.4
408-777-3291 1 Q ;uliak@cup r ino.orQ
Desk Item for Agenda#9
From:John Kolski [mailto:
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 10:04 AM
To:Tiffanie Cardenas<TiffanieCC@cupertino.org>
Cc:A gmail A gmail<
Subject: Fwd: RE THE PROPOSED SJW RAT INCREASE PLEASE POST
THE BELOW ARTICLE IN THE CUPERTINO PAPER TODAY
IS A COVER-UP BY SJW TO MAKE THE RATE PAYERS OF
CUPERTINO THINK SJW'S PROPOSED RATE INCREASE IS
FOR DROUGHT SURCHARGES AND THAT SJW IS DOING
SOMETHING TO REDUCE THE INCREASE.
THE TRUTH IS....
THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH BROUGHT SURCHARGES. AND THE PROPOSED RATE
INCREASE IF APPROVED BY THE REGULATOR WHICH IS
ONLY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT REDUCE.
JOHN KOLSKI
The Mercury News
02/17/2017 -Page A08
News
San Jose Water Company drops
drought surcharges
BY PAUL R OGERS Amid heavy winter rains,
recovering reservoirs and improving groundwater,the
San Jose Water Company—which provides drinking
water to 1 million people in San Jose and neighboring
communities—has dropped its drought surcharges.
The private company announced the change Feb. 1,
making it the last large water provider in the Bay Area to
suspend fines and penalties for excessive water use.
The company put the surcharge in place in June 2015
after Gov. Jerry Brown ordered California water
providers to reduce use by 25 percent. As a result,water
bills of homeowners with large lawns in communities li
ke Saratoga spiked, sparking controversy,but while the
surcharges were in place,the company's customers cut
water use 29 percent in 2016, compared to the baseline
year of 2013.
"It wasn't a rate increase,but a penalty program to
encourage conservation," said John Tang, a spokesman
for San Jose Water. "In light of the improved water
outlook, we think it is the right time to remove the
surcharges."
The company's decision followed a vote Jan. 31 by the
Santa Clara Valley Water District the wholesale water
provider for 13 cities and private water companies in
Santa Clara County including San Jose Water—to
adjust its call for water conservation given the heavy
rains, snow and flooding that California has experienced
this winter after five years of severe drought.
The water district kept in place its request for the public
to keep water use at 20 percent below 2013 levels. That
included a request to limit lawn watering to three days a
week,but it said it no longer expects retail providers like
San Jose Water to impose drought surcharges and other
financial penalties to reach that goal.
San Jose Water provides 80 percent of San Jose's
residents with drinking water, along with Los Gatos,
Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Campbell and parts of
Cupertino.
Its surcharges were approved in 2015 by the state Public
Utilities Commission. The rules originally set a goal of
30 percent water savings each month compared with
2013 use,which was later reduced to 20 percent last
summer after improved winter rains.
Rather than allowing each customer to cut 30 percent
from their own consumption, the compan y averaged
residential use from all its customers in 2013 and cut 30
percent from that. As a result, San Jose Water gave every
single-family residence the same monthly allotment of
water—9 units or 6,732 gallons a month last February,
March and April, for example—with surcharges of up
to $7.12 a unit for exceeding their limit.
Company officials said they believed the system was the
fairest way to conserve water because it required the
biggest cutbacks from people with large yards who had
been using the most water,while not penalizing people
who had been conserving all along and were already
under the target.
However, more than 1,000 people appealed to the PUC,
saying their water bills had shot up hundreds of dollars a
month, even though they cut use. A state consumer
agency,the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, also
appealed, calling the rules "discriminatory,unfair and
unreasonable" because they applied only to single-family
homes and not to businesses, apartments or
condominiums.
Last February,the PUC board voted 5-0 to reject the
appeals.
"There was concern that if they really went further with
commercial and industrial cutbacks, at some point you
hit job growth," PUC Commissioner Catherine Sandoval
said at the time.
In 2015, San Jose Water lost$19.8 million due to
reduced water sales. It made$12.1 million in drought
surcharges, according to PUC records. To make up the
$7.7 million difference,the company was granted a 12-
month,2.57 percent rate increase by the PUC. The
financial totals from 2016 are not yet in.
Also last week, Great Oaks Water, a private company
that provides water to 100,000 people i n South San Jose,
a
g
Santa Teresa and Almaden neighborhoods, dropped its
drought surcharges. Great Oaks computed them
differently than San Jose Water,requiring everyone to
cut water use 30 percent from 2013 levels—later
lowered to 20 percent last summer—and to pay$4.66 a
unit or double its basic rate for excess usage. The
company's customers reduced water use by 29 percent in
2016,the same as San Jose Water's.
Tim Guster, Great Oaks vice president, said just like at
San Jose Water, some of his customers complained the
system wasn't fair, that it penalized people who had
conserved.
"There were two different methods, and both saved the
same rate," he said. "I don't know what the lesson is,
other than you can't please everybody,but I was
impressed and grateful by how well people across Santa
Clara County really pulled through."
Honey and John
Total Control Panel
To:tiffaniec@cunertino.org Message Score:57 High(60):Pass
From: My Spam Blocking Level:Medium Medium(75):Pass
Low(90):Pass
Block this sender
Block gmail.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
CC 02-21-2017 Item No. 9
From: WaterRates
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Statement in support of opposing proposed water rate increase in Cupertino
Date: Tuesday,February 21,2017 8:54:32 AM
For Item #9
From: Michael Enescu [mailto:
Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:32 AM
To: WaterRates<waterrates@cupertino.org>
Cc: Michael Enescu <
Subject:Statement in support of opposing proposed water rate increase in Cupertino
Dear City of Cupertino Council Representative,
In response to your letter dated 1/6/2017 requesting comments in opposition (or
support) of the proposed water rate increase documented also on your website we
want to submit the following statement in opposition of the proposed increase as
follows.
We have lived in Silicon Valley for more that 33 years and we have never seen an
abundance of water in our local and state reservoirs as has been noted recently
throughout our County and State. It makes no sense to rush to any increase in water
rates. The supply of water in California is now overabundant. Please do not rush to
raise these rates already high. The drought is over. The snow pack has reached
record highs. The reservoirs are at more than 90% or higher at all State locations, far
above any required levels. Instead of raising the rates now, we ask that the Council
request the Water Utility company/companies hold the same rates. It is simply
unjustifiable to raise rates rushing ahead of any official drought ending confirmations
from Sacramento due this April. Instead the Water Utility company needs to be asked
to put everything on hold and coordinate with State government agencies confirming
that drought conditions are over or that water supply issues no longer threaten to
exist.
We collectively suffered for several long years in our city, our county and our state,
paying large water bills, dramatically reducing our water consumption, destroying our
lawns and plants, and severely reducing home, office or business consumption. Now
is the time to return things to normal, leave the rates unchanged and let the utility
companies increase their revenue by allowing water consumption to be in line with
the overabundant supply in our dams, reservoirs and spectacular high snowpack.
We are counting on you to hold the Water Utilities responsible and accountable for
not rushing to any increase thinking that they need to beat the April timeline when the
snowpack is officially certified by state agencies in Sacramento to be at a safe, high
level this Spring.
Thanks in advance for responsibly representing the citizens of Cupertino, for
speaking on our behalf and protecting the consumers in our city from yet another
unjustified rate increase.
Regards,
Michael Enescu
Cupertino Resident and Business Owner
CC 2-21-2017 Item No. 9
Lauren Sapudar
Subject: FW: REGARDING THE PROPOSED SJW RATE INCREASE
From: John Kolski<
Date: February 16, 2017 at 2:41:58 PM PST
To: cupertno night work phone no<rogerl(&cupertino.org>
Cc: Jk gmail Jk gmail<
Subject: REGARDING THE PROPOSED SJW RATE INCREASE
I WOULD ONLY HOPE THAT HAVING TWO VICE PRESIDENTS OF SJW, ONE A BOARD
MEMBER OF THE CHAMBER AND THE OTHER A ROTARY MEMBER WHO LIVES IN
CUPERTINO DOES NOT INFLUENCE THE VOTE OF OUR CITY COUNCIL AS THE
REGULATOR OF THE CITY OWNED WATER SYSTEM.
JOHN KOLSKI
Total Control Panel Lo
To:rogerlOcupertino.org Remove this sender from my allow list
From:
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
1