CC 05-07-19 #8 Proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee_Written CommunicationsCyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com >
Monday, May 06, 2019 11:54 PM
City Council
City Clerk
Protest against Stormwater Increase Fee!
Dear Mayor Scharf and Council Members,
cc 4/2/19
Item #8
I am opposed to this stormwater fee increase because it has an AUTOMATIC ANNUAL INCREASE FOREVER!!!! There is
no oversight. There is no max . It just increases forever! As a resident on a fixed income, this is unacceptable!
Also, I have found that I have not been able to figure out how much I would pay . The City website is very confusing . It
requires a Username/Password. If you manage to get past that, my parcel size doesn't match the amounts listed for its
size . It's very confusing! How do I make a decision when I have conflicting data.
I under,stand the importance of maintaining our sewer system but I do not support an open check to spend money!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
T o tal Control Panel
To: citvco un cil @.cup e1ti no .o rg
From: griffin@compuserve.com
Message Score: 10
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom
Bl ock this sender
Bl ock compuserve.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
1
High (60): Pas s
Medium (75): Pas -
Low (90): Pa ss
Custom (55): Pa ss
CUPERTINO
C H AMBER OF COMMERCE
20455 Si lverad o Ave I Cupen iri o , CA 95014 I (408 } 252-705.4 I \"N/V,.cuperl ino-c ha mber .or9
May 1, 2019
The Honorable Steven Scharf
Mayor, City of Cupe1iino
10300 Torre Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Proposed New Fee for Clean Water and St01m Water Protection Program: SUPPORT
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of the Board of the Cupe1tino Chamber of Commerce, we support the proposed new fees for clean
water and storm water protection.
The storm water maintenance and pollution prevention program that started in 1992 has been operating at a
deficit because the current fee, which is $12 per single-family residential parcel per year, does not generate
enough revenue to pay for the necessary operations and maintenance needed to proactively service the system
and ensure that storm water flowing to the creeks, bay and ocean is clean.
In the current fiscal year, the estimated costs of the program total $1.197 million, but the revenue from the
current fee is only about $379,000 per year. The amount of the 1992 fee cannot be increased, so it is appropriate
that a new property-related fee that would charge only the additional amount of revenues needed to offset the
cost to provide proactive maintenance and clean water programs for that individual parcel.
Under the cun-ent funding model, repair of a single system failure may cost an entire year's program budget. The
new storm drain fee will allow the program to utilize the best practices needed to safeguard our storm water
system . In addition to the many significant program benefits including preventative maintenance, education and
so much more that directly supports and protects the quality of our community, the fact remains that when storm
drains are needed and do not function properly, collateral environmental and economic damage can be
extensive . ·
It is for these many reasons that the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has taken a position of
SUPPORT, for the proposed new storm drain fees .
Thank you for your consideration of our views on this issue.
Sincerely,
Anjali Kausar, CEO
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Cc: Cupertino City Clerk
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com >
Tuesday, May 07, 2019 3:29 PM
City Council
Cunningham Dennis
Item 8, Storm Water Fee-support
I support this fee increase. The City Public Works has done great outreach and have made a compelling case for
the increase.My husband, Dennis, agrees.
Sincerely, Connie
From Connie's iPhone
Total Control Panel
To: c ity cou nc il @ cupertin o.org
From : cunninghamconniel@gmail.com
Message Score: 15
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom
Block this sender
Block gmail.com
This message was delivered because th e content filter sco re did not exceed your filter level.
1
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): P ass
Low (90): Pa ss
Custom (55): Pa
2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Protest
c/o City Clerk
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Madam City Clerk,
\....\.... U / ii/ i 7 iu::HL U
25 April 20 19
I am writing to protest against the proposed City of Cupertino 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection
Fee.
Parcel APN #: 369-10-014
Regards ,
cJ<till, /i)a.l,_
Kathy~::
Resident of Cupertino
May 6, 2019
2019 Clean Water and Sewer Project Fee Protest
c/o City Clerk
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Scharf and Council Members,
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
As residents of Cupertino, we are opposed to the new proposed fee for two reasons.
1. The new proposed fee has an automatic annual adjustment for inflation
which hasn't been a factor for many years. The fee increases forever and no
identified oversight. We strongly oppose this increase.
2. Also, there is no exemption for senior citizens who are on fixed incomes.
Sincerely,
Laura Auch
dtLL
Ed Auch
10713 Randy Lane
Cupertino, CA 95014
May 6, 2019
2019 Clean Water and Sewer Project Fee Protest
c/o City Cl e rk
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Scharf and Council Members,
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
As residents of Cupertino, we are opposed to the new proposed fee for two reasons.
1. The new proposed fee has an automatic annual adjustment for inflation
which hasn't been a factor for many years. The fee increases forever and no
identified oversight. We strongly oppose this increase.
2. Also, there is no exemption for senior citizens who are on fixed incomes.
Sincerely,
/~ 1f'.L
Adeline Marchese
10572 Randy Lane
Cupertino, CA 95014
May 6, 2019
2019 Clean Water and Storm Project Fee Protest
c/o City Clerk
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Scharf and Council Members,
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
We are residents of Cupertino and we are opposed to the new proposed fee because it has an
automatic Annual Inflation Adjustment! This fee increases forever with no oversight! We are
against an automatic increase in this fee.
Sincerely,
~Y~'
Margaret S. Griffin
~:t!tf/--
Terry L. Griffin
10727 Randy Lane
Cupertino, CA 95014
,$-.~::iv~ ~
~.~~~-
PE '/{: R Ylt·D / ;A(
/75'2-D~(,rJ4 LH
G Uif pf? 7 J J/& / 01+ c;~o I</
frfN #
3Gz__, (?-oOJY
1
May 7, 2019
10497 Anson Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-1346
2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Protest
c/o City Clerk
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino CA 95014
VIA EMAIL: cityclerk@cupertino.org
Dear Ms. Schmidt:
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
I am a property owner in the City of Cupertino (hereinafter, the "City") currently paying
a Storm Drainage service charge as part of my annual property tax bill. I object to the
fee proposal. But let me tell you why (and please allow me to appear and speak at the
hearing).
Like the Bettencourts, I am specifically opposed to the Annual Inflation Adjustment. I
further believe that the inflation adjustment was incorrectly described in the City's
notice dated March 18, 2019 (the "notice"). As a reminder, the California Constitution
requires that:
The agency shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the
record owner of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for
imposition, the amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each, the
basis upon which the amount of the proposed fee or charge was calculated, the
reason for the fee or charge , together with the date, time, and location of a public
hearing on the proposed fee or charge .1
The notice simply stated:
Annual Inflation Adjustment. In order to offset the effects of inflation on labor and
material costs, the proposed fee is subject to an annual increase based on the change
in the Consumer Price Index, but will be limited to 3% in any single year.
Recipients would naturally understand the phrase "change in the Consumer Price
Index" without further qualifications to mean the same thing that the United States
1 California Const i tution Art icl e XIII D Sec. 6(a)(1 ).
I
Bureau of Labor Statistics does when it publishes its monthly Consumer Price Index
·: -. ,, Summary : The latest release dated April 10, 2019, leads with a discussion of the
.1 I " ·· ---..... -change in CPI-U:
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX -MARCH 2019
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Con sumers (CP I-U) increa se d 0.4 percent in
March on a seasonally adjusted ba sis after rising 0.2 percent in February, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the la st 12 months, the all items inde x
increased 1 .9 percent before seasonal adju stment.2
I reasonably interpreted the notice to imply that inflation adjustments would likewise
be keyed off of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), but after
reviewing the proposed ordinance, I learned was wrong. The actual inflation
adjustment proposed by the City is as follows (excerpted):
3.38.040 Annual Review of Fee.
Commencing in Fiscal Year 2020-21 , the amount of the Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee may be increased by an amount equal to the chan ge in the Consumer
Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the area including Santa Clara County
(the "CPI"), including all items as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of
December of each succeeding year, not to exc eed a maximum increase of three percent
(3%) in any single year .
The City Council shall not be required to enact a CPI increase each year , but the City
Council may accumulate the inflationary increases and impose the cumulative
amount in accordance with Section 3.38 .040.A .
The City apparently concedes the error, because the draft balloting materials now
state something else : "In order to offset the effects of inflation on labor and material
costs, the proposed fee is subject to an annual increase based on the change in the
San Francisco-Oakland -Hayward Consumer Price Index-U ("CPI"), not to exceed 3
percent per year."
The difference between the national CPI-U, and the local CPI -U (San Francisco -
Oakland-Hayward, CA) is significant. Here are the annual inflation rates from the last
several years:
2 https ://www .bls .gov/news .release/cpi .nr0.htm
2
Date Local CPI -U3 CPI -U4 Difference
December 201 8 4.5% 1.9 % 2.6 %
December 2017 2. 9 % 2.1% 0 .8%
December 2016 3 .5% 2 .1 o/o 1.4%
December 2015 3 .2% 0 .7% 2 .5%
As you can see, these measures are substantially different.
But not only did the notice fail to provide the correct formula for the inflation
adjustments, it also affirmatively misled property owners that the "fee is subject to an
annual increase ... limited to 3% in any single year". In fact, if this fee been first
effective on January 2009 and if the City had not passed any fee increases until January
2019, the City could have increased the fee in 2019 by 29.8% without any property
owner approval whatsoever, because of the "cumulative amount" provision in the
proposed ordinance that was missing from the notice .5
I also object to the cost allocation proposed by the City, and do not believe it conforms
to the California Constitution, which requires that "The amount of a fee or charge
imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not
exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel."
Specifically, even if every property in California were exempt as open space, a
stormwater system would still be necessary due to the large amount of the City's
surface covered by impervious right of ways. The Fee Report commissioned by the
City calculated the percent of impervious area for land used as Transportation/ Right
of Way to be 90%, but allocated none of the stormwater cost to such land use, which
presumably would otherwise be paid out of the City's general fund. By failing to
apportion the fee among all sources of impervious surface area ("ISA") in the City, the
fee assessed to parcels "exceed[s] the proportional cost of the service attributable to
[each] parcel", in violation of the California Constitution .
Second, the Fee Report failed to establish that maintaining an ISA of 4,073 square feet
for each of the 8,958 properties ensures that the fee does not exceed the proportional
cost of service attributable to each parcel. In particular, the variance in ISA between
3 https:/ /data .bls.gov/timeseries/CUURS49BSAO&output_vi ew=pct_ 12mths
4 h ttps ://www .bl s.gov/c harts/co nsu mer-price-ind ex/ consume r-p rice -ind ex-by -c ategory-line-cha rt. htm
5 1.026 * 1.015 * 1.029 * 1 .022 * 1.026 * 1 .027 * 1 .03 * 1.03 * 1.029 * 1.03 = 1.2976
3
the nearly 9,000 properties was unreported. For example, in my case, it also does not
take into account a rainwater capture system for my roof that diverts nearly 1,000
square feet of rainfall underground to replenish the local aquifer, and another system
that does the same for my patio . No provision is made to differentiate between any of
these properties, even though commercial properties can exclude open spaces and get
reductions for their stormwater capture systems .
Third, although a favorable comparison is made to Palo Alto in the Fee Report,
Cupertino homeowners would pay significantly more than commercial users in their
respective jurisdictions . Palo Alto 6 defines an "Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU)" as
their billing unit, where one medium-size property is charged 1.0 ERUs, similar to how
the City would define a "Single Family Equivalent (SFE)", with one medium -size
residence in Cupertino being charged 1.0 SFEs. But while commercial properties in
Palo Alto are charged 1.0 ERUs / 2,500 square feet, in Cupertino they would merely be
charged 0.61 SFEs / 2,500 square feet. This is because Palo Alto charges a medium
residence for 2,500 square feet of ISA, whereas Cupertino proposes to charge 63%
more (4,073 square feet) for an equivalent residence.
It gets worse in Cupertino, of course, because commercial properties can seek
reductions for both open space and stormwater capture systems, whereas single
family residence owners are denied that opportunity.
Please reconsider the proposal by removing the inflation adjustment, taking into
account costs attributable to transportation and right -of-way land uses, and finally by
reducing the ISA attributable to single family residences or providing a way to seek
reductions to accurately reflect their actual ISA.
6 https://www .cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/fileban k/documents/56164
4
May 6, 2019
2019 Clean Water and Storm Project Fee Protest
c/o City Clerk
10300 To rr e Ave nu e
C up ertin o, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Scharf and Council Members,
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
We, residents of Cupertino, are opposed to th e automatic Annual Infl ation Adjustment portion of the
proposed fee ad ju stment. We are aga in st an automatic in crease of this t yp e without any indicatio n of
an oversight t o insure the annual increase i s properly utilized . If this i ncrease is to support th e proposed
increase to h o using needs, then ma yb e a bond would be bett e r served to prepare for the future
demands.
Sin ce rely ,
;lul~Wk__
··JaniceM .~ ..
~ii
1972 1 Mer ritt Dr
Cuperti no, CA 950 14
ED W ARD J. HA HAMIAN
REGISTERED CIVIL EN GI N EER &
RESIDENT OF CUPERT INO
10158 RI CHW O OD DR.
CUPERT IN O 95 0 14
MAY 7, 2019
Hon. Mayor &
City council
Cupertino, CA
Subject: 2019 Clean Water
I hereby object to the subject Item on the agenda for the following reason :
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
The method by which the fee if calculated. Namely it is based on the proportional
impervious area contributing to the City storm drainage system. Said method does not take
into account properties that are graded wherein th e runoff area does not contribute entirely
to the system via streets-many lots ar e graded to drain partly or entirely to the rear where
lawns or other pervious surfaces exist to absorb the peak runoff from roofs and impervious
areas . (Lots graded as B or C). Fee adjustment needs to be based on actual contribution of
peak storm runoff to the City system should not be based on a "one size fits all" method .
Sincerely yours
May 6, 2019
2019 Clean Water and Storm Project Fee Protest
c/o City Clerk
I 0300 Torre Ave nu e
Cupe rtin o, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Scharf and Council Members,
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
We, residents of Cupertino, are opposed to the automat ic Annual Inflation Adjustment portion of the
proposed fee adjustment. We are against an automatic increase of this type without any indi cation of
an oversight to insure the annual increase is properly utilized. If this increase is to support the proposed
increase to housing needs, then maybe a bond would be better served to prepare for the future
demands.
19 72 1 Me rritt Dr
Cup erti no , CA 950 14
EDWARD J. HAHAMIAN
REGISTERED CIVIL ENG IN EER &
RESIDENT OF CUPERT IN O
10158 RICHWOOD DR.
CUPERTINO 95014
MAY 7, 2019
Hon. Mayor &
City council
Cupertino, CA
Subject: 2019 Clean Water
I hereby object to the subject Item on the ag e nda for the following reason:
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
The method by which the fee if calculated . Namely it is based on the proportional
impervious area contributing to the City storm drainage system. Said method does not take
into account properties that are graded wherein the runoff area does not contribute entirely
to the system via streets-many lots ar e graded to drain partly or entirely to the rear where
lawns or other pervious surfaces exist to absorb the peak runoff from roofs and impervious
areas. (Lots graded as B or C). Fee adjustment needs to be bas ed on actual contribution of
peak storm runoff to the City system should not be based on a "one size fits all" method.
Sincerely yours
May 7, 2019
10497 Anson Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014 -1346
2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Protest
c/o City Clerk
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino CA 95014
VIA EMAIL: cityclerk@cupertino.org
Dear Ms. Schmidt:
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
I am a property owner in the City of Cupertino (hereinafter, the "City") currently paying
a Storm Drainage service charge as part of my annual property tax bill. I object to the
fee proposal. But let me tell you why (and please allow me to appear and speak at the
hearing).
Like the Bettencourts, I am specifically opposed to the Annual Inflation Adjustment. I
further believe that the inflation adjustment was incorrectly described in the City's
notice dated March 18, 2019 (the "notice"). As a reminder, the California Constitution
requires that:
The agency shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the
record owner of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for
imposition, the amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each, the
basis upon which the amount of the proposed fee or charge was calculated, the
reason for the fee or charge, together with the date , time, and location of a public
hearing on the proposed fee or charge.'
The notice simply stated:
Annual Inflation Adjustment. In order to offset the effects of inflation on labor and
material costs, the proposed fee is subject to an annual increase based on the change
in the Consumer Price Index, but will be limited to 3% in any single year.
Recipients would naturally understand the phrase "change in the Consumer Price
Index" without further qualifications to mean the same thing that the United States
'California Constitution Article XIII D Sec. 6(a)(1).
Bureau of Labor Statistics does when it publishes its monthly Consumer Price Index
1
• . · ., . Summary : The latest release dated April 10, 2019, leads with a discussion of the
I l •· . ·-· ·---change in CPI-U:
CON SU MER PRICE INDEX -MARCH 2019
Th e Consumer Pr ice Ind ex for All Urb an Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.4 percent in
March on a seasonally adjusted basi s after rising 0.2 percent in February, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics report ed today . Over the last 12 months, the all items inde x
increa se d 1.9 percent before seasonal adjustment.2
I reasonably interpreted the notice to imply that inflation adjustments would likewise
be keyed off of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U), but after
reviewing the proposed ordinance, I learned was wrong. The actual inflation
adjustment proposed by the City is as follows (excerpted):
3.38 .040 Annual Review of Fee.
Commencing in Fiscal Year 2020-21, the amount of the Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee may be increased by an amount equal to the change in the Consumer
Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the area including Santa Clara County
(the "CPI"), including all items as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of
December of each succeeding year, not to exceed a maximum increase of three percent
(3%) in any single year .
The City Council shall not be required to enact a CPI increase each year, but the City
Council may accumulate the inflationary increases and impose the cumulative
amount in accordance with Section 3.38 .040 .A.
The City apparently concedes the error, because the draft balloting materials now
state something else: "In order to offset the effects of inflation on labor and material
costs, the proposed fee is subject to an annual increase based on the change in the
San Francisco-Oakland -Hayward Consumer Price Index-U ("CPI"), not to exceed 3
percent per year."
The difference between the national CPI-U, and the local CPI-U (San Francisco-
Oakland -Hayward, CA) is significant. Here are the annual inflation rates from the last
several years :
2 http s://www .bls .gov/news.release/cpi .nr0 .htm
2