CORRESPONDENCE - 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana Attn: City Clerk P. 0. Box 1988 M30 Santa Ana, CA 92701 To Whom it May Concern: 2215 N. Victoria Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92706 November 12, 20W9 AHOY 14 P4 4- cry CITY OF SANTA ANA CLERK OF COUNCIL As a property owner of the address above, I am writing to protest the water rate increases proposed by the City. I believe there are significant issues with the Stantec Study and rate proposal which need to be detailed and explained to ratepayers prior to an increase being granted. Here are my specific objections to the Study: 1. The cost of MWD supplied water is stated as being 44% of the cost, while it is only 25% of the water actually utilized in the City. The determination of the allocation of costs (56%/44%) against OCWD/MWD supplied water is not detailed in the Study. If this allocation is inaccurate, a significantly higher percentage of costs are being passed off to Tier 2 water users to artificially keep Tier 1 rates low. This allocation needs to be detailed and the allocation explained to ratepayers. 2. Budget line items 14,19 — OCWD and MWD Water Purchases. In the 5-year period covered by your cost estimator, water purchase costs go up 26% - while in the same period, water costs for me as a consumer increase by 42% (1.6X). In the total period covered by the study, water purchase costs increase 190% - would this mean we as consumers would expect to pay 306% more than we do today? 3. Budget line item 102 — Land. There is a cost stated of $1.289M in 2020. This land cost is not described or addressed in the Study. What is this for? 4. Budget line item 103 — Full Time Equivalent New Staff —These new staff (8 alone for Capital Improvement Projects) are a HUGE increase in the cost of staff salaries (2.6% of the overall budget in 2019). What these new staff will do is not defined in the report. If these are just Project Management costs, why aren't these costs included in the Projects? Why does the City need to HIRE PERMANENT full-time employees? 5. Budget line items 5, 32, 60, 82 — Retirement Costs — Why are these costs essentially doubling over the Study period? Is this because we are adding a bunch of new employees or because ratepayers are being asked to address underfunded pension liabilities. Why are retirement costs increasing at nearly 5 TIMES the rate of inflation? Taxpayers also just approved a 1.5% sales tax increase in the City. Why isn't some of this money being used to address the issue? It seems we as residents are paying both higher sales taxes and higher water rates. The City Council should not approve these rate increases without these legitimate concerns being addressed for ratepayers. Sincerely, Mason Nakamura