CLK-Yessika Dominguez

(1)

CLK-Yessika Dominguez

From: Doug Heintz

Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 8:01 PM

To: GRP-City Council

Subject: Do not approve sewer changes

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Redwood City Council Members: Please do not change the way sewer fees are collected. This would create an undue hardship for many residents. At a time when affordable housing is such a hot issue, why create more situations where landlord/tenant billing is open to more disputes? Thank you. ‐Doug

(2)

From: sandra mckee

To: GRP-City Council; Council-Diane Howard

Cc: MGR-Deanna La Croix; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jorge Rivera; Mark Toney

Subject: Fw: 6/1/21-CLASS ACTION PROTEST ON SEWER/PROPERTY TAX TO REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

NEW PUBLIC PROTESTS VIA SAN MATEO COUNTY JOURNAL NEWSPAPER WKND EDITION JUNE 12 TO 13--

2 REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS HAVE STATED THIS PROTEST WITH THE SEWER RATE / BILLING CHANGES WELL. FOR ONE -- THIS IS A BAD IDEA, NOT THOUGHT OUT WELL BY PUBLIC WORKS OF REDWOOD CITY, ETC.

MOST SENIORS ARE ACCUSTOMED TO PAYING BILL MONTHLY OR EVERY 6 WEEKS AND CAN'T PLAN RIGHT TO HAVE A HUGE PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR SEWER RATE BILLING. NEXT A LOT OF REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS RENT OUT THEIR HOMES AND HAVE THE RENTERS PAY THE SEWER RATES AND THIS WON'T WORK OUT RIGHT IF THEN THE OWNER HAS TO DO A LOT OF AUDITING TO GET THE RIGHT SEWER RATE BILLING FROM A RENTER ANNUALLY AND IF THEY LEAVE BEFORE A YEAR THEN THE LANDLORD STUCK WITH THE BILLS. NEXT. IT IS TOO EASY FOR THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY TO SNEAK IN NEW SEWER RATE INCREASES THIS WAY TO CUSTOMERS SO THEN THEY WON'T BE AWARE OF SEWER RATE INCREASES THIS SEEMS TO BE THE HIDDEN AGENDA FOR THE PROPOSED SEWER RATES THIS IS FRAUD IF THIS PLAN IS CARRIED.OUT. NOTE THE 2 RESIDENTS SAY THAT THERE IS ONLY A CAN OF WORMS AND MORE PROBLEMS BEING OPENED UP AND MOST RESIDENTS WILL BE VERY UNHAPPY AND MAY MOVE AWAY FROM REDWOOD CITY, CAUSE THEY HAVE HAD ENOUGHT GREED FROM CITY HALL AND MOST RESIDENTS ACCORDING TO MR. REXROTH AND MS. SHORES BOTH RESIDENTS INVOLVED IN THE SAN MATEO JOURNAL NEWSPAPER PROTEST ON THIS ISSUE THEY ARE VERY SAVVY RESIDENTS AND PLEASE LISTEN TO THEM THEY AND ME ARE CORRECT LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE.

SANDRA MCKEE SENIOR RESIDENT REDWOOD CITY CA 94061

--- Forwarded Message ---

From: sandra mckee <[email protected]>

To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; GRP-City Council

<[email protected]>; Council-Diane Howard <[email protected]>; MGR-Deanna La Croix

<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jorge Rivera <[email protected]>

(3)

From: sandra mckee <

To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;

[email protected] <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 04:44:33 AM PDT

Subject: Fw: 6/1/21-CLASS ACTION PROTEST ON SEWER/PROPERTY TAX TO REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS

From: sandra mckee

To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 04:40:56 AM PDT

Subject: Fw: 6/1/21-CLASS ACTION PROTEST ON SEWER/PROPERTY TAX TO REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS HELLO MR. ABASTO,

TO LET YOU KNOW, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RETURN CALL FROM INTAKE ON THE ISSUES MENTIONED BELOW.

PLEASE HAVE INTAKE CALL ME AT 1/650-575-7940 CELL W VOICEMAIL.

NEXT, PLEASE FORWARD THE EMAILS BELOW TO YOUR PUBLIC/OR LEGISLATION DEPT AT DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIF IN SACRAMENTO.

DEADLINE ON SEWER TAXES ADDED TO PROPERTY TAX IN ADDITION TO THE MONTHLY CHARGES BY REDWOOD CITY GOVERNMENT TO PUBLIC.

SANDRA MCKEE

To: Jorge Rivera <[email protected]> Cc: Mark Toney <[email protected]>

Subject: Fw: 6/1/21-CLASS ACTION PROTEST ON SEWER/PROPERTY TAX TO REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS JORGE AND MARK,

OF TURN,

VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES, BELOW.

PLEASE ASSIST WITH NETWORKING ON THE STATMENTS BELOW. SANDRA MCKEE

To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]

<[email protected]>

Sent: Saturday, June 5, 2021, 02:38:33 AM PDT

(4)

To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 5, 2021, 02:36:03 AM PDT

Subject: Fw: 6/1/21-CLASS ACTION PROTEST ON SEWER/PROPERTY TAX TO REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS state of california,

please forward my email on 2 issues below sewer property tax and va disabled exemption denial when state va law says my criteria makes me eligible to continue my deceased father's va exemption based on being

retroactively disabled to childhood and cause I am on the HELPLESS CHILD PROGRAM OF VA MONTHLY SMALL PENSION ALL WHICH MAKES ME ELIGILBE BUT THE SAN MATEO CO. ASSESSOR

OFFICE WON'T ADMIT IT, CAUSE THEY ARE IGNORANT TO THIS CLAUSE IN THE VA DISABLED TAX EXEMPTION CALIF ARTICLES.

ALSO, CITY OF REDWOOD CITY HAS BEEN SCAMMING CUSTOMERS FOR YEARS WITH

UNNECESSARY WATER, GARBAGE SEWER INCREASES QTRLY, MONTHLY, YEARLY AND NOW THEY WANT TO ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL SEWER TAX TO ALL REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS TO THEIR ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX BILLS AND CONTINUE ALL THE INCREASES, THIS WILL HURT POOR./ELDERLY/DISABLED AS MYSELF AND TO VETERAN'S WHO ARE ON SEVERAL VA

PROPERTY TAX PROGRAMS, WHICH WILL ALTER VET'S TAX BILLS AS WELL AS ALL RESIDENTS UNFAIRLY.

SANDRA MCKEE

P/S I THINK REDWOOD CITY HALL WANTS TO DO A VIRTUAL( SEWER TAX ADD ON TO RESIDENTS PROPERTY TAX BILLS ) MEETING ON TAXING ALL RESIDENTS POOR./ELDERLY/DISABLED AND VETS ALONG WITH THE REAL REAL RICH.

From: sandra mckee <

To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Barbara Liedtke <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>

From: FISCAL_TaxMaster <[email protected]> To: sandra mckee

(5)

Good morning. Thank you for contacting our office. The Tax Collectors office does not set up these fees.

Kathy Nunes

Property Tax Division Manager San Mateo County

[email protected] (650) 363-4980

Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 2:13 AM

To: GRP-City Council <[email protected]>; MGR-Deanna La Croix <[email protected]>;

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Cc: [email protected]; Mark Toney <[email protected]>; Council-Diane Howard <[email protected]>; Carole Groom

<[email protected]>; Warren Slocum <[email protected]>; FISCAL_TaxMaster <[email protected]>; CARE_ASR_AssessorEmail <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: 6/1/21-CLASS ACTION PROTEST ON SEWER/PROPERTY TAX TO REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of San Mateo County. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

CLASS ACTION PROTEST LETTER TO CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,

ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND OTHER RESIDENTS I AM EMAILING SEVERAL AGENCIES TO HELP PREVENT THE CITY OF REDWOOD

CITY FROM ONE MORE UNFAIR FINANCIAL INCREASE TO THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS, POOR, DISABLED, SENIOR AND VETERAN'S NOW, IN A TERRIBLE

PREDICAMENT WITH THE CITY NOW TRYING TO GET MORE WATER/SEWAGE/GARBAGE REVENUE ILLEGALLY BY NOW TRYING TO BILL THE PROPERTY TAX OF ALL SAN MATEO COUNTY RESIDENTS , IN THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY FOR MONEY , EVEN VETERAN'S NOW, WHO ARE ON THE DISABILITY VETERAN'S WAIVER REDUCTIN PROGRAM. YOU FOLKS ARE REAL GOLD DIGGERS AND DON'T HAVE ANY MORAL CONSCIOUS TO KEEP BILLING AND BILLING AND BILLING AND BILLING THE POOR LIKE THE RICH FOR YOUR GREED. REDWOOD CITY IS A RICH , RICH CITY HALL WHO DOES NOT NEED TO DO ANY MORE CRIMINAL GOLDDIGGING AND NOW TO VETERAN'S TOO.

(6)

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, MY FATHER WAS A 100% DISABLED WORLD WAR 2 VETERAN AND I AM ON THE VA HELPLESS CHILD PROGRAM WHICH MEANS I GET SMALL VA SUPPORT PENSION CAUSE I HAVE BEEN DISABLED PRIOR TO 18 YEARS OF AGE, WHICH ALSO

,MAKES ME LEGALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE DISABLED VA PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO , STATE OF CALIF. IT HAS BEEN A LONG ROAD FOR JUSTICE FOR ME ON THE VA TAX EXEMPTION , TOO. BUT I AM STILL WORKING ON IT, CAUSE THE

CALIFORNIA VA LAW STATES THAT ANY CHILD DISABLED UNDER THE LAW PRIOR TO 18 OR WHO HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY MD'S AND THE FEDERAL VA THAT ANY PERSON WHO WAS RETROACTIVELY DISABLED FROM CHILDHOOD AND IS ON THE HELPLESS CHILD PROGRAM IS ELIGILBLE TO CONTINUE THE DECEASED VETERAN'S VA EXEMPTION IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR WHICH I AM WRONGFULLY DENIED THIS BENEFIT TOO, UNTIL THE CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUILIZATION LEGAL DEPT AND OTHER AGENCIES STEP IN FOR JUSTICE.

THUS, THE PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX, INCREASE FOR THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY TO TAX RESIDENTS' PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR MORE MONEY IS VERY , VERY WRONG AND DISRESPECTFUL. SHAME ON THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY. WARREN SLOCUM , MY

COUNTY SUPERVISER WHO IS ALSO, A VETERAN WOULD BE VERY UNHAPPY TO SEE THIS HAPPEN TO POOR VETS THAT CAN HARDLY PAY PROPERTY TAX AS IT IS IN THIS COUNTY.

SO, I AM ASKING THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT OF REDWOOD CITY AND THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA TO PROHIBIT THIS TAX FOR REDWOOD CITY'S GREED ON ONE MORE BILLING ON WATER/SEWER /GARBAGE RATES TO STOP. .

SANDRA MCKEE SENIOR CITIZEN

REDWOOD CITY RESIDENT

(7)

From: Terri Matsakis

Subject: I am Opposed to a change in how sewer is billed

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear City Council, I am writing to oppose the proposed change to bill how sewer rates are billed. I understand the proposal is to add the cost of sewer services to property taxes. I am opposed to this. If you are late in paying the property taxes or if the check goes missing in the mail, the fees are much more than if you are late paying monthly water/sewer payments. Since you are not allowed to pay property taxes monthly nor are you allowed to overpay on your property taxes the previous year, there is no way to minimize the risk of late payments. Furthermore, the Assessor's office wants the entire amount sent in a single payment, so I can't break the payment into chunks to be prescheduled and paid through my billpayer which allows a maximum $10K payment. This means either going in person or sending a check by mail which has the risk of getting lost, but I cannot preschedule an automatic payment by billpayer. For others who might still be able to enter the payment in their billpayer because their amount is lower, it might prevent them from reliably paying their taxes through automatically scheduled payments. Water/Sewer account name: Terri Matsakis Parcel affected: Nicholas and Theresa Matsakis Redwood City, CA 94061 APN: 069271050 Terri Matsakis

(8)

From: c sconzert

Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 9:57 AM

Subject: NO on sewer bill rolling to Property Tax collection

Categories: Blue Category

I emphatically object to rolling the sewer bill over to the tax rolls. This proposal has huge negative ramifications for homeowners that jeopardize their homeownership.

Meanwhile the City has not provided a compelling case on why this is being proposed:

> It does not decrease the costs of the billing process since they will continue to bill bi-monthly for water and trash with an automated system.

> It does not decrease the cost for collection of non-payment since they will still have to collect for water and trash.

> It does not provide transparency as to the financials of this change to the DPW

> It does push invoicing for sewer to the County, what is their fee to add this function? > What are the County's policies and processes for customer disputes, inquiries, and default?

> At what point in any process is the customer's property exposed to lien or worse for matters regarding a utility bill on their property tax?

~~c

(9)

From: annette parker

Subject: Oppose Sewer Charge on Property Tax Bill

Hi: Just wanted to share that as a long time homeowner in RC, I oppose adding sewer charge onto my property tax bill. Annette Parker

(10)

From: Joseph Trefz

Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 11:32 PM

Subject: Opposed to Sewer Service charges on property tax bill

Hello,

I am opposed to the proposed addition of sewer service charges to our property tax bill. Additionally, I am in favor of an audit of the current charges respective to the annual increase in sewer service charges.

Regards, Joe Trefz

(11)

From: sandra mckee

Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 2:13 AM

To: GRP-City Council; MGR-Deanna La Croix; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Cc: [email protected]; Mark Toney; Council-Diane Howard; Carole Groom; Warren Slocum; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: 6/1/21-CLASS ACTION PROTEST ON SEWER/PROPERTY TAX TO REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS

CLASS ACTION PROTEST LETTER TO CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,

ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND OTHER RESIDENTS I AM EMAILING SEVERAL AGENCIES TO HELP PREVENT THE CITY OF REDWOOD

CITY FROM ONE MORE UNFAIR FINANCIAL INCREASE TO THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS, POOR, DISABLED, SENIOR AND VETERAN'S NOW, IN A TERRIBLE PREDICAMENT WITH THE CITY NOW TRYING TO GET MORE WATER/SEWAGE/GARBAGE REVENUE

ILLEGALLY BY NOW TRYING TO BILL THE PROPERTY TAX OF ALL SAN MATEO COUNTY RESIDENTS , IN THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY FOR MONEY , EVEN VETERAN'S NOW, WHO ARE ON THE DISABILITY VETERAN'S WAIVER REDUCTIN PROGRAM. YOU FOLKS ARE REAL GOLD DIGGERS AND DON'T HAVE ANY MORAL CONSCIOUS TO KEEP BILLING AND BILLING AND BILLING AND BILLING THE POOR LIKE THE RICH FOR YOUR GREED. REDWOOD CITY IS A RICH , RICH CITY HALL WHO DOES NOT NEED TO DO ANY MORE CRIMINAL GOLDDIGGING AND NOW TO VETERAN'S TOO.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, MY FATHER WAS A 100% DISABLED WORLD WAR 2 VETERAN AND I AM ON THE VA HELPLESS CHILD PROGRAM WHICH MEANS I GET SMALL VA SUPPORT

PENSION CAUSE I HAVE BEEN DISABLED PRIOR TO 18 YEARS OF AGE, WHICH ALSO ,MAKES ME LEGALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE DISABLED VA PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO , STATE OF CALIF. IT HAS BEEN A LONG ROAD FOR JUSTICE FOR ME ON THE VA TAX EXEMPTION , TOO. BUT I AM STILL WORKING ON IT, CAUSE THE CALIFORNIA VA LAW STATES THAT ANY CHILD DISABLED UNDER THE LAW PRIOR TO 18 OR WHO HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY MD'S AND THE FEDERAL VA THAT ANY PERSON WHO WAS RETROACTIVELY DISABLED FROM CHILDHOOD AND IS ON THE HELPLESS CHILD PROGRAM IS ELIGILBLE TO CONTINUE THE DECEASED VETERAN'S VA EXEMPTION IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR WHICH I AM WRONGFULLY DENIED THIS BENEFIT TOO, UNTIL THE CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUILIZATION LEGAL DEPT AND OTHER AGENCIES STEP IN FOR JUSTICE.

THUS, THE PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX, INCREASE FOR THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY TO TAX RESIDENTS' PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR MORE MONEY IS VERY , VERY WRONG AND

(12)

(13)

From: Cris <

Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 1:52 PM

Subject: Agenda 8A

Hello,

I am writing to officially protest the collection of sewer service charges on the tax roll. I am a landlord and this will simply cause rents to increase for my tenants.

-- Thanks Cris

(14)

From: Sue Story

Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2021 8:29 PM

Subject: Collecting Sewer Fees on The Tax Roll

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Council Members, I am writing to oppose the proposal to begin collecting sewer fees on the tax roll. I am the owner, resident and customer of record of . This change serves as a disadvantage to myself and other seniors who would have a larger than necessary payment on top of regular property taxes and bonds twice a year. I can handle six installments which are less of a burden than the larger twice yearly payment. Expecting the majority of property owners to respond to your notice in writing and or via Zoom was sure to not get the majority to respond. Could this proposal be more sensitive to the tax payers in a ballot format to harvest a true reflection of opinion? Thank You, Susan Story Sent from my iPad

(15)

From: Liane Redford

Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 1:58 AM

Cc:

Collecting Sewer Service Fees Through the Tax Roll

Dear Council Members,

I read the information on

redwoodcity.org

about collecting sewer service fees through the tax

roll. I appreciate information being provided. However, I didn’t find the quantitative

information necessary to substantiate the benefits claimed. I don’t think all of the facets of

this issue have yet been examined. It’s not a trivial issue. I don’t want you to change our

sewer service fees billing.

Please let me know the answers to the following questions. I’ll be listening to the public

hearing Monday June 14 in case you address these—on air. Of course I’ll still be looking to

receive your response to this email.

1) How much money is the city losing using the current billing method? This is the primary

information needed to evaluate your request to change the billing process. The reason

given is to guarantee all service fees are collected. To, “

plan any future expenditures

required to maintain the City’s sewer collections system, including any long‐term debt

obligations

.” (

redwoodcity.org

—FAQs). But, I did not find data that shows how much

money is being lost. This data, of course, must be an input to the decision process

before approving the change.

2) Is the dollar amount, lost in unpaid sewer fees, substantial enough to change the city’s

bond rating? How are you validating this claim, “

the potential to increase the City’s

bond rating

.” (

redwoodcity.org

—FAQs).

The amount needs to be large enough to make

an impact. Guaranteed or not, a small dollar amount isn’t enough of a reason to make

such a large change. But there’s no data on the website showing the amount in

question. The data, of course, must be an input to the decision process before

approving the change.

3) The FAQ said the change, “allows staff to

project revenue with more accuracy

.”

(

redwoodcity.org

—FAQs).

Staff can do this by taking “fees due”, minus “unpaid” fees

and doing a projection. True, there is one more calculation in the formula. Is the

(16)

difference so substantial that only guaranteed revenue will produce an acceptable

forecast? I can understand how using a defined number for each year’s fee is easier.

But is it worth the impact on the taxpayers? A statement, supported by evidence, is

needed explaining how this will substantially improve fee revenue forecasting. What if

this hugely impactful change does not improve the forecast to any appreciable

amount? The data, of course, must be an input to the decision process before

approving the change.

4) What happens if I don’t pay the sewer fee part of my tax bill? Can my wages be

garnished? Can the County put a lien on my house? Can this be a reason for my taxes

to be audited? Will my tax bill be considered delinquent? Will there be penalties and

fees assessed for non‐payment of sewer service fees?

The answers to these questions

(item #4) must be provided before the Council moves any further on this

proposal. The taxpayers need to know the consequences of making this change

before it is approved.

5) The FAQ said the, “

proposed change will minimize rate increases.”

(

redwoodcity.org

—

FAQs).

Granted, the verbiage was “hope”, but I assume that was the writer’s stylistic

description. It would take serious, expert regression analysis to claim this. It would be a

nice benefit. But, it isn’t existent and should not be claimed as part of a factual

evaluation. It’s misleading to taxpayers trying to evaluate the benefits and detriments

of the issue.

6) The billing change will take over two years to accomplish. That sounds expensive and

complicated. How was two years determined? A complex project that requires

unwilling taxpayers to cooperate in a way that has no benefits for them is only

guess. It’s probably more like four years and twice the cost. The Bartle Wells

Associates, Sewer Financial Plan & Rate Update, you provided states in Section 1.6.2,

“the city will use sewer service rate increases to pay the cost of the new utility billing

system.” What is the projected cost of the new utility billing system? It sounds like a lot

more than we’ll just be billed on our tax notice instead of directly by the city. If you

have not estimated this billing system, you cannot approve this change. If it has been

made, it needs to be made public before approving this change.

7) I am concerned that I will not receive timely information about the cost of my sewer

service. Fees are to increase at least every year. Sending out notices has been

mentioned as sufficient notification. I receive a lot of mail and emails. I don’t read

everything that is sent to me. I do read what is in my billing notice. I don’t hunt through

websites, Facebook, or other passive online information sources. Sending a notice or

posting information on a website doesn’t work. It’s not an effective way to

communicate. Like most people, I do my financials monthly: paycheck, mortgage,

(17)

phone bill, etc. I can’t manage my budget based upon receiving a large, unknown,

changing, lump sum of six months’ fees in my tax bill.

8) There have been many protests to this billing change from the taxpayers of Redwood

City. These people have described the real disruption and costs this change will bring to

them. Looking at the information provided, this change has a huge, negative impact. It

does not provide the benefits claimed in the website FAQs. It’s disruptive to monthly

home budgeting. Some taxpayers will likely have financial losses. There is certain to be

a large impact on elderly and fixed‐income taxpayers. This proposal has not yet been

sufficiently considered. Or, the data to properly consider the proposal hasn’t yet been

provided. I’m looking for the data‐driven answers to evaluate whether or not there is

more benefit than cost in time, money, and taxpayer burden. Taxpayer burden (and

benefit) being the primary concern for us all. It will take considerable time, effort and

cost to implement the billing change. Except—it’s easier to forecast when you have a

plug‐in number. The benefits described are just ideas.

When examined, the plan has no evidence of helping taxpayers, but it is immediately apparent

the problems it will cause. It’s not worth it. Unless new, more information is provided, this

proposal hasn’t been objectively considered. I don’t want the Council to approve this

change. What is the payback for all the time, expense, inconvenience, and truly, substantial

hardship for landlords, elderly, fixed income, and other citizens? There isn’t a demonstrated

benefit. Add on top of that, forcing taxpayers into this position with the pandemic not over,

the drought, inflation doubling prices, and people out of work. Is now a good time to put

more pressure on? No. Now is not the time to unnecessarily weigh down taxpayers with more

problems.

Liane Redford

Parcel #095‐300‐390

Redwood City, CA 94065

[email protected]

(18)

From: CHRIS OR MARY JENSEN

Subject: Proposed change un sewage billing

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Council, As a retired individual, I would find it difficult to be billed twice a year in addition to my property taxes for my sewer services. Please do NOT change the current billing method of my sewer fees. Maryfrances Jensen Redwood City Sent from my iPad

(19)

From: Bonnie WOlf <

Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 10:37 AM

To: PWS-Admin Support

Cc: GRP-City Council; Gottesman Cell/home

Subject: Proposed Resolution Authorizing Collection of Sewer Charges on Tax Roll

Categories: Red Category

PWS and RWS City Council members:

Our parcel, 095-143-360 is affected by this proposed Sewer Charges resolution.

I am writing to protest collecting sewer charges on the tax roll. I understand the benefits to budgeting and fiscal responsibility for the city.

However, I am very uncomfortable with the disclosures made about the proposed plan to the public - it is severely lacking in details with clear and plain language explaining its effect. I am very

uncomfortable with it and so I assume there is information or conclusions that you don't necessarily want to point out to homeowners because it will not be appealing to the homeowners.

I don't like the idea of paying sewer charges in one (or two) lump sums with the property tax bill. For my financial planning, I prefer paying in installments bi-monthly as we have been doing. I am

surmising that putting it on the tax rolls means I am paying the year's sewer charges in advance and essentially pre-funding expenses for the city. I object to this.

Also, putting it on the tax rolls when it's not tax deductible is not right. It is not and should not be a payment secured by a tax lien. It's a utility payment. Keep it that way. Its not deductible and its shouldn't be on the property tax bill.

Further, putting it on the tax bill makes it looks like property taxes have increased when you just look at the bottom line (which is what most people do). It is going to have a chilling effect on when the school districts and community colleges try to pass another parcel tax or bond. People won't want to increase their tax bill bottom line. And these entities don't have any other way to get the public funding they need.

I also assume that you are NOT applying this to all single family residences in RWC, why else would you include a list of parcel numbers instead of saying ALL residential parcels will see the charge on their tax rolls? How did you select the APNs? Is it based on the taxable value of the parcel? Do you only select parcels at a certain threshold taxable value? Was it based on only certain neighborhoods in RWC?

I know you are having a public meeting to discuss. But not everyone has time to sit through a City Council public meeting and try to piece through all the information you might provide and understand its implications for them.

(20)

Please present a public disclosure in clear and plain, understandable English, that will explain the nuances of this plan and the effect on the financial out-of-pocket costs and timing to the homeowners - for example, if they sell their home. Please send it to everyone through the mail like you did your notice of public hearing. Don't bury it somewhere in an FAQ on your website.

Thanks for you time and considering our comments,

Bonnie Wolf and Michael Gottesman, RWC residents since 1999.

(21)

From: Maggie Baxter

Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 6:37 AM

Subject: Proposed Resolution on Authorizing the Collection of Sewer Service Charges on the Tax Roll

Council Members:

I am writing to voice my objections to the proposed change in the collection of sewer fees. I do not see this as a benefit to residents and it may be burdensome to those individuals who are on a fixed income.

The customer of record for my utility bill is listed as "Eric Pearsn (should be Pearson)" and the address for our service is Street.

I will be dialing in to the meeting on the 14th to listen to the debate on this matter. Best Regards,

(22)

From: Tina Yang

Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 12:34 AM

Cc: PWS-Terence Kyaw; PWS-Aaron Nair

Subject: Protest against the Proposed Resolution Authorizing the Collection of Sewer Service Charges on the Tax Roll

Attachments: Re: Proposed Resolution Authorizing the Collection of Sewer Service Charges on the Tax Roll.eml

(i) Protest against the Proposed Resolution Authorizing the Collection of Sewer Service Charges

on the Tax Roll

The proposed resolution removes homeowners’ rights to unsubscribe sewer service which is

dependent on and inseparable from the water service.

Homeowners have the rights to unsubscribe any property related services in cases such as 1)

when the property is not in use (unoccupied) and 2) when the property is let, in which case, the

right of “use” of the property is contractually transferred to the tenant who becomes the account

owner of said services. Homeowners are not liable for the service charges that are not incurred

by them, nor are they obligated to collect such charges on behalf of any service provider.

Furthermore, the proposed resolution targeting only one dwelling unit customers at this time is

highly discriminatory regardless of whether it is to be applied to all customers in the future.

Attached are email exchanges between a PWS representative and myself regarding my concerns

and objections.

(ii) Record Owner

Tina Yang

(iii) Parcel number

095-300-880

(23)

From: Carol

Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 9:48 PM

Subject: protest of adding sewer charges to property tax bill

To the Redwood City City Council.

Please let it be known that i protest the addition of the bimonthly sewer rates to the property tax bill.

I am a retired person on a fixed income and that would definitely be a hardship to add another $1025.28 to the property tax bill.

For a rental situation, it should be the tenants responsibility to pay the sewer fees on a bi-monthly basis along with water and garbage fees, should a homeowner decide to rent the property. The property tax would of course be paid by the owner

Please do not change the present collection of the sewer collection fees. i am the owner of property concerned; Carol A. Coop

- Parcel # 058-364-040 Lot 4 Block 10 Westwood terrace Thank you for your consideration in this matter Please consider my protest

(24)

From: Betty Fellows

Subject: Protest of adding Sewer fees to property tax

This is a copy of the protest I've mailed. Sewer Service Charges

City Clerk

City of Redwood City, 1017 Middlefield Road Redwood City, CA 94063

June 5, 2021

To Whom it May Concern,

I strongly protest the change from paying my bill every other month to having it added to my property tax. That change would make paying my property taxes very difficult and could cause me to lose my home. It seems to me that you’ve not taken into consideration the financial difficulty that this will impose on people living on fixed incomes such as Social Security!

I live on Social Security. After Medicare and taxes I get $1543 a month. Saving money is hard and the next emergency takes whatever savings I have. I manage to pay the sewer bill every other month but even without that bill, being able to save that money to pay for the extra fees on the property taxes would be iffy.

If you do make this change and risk my home, I will still need statements every other month. Thank you, Betty Fellows Redwood City, CA 94061 Acct. Number: 1001258-00 Parcel Number: 059-034-230

(25)

m m mm V

Betty Fellows

Platinum Plus Results

(26)

From: Ian Maynard <

To: GRP-City Council; Tamara Sciamanna

Subject: Protest of proposed change to collection of sewer service fees

I am unable to attend your proposed Zoom call on June 14th. Please consider this my written formal statement of protest against the proposed change to move city sewer charges from bi‐monthly direct billing to being included on the property tax. Utilities always have been and always should be paid as incurred. Adding to already horrendous 'lump sum' obligations such as annual property tax has only negative impact to the homeowner. Regards, Ian Maynard Homeowner and resident (co‐submitted with Tamara Sciamanna, also addressed here) of: Redwood City, CA 94062 [email protected]

(27)

From: DONNA CZARNECKI

To: Council-Diane Howard; Council-Giselle Hale; Council-Alicia Aguirre; Council-Lissette Espinoza-Garnica; Council-Jeff Gee; Council-Diana Reddy; Council-Michael Smith; GRP-City Council

Subject: Protesting on RWC's Plan to Add Sewer Fees to Property Tax Bills

To: Mayor Howard, Vice Mayor Hale, and Council Members, 1. Protest Letter against adding Sewer Fees to Property Tax Bill

This is my protest to your pushing higher tax payments on City Residents without our knowledge, or input, as in Community Out Reach. Don't tell me that restructuring how I have to make a combined Property Tax and Sewer Payment is going to be the same for me. It's also a waste of paper, one more sheet in the property tax envelope...I don't usually keep Utility records. You don't pay my fed/state taxes, nor do you have poor health, or a single Senior's fixed income and others. I would rather pay the sewer fee a little at a time. You're changing my financial payment time table, property taxes paid for tax purposes, and resulting amounts w/o my consent. I'm 72 and this is a gray area. With the short notice, I really didn't have time to discuss it with my tax man. 2. Owner/Assessed To: Czarnecki, Donna M Redwood City, CA 94061-1902 3. Parcel Number 058-361-110

The Zoom notice was the first I've heard about this. I do not have a Facebook Account, and yes, I don't trust the site. Why wasn't it posted on Nextdoor? I get lots of post cards...recalls, advertisements and Fed Court litigation settlements. A City letter would have been read and a Nextdoor post would have been noticed.

This may not be good for older people with mortgages, no family and a fixed income. There should have been time to discuss the details.

Very unsettling at best. Donna Czarnecki

(28)

From: Julie Pardini

Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 11:44 AM

Subject: PUBLIC HEARING, ITEM 8A

Categories: Yellow Category

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. June 14, 2021 Re: Public Hearing, Item 8A Mayor Diane Howard, Vice Mayor Giselle Hale, Council Members: I am opposed to the inclusion of sewer fee billing on the Property Tax Rolls. As reasons given for the proposed change, The Staff Report states: STAFF: “…staff recommend gradually transitioning to this collection method BECAUSE it will provide a reliable revenue stream and improve staff’s ability to make more accurate budget projections when planning for the future of wastewater operations.” MY COMMENT: There is a reliable revenue stream now. That won’t change. FREQUENCY of how OFTEN IT IS COLLECTED doesn’t affect THE RELIABILITY OF THE REVENUE STREAM. IT IS WHAT IT IS. STAFF: “This collection method will also increase the efficiency of the process for collecting charges, as there will be a reduction in the number of recurring transactions managed by staff.” MY COMMENT: Again: the process certainly is efficient, both ways: no matter whether it is billed every 2 months or bi‐ annually: WHAT IS DUE, IS DUE. The reasons given for instituting this change seem nebulous. HOWEVER, IF IT IS MORE COST EFFICIENT TO COLLECT SEWER CHARGES ON A BI‐ANNUAL BASIS, THEN THE CITY COULD BILL IT THAT WAY, (as a City of Redwood City charge, Department of Public Works), WITHOUT ATTACHING IT TO THE COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR ROLLS. An “assessment” (tax rolls) is based on property valuation.

(29)

There is a difference. And although other cities have combined the two on the Tax Assessor Rolls. I’m not certain it should be that way. And that’s not even addressing the annual charge the City will have to pay the County for billing Redwood City residents. The Protest Procedure and the Notification Period is short, considering the tens of thousands of people involved. Last, the reasons stated in the Staff Report are not convincing nor has the premise been validated. At the end of a prolonged and strenuous period of time (COVID) during which people have had to endure massive change and adjustment—promoting and providing stability everywhere possible would be a welcomed relief. Very truly, Julie Pardini A Redwood City resident and property owner. Sent from my iPhone

(30)

(31)

(32)

CLK-Yessika Dominguez From:

Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 3 50 PM

Subject: Please do not approve the attachment of sewer rates to the property tax

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi … a neighbor came by today and explained to us what she learned when speaking with a City employee on the rational for the change in billing for sewer rates from being part of the City utilities bill to the property tax bill. She explained that one of the reasons for this is that it gives the City a better bond rating. It would also move the payments from every other month to twice a year. Now that I understand the details Linda and I are opposed to this change. The reason for this is that the amount billed on the two payments will go higher. I do not have faith that people will put away the money for these expenses and will be asking the City or other government agency for relief when they find that they cannot pay the bill. We do not want government to get larger nor our taxes higher to pay for things like this. So please leave it as it is. Or find a way for residents to go on a bi‐monthly payment plan for these expenses. Kenneth L. Dulaney Redwood City, CA 94062

(33)

From: Liat Perlman

Subject: Sewer charges

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Can someone please explain WHY you want to make a change in billing to be part of taxes? I’m opposed as this shifts a usage item into tax item and shifts burden to landlords rather than tenants. I’m opposed as this appears less transparent. Is there a cost savings to the city? After all, you will still need to do the billing function for water. Regards, Liat Liat Perlman Via iPhone Sent from my iPhone

(34)

From: Cynthia Pettinelli

Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 3:53 PM

Subject: Sewer fees

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi, Cynthia and Dennis Pettinelli oppose the billing of sewer use on the tax bill. We favor leaving it as it is with the water and garbage billing. Cynthia Pettinelli Sent from my iPhone

(35)

From: PWS-Jaime Perez

Cc: PWS-Admin Support

Subject: FW: Formal Protest to Proposed Collection of Sewer Charges on Tax Roll

Jaime Perez Administrative Clerk I, Public Works Services Department City of Redwood City Phone: (650) 780‐5970 E‐mail:[email protected] www.redwoodcity.org From: Adrian Caponera Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 11:37 AM To: GRP‐City Council <[email protected]> Cc: PWS‐Aaron Nair <[email protected]>; PWS‐Admin Support <PWS‐[email protected]> Subject: Formal Protest to Proposed Collection of Sewer Charges on Tax Roll

Hello Redwood City City Council and Public Works Department,

I formally protest against the proposed change to how sewer charges are collected. Owner of Property/Customer of Record: Adrian Caponera

Parcel # 058434220 at service address Redwood City, CA 94061

Firstly, collecting sewer charges as part of the annual tax roll will lead to payments that need to be reimbursed and negotiated between buyer and seller when homeowners sell their property. Second, for homeowners that rent their property out, itemizing an annual sewer charge out of the tax bill to then amortize out to the tenants on a monthly basis will be onerous.

Lastly, this parcel number in question has a permitted ADU on it. Two dwelling units total on this parcel, thus exempt from this proposal. Please remove Parcel # 058434220 from this collection scheme if it passes.

(36)

(37)

From: DONNA CZARNECKI

To: Council-Diane Howard; Council-Giselle Hale; Council-Alicia Aguirre; Council-Lissette Espinoza-Garnica; Council-Jeff Gee; Council-Diana Reddy; Council-Michael Smith; GRP-City Council

Subject: Protesting on RWC's Plan to Add Sewer Fees to Property Tax Bills

To: Mayor Howard, Vice Mayor Hale, and Council Members, 1. Protest Letter against adding Sewer Fees to Property Tax Bill

This is my protest to your pushing higher tax payments on City Residents without our knowledge, or input, as in Community Out Reach. Don't tell me that restructuring how I have to make a combined Property Tax and Sewer Payment is going to be the same for me. It's also a waste of paper, one more sheet in the property tax envelope...I don't usually keep Utility records. You don't pay my fed/state taxes, nor do you have poor health, or a single Senior's fixed income and others. I would rather pay the sewer fee a little at a time. You're changing my financial payment time table, property taxes paid for tax purposes, and resulting amounts w/o my consent. I'm 72 and this is a gray area. With the short notice, I really didn't have time to discuss it with my tax man. 2. Owner/Assessed To: Czarnecki, Donna M Redwood City, CA 94061-1902 3. Parcel Number 058-361-110

The Zoom notice was the first I've heard about this. I do not have a Facebook Account, and yes, I don't trust the site. Why wasn't it posted on Nextdoor? I get lots of post cards...recalls, advertisements and Fed Court litigation settlements. A City letter would have been read and a Nextdoor post would have been noticed.

This may not be good for older people with mortgages, no family and a fixed income. There should have been time to discuss the details.

Very unsettling at best. Donna Czarnecki

(38)

From: jenny wang

Subject: Sewage bill on annual SM Tax bill

Dear Mayor Howard and Redwood City Council Members,

Please do not put sewer bills to the annual San Mateo County taxes. I'm a Redwood Shores Resident. Paying the annual high taxes each year is already a big burden for me and great stress too. Please do not add sewage cost to the tax bill to make it even higher. Please vote no on this change! If you cannot put an end to this change, please consider putting up for a vote on the November ballot so people have a chance to make their choice.

Thanks and Regards, Jenny Wang

(39)

From: Council-Diane Howard

To: Pat Willard

Cc: GRP-City Council; PWS-Terence Kyaw; PWS-Aaron Nair

Subject: RE: "If the Council finds that...the owners of a majority of the affected parcels..."

Dear Pat, On behalf of the City Council, thank you for writing to express your thoughts about the cost of sewage services. Each Councilmember has received your comments and they will be considered when the City Council discusses this item at its meeting on June 14, 2021 In Community Spirit, Diane Howard Redwood City Mayor From: Pat Willard Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:53 PM To: MGR‐Melissa Stevenson Diaz <[email protected]>; Council‐Diane Howard <[email protected]>; Council‐Giselle Hale <[email protected]> Cc: FIN‐Michelle Flaherty <[email protected]>; MGR‐Briana Evans <[email protected]>; Council‐Diane Howard <[email protected]>; Council‐Giselle Hale <[email protected]>; Redwood City for Racial Equity <rwc‐community‐for‐fair‐[email protected]>; GRP‐City Council <[email protected]> Subject: "If the Council finds that...the owners of a majority of the affected parcels..."

Ms. City Manager, Mayor of Redwood City, Vice-Mayor, and City Council,

I found while getting the mail from my mailbox today an announcement sent to all of we parcel owners in Redwood City an invitation to speak at a hearing on June 14th about having the cost of sewage services normally paid every 2 months instead collected in a database for a year by the City, and then the sum total added and paid to the (quote) "same persons, and at the same time as, together with and separately from, it's general taxes." A little further on it states that if a "majority of the affected parcel owners object" this resolution will not be adopted.

Two points:

1. By "same person, at the same time, together with it's general taxes" I presume what you mean to say is that the sewage bill is added to property taxes. Come out and say it! Be clear about from whom, and when, this bill will come do. And have us proper owners think about what this income tax bill will look like. (And Reimagine City Government Transparency.)

(40)

3. "If a majority of the parcel owners" able to attend the meeting and don't mind standing in a virtual line for an opportunity to speak....uh, that is not democracy. Imagine a city resolution on an election ballot, one sent only to real property owners. That way, no one has to wait in line on zoom, hoping to be heard clearly, called upon using mispronounced names, assuming all said property owners are fluent in English. You get my point. Reimagine racial equity in everything we do.

4. Budget study session. The late at night budget study session.

I apologize for sending another email in the same 3-day weekend. But it is Monday, after all. And the cost of living never sleeps. Nor do the wheels of government.

The loyal opposition, Pat Willard

(41)

To:

GRP-City Council; Council-Diane Howard; PWS-Terence Kyaw

Subject: RE: No, please do not put the Sewage bill on SM Tax Bill

Dear Ms. Aden, On behalf of the City Council, thank you for writing to express your thoughts about the Sewer Service Charges on the Property Tax Bill. Each Councilmember has received your comments and they will be considered when the City Council discusses this item at its meeting tonight. There will be a thorough presentation by our Public Works Staff tonight with an opportunity to ask additional questions both by our Council and the Public. Thank you for your interest and your thoughts on this important matter. It will certainly be taken into consideration. In Community Spirit, Diane Howard Mayor of Redwood City (650) 208‐4774 From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 1:11 PM To: GRP‐City Council <[email protected]>; Subject: No, please do not put the Sewage bill on SM Tax Bill

Diane Howard, Mayor City of Redwood City Middlefield Road

Redwood City, California

RE: Sewage bill on County taxes June 14, 2021

Changing our sewer bill to the annual San Mateo County taxes should NOT be done. Instead of getting the bill every 2 months distributing the payment over the year and we can see how our rates are affected, it will be included in a lump sum on the County Tax bill. For many homeowners, just paying the annual high taxes are difficult. This will make that hardship worse. Please do not add sewage cost to tax bill to make it higher.

I am totally against this idea. I am not sure why you are considering this move. If it is to give renters, rent relief so they do not pay the sewage bill, but shift that cost in many cases to the landlord, the city council is deciding to redistribute money payment and give out free sewage services to renters. All residents should pay for their own sewage bill whether

(42)

they rent or own. Everything including water, garbage, sewage, food and taxes are increasing way to fast. I suggest trying to keep the sewage cost down and be good stewards in spending the hard-earned money of the citizens of Redwood City. It is undue stress for many to pay in a bulk sum. Please vote no!

Even though RWC did send out a card stating this situation, I feel that many people in RWC don't even understand this is being considered. Therefore, this should be put up for a vote on the November ballot for RWC so every voting member of RWC will get a chance to give their input. Pros and Cons can be put down for all to see.

Please do not pass this item. Reconsider. Either vote NO or put it up for a vote on the November Ballot so people who pay taxes in Redwood City get a say. This affects everyone, not just the few vocal people at the council meetings. This would be a cautious and responsible thing to do and could prevent future lawsuits to the city.

Thank you,

(43)

From: Jean Tarantino

Subject: re: Proposed resolution authorizing the collection of sewer service charges on tax roll

Council,

I am stating my objection and protest to the proposed resolution authorizing the collection of sewer service charges on the tax roll. This is a utility payment and as such, does not belong on the tax roll. I see no savings to the city as water and garbage will still be billed bi-monthly. It also would make budgeting to pay the sewer charge more difficult. I believe it would only make it easier for the council to pass along sewer rate hikes to the residents of Redwood City,

.

Thank you. Jean Tarantino Redwood City Parcel # 058-212-130

(44)

To: Jim Luna

Cc: GRP-City Council; Council-Diane Howard

Subject: RE: STOP THE MADNESS - NO on Sewer Fees to Property Tax Bill

Dear Mr. Luna, On behalf of the City Council, thank you for writing to express your thoughts about Sewer Service Charges on Property Tax Bill. Each Councilmember has received your comments and they will be considered when the City Council discusses this item at its meeting tonight. Thank you for your interest and your comments on this important matter. In Community Spirit, Diane Howard Mayor of Redwood City (650) 208‐4774 From: Jim Luna Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 11:34 AM To: GRP‐City Council <[email protected]> Subject: STOP THE MADNESS ‐ NO on Sewer Fees to Property Tax Bill

Council Members:

Do NOT add sewer fees to property tax bill.

Not only will this change add a tremendous liability with late penalties and fees, it places a significant burden on working families.

It also sets a dangerous precedent moving forward on the ability of any sitting City Council to add other items to the property tax bill at their discretion - what's next - garbage? street repairs? homeless and rental subsidies?

Much like our founding fathers established a separation of church and state, the same applies to consumption of utilities and property

taxation.

(45)

(46)

From: jenny wang

Subject: Sewage bill on annual SM Tax bill

Please do not put sewer bills to the annual San Mateo County taxes. I'm a Redwood Shores Resident. Paying the annual high taxes each year is already a big burden for me and great stress too. Please do not add sewage cost to the tax bill to make it even higher. Please vote no on this change! If you cannot put an end to this change, please consider putting up for a vote on the November ballot so people have a chance to make their choice.

Thanks and Regards, Jenny Wang

(47)

From: Susan Bentley

Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:57 PM

Subject: Sewer Billing Changes

Dear Council Members ,

As a homeowner & resident for 45 years , I’ve paid water, sewer & garage charges every other month since 1976.

I know that other cities in our county pay these charges separately monthly or in their property taxes.

As a single retired woman I’ve sent an advanced payment monthly to the city in order to fit into my budget . If you start charging the sewer cost twice a year it’ll mean up to a combined total of $1000 for me on on my limited budget .

Proposition 13 has been a blessing over the years .

I fear that sewer charges can be increased easily when included In property taxes .

I respectfully request to leave the bi-monthly billing as is.

I suggest that additional revenue can be achieved by the RCPD’s traffic department’s increasing citations for the chronically bad drivers. The nextdoor.com members are continually complaining of dangerous driving

behavior.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

I appreciated having personal telephone calls from Ms Hale & Mr. Smith as a part of a Meals on Wheels survey .

Respectfully, Susan Bentley King St

(48)

From: R.A. Ratcliff

Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 8:43 AM

Subject: Sewer Charge change

Dear Council Members, Please do NOT attach the sewer charges to property tax bills. Not only will the annual bill be a shock that some homeowners find themselves unable to pay all at once, but falling behind on that payment could start them down the path to foreclosure. Although my household would not be harmed by this change, I worry about others who could lose their toehold in the housing market with this change. Please vote against this change. Thank you, Rebecca Ratcliff RWC

(49)

From: Diane Wilson

Subject: Proposed Resolution Authorizing Collection of Sewer Service Charges on Tax Roll

We (Loyd & Diane Wilson) are in opposition of the proposed resolution to collect sewer service charges on the tax roll. It is easier to have it dispersed throughout the year than on the taxes.

Loyd & Diane Wilson Redwood City, CA 94061

(50)

From: sarah Robinson

Subject: Parcel sewage rate!

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello To whom it may concern I am a Redwood City home owner and I am protesting the parcel sewage rate. I do not agree for it to be added to my property tax. It is not in my benefit to my financial situation. Thank you Ralph Robinson Sarah Robinson Redwood City, Ca 94061 Sent from my iPhone

(51)

From: Gato Rivera

Subject: SEWER SERVICE CHARGE YEARLY

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To whom it may concern, We ( Vee & Gato Rivera ) request Redwood City Council members to ‘Not Vote’ for a Yearly Sewer Service Charge. Redwood City Residents need more time and information concerning this change in our billing cycle. Thank you, Gato & Vee Rivera Sent from my iPhone

(52)

From: Arlene Storm

Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 12:17 PM

Subject: Sewer service charges

Dear council members,

I am writing to say that I strongly oppose the resolution authorizing the collection of sewer service charges being placed on the tax roll. Keep utility charges separate from the general property taxes and don't "muddy the water"!

Thank you,