Laserfiche WebLink
4. Improper Pass-Through Adjustment Mechanism. The proposed policy authorizes additional <br /> future increases beyond the stated rate schedule, creating risk of charges exceeding lawful <br /> cost-of-service limits. <br /> 5. Failure to Consider Less Burdensome Alternatives. The City has not adequately evaluated or <br /> disclosed less burdensome alternatives, including reductions in fixed charges and greater reliance <br /> on usage-based pricing. <br /> 6. Procedural Deficiencies. The notice and supporting materials do not provide sufficient <br /> transparency for meaningful evaluation under Proposition 218. <br /> FORMAL DEMAND <br /> I demand that the City reject the proposed rate adjustments in their current form; revise the rate <br /> structure to ensure strict proportionality to parcel-specific cost of service, eliminate or <br /> substantially <br /> reduce fixed charges not directly tied to service provided; remove or materially limit the <br /> Pass-Through Adjustment Policy; and provide full parcel-level cost-of-service documentation <br /> prior to any adoption. <br /> RESERVATION OF RIGHTS <br /> Nothing in this objection shall be deemed a waiver of any rights. I expressly reserve the right to <br /> pursue judicial relief, including declaratory and injunctive relief, should the City adopt rates or <br /> charges that violate Proposition 218 or other applicable law. <br /> DECLARATION <br /> and correct. <br /> I dec der penalty of erjury un the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is <br /> tru . <br /> <br /> <br /> Printed Name:. Barbara Orozco <br /> Date: o w l W <br />