HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 2025-32 - Board Docusign Envelope ID:29766744-5BC5-46AF-B044-4FEF1E9182B7
■ UCKEE r
Public Utility District 0
Resolution No. 2025-32
RESPONDING TO TIMELY FILED WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE
PROPOSED INCREASE IN WATER RATES PURSUANT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF AB 2257 AND MAKING DETERMINATIONS
REQUIRED BY AB 2257
WHEREAS, Truckee Donner Public Utility District ("District") operates and maintains a public
potable water system, including approximately 13 deep wells,25 pump stations, 32 storage tanks,
and more than 220 miles of pipeline, that serves approximately 13,750 customers; and
WHEREAS, water systems are expensive to build and maintain and the District's system is more
complex and costlier than many other systems because of the District's large geographic area,
mountain terrain, winter weather, and need to size the system to have water to fight fire and meet
the maximum daily demand for water during the relatively brief peak summer season; and
WHEREAS, costs to operate the District's water system are rising due to many reasons, including
increasing system maintenance costs, increasing capital infrastructure costs and compliance with
state and federal regulations; and
WHEREAS, the District does not receive property tax and relies almost entirely on rate revenue
to fund the operation, repair, maintenance and improvement of its water system and to continue
to reliably provide water services; and
WHEREAS,the District contracted with DOWL Engineering for the development of an updated
10-year capital improvement plan ("CIP"), which revealed that the District would require
significant increases in rate-funded capital expenditures over the next 10 years in order to address
increasing construction costs,the ongoing need to harden water system reliability, construction of
additional pipeline for system redundancy, continued maintenance of critical water system
facilities, and replacing other facilities approaching the end of their useful life; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on July 16, 2025, the District's Board of Directors received a
presentation from DOWL Engineering on the draft CIP; and
WHEREAS, the District retained an independent rate consultant, HDR Engineering, Inc., to
develop a comprehensive water rate study, the 2025 Water Rate Study, for the District to provide
cost-based and proportional rates based on the District's specific system and customer
characteristics by developing a revenue requirement, cost of service, and proposed rates that
generate sufficient revenue to prudently fund the operating and capital needs of the District that
comply with the requirements of applicable law, including California Constitution,Article XIII
1
Docusign Envelope ID:29766744-5BC5-46AF-B044-4FEF1E9182B7
D, section 6 ("Proposition 218"),using generally accepted methodologies of the American Water
Works Association; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2024, Governor Newsom signed into law State Assembly Bill
2257, codified as California Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 and made effective
January 1, 2025 ("AB 2257); and
WHEREAS, AB 2257 creates an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement that, if
implemented by a local public agency, requires ratepayers to timely submit a written objection
regarding a proposed water rate change prior to the deadline established by the local public agency
in order to have exhausted administrative remedies to thereafter potentially challenge a rate
change under Proposition 218 and applicable law; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on September 3, 2025, the District's Board of Directors
reviewed the 2025 Water Rate Study prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc., established proposed
water rates for the years 2026-2030 in accordance with the 2025 Water Rate Study, determined to
begin the rate adoption process in accordance with Proposition 218, and scheduled a public
hearing for November 19, 2025; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on September 17, 2025, the District's Board of Directors
adopted the CIP; and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2025, the District, pursuant to Proposition 218, provided Notice
of Public Hearing: Proposed Water Rate Increases for 2026-2030 ("Notice") to property owners
whose properties receive water service from the District; and
WHEREAS, the Notice provided detailed instructions on how to file a protest and how to file an
objection to the proposed rates; and
WHEREAS, the Notice provided at least 45 days for property owners to review the proposed
rates,the written basis for the rates, including the 2025 Water Rate Study, and to timely submit to
the District a written objection pursuant to AB 2257 that specifies the grounds for alleging
noncompliance with Proposition 218 or applicable law on or before 5:OOpm on November 7,
2025; and
WHEREAS, the Notice provided at least 45 days, to review the proposed rates, the written basis
for the rates, including the 2025 Water Rate Study, and to timely submit a protest to the proposed
rates by the close of the public hearing on November 19, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the District posted on its internet website, www.tdpud.org, the Notice, the written
basis for the rates, including the 2025 Water Rate Study, the Prop 218 Written Objection Form,
and other information pertaining to the proposed rates; and
2
Docusign Envelope ID:29766744-5BC5-46AF-B044-4FEF1E9182B7
WHEREAS, the Notice stated that the District offered to mail or email the written basis to any
person upon request; and
WHEREAS, the Notice included a prominently displayed statement that provided (a) all written
objections must be submitted by 5:OOpm on November 7, 2025, and that failure to timely object
or failure to submit a completed objection form bars any right to challenge the rates through a
legal proceeding; and (b) all substantive and procedural requirements, including the requirement
to fully complete a written objection form, and to timely and properly submit a written objection;
and
WHEREAS, as of 5:OOpm on November 7, District received twenty(20)written objections to the
proposed water rate increases as set forth in the Notice and are attached to this Resolution in
redacted form as Exhibit A("Objections"); and
WHEREAS, this Resolution, as required by AB 2257, sets forth in Exhibit B the District's
substantive basis for retaining the proposed rates in response to the Objections; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution, as required by AB 2257, responds in writing to the Objections,
including the grounds for which an Objection is not resulting in clarification of the proposed rates,
reduction of the proposed rates, or further review, and that the District will continue with the
protest hearing required by Proposition 218.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public
Utility District as follows:
1. The recitals set forth in this Resolution are true and correct statements,and together
with Exhibits A and B, are incorporated as operative parts of this Resolution and
findings and determinations of the Board of Directors.
2. The Board of Directors finds the District has completed all requirements of AB
2257, including completing the procedures described in paragraphs (1) to (6) of
subdivision (c) of Government Code section 53759.1. Consequently, any person
or entity that has not timely submitted a written objection, or any person or entity
that timely submitted an objection but did not properly complete a written
objection form as described in Exhibit B, is prohibited from bringing a judicial
action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California
Constitution for the proposed rates.
3. In exercising its legislative discretion, the Board of Directors of the District
determines that: (1)the Objections and the District's responses thereto as set forth
in Exhibit B do not warrant a clarification of the proposed rates; (2) not to reduce
the proposed rates based on the Objections; (3)based on the Objections no further
review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification or
3
Docusign Envelope ID:29766744-5BC5-46AF-B044-4FEF1E9182B7
reduction is needed; and (4) to proceed with the protest hearing required under
Proposition 218, section 6 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
4. District staff is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to each person who
submitted a timely Objection to the address listed on the Objection.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District
at a regular meeting thereof duly called and held within said District on the nineteenth day of
November 2025 by the following roll call vote
AYES: Murrell, Randall, Bender, Laliotis, Finn
NOES: none
ABSTAIN: none
ABSENT: none
Attachments
Exhibit A—Written Objections (Redacted)
Exhibit B —Responses to Written Objections
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT:
Signed by:
r,�AVlsx FlIVU& 11/24/2025
AIFSDD2E6BFC4EC...
Christa Finn, President of the Board of Directors Date
Attest:
Signed
by-9...
Martina Rochefort, District Clerk/
Executive Assistant to the General Manager
4
Exhibit A
To
Resolution No. 2025-32
Written Objections (Redacted)
4rTRUCKEE DONPJ,ER
Public
Proposi.�ion 218 Wriften Objection Form
REQUIREMENTS.-
(1 ) Each past of this form must be filled out completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government code section 53759. 1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
5 : 00 p.m. on November 7, 2025. Failure to timely submit a written abjection , with
original signature, using this form bars any right to challenge the new rates through a
Jegal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XI I D of the California constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) General'Ized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties must present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding.
(4) Late-filled, noncompliant, or incomplete written objections without an original
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER:
1
OWNER OR RATEPAYER'S
APN OF PROPERTY:
1
1 . Describe the Provision(s) of law that form the basis of your abjection, with specific
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional previsions, regulations, and/or cases that
alleged to be violated if the proposed rats are adapted. (Attach additional pages as
nec.essary.)
D, r-O 'k4v S+ pos' ke,
CA... (t
2. Describe, with reference to your property and usage of water, haw the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law you cited above. (Attach additianal pages as necessary.)
CA
It 45 (54!:�; U 0 Cat
3. Describe haw Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged violations
of law you stated above. Provide amendments to the proposed rues and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Signature:
Print Name: I 7a�— � tJ
Date:
422
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FARM WITH AN ORDINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 QQNNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY, MAILED OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED ( NOT POSTMARKED) BY 5:00 P.M . ON fVOVEt'Jf BER 7, 2025.
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL) (Please number your responses)
'40"TRUCKEE DONNER
V Public Utility District
Proposition 218 Written Objection Form
REQUIREMENTS;
( 1 ) Each part of this form must be filled out completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government rode section 53759 . 1
III objections must be timely received by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
5_00 p.m. on November 7 , 2025. Failure to firnely submit a written objection, with.
original signature, using this form bars any right to challenge the new rates through a
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties must present the exact issue (s) that they
Intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding.
(4) Late-filed , noncompliant, or incomplete written objections without an original
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER :
LLY
OWNER OR RATEPAYER'S ADDRESS: (Must be subject to proposed rates)
:1
APN OF PROPERTY:
1
1 . Describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of your objection, with specific
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions , regulations, andlor cases that are
alleged to be violated if the proposed rites are adapted . Attach additional pales as
necessary.) .
ro 4-C -5+ -ro 4-e- t- r� clLflg e
2. Describe, with reference to your property and usage of water, how the proposed rates
Violate the provisions of law you cited move. (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
t&L
, d t4p\. p rc) /-t7 U 6<je
w Y
3 . Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged violations
of law you stated above. Provide amendments to the proposed rates and the written
basis for the amendments_ (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
L C�t r?
2
_'1*1 k.
Signature:
Print Name: *044
Date- C> C;�
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS FOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FORM WITH AN QRGINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DQNIVER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNiA 96161 . TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY, AVAILED OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED (NET POSTMARKED) BY 5 -00 P_ M_ ON NUVEMBER 7, 2025.
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL) (Please number your responses)
3
TRUCKEE DONNER
Public Utility District
Proposnit&ion 218 Written Obiect'ion Form
REQUIREMENTS:
(1 ) Each part of this farm must be filled out completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to govemment jade section 53759,. 1
III objections must be timely received by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
5:00 p.m. on November T, 2025. Failure to timely submit a written objection, with
original signature, using this form bars any right to challenge the new rates through a
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties must present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding.
(4) Late-fled, nonc,ornpliant, ar incomplete written objections without an original
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER:
0 Love- (—.
OWNER. OR RATEPAYER'S ADDRESS: Must be subject t4 proposed rats)
R 0 1
APN OF PROPERTY:
t
1 . describe the provision(s) of few that form the basis of your objection, with specific
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, andlor cases that are
alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted. (Attach additional pages as
necessary.)
A c- re., cc &rvcO (� Ov) SOC-tM"'-QJ a W/?
UQ 14h ( i N Nqo 1% +lcd , n L oyr&-
S�a� A�b I C.,
2.. Describe, with reference to your property and usage of water, haw the proposed rakes
violate the provisio-ns of taw you cited above. (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Ct r te
Ca rc, J- C
4
3. Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged violations
of law you stated above. Provide amendments to the proposed rates and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
R C-CXVJL ,
1
Signature: -
Print Name; �Date: 1 2
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FORM VIIfTH AN dRGINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DONNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 , TO BE CONSIDERED TAMELY, MAILED OBJECTIONS MIDST
BE RECEIVED (NOT POSTMARKED) BY 5:00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 7,
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL) (Please number your responses)
Nc4, O'cs- e16
t",Ilt' rc rt
TRUCKEE DONNER
Public Utiiit District
Propositsiaon 21 .8 Writ-ten -Objection Forrr�
REQUIREMENTS:
(1 ) Each part of this farm mast be Filled out completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to govefnment code section 53759.1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Danger Public Utility District by
S:Qa p.m. on November 7, 2025_ Failure to fimeiy submit a written abjectian, with
original signaturer using this form bars any right to challenge the new rates through a
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecling parties must present the exact issue (5) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding.
(4) Late-filed, noncornpiiant, or incomplete written objections without an angina
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement..
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER:
117--: 4 cz W I ry�_.
OWNER OR RATEPAYER'S ADDRESS: (Must be subject to proposed rate)
IEA �'famper-t- 1.
APN OF PROPERTY:
1
1 . Describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of your objection, with specific
reference to statutes, rules, Constitutional provisions, regulations, andlor cases that are
alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adapted . (Attach additional pages as
-necessary.)
2. Describe, with reference to your p-roperty and usage of water, how the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law you cited above. (Attach addidonal pages as necessary.)
enc4os-ect
3. Describe Mow Truckee Danner Pubic Ufility District may correct the alleged violations
of Law you staid above. Provide amendments to the proposed gates and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary.
anclo&aA
.
• 1
Signature:
Print fame: MM (am jo0+ � ��'' � cm ro'An . r
9
Dace: 1 0 , b • 2s
PEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FORM Vll{TH AN ORGINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DONNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKLE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY, i1JtiA1LE0 OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVES (NOT POSTMARKED) BY S.Ofl P.M. ON NC?VEMBER 7, 2025.
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL) (Please number your responses)
3
+ 1
i
..T A.- w
�-
4
~Y
{ s� w CLCD
CD ry
Q.
f CD ` ,-.
" a]
� Cr'1
�. �••� err r� � � '� �; � -
4^
� W _
X - ri � z CL
Ga CLr+
~ L
r�+ cr
CL
CL � m
grip
902 �
r-rJENw-
+ —
12
q ' Lq
"a a
- � f+
t _ �+ Y r _
*+ ws eD
Crcr m
r• rl � ""'
-M " tm w 0 m
G CL
x
CL a
rm
pm
�' {n
f°?
� 1 6-1
r, 6-0 .;
EV : =r o *E*L
a°, �
"W m
mo
w a � '5
[f�
. ,Y
r �-
w
� ,crID
=� 0
�` cCL C1= `-!
m. n " to
wr.
1-3
In . ,
� _ �„ � �.
-2 CD
.�. ilk
CL
—1 VIPLn r-qw m t
CL tpF
3 l Y Y'1 a
lP' l'] ta
".F =rgD 9 t'¢
"4
"i cr
a ., ICI Y
PO
I s
' PC rD
C)
4 r f
5,
ti
�' „"ti
3
"T"
�. ra 6-g
0 P
CL
X a
n _
"n �4
< V,
� 4
rm
} 0) n
{o gn a 0 '
OR Pl Q >
3 � D 0 � ;:�- CL
� 4
Fh w R-+
eii .�' CL
rp
Liz y} P-0
toh CA
F '..
* �
Cr lb W3
3 r Qr � 0 F--
r L:r '+ j CD r
rV
p� �O ¢�• �s} may,
- fm " '� ft
�
' 0
f-*. -
�e
r� i � ti
, • - w
' a W'T,I
CL
+ CDc ;
- plo dim
eb� < n R+ 5
CL
cip "7
Y CD
r+.
dh el
Er
Lin =r
ii
i� eb O a ` FM
"
r'ti�l w P5
wl
ro
bob
CLpli
..
a
rn ar
17
CDr•'' ,
=- �_. f 4
� fo 0
n
I
M
e
cr .f 0
C) G
� " C cl :
0
n CD m ` —
Y # P o ,,e
4 if �
fop ffvgs
CL
rip n
a
CL � ....
� . = m -,-;
CL
IL
go
! rrirp
L
M m
ID 0 0 � CL -1
v CD
crs
00
LOT r�
0 �
4T cr ptl 0
Rm � `it , CL
=7 a fl�
I r- zr- C16 m
LAO
r ~
�* '
.� CL �p T
� rM n "
� ,
TP � ...
19 CA.
n —16 r2 r
u `�
co
I _ UP �+ #
0 M - �EA
'� 3 M * -mot
#, '� n � -
tp
0 = ft
-.
-
.�.� .� 6
r- a 0 0 _
a m -
ro C) a � I�
3 _ ft zr ,.
# - 1p
lb CL
_ .-- C
A 0"
CD
C �A-m 0 IV e
im
; n ry ff� � o
r1 > Q .
9:6re.�. �Ilp W1
in
wR
4 W'
fl:
CD
m �` -
Jx 0 �r a
K CD
`IU D 0 V,' as
CL
s _
FLO
y
a
V1996/97 RATE SCHEDULE
The following rates are levied In addition to annual aasessient fees on whwres
of stack .
Party sit doll &rs j *46 . 00 ) biaaAthly . Fe en will 16a payable , is advance , on May
1 , July 1 , September 1 . November 1 . JanuwrF 1 and March 1 ,, These fees will be
considered delinquent 30 dmLFs after f -e billing date sac Rules & Regulations ,
page 13 , Article 111 , " Fee Stracturo " ) , Accounts that become delinquent are
anaeased a five d9ijar, .5 . 0 ) late charge at thirty ( 30 ) -days iin4l 10 t 00 Red
Tag Fee at forty five 4 ) days .
Commercial and metered reeident. ial customers re111 be bi f led the following r06teG
based on meter size ,effective May 1 * 1996 :
. 4sa- ls meters 44 . O bimonthly , IS , 000 gallon blnonthly allotment ;
1 jr/4 W APO
meters $ SS . 65 bimonthly , 31 , 230 gmllon blmontbly allntaent ;
1 1 " meters $ 66 , 78 bimonthly , 37 , SOG gallon bilsonthly al latment ;
.2W meters * 39 v 94 bimonthly , 50 , 000 gallon bimonthly al latmont ; and
.30 aeters $ 133 . 56 bimonthly , 75 , 000 gallon bimonthly allctmeiat .
Tatar 000duMption in excess of the a l totment s indicated will be 1� 1 1 led the
following excess consumption rates per each additional one thousand gallons or
portion thereur In addition to the regular bimonthly rate jp-er meter size
I to 20 , 00 a l a . . F , . ,. . . 60 1000 gallons
70 t Q00 to 40 , 000 Hal fans . . . . . . 70 / 1000 g.allann
40 , 940 and gallons
Excess consumption fees will be tilled tim-antbly .
RATES IH ADDITION TQ W*T R PB _A AHOIJAL AS. RSIMB11113 ;
Unit 1 1ces 829000
Meter 3 4 * ( per Board M-tS . 8 35 92 ) 1 27 . GO
Meter I " ( per Board Htg . 3 92 ) 19810.0
Cannection In,spectian Fee So , ao
Meter Boxes
4" g iax l e ( when approved by G11WC- ) 4 . GG-
41 Double 49740
3 4'R Double /Double 440 * 00
10 Single ( when approved by GMWC ) 427 ,600
Service Call ( ituring office hours ) 20stO
Disconnect for company Treasons 3 . 8
Obsolete Account ( m.in . 12 months ) 10 . 00
Transfer Fee ( change in awnershi p ) 10 .6 00
R e t urfted Check Fee 1 3 F QO
Stack Forfeiture Fec 100W00
Pire Hydraat , meter deposit 600000
Fire hrdrantf metered water rate 2 . 75 1000 Sallone
Fire hydrant , no-n-metered grater rate . 00 t ruck 1 a&A
* * AFTER HHUR CHARGE9 WILL BE DOUBLE THE ABDV19 RATES * V
PRICES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANG8
ADOPTED 1 6 RESOLUTION 96- 004
1997 .ATE SCHEDULE
The following rates are levied in addition to annual asses- anent feeR an shares
of qp t o
FL T A BE-SIDE S' L :
Forty six doll -arm ( 46 . GO) 'bimonthly , Fees will he pay-able , in advaar,* , an May
1 , July 1 m September 1 , November 1 , I&nvary 1 and itarelt I , Theme fees a i 1 1 'be
considered delinquent 30 days after the Uilling date ( see Rules & Beg-u1ations ,
Page 13 , Article I 1 I . " Fee S tru ture " ) .. Accounts that become delinquent are
assessed a five dollar $ . d0 ) 1ste charge at thirty ( 30 ) days and 410600 Reed
Tag Fee at forty five ( 4 5 ) days 4 Late Fees , Red Tag Fees , and Shut -off fees
become a Fart of your water h i l l i ag . Balances that remain unpaid into the next
billing period wi11 be charged -additional late fees .
COMMENCjAl_ .A AND _ E.RED ]RESIDENTIAL RATE :
Commercial and aetered residential Customers will be billed the following rates
based on meter size effective May 19 199 :
- 1 met r . 0 t` �i onthl. 2 , 000 gallon 1r�isnnthlF allatitenVAOWWWON
r Y 4 " meter 55 . 6S bisontlr
1 y ,. 32 , 250 ga 1 lon bimonthly a 1 lotaent
1 t 2 " meters S 66 . 79 bimonthly , 37 , 500 galleon biaon -thly allotment ;
" mate-rig $ 99 . 04 bimonthly . 50 , 000 gallon biaonthly ai lotaent ; and
30 meters $ 133 . S6 bimonthly , 75 , 000 gallon bimonthl7 allotment ,
Water consumption in excess of the allotments indicated will he billed the
f0110.wing excess eonsumption rates per each additional one thousand gal ionp or
Portion thereof is addition to the regular bimonthly rate per meter sire :
20 , 000 to 40 , 006 gat ions . ■ . ■ t * . ; $ . 70/ 1000 gallons
40 } 000 and ga1101"s
Excoee c0neuaptio-tt fees will Ibic billed b2imanthlF .
BATES IN ADI)ITIOX ,TO WAT13H Eg R ANNUAL S.SES.0 ENTB :
Unit 1 Face 829 . 00
Meter 3 /4 " ( -per Board Utg , 5 / 92 ) 121 . 00
Meter I " ( per Board Ut * / I 0 ) 188 . 00
Connection 1napection Fee 50 . 00
1[eter7� e ;
3 4 " Single ( when aipproved by GVVC ) 294 . 00
3 41 Double .97 . -0
3 4 " Doable/Double 440 . 00
1 " Single ( when approved by GUW ) 427 , 00
Service Call ( during office hours ) 20 . 00
Disconnect for 400agan reaaan s 25 , 00
Glosolate Account ( aino 12 months ) 10 . 00
Transfer Fee ( chanXe in ownership ) 10 . 00
Late Fee , Bloth Water & Assessment Accts . 5 . 00
Red Tag Fee , Both water Assat . Aec tow 10 . 0-0
Returned Check Fee 13 ■ 00
Stock Forfeiture Fee 100 . 00
Fire Hydrant , meter deposit .600 . 00
Fire hydrant , acterad Vatc r rate . 7 1001D gallons
Fire bFdrant ,. non-metered water rate 2 . 00 truck load
a 2 AFTER HOUR CHARGES WILL BE DOUBLB THE ABOVE RATES * 0
PRICES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
ADOPTED 04 2 / 97 REBOLUTIGN 97 - 003
# i-.
14630 Glenshire Drive
R.O. Box. 62
Truckee, CA 96160
916•587■44
1 * 7 e49 (FAX)
OMMMUMENNER.1% - -
LV MWEEN&N.
Op- -IEqmpm- Op-�-NNNNP� --Mvmp�
MkTJAL11WATL8 COM'PANY
:�l
d & Marlon Kr tai
E
Dear PTO ert Owner(s) t
It has come to our attention that you are the new owner ( s ) of
the referenced lot of the GlenshirelDevonshire Subdivis - nn
Truckee , California .
Glenshire Mutual Water COMpany operates on behalf of the lot
owners in Glenshirer Devonshire , The Meadows and Cambridge
Estates . For each lot in these areas
which is appurtenant to the property . The share appurtenant
your land has been t �p t �
transferred into your name , and the enclosed
certificatei' s evidence of Your ownership in the Glenshire Mutual
Water Copan n pr i u s. certificates have been cancelled on
the books of the corporation and are no longer al id
Whilethe share of stock is evidence of your right to re i . .
water fOr your land and vote as a -shareholder to choose the Board
of Directors , it also carries the responsibilityr id '
o � the
necessary financing to operate and maintain the water system . Each
share is subject to pay debts and expenses either incurred� a r
estimated to be incurred , and for the creation of reserves
annual and continued operation and maintenance of the
water
company . These assessments are used to keep the water company
operational and to insure water availability at the time you
develop your lot . All shareholders are equally responsible for
the assessments even if they are not hooked u to the
� water system
and using water . Water users pay are additional fee to cover
water delivery expenses .
Currently , the annual assessment i $ 100 - 00 and is levied
each May I t , with remittance due upon receipt , Non - payment of the
assessment results in forfeiture of the ownership of the stock and
right to water service . The Board of Directors may file
application with the Department n
rt nt of Corporations for redemption of
these shares at the sole expense of the owner r ut in the
� harp
issuance , but the Board of Directors are not required t
Our Articles of Incorporation authorize the company to sell water
onlY to owners f our stock . This means that each homeowner i
responsible for all water charges even i f the home is leased to
another party .
Larch 18 , 17
Page Two
The Water company can direct the bimonthly billing tat m t
to the tenant with written instructions from the owner ; however ,
this method of collection does not release the property owner from
the -responsibility of payment . The homeowner will still be liable
for all unpaid charges , including but not limited to late , red tag
and reconnection fees .
As the owner of this property , it i your responsibility to
keep the cbmpan informed of your current address to insure receipt
of all billings and commmunications .
In the event you sell. your property , please return your share
certificate and notify us immediately of the new wner " name and
address so that we may issue a new certificate and apply the
•
assessment accordingly . You can instruct the title Qo an to do
this for you through Crow Procedure.
t the time your decide to build on your lot , you wili he
required to complete and sign an application for water service , and
pay the required fees . Applications will not be approved without
the property owner7s signature , payment of all fees and any
delinquent amounts due the water company . After the appliQation
has been processed , and the service connection and lateral line
inspected by our operations personnel , water service will be
initiated . Services hooked up without an approved application and
.inspection will be subjeQt to a penalty , and the connection will
have to he uncovered at the owner ' s expense for inspection ,
Specifioa i n for installing the hook-up and the Company
Operating Operati' ng Rules and Regulations will be provided at the time of
application or upon request .
We anticipate your interest in the organization . I f you have
any questions or Irish additional information , please feel free to
contact
Sincerely ,
LE H I E MUTUAL WATER COMPANY , I
Bill w i t nr
General Manager
BDws
Enclosures
file 4
r7
'r
TRUCKEE DONNER
Public Utl ity District
Proposition 218 Wr*ltten abjection Fornn
REQUIREMENTS:
(1 ) Each part of this farm must be filled out completely.
(2) T4 exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government code section 53759. 1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Dinner Public Utility District by
5- 00 p.m. on November 7, 2025- Failure to timely submit a written objection, with
original signature, using this form bars any right to challenge the new rates through a
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XI II D of the California Constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties must present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding.
(4) Late-filed, nonccampliant, or incomplete written objections without an original
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER:
Crump, Christopher & Evangelita Trste
OWNER OR RATEPAYER'S ADDRESS: (Must be subject to proposed rates
ARN OF PROPERTY:
1
_ I _ Describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of your abjection, with specific
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that are
alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted. (Attach additional pages as
necessary.)
This proposed rats increase appears to violate multiple provisions of mow:
California Constitution., Article XIII D, S6(a)(1 )-(3) : Revenues may not exceed service
casts and must be proportional.
Government Cade S53756: Prohibits automatic or ongoing rate adjustments not tied
to
cost-of-service.
Relevant Case Law: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Fresno (2005),.
2. Describe, with reference to your property and usage of water, how the proposed rakes
violate the provisions of law you cited above. (Attach addftionai pages as necessary.)
Our property is a singi-e-family homy with moderate water consumption and
conservation measures. Despite this, the proposed 6.5°/a annual increase would
raise our bill significantly. The District has not provided a detailed cost-of-service
analysis demonstrating that the cyst to supply, treat, and deliver water has increased
proportionally- Some proposed revenue appears to fund capital projects or
administrative costs unrelated to our service, and the automatic escalator violates
government Code S53756.
3. Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged vi6atfions
of lava you stated above. Provide amendments to the proposed rates and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Please see attached memo dated October 16, 2025
Signature.
Print Name va-- t- eLc IrL. , Cr ..�
Date:
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FORM WITH AN ORGINAL SiGNATURE TO TRUCKEE ❑►QNNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DC)NNER BASS ROAD, TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY, MAILED OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED (NOT POSTMARKED) BY 5:00 P.M . UN NQVEMBER 7, 2025.
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL) (Please number your responses)
}
F
alp
4
Date October 16, 2025
Truckee Danner Public Utility District
11570 Donner Pass Road Road
Tnickee, California - 1 1
hristpe+er & Evangellita Crump
Subject: Proposition 218 Protest - Objection to Proposed 6.5% Annual Water Rate Increase
Pursuant to Article XI II D, Section 6 of the Galifomia Constitution (Proposition 1 ) and
Government Code S53750 et. seq., M hereby submit this formal written protest and objection
to the Truckee Donner Public Utility District's proposed 6.5% annual increase in water service
rates.
This proposed rate increase appears to violate multiple provisions of Law:
California Constitution, Article XM D, S a l -( )4 Revenues may not exceed service
costs and must be proportional.
Government Code S537564 Prohibits automatic or ongoing rate adjustments not tied to
cost-of-service.
Relevant Case Law: Froward ,brie Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Fresno (2005),
Capistrano Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Sate Juan Capistrano (2015), Bighorn-Desert Vier
'water Agency v. Vedil (2005).
How the Proposed Fates Violate the Law as Applied to Our Property
Our property is a single-family home with moderate water consumption and conservation
measures. Despite this, the proposed 6.5% annual increase would raise our hill significantly.
The District has not provided a detailed cost-of-service analysis demonstrating that the cost to
supply, treat, and deliver water has increased proportionally. Some proposed revenue appears
to fund capital projects or administrative costs unrelated to our service, and the automatic
escalator violates Government Code S53756.
Hoar Tahoe Donner Public Utility May correct the alleged Violatin
To bring the proposed fates into compliance Wth Proposition 218 and related law, the following
amendments are recommended:
Y
r
1 . Publish a Comprehensive Cost-of-Service Stuffy - Article Xa II d, 86(a)(1 )-(3).
2. Remove or aev'(se the Automatic 6.5 Escalator - Government Code S53756_
3: Align Rates with Proportional Cost of Service - ArticJe XIII D, S6{a}(3).
4, Exclude Costs Unrelated to Current Service - Article XIII D, S6(a)(1 ), (4).
5. Conduce Independent Audit and Public Hearing - ArticEe XIII D, S6(a)(5).
For these reasons, we respectfully request that TDPUD withdraw or revise the proposal to
ensure compliance with Proposition 218 by providing full cost-of-service Justification, removing
automatic escalators, and ensuring proportionality by Customer class-
Sin ely,�n , �
Christopher and Evangelita Crump
�'TRUCKEE DONNER
I Public Utility District
Proposition 218 Wr*lften Objection Form
REQUIREMENTS:
( 1 ) each part of this form must be filled out completely,
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government code section 53759. 1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
5:00 p. m . on November ? , 2025_ Failure to timely submit a written objection , with
original signature, using this form bars any right to challenge the new rues through a
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article X11 I D of the California Constituton
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objectwons are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirem ents , objecting parties must present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial .action or proceeding.
(4) Late-filed, noncompliant, or incomplete written objections without an origi:nal
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER:
Vicki Henry
OWNER OR RATEPAYER'S ADDRESS. (Must be subject to proposed rates)
APN OF PROPERTY:
l
.r
1 . Describe the provision( f I-aw that form the basis of your objection , With specific
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, ndl r cases that are
alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted . (Attach additional pages a
necessary.)
Violation of Article l XIII D b) — Use of fees for general government purposes
The inclusion of "General Manager," "Administrative Services," and "Board of Directors"
operating costs in the grater rate base (as shown in the -draft rate study) suggests that rate
revenue is being used for nan-water-reWed overhead, contrary to constitutional limits.
Failure to comply with procedural transparency under Prop 218
The mailed notice and online materials om it key analytical tables (capital reserve
balances, depreciation schedulles, and comparative t-per-gallon metrics) necessary for
meaningful public review. Prop 218 mandates that ` the agency shall provide written riot-ice
containing sufficient information to identify the amount, basis., and reason for the fee."
TDPUD's notice provides only aggregated percentage increases.
. Describer with reference to your property and usage of water, how the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law you cited above. (Attach additional pages as necessary . )
Unlawful compounding and pre-authorization of future rates
the Board seeks to approve five years of rate increases in one vote, binding future
ratepayers and Boards without annual public recalculation f cost of service, violating
Prop 218's requirement that each rate adjustment be independently justified.
Disproportionate fixed charge component
The Base Charge represents the "vast majority" of all residential bills (TDPUD"S own
mailer confirms this). A high fixed charge, unrelated to actual water use, penalizes
conservation and may be inconsistent with State Water Board efficiency policies and
Prop 218's proportionality clause.
. Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged -violations
of law you stated above. Provide mend nt to the pro-posed rates and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
t C
E)
Signature: Z-Jz
VW1 116WJr[Pf___ )K. .. - -
Print Name: ff ,` c- k
Date: � D� 2ozz-P
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FORM WITH AN ORDINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DpNNER PASS READ , TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO 6E CONSIDERED TIMELY, MAILED OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED (NET POSTMARKED) BY 5:00 P.M . ON NQ'UENIBER 7, 2025.
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL) ( Please number your responses)
Sec 3 :
suspend adoption at the 2026-2030 rate schedule ;
Direct HDR to prepare a revised, transparent, per-class cost-of-service report and
updated capital needs assessment;
Hold a new public hearing with at [east 45 days' native and full data disclosure;
Adopt only -one-year adjustments, subject to independent audit and inflation
verif ication .
l 1
vv�
TRUCKEE DONNER
Public Utility District
Proposition 218 Written Objection Form
REQUIREMENTS:
(1 ) Each park of this faun must be filled out completely,
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government code section 53759. 1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
5:00 p. m. on November ?, 2025. Failure to timely submit a written objection, with
original signature , using this farm bars any right to challenge the new rates through a
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XII! D of the California Constitution
for these proposed new water rites.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requi;rernents, objecting parties must present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding.
(4) Late-filed , noncompliant, or incomplete written objections without an original
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY CHIN R 4R RATEPAYER.,
STf s
Q1N 'S AQQR t be ject to proposed rates)
i i
APIV OF PROPERTY:
1
1 . Describe the prov'lsion(s) of law that firm the basis of your abjection, with specific
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations., and/or cases that are
alleged to be violated 'if the proposed rates are adopted. (Attach additional pages as
necessary. )
TkId � wpm,
C
R Q IVL Veaf-es CV ems- �p�✓
W"� fhx&&,( 1-
�j.� Ca �.a� GDP r f
2. Describe, with reference to your property and usage of water, how the proposed rats
violate the provisions of law you cited above. Attach additional pages as necessary.)
o A A)
3. Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged violations
of lava you stated above. Provide amendments to the proposed rates and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary. )
f � y
2
Signature:
Print Name :
Date: �
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OS,lECTtON FORM WITH ,AN QRGINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE [?ONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11510 DONNER PASS ROAD, TRUCF{EE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO BE CONSIDERED T-IMELY, MAILED OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED (NET POSTMARKED) BY S:QQ P.M .. ON N0VEhIiBER 7, 2a2S.
ADDITIONAL PACE (OPTIONAL) (Please number your responses
� in rn rn nn m .-1 � M
s�
TRUCKEE DONNER
D ;k
Public Utility istrioct I
Proposition 218 Written Objection Form
REQUIREMENTS:
( 1 ) Each part of this firm must be filled out completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government code section 5375-9. 1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
5:00 p.m. on November 7, 2025. Failure to timely submit a wrl"tten objection, with
originl signature , using this form bars any right to challenge the new rates trough a
legal proceeding alleging noncamplia.nce vvsth Article XI1I D of the Cafiforni-a Constitution
for these proposed new weer rues.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties must present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue- in a judicial action or proceeding .
(4) Late-filed, nancompliant, or incomplete written objections without an anginal
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER:
Janet Coombs
OWNER OR RATEPAYER'S ADDRESS: (Must be subject to proposed rates)
F1 - - 1 - - . - - I
APN OF PROPERTY.-
l
1 . [describe the pr i i n(s) of law that form the basis of your objection, with specific
reference. to statutes , rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or r cases that are
alleged to. be violated if the proposed rates are adopted . (Attach additional pages as
necessary.)
Prop 218 requires voter approval for new r increased property-related fees,
including water rates.
It mandates that water rate structures be based on the t of providing service and
can not be unjustified or inflated .
. Describe, with reference to your property and usage of water, how the proposed rates
viol-ate the provisions of law you cited above. tfh additional pages as necessary.)
My property is at the bottom of TD and in Zone 2. My water use fluctuates monthly
based on my use. In the winter months it 'is almost nil. I am already being charged
pump charge, base rate and cornmodily changes The proposed annual increases do
not reflect the true cost of providing service.
3. Describe how Truckee Donner Pub II C Utility District may correct the alleged violations
of law you stated above. Provide amendments to the proposed rates and the rritt n
basis for the amendments . (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
2
Signature:
Print Name: � ��� b S.
Date: I D— 3 .--
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FARM WITH AN ORDINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11510 DONNER PASS ROAD , TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY, MAILED OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED (NOT POSTMARKED) BY 5:00 P. M . ON NOVEMBER 7 , 2025.
ADDITIONAL PACE (OPTIONAL) (Please number your responses)
3
n
6'� TRUCKEE DONNER
Public Utility District
Proposition Form
REQUIREMENTS:
( 1 ) Each part of this form must be filled out completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government code section 53759. 1
II objections must be timely received by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District b
5:00 p. m . are November 7, 2025. Failure to timely submit a written objection, with
original signature ' using this form bars any right to challenge the new rates through
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties must present the exact issue that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or pr - din -
t Late-filed , noncompliant, or incc)rnplete written objections without an original
signaturewill not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY T OWNER RATEPAYER:
David and Nancy Tattersall
OWNER OR RATEPAYER'S ADDRESS : (Must be subject to proposed rates)
APN OF PROPERTY:
1
1 , Describe the provision(s) o law that form the basis of your objection , with specific
reference to statutes: rules} constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that are
alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted . ttach additional pages as
necessary_)
No basis has been described for why the rates should be increased so much. W
have received no detailed information supporting the rate increase.
. Describe, with reference to your property and usage of water, how the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law you cited above. (Attach additional pages as necessary. )
The higher rates to be applied to part time residents is a clear case of discrimination.
Part time residents will pay the same base fee as full time residents. There is no basi-SI
for charging a higher just because you are a part time resident.
. Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged violations
f law you stated above. Provide amendments to the proposed rates and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary. )
2
Signature '.
Prim Name:
Date- � P�
PLE SE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTIONFORM WITH AN ORGINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DONNE DONNER PASS ROADI TRUC EE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY, MAILED OBJECTIONS MUST
E RECEIVED (NOT T POSTMARKED) BY 5:00 P. M . ON NOVEMBER 7, 2025.
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL ) (Please number your responses)
3
TRUCKEE DONNER
Pub ,lic Utility Distr 'ict
Propos 'ition 218 Written Objection For�n
REQUIREMENTS :
( 1 ) Each park of this form must be filled out completely.
(2). To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government code section 53759. 1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Dinner Public Utility District by
5 : 00 p.m . on November 7 , 2025. Failure to timely submit a written objection, with
original signature, wing this form bars any right to challenge the new rates through a
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XI! ! D of the California Constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient, To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties must present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding.
(4) Late-filed , noncompliant, or incomplete written objections without an original
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY 01NNER 4R RATEPAYER :
Joshua Ridless
OWNER OR RATEPAYER'S ADDRESS: (Must be subject to proposed rates)
APN OF PROPERTY:
1
■
1 . Describe the Provision(s) of law that fora the basis of your objection, with specific
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, rui[ati , and/or cases that are
alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are -@idc-pt d . (Attach additional pages as
necessary.)
. Describe with reference to your property and usage of water, how the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law you cited above. (Attach addition a] pages as necessary.)
. Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged violations
of law you stated above. Provide amendments to the proposed rates and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as n - r .
r
2
`1
Signature-. _
Print Name. Joshua Ridless
Date : 9128t25
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR N1A,1L THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FORM VIJiTH AN ORGINp,L SIGNATURE TO TRIJCICEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DONNER PASS READ, TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY, MAILED OBJECTIONS [MUST
BE RECEIVED SNOT POSTMARKED) BY 6:00 P . M. ON NOVEN1BER 7, 2025.
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL) (Please number your responses)
i
TRUCK'E' E DONNER
X Publmc Utifit ra
I St. I Ct
PV
Proposit.- ion 218 Wrloften Objection Forrr�
REQUIREMENTS:
( 1 ) Each pert of this form must be filled out completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government code section 53759. 1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
5:00 p.m. an November a, 2025. Failure to timely submit a written objection, with
original signature, using this form bars any right to challenge the new rates through a
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article III! D of the California Constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties must present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding.
(4) Late-filed, noncompliant, or incomplete written objections without an original
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER:
Erika Frick
OWNI YER'S ADDRESS: (Must be subject to proposed rates)
APN OF PROPERTY-.
1
1 . Describe the provision(s) of haw that form the basis of your obj-ection, with specific
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that are
alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted. (Attach additional pages as
necessary.)
he step increases likely violate Art. Xffl [], §6(b) of the CA Constitubon (Prop 218),
hfch bars rates exceeding proportional service costs or generating excess revenue.
he lack of detailed financial data also raises concerns under Gov. Grade §66013,
hich requires capital charges to reflect actual pasts, and under PUC §§ 1 ;28111
12823, mandating fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory rates. The structure may
urther violate Art. X, §2 of the CA ConstItution by discouraging beneficial water use
hrough excessive p(ming. Additionally, the increases raise equal protection issues
rider federal and state Constitutions dui to their disproportionate impact on certain
eographicleleva#ian-based customer groups without sufficient justification. Though
�t�ce was given, it lacked the clarity and specificity needed for meaningful pubic
a rticipation, potentially violating Prop 218 and the CA Public Records Act,
2. Describe, with reference to your property and usage of water, how the proposed rats
violate the provisions of Iorrr you cited above. (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
rdhe
resident in Pump Zone 4, my property is subject 10 even higher water charges in
district.
No clear Cost-of-service data or justificafion was provided for these
ispraportivnate rate hikes, which far exceed 'Inflation and expend years into the future
itnout oasis. This lack of transparency violates Art. xiii a, §6(b) (Prop. 218),
equiring fees to match proportional service costs, and PUC §§12811 , 128239
andating fair, reasonable rates. Base rates for all zones have already risen. sharp4y
n recent years, and proposed multi-year increases continue this excessive trend.
bsent clear evidence linking hikes to actual service tests, they appear to violate
fop 218, Gov. Code §66013, and equal protection principles byirnposing unjustified
urdens, especially on higher-elevation customers.
3. Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility district may correct the alleged violations
of law you stag above. Provide amendments to the proposed rates and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional' pales as necessary.)
Firm is not workirtg . Please see Box on page 3 for this answer.
2
Signature:
Oda
Print Name::
Date.: --- � ��j � ►�� � . . .__��._
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING 'BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL 'THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTi0N FORM WITH AN dRGINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKLE DONiVER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DONNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY, MAILED OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED (NOT POSTMARKED) BY 5:00 P.M. ON NQVEMBER 7, 20-25.
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL.) (Please number your responses)
nswer to quesflon 3 above.
DPlli3 should cancel all proposed rats increases.
Recent hikes have already far exceeded inflation with no clear cost justification. No further
ncreases are warranted,
mendment:
reeze rates at Current levels Trough the proposed period.
8l5:
aSt increases have been excessive and unsupported by transparent data,
urther hikes Irkely viol ate Prop 218, Gov. Cade §66013, and PUC §§1281 # , 12823.
OPUD :shoukd focus on better fiscW management, net higher rates.
3
TRUCKEE DONNER
Publ -Ic Utility 'District
Proposition 218 W Objection For
REQUIREMENTS:
( 1 ) Each part of this farm must be filed out completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to go-vernment cede section 53759. 1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
5: 00 p. m . on November 7, 2025. Failure to timely submit a written objection, with
original signature, using this form bars any tight to challenge the new rates through a
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XI I 10 of the CaEifornia Constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties must present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding.
(4) Late-filed , noncompliant, or incomplete written objections without an original
signature will not be cansidered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER:
Flavio SCarra
OWNER DR RATEPAYER' S ADDRESS: Must be subject to proposed rates)
APN OF PROPERTY:
1 . Describe the provision(s) of law that fora the basis of your objectim, with specific
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that are
alleged to be violatedif the proposed rates are adopted. (Attach additional pages as
necessary. )
I am writing to formally object to the proposed water rate increases scheduled
through 2030, which would raise the rate from 103. 03 to 139- 58 — a substantial
increase of approximately 35%. This significant escaJatlon will pl'ace a considerable
financial burden on all households, regardless of their actual grater usage*
. Describe, with reference to your property and usage of water, how the proposed rates
v(olate the provisions of law you cited above. (Attach additional pages as necessary- )
strongly urge you to reconsider the structure. of these rate increases. Specifically, I
recommend that the policy be revised to avoid penalizing households with loner
consumption , such as those using their property as a vacation home or families who
actively conserve water. The current li-cy discourages conservation and
disproportionately impacts those who use less water, which may raise questions
regarding its fairness and legality.
3. Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged violations
of law you stated above. Provide m ndm nt to the proposed rates and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary. )
Pie RN Qtnlmwr Ihig:�i;SP ee M- 11anal xMMOFI M V G Vi Wn 10 rQPFOPO W RIM4c W I{e pgP 116 Ur rggjvgl rrr<1 ymr rQu,ow and 21 wdr hd ttroi'4 F adwacsta to a fad a0olkcw LhaL ocher rpRHE m equtable vreairr.erl and inc@nbNrea wacar
t]n§�titf i{ii
2
Signatur .
Print Name: f Ln v i �� c, c� ,, R JR,09~
Date,
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FORM WITH AN ORDINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DONNER PASS READ, TRUGKEE ,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY, MAILED OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED (NOT POSTMARKED) BY S: OD P.M . 01V NOVEMBER 7, 2025.
ADDITIONAL PAGE ( OPTIONAL) (Please number your response)
3
7
TRUCKEE DONNER
Public
rr
Proposi:tion 218 Written Obj' ect'ion Form
REQUIREMENTS:
(1 ) Each part of this farm must be filled out completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government cede section 53759. 1
all objections mutt be timely received by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
5.00 p.m . on November 7, 2925, Failure to timeiy submit a written objection, with
original signature, using this farm bars any ri ght to challenge the new rats through a
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article Xfll D of the California Constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties must present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding-
(4) Late-filed , noncompliant, or incomplete written objections without an original
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER-
Terrence Conway
Q11V1VER OR RATEPAYER' S ADDRESS: (Must be subject to proposed rats)
APN OF PROPERTY,
I . Describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of your objection, with specific
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations: and/or cases that are
alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted. (Attach additional page. as
necessary.
The proposed TDPLJD water rate increases vioiate provisions of Article xiii C), sect-Ion 6 of tl ai-Itornia constitution
(Proposition 18), whicti requires that pr p r-ty-related charges such as grater rate
Not exceed the funds f ouired to provide the service (Section (b)(I )):
Be used only for the cost of providing the service (Section 6(0)(2)),
Be proportional to the cost of service attributable to each parcel (Sector (b)( ))a and
Not impose fees for ser%kes not Cirectly recelved by the parcel ( e on (1 (5))�
The proposed rate arras ; I=u-o' g t v tin-uas ci "cu m p -zone, sucma(ges. appeal to violate tt -e con!3titutirj n at
provisions ty sh-Ittiq excessive and disproportionate costs onto certain customers without clear and trap p r m
. [describe, with reference. to your property and usage of welter, how the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law you cited above, (Attach additional pages as necessary,
l reside are Pump Zone 4, which is subject to are additional $3.06 per 1 ,000 llon surcharge on top of base
and commodity water rates. This surcharge i scheduled to increase further under the proposed 0 — 0 0
rate plan.
These 9 vati n-based charges ciisproportionately impact my property aTid others in higher zones by imposing
hundreds of dollars per year in additional cotes unreiated to actual water usage or service q alfty-
Th-e compounding %— .5% annual rate i nc reases furth r a mp lity t his inequit , resulting in totai rate g rowth far
aWve inflation a vri-thout sufficient demonstration that these revenues are necmary to provide service to
'MY proprt .
therefore, the proposed rates are not proportional to the cost of service, exceed the rr a ors t)1e cost to serve
- Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged violations
of law you stated Above_ Provide -amendments to the proposed rates and the written
bas'Is for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary. )
7 o co
rrect these violations ancl comp ith Proposition 21 a, Me Distric!"m0-U_
Suspend implementation of the proposed 0 — 0 0 water rate increases until
revised} transparent cost-of-service study is completed and publicly reviewed„
Reevaluate the elevation-based Vump zone"' surcharges to ensure they are strictly
proportional to the actual incremental cost of purnping water to each zone, supported
by verifiable data,
Provide clear documentation detailing how projected revenues will be used
exclusively for water service costs, consistent with Article XIII D , Section (b) ) .
Conduct meaningful community engagement and public workshops before adopting
any new long-term rate adjustments.
These actions would restore compliance with Proposition 218 and ensure the rate
4
2
Signature:
f
Print dame: q CcO v)4 �L
Date: i2cA,
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FCIRIUI WITH AN ORG[NAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DONNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY, MAiLED OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED SNOT POSTMARKED} BY 5:00 P .M_ ON NOVEMBER 7, 2025.
ADDITIONAL PAGE ( OPTIONAL) ( Please number your responses
3
Data: 10- 1 -
To: Board of Directors, Truckee Donner Public Utility District
From: Michael T. Shellito
Service Address:
Subject: Written Objection Form in Protest of Proposed Water late
Increases for 2026-2030 pursuant nt to Government Code section
. 1 and in accordance with California Proposition 218.
1 hereby submit this formal written protest against the proposed water rate increases
for 2026-2030 as described in TDPUD's Notice of Public Hearing . I do not support the
adoption f the proposed rate schedule.
1 . [describe the provision(s) of law -that form the basis of your objection, with
specific reference to. statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or
cases that are alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted. (Attach.
additional pages as necessary.)
Pursuant to California Government Code § 53759. 1 and Article X111 L , Sections 2 & 6 of
the California Constitution, I hereby object on the following legal and factual grounds:
Violation of Article X111 D § 6(b)(1 ) - Lack of proportionality and nexus t -cost of service
The proposed . co annual in-crease appears uniform across all customer classes and
years without a demonstrated cost-of-service analysis per class or zone. Prop 218
requires fees to be no greater than the proportional cost of service attributable to each
parcel. The HDP rate study projects uniform increases regardless of Consumption ,
service elevation, or infrastructure depreciation schedule, which may constitute an
illegal cross-subsidy between customer classes.
Failure to demonstrate actual financial necessity The HDR 2025 draft study assumes
expenditure growth (administrative, IT, conservatrIon , "interdepartmental rent")
exceeding inflation and without line-item justification . The report shows expenditures
growing faster than revenues, suggesting 1'nfl t d internal cost allocations and seif-
created def icits rather than verifiable system costs.
Violation of Article XI11 D § b)(3) - Use of fees for general government purposes The
inclusion of "General Manager, " "Administrative Services, " and " Board of Directors"
operating costs in the water rate base (as shown in the draft rate study) suggests that
rate revenue is being used for ran-water-related overhead, contrary to constitutional
limits.
Failure to comply with procedural transparency under Prop 218 The railed notice and
online materials omit key analytical tables (capital reserve balances, depreciation
schedules, and comparative cost-per-gal lon metrics) necessary for meaningful public
review. Prop 218 mandates that "the agency shall provide written notice containing
sufficient information to. identify the amount, basis, and reason for the fee, " TDPUD"s
notice provides only aggregated percentage increases.
Inconsistent with Prop b)( - Excessive reserve Binding The study references
" rate-funded capital's f - ' .6 million per year, which appears to exceed current-year
depreciation and may establish unauthorized reserves beyond reasonable p- rati nal
need.
Failure to re-evaluate after material assumptions. han Section 5.7 of the HDR Draft
Report admits that "should ould these assumptions charge, the proposed rate adjustments
may also need to be revised .." Inflation, growth , and capital project costs have already
shifted since the 2024-2025 base data. Adoption without an updated financial test
constitutes arbitrary and capricious action under administrative law.
Unlawful compounding and re-authorization of future rates The Board seeks t
approve five years of rate increases in one vote, binding future ratepayers and Boards
without annual public recalculation of cost of service, violating Prop 21 8's re
irrnt
that each rate adjustment be independently justified.
. Describe, with reference to your property and usage of water, how the
road rates violate the provisions of law you cited above.
Disproportionate fixed charge component The Base Charge- represents the `.`vast
majority" of all residential bills (TIDPLID's own mailer corlirms this). A high h fixed charge,
unrelated to actual water use, penalizes conservation and may be inconsistent walth
State Water~ Board efficiency policies and Prop 218's proportionality clause,
3. Describe how Truckee Donn r Public Utility District may correct the alleged
violations of law you stated above. Provide amendments to the proposed rates
and the written basis for the amendments.
I request that the Board : Suspend adoption of the 2026-2-030 rate scheduler Direct
HDR to prepare a revised , transparent, per-class cost-of-service report and updated
capital needs assessment;
Hold a new public hearing with at least 45 days' notice and full data disclosure;
Adopt only one-year adjustments, subject to independent audit and inflation
verification .
i n tUr � - -
-3rint lame: Michael T. Sh ll ito Date: 10-13-2025
i� TRUCXEE DONNER
FF Public Utollity District
Proposition 218 Wirmitten Objection Form
REQUIREMENTS
( 1 ) Each part of this form must be filledout completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government code section 53759. 1
all objections rnu t be timely received by the Truckee Conner Public Utility District b
.5AP-00 p.m. on November 7 , 2025. Failure to timely submit a written objection, with
original signature, -ire th form bars any right to challenge the new rates through
legal proceeding allegirg noncompliance wit h Article X I I I D of the California Constitution
-for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient- To satisfy this exhaustion of dmini tr ti
remedies requirements} objecting parties must present the exact issue that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding ,
(4) Late-fled , noncompliant, or incomplete written objer0ons without an original
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
TAME OF PROPERTY T WIE RATEPAYER:
JDerrek Horn
0VVNER OR RATEPAYER'S ADDRESS- (Must be subject to proposed rates)
APN OF PROPERTY-
I
. Describe the ro i -Ion(s) of law that fora the basis of your objection, with specific
reference to statutes, rui -, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that are
alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted. (Attach additional pages a
necessary)
The. proposed 0 0 water rate increases violate Article X111 D, SeOw (b)(1 ) of the
',Calffomia Constitution bemuse -the rates are not proporkmal to the acWai cosl of service 16r each
parcel or customer class.
The proposed increases also violate Artide X111 D$ Section (h)( ) bemuse system revenues are
bei'ng allocated toward administraUve and overhead uses nol directly tad to water serAce delivery.
Additionally, the District is attemptng to pre-authorize uld-year compounded rate increases
without recalculatrng cost-of-service annually, Mich ts inconsistent with Proposkion 218 procedural
and transparency requirements and Government Code § 53759. 1 .
. Describe, with reference to your propel and usage of water, how the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law you cited above. (Attach additional pages as necessary. )
The majority of my bill is determined the fixed Base Charge, which does not reflect my actual
- water usage, This caul" one to pay more than the proporhonai cost of senAice required #c serve
my parcel.
Because the rate structure -relies hoavily on fixed charges rather than usage-based costs, I am
financially penalized despite oonserving water. This ates the requirement that fees not exceed
the proportional cost of sere f6r my paroel.
The uniform annual increases also do not r tlect y p 's spec demand I evel, elevation
zone costs, or meter ca ac , and therefore lack the consthuflonally required cost-of-service
nexus.
. Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged violations
of lam you stated above. Provide amendments to the proposed rates and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary. )
TM Dom"a M'O"~,Map die PMN"b" sir""&W kid .O*A!* ilk i�wre��� �.����.ae� � ��F Mr+�r�.+4 Tray amu" —�On wow
2
Signature:
Print � �� ee�rr7eeHrr�
�i
Date: 11 /4/2025
PLEASE HAND DELtVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLE.TED
OBJECTION FORM WITH AN ORGINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570. DONNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 _ TO SE CONSIDERED T[MEL , MAILED OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED (NOT POSTMARKED) P. M. ON NOVEMBER7, 2025 .
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL) (Please number your responses)
(added the 'Describe how- TDPUD may correct the violations here due t
formatting :issues)
The District should suspend adoption of the proposed five-year rate schedule and
ire # adopt only a single-year rate adjustment that i tied to updated,
transparent,, and independently verified cost-of-service calculations..
The District trict ould revise the rate structure to reduce the fixed Base Charge and
increase the volurrietric rate component so that charges more closely -reflect
actual u-sage and parcel- specific cost of service,
revised cost-of-service analysis must be publicly released with line-item
operating, capital} administrative, and reserve allocation detail prior to any new
h a ring and rate adopfion.
TRUCKEE DONNER
Public Utility District
11F
Proposition 2�18 Writ��n Objection Form
REQUIREMENTS :
( 1 ) Each part of this form must be filled out completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government caste section 53759. 1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
S:Ob p.m. an November 7, 2025_ Failure to timely submit a written objection , ►nr th
original signature , using this form bars any right to challenge the new rakes through a
legaa proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article 7CII1 D of the California Constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties mist present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding .
(4) Late-filed , noncompliant, or incomplete written objections without an original
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME 4F PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER :
Terrance Oliver
OWNER OR RATEPAYER'S ADDRESS : (Must be subject to proposed rates
APN OF PROPERTY:
l
1 . Describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis f your objection , with specific
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions} regulations, rid/or cases that are
alleged to be iolated if the proposed rates are adopted . (Attach additional pages
necessary.)
I am concerned that proposed rate increases (e.g . water rates, utilities, or tax
assessments) will place an undue financial burden on residents in Truckee
particularly those on fixed or moderate incomes.
. Describe,, with reference to your property and usage of water, how the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law you cited above. (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Because property values and assessments in our area have already been rising
substantially, further increases in rates will magnify housing cost pressures. Many
homeowners and renters are already stretched . A rate hike may lead to increased
pushback or public dissatisfaction, and could reduce trust in local governance if
residents feel sudden increases are not justified .
. Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged violations
of law you stated above, Provide amendments to the proposed rates and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
I Uw r&nueSl*&IN tilt r L+rWF-OMte 8fW vied ft eMf'e OWU214115.0 OWW Oft 047-MAMPA Wrte 4t d8 WM WWRIS 1W W bbaf bN8WOvrhB 48 C. inrrMWA iON."WW".WrWW-£!5WE 3uOINY�4512-AM m6d hr.OLAh"b
2
f
Signature:
Print Name:
Date: A>/ev �2' <--
.1 /1_00
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FORM WITH AN ORGINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUGKEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DONNER PASS RQAL, TRUCKED ,
CALIF_C]RNIA969fi1 . TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY, MAILED OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED (NOT POSTMARKED) 8Y 5:00 P . M , ON NOVEMBER 7, 2Q25 .
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL) (Please number your responses)
3
Protest - For inclusion in public count under Prop 218
am the owner/ratepayer of the property located at:
Service Address -
Name: Jennifer Sanchez
Signature-.,,
Date: 10-1 - 0
I hereby submil this formal written protest against the proposed water rate increases for
0 - 0 0 as described in TDPUD's Notice of Public Hearing .
do not support the adoption of the proposed rate schedule. From my understanding
the proposed plan to raise our rates by more than 1 % every year for the next five
years.
That's a % increase in five years.
The consumer price index for California hovers around % per year for increases in
utilities . This proposed rate is too vouch!
11 _ Legal Objection and Grounds for Challenge
Pursuant to California Government Code § 53759 . 1 and Article X111 D, Sections 2 & 6 of
the California Constitution, I hereby object on the following legal and factual grounds-.
Violation of Article XIII D § b 1 - Lack of proportionality and :nexus to cost of service
The proposed _ % annual increase appears uniform across all customer classes and
years without a demon tr ted cost-of-service analysis per class or zone. Prop 218
requires fees to be no greater than the proportional cost of service attributable to each
parcel . The HDR rate -study projects uniform, increases regardless of consumption,
service elevation, or infrastructure depreciation schedule, which may constitute an
illegal cross-subsidy between customer classes .
Failure to der on trace actual financial necessity
The HDR 2025 draft study assumes expenditure growth (administrative, IT,
conservation, "interdepartmental rent") exceeding inflation and without lire-item
justification . The report shows expenditures growing faster than revenues, suggesting
inflated internal cost allocations and self-created deficits rather than verifiable system
costs_
Violation of Article XII11 D § - Use of fees for general gGvernment purposes
The inclusion of f'General Manager,"' "Administrative Services,"' and "Board of Directors"
operating costs in the water rate base shown in the draft rate study) suggests that
rate revenue is being used for non- water-related overhead, contrary to constitutional
limits_
Failure to comply with procedural transparency under Prop 218
The mailed notice and online materials omit key analytical table (capital reserve
balances, depreciation schedules, and comparative co i-per-gallon metrics) necessary
for meaningful public review. Prop 218 mandates that "the agency shall provide written
notice containing sufficient information to identify the amount, basis, and reason for the
fee." TDPUD's notice provides only aggregated percentage increases .
Inconsistent with Prop 218 § b - Excessive reserve funding
The study references Odrate-funded capital Op of -7. 6 million per year, which appears to
exceed current-year depreciation and may establish hi unauthorized reserves beyond
reasonable operational need .
Failure to re-evaluate after material assumptions change
Section 5.7 of the HDR Draft Deport admits that "should these assumptions change, the
proposed rate adjustments may also need to he revised ." Inflation, growth, and capital
project costs have already shifted since the 2024- 2025 base data. Adoption without an
updated financial test constitutes arbitrary and capricious action under administrative
law.
Unlawful compounding and pre-authorization of future rates
The Board seeks to approve five years of rate increases in one vote, binding future
ratepayers and Boards without annual public recalculation of cost of service, violating
Prop 21 8's reg u irement that each rate adj u iment be independently justified .
Disproportionate fixed charge com ponent
The Base Charge represents the r`vasi majority" of all residential bills (TDPUD's own
mailer confirms this) . A high fixed charge, unrelated to actual water use, penalizes
conservation and may be inconsistent with State Water Board efficiency policies and
Prop 21 8's proportionality clause.
. Requested Remedies
To cure these deficiencies, I request that the Board:
Suspend adoption of the — 0 0 rate schedule;
Direct HDR to prepare a revised, transparent, per-class cost-of-service report and
updated capital needs assessment,
Hold a new public hearing with at least 45 days' notice and full data disclosure;
Adopt only one-year adjustments, subject to independent audit and inflation verification-
IV. Signature for Legal Standing
I understand that failure to submit this objection with original signature and by : 00 P
on November 7, 2025 may waive my right to legal challenge. This objection is therefore
submitted in full compliance with Government Code § 53759 . 1 .
Signature L I -
Service Address -
:
Name: Jennifer Sanchez
Tr
TRUCKEE
DONNER
Public Utility District
Proposition 218 Wr'Itten -Object'ion Form
REQUIREMENTS:
(1 ) Each part of this farm mist be filled out completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government code section 53759, 1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
5:00 .p.m . an November 7, 2025. Failure to timely submit a written objection , with
originsl signature, using this form bars any right to challenge the new rates through a
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties must preset the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding.
(4) Late-fled, noncompliant, or incomplete written objections without an original
signature will not be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement,
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER:
OWNER OR RATEPAYER'S ADDRESS: (Must be subject to proposed rates
APN OF PROPERTY:
l
• 1 . Describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of your objection, with SpeCIfIC
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, andlor cases that are
alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted. (Attach additional pages as
necessary.)
r
2. Describe, with reference to your property and usage of water, haw the proposed rates
violate the provisions cf law you cited above. (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
-L4�5
YY\9—
C/konj
'71
3 . Describe how Truckee Donner Public Utility District may correct the alleged violations
of law you stated above. Provide amendments to the proposed sakes and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Signature: vp
Print Name.:
date: ICA�j �
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR MAID. THIS COMPLE'TED
OBJECTION FARM VIf9TH AN OFtGINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE DQNNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DONNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO 6E CONSIDERED TIMELY, MAILED OBJECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED (NOT POSTMARKED) BY 5 :00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 7, 2Q25.
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL) Please number your responses)
3
I I/ D /I
TRUCKEE DONNER
Public Utility District
Proposition 218 Wr'l'tten Objection Form
REQUIREMENTS:
(1 ) each part of this form must be filled out completely.
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to govemment code section 53759. 1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Donner Pubic Utift District by
5:00 p.m, on November 7, 2025. Failure to timely submit a written objection, with
original signature, using this form bars any right to challenge the new rates through a
legal proceeding alleging noncompliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution
for thus proposed new water rites.
(3) Generalized objections are insufficient. To satisfy this exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties mush present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding,
(4) Late fled, noncompliant, or incomplete wriften objections without an original
signature will net be considered as satisfying the exhauskGon of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER:
I.Jennifer Wilson
F -
OWNER OR RATEPAYER'S ADDRESS: (Must be subject t4 proposed rates)
APhJ OF PROPERTY;
I
1 - Desch-be the provision(s) of law that farm the basis of your objection, with specft
reference to statutes, rues, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that are
alleged to be violated if the proposed rues are adapted. (Attach additional pages as
necessary. )
Article XIIII G, of the California Constitution and its progeny of Gasetaw
CA. Constitution Article XIIII D, section 6
2. Describe, with reference to your property and usage of water, hoer the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law you cited above. (Attach additional pages as necessary.. )
Proportionality: proposed assessment is the same as that for larger homes, despite a
clear diff erence in property size and presumed benefit. This is a violation of the
proportionality requirement, as the increase in fees exceeds the proportional share of
the actual special benefit received. The burden of proof is an the town to demonstrate
its proposed tiered wader fees are proportional to the cost of smi+ce attributable to
each custorn8r's parcel.
General v. Special Benefits: fails to separate and quantify the general and special
benefits received to each parcel . Assessments can only be imposed for a special
benefft conferred directly upon a specific parcel of property., not general governmental
services that benefit the public at large.
3. Describe how Truckee Danner Public Utility District may correct the alleged violations
of law you stag above. Provide amendments to the proposed rates and the written
basis for the amendments. (Attach additional pages as necessary-)
FronTDPU�Dneeds tv comply with Prop 218, aid connect water usage and the services
uired to the increase in tees. TDPUD must comp)y with substanhve and
procedural requirements justifying their cost and need to local property owners and
taxpayers. Truckee must demonstrate that the increase in the tiered rates are based
on the actual cast of providing water at different usage levels. Patz v. City of S. D.
There is likewise no demonstrablelink to encouraging conservation.
LP
Signalure:
Print Name: _ _ `�►���� 1" �t� '�
Date-. 1=�
P4.FASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS HOURS OR SAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FORM WITH AN ORGINAL SIGNATURE T4 TRUCKEE DONNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 DONNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 . TO BE CONSIDERED TrMELY, MAIL 0 IONS MUST
BE RECEIVED (NOT POSTMARKED) BY 5:00 P. W ON NOVEMBER 7, 2025.
ADDITIONAL PAGE (flRTiQNAL) (Please number your responses)
#2, Exceeds the cost of providing the service. As an individual who often is far
ender my aNlotment of water under the current #ee Structure, this increase is, in
effect, punishing those who are more conservative with their water usage.
Conservative use of a wader resource should inure a benefit to those who are
conscientious with the use of tfiiS precious resource.
Improper use of fps: There is not a proper demonstration that the use of Bees
will be. used for specific use_
91W
�-� TRUCKEE DONNER
L
Public Utility District
Preposition 218 W. , rittren Ob.. jection Form,
REQUIREMENTS-
(1 ) Each dart of this form must be filled out completely,
(2) To exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to government code section 53759. 1
all objections must be timely received by the Truckee Danner Public Utility District by
5:00 p.m. an November 7, 2025. Failure to timely submit a written objection, wfth
original signature, using Chas form bars any right to challenge the new rates through a
legal praceeding alleging noncompliance with Article X11I D of the Califomia Constitution
for these proposed new water rates.
(3) Generalized objections are insuFficient. To satisfy this exhaus#gin of administrative
remedies requirements, objecting parties m ust present the exact issue (s) that they
intend to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding.
(4) Late-filed, nonca pliantr or incomplete written objections without an original
signature will riot be considered as satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies
requirement.
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER OR RATEPAYER:
EWhim:eyK. MCBride
OWNER OR RATEPAYER' S AD] rates)
APN OF PROPERTY:
1 . Describe the provision(s) of law that form the bads of your objection, wi#h specEfic
reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that are
alleged to he violated if the proposed rates are adopted- (Attach additional pages as
necessary. )
A
rticle X611i D, of the California Conslitufion and its progeny o6 caselaw
A Constitution Article X1111 D, section fi
2. Describe
I with reference to your Property and usage of water, how the proposed rites
violate the provisionsof law you cited above. (Attach additional pages as necessary. )
ProportionalitY: Proposed assessment is the same as that for larger homes, despite a
clear difference in property size and presumed benefit. This is a violation of the
proportionality requirement, as the increase in fees exceeds the proportional share of
the actual special benefit received. the burden of proof is on the town to demonstrate
its proposed tiered water fees are proportional to the cost of service attributable to
each customer's parcel.
General v. Special Benefits.- fuels to separate and quantify the general and special
benefits received to each parcel. Assessments can only be iMposed for a special
benefit conferred directly upon a specific parcel of properly, not general govemmental
services that benefit the public at urge.
3, Describe how Truckee Donner Public !!1ilfiy District may correct the alleged violations
Of law you stated above. Provide amendments to the proposed rates and the written
basis for the amendments- (Attach additional pages as necessarl+'•)
TDPUD needs to comply with Prop 218, and connect water usage and the services
required to the incre-ase' in fees: TDPUD muse Conrrply with substantive and
procedural requirements justifying #heir, cost and neec! to local property owners and
taxpayers. Truckee must demonstrate that the increase in the tiered rates are based
on the actual COS# of providing water at different usage Ievels. Patz v. pity of S_D_
There is likewise no demonstrable link to encouraging conservation.
2-
Signature:
Print dame:
PLEASE HAND DELIVER DURING BUSINESS FlpURS OR MAIL THIS COMPLETED
OBJECTION FARM WITH AN ORGINAL SIGNATURE TO TRUCKEE DINNER
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AT 11570 D(?NNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA 96161 _ TO BE CONSIDERED TIMELY, MAILED OBjECTIONS MUST
BE RECEIVED (NOT POSTMARKED) BY 5:00 P.M. ON NOVEAl1BER 7, 2025.
ADDITIONAL PAGE (OPTIONAL) (Please number your responses)
#2 Exceeds the cost of providing the service: As an individual who often is tar
under my allotment of water ender the current fee structure, this increase is, in
effect, punishing those who are more conservative with their water wage.
Conservative use of a water resource should inure a benefit to those who are
� conscientious with the use of this precious resource.
Improper use of fees: There is not a proper demonstration tha# the use of fees will
be used for specific use.
Exhibit B
To
Resolution No. 2025-32
Responses to Written Objections
1. Hilly Objection (First Hilly Objection - 52)
Procedural Requirements
The First Hilly Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The First Hilly Objection states in Box#1, "I protest the proposed rate increase", in Box
#2 that"There was no charge for water when I bought this house and The rates have already
skyrocketed. This is excessive and unfair", and on the Additional Page that, "This is a protest
letter!". The First Hilly Objection does not comply with the District's substantive requirements
for properly submitting a written objection because it: (1) states generalized objections; (2) does
not describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of the objection, with specific reference
to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions,regulations, and/or cases that are alleged to be
violated if the proposed rates are adopted; and (3) does not describe, with reference to the
objector's property and usage of water, how the proposed rates violate the provisions of law the
objector cited.
District's Response
The First Hilly Objection states a policy-based objection, i.e. —that rates should not be
increased as proposed because the rates have already skyrocketed and that it is excessive and
unfair and does not state any legal basis for objecting to the proposed rates. Because the First
Hilly Objection is noncompliant it does not satisfy the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Because the First Hilly Objection states, "I protest the proposed rate increase" and "This is a
Protest letter!" it will be counted as a protest to the proposed rates.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the First Hilly Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the
District's Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code section
53759.1: (1) the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the
proposed rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the
objection no further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification
or reduction is needed; and(4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of
Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
1
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the First Hilly Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set
forth in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the First Hilly Objection and used to defend
against any action based on the First Hilly Objection.
2. Hilly Objection (Second Hilly Objection - 64)
Procedural Requirements
The Second Hilly Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7,
2025, deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using
the District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Second Hilly Objection states in Box#1, "I protest the proposed rate increase", in
Box#2 that"we started in prosser/truckee w/no water charge and the proposed 5 year hike is
unsupportable for my income", and on the Additional Page that, "This is a protest letter!". The
Second Hilly Objection does not comply with the District's substantive requirements for properly
submitting a written objection because it: (1) states generalized objections; (2) does not describe
the provision(s) of law that form the basis of the objection, with specific reference to statutes,
rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that are alleged to be violated if the
proposed rates are adopted; and(3) does not describe, with reference to the objector's property
and usage of water, how the proposed rates violate the provisions of law the objector cited.
District's Response
The Second Hilly Objection states a policy-based objection, i.e. —that rates should not be
increased as proposed because the proposed rates are unsupportable for the objector's income
and does not state any legal basis for objecting to the proposed rates. Because the Second Hilly
Objection is noncompliant it does not satisfy the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Because
the Second Hilly Objection states, "I protest the proposed rate increase" and"This is a Protest
letter!" it will be counted as a protest to the proposed rates.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Second Hilly Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the
District's Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code section
53759.1: (1) the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the
proposed rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the
objection no further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification
or reduction is needed; and(4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of
Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
2
District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect to
the Second Hilly Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set
forth in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Second Hilly Objection and used to defend
against any action based on the Second Hilly Objection.
3. Moyer Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Moyer Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Moyer Objection states in Box#1, "A rate increase for Seniors on Social Security is
unsustainable with limited income.", in Box#2 that"Seniors will be forced to choose between
utilities and basic necessities, ie. food healthcare etc.", and on the Additional Page, "Just one
more reason Truckee is not a place to retire. I plan to move."The Moyer Objection does not
comply with the District's substantive requirements for properly submitting a written objection
because it: (1) states generalized objections; (2) does not describe the provision(s) of law that
form the basis of the objection, with specific reference to statutes, rules, constitutional
provisions, regulations, and/or cases that are alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are
adopted; and(3) does not describe, with reference to the objector's property and usage of water,
how the proposed rates violate the provisions of law the objector cited.
District's Response
The Moyer Objection states a policy-based objection, i.e. —that rates should not be
increased as proposed because the rate increase is not sustainable for seniors on Social Security
with a limited income and that seniors will be forced to choose between utilities and basic
necessities. Because the Moyer Objection is noncompliant it does not satisfy the exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Moyer Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the District's
Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision(d) of Government Code section 53759.1:
(1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the proposed
rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the objection no
further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification or reduction
is needed; and(4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of Article XIII D
of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Moyer Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth
3
in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Moyer Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Moyer Objection.
4. Krampert Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Krampert Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Krampert Hilly Objection states in Box#'s 1, 2, and 3, ""Documents enclosed". The
documents enclosed with the Objection include, (1) Three (3) Share Certificates of the Glenshire
Mutual Water Company, one was signed in 1996 and two were signed in 1997; (2) a 1996/1997
Rate Schedule; (3) a 1997/1998 Rate Schedule; and (4) a two-page letter to the objector from the
Glenshire Mutual Water Company. The Krampert Objection does not comply with the District's
substantive requirements for properly submitting a written objection because it: (1) does not
present the exact issue(s) that the objector intends to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding; (3)
is incomplete; (2) does not describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of the objection,
with specific reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that
are alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted; and(4) does not describe,with
reference to the objector's property and usage of water, how the proposed rates violate the
provisions of law the objector cited.
District's Response
The Krampert Objection does not state any objection or provide any legal basis for the
objection; it only provides documents that do not pertain to the proposed rates and is incomplete.
Because the Krampert Objection is noncompliant it does not satisfy the exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Krampert Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the
District's Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code section
53759.1: (1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the
proposed rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the
objection no further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification
or reduction is needed; and(4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of
Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Krampert Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set
4
forth in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Krampert Objection and used to defend
against any action based on the Krampert Objection.
5. Crump Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Crump Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Crump Objection generally describes the provisions of law that form the basis for the
Objection as including: (1) California Constitution, Article XIII D,S6(a)(1)-(3); (2) Revenues
may not exceed service costs and must be proportional. Government Code S53756: Prohibits
automatic or ongoing rate adjustments not tied to cost-of-service. (4)Relevant case law stated in
the Objection: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v.City of Fresno (2005), Capistrano Taxpayers
Assn. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2015), Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency V. Verjil
(2005).
The Crump Objection describes how the proposed rates violate the law cited above with
respect to the Frick property as follows: Our property is a single-family home with moderate
water consumption and conservation measures. Despite this, the proposed 6.5% annual increase
would raise our bill significantly. The District has not provided a detailed cost-of-service
analysis demonstrating that the cost to supply, treat, and deliver water has increased
proportionally. Some proposed revenue appears to fund capital projects or administrative costs
unrelated to our service, and the automatic escalator violates Government Code S53756.
District's Response
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses, to provide water
service. There are no costs included that do not provide a benefit to water service.
Both operating and capital costs are incurred to maintain the system and provide
water service.
3. The cost of service analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically addresses the issue of proportionality for the District's water customers to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218. In this case the customer classes are for
residential customers, non-residential customers, and pump zone based on the cost to
5
provide service and develop the proposed fixed and consumption charges for each
class.
4. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates for each customer class of service.
The fixed charge is based on the capacity of each meter size to reflect the demands
and impacts on the system. The proposed rates by tier are based on the costs to
provide service at the identified tier sizes.
5. There is not an automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year
reflect the costs to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years as outlined
in the rate study.
6. A public hearing is scheduled for November 19, 2025 as required.
7. Government Code Section 53756 authorizes the adoption of a schedule of fees with
automatic adjustments for a period not to exceed five years provided that any
inflation adjustment does not exceed the cost of providing the service. There is not an
automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year reflect the costs
to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years.
8. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Fresno (2005) is not violated because there
is no unlawful transfer of funds, the rates include administrative costs required to
provide water service and no other costs and water rates are otherwise compliant with
Proposition 218.
9. Capistrano Taxpayers Assn. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2015) is not violated
because the District calculated the cost of water service for tiered consumption.
10. Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil (2005) is not violated because the
District understands that its water service is a property-related service as defined
Proposition 218 and the proposed new water rates are being adopted in accordance
with the procedural and substantive requirements of Proposition 218.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Crump Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the District's
Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision(d) of Government Code section 53759.1:
(1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the proposed
rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the objection no
further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification or reduction
is needed; and (4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of Article XIII D
of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Crump Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth
6
in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Crump Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Crump Objection.
6. Henry Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Henry Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Henry Objection generally describes the provisions of law that form the basis for the
Objection as including: Article XIII D § 6(b)(3)because " The inclusion of"General Manager,"
"Administrative Services," and"Board of Directors" operating costs in the water rate base (as
shown in the draft rate study) suggests that rate revenue is being used for non-water-related
overhead, contrary to constitutional limits. Failure to comply with procedural transparency under
Prop 218 The mailed notice and online materials omit key analytical tables (capital reserve
balances, depreciation schedules, and comparative cost-per-gallon metrics) necessary for
meaningful public review. Prop 218 mandates that"the agency shall provide written notice
containing sufficient information to identify the amount, basis, and reason for the fee."
TDPUD's notice provides only aggregated percentage increases."
The Henry Objection describes how the proposed rates violate the law cited above with
respect to the Henry property as follows: "Unlawful compounding and pre-authorization of
future rates "The Board seeks to approve five years of rate increases in one vote,binding future
ratepayers and Boards without annual public recalculation of cost of service, violating
Prop 218's requirement that each rate adjustment be independently justified. Disproportionate
fixed charge component The Base Charge represents the "vast majority" of all residential bills
(TDPUD's own mailer confirms this). A high fixed charge, unrelated to actual water use,
penalizes conservation and may be inconsistent with State Water Board efficiency policies and
Prop 218's proportionality clause."
District's Response
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses to provide water
service, and does not generate excess revenue. Further, the revenues are specifically
identified and used to fund water service and are not used for other District purposes.
7
3. The cost of service analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically addresses the issue of proportionality for the District's water customers to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218. In this case the customer classes are for
residential customers, non-residential customers, and pump zone based on the cost to
provide service and develop the proposed fixed and consumption charges for each
class.
4. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates for each customer class of service.
The fixed charge is based on the capacity of each meter size to reflect the demands
and impacts on the system. The proposed rates by tier are based on the costs to
provide service at the identified tier sizes.
5. Pump zone charges are based on the cost of pumping water to each zone and reflect
the additional costs for each pump zone as the water is pumped through and to the
next pump zone to the benefiting customers.
6. The cost of service analysis provides the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates, and specifically the average unit
costs. The development of the average unit costs, and proposed rates, reflects industry
standard cost of service principles based on the District's specific costs and customer
characteristics to meet the proportionality requirements of Proposition 218.
7. The 2025 Water Rate Study outlines the cost basis for the proposed rates for each of
the proposed five-years that reflect the funding of the District's water utility operating
and capital costs over the specified time period.
8. There is not an automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year
reflect the costs to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years as outlined
in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
9. There are no violations of the United States Constitution or California Constitution
based on the cost of service completed to provide proportional rates by class of
service and all customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are
treated the same. Customers in high elevations pay more because it costs more to
provide water service to them because of the specific pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation that are incurred to serve those customers.
10. Notice of the proposed new rates sent more than 45 days prior to the public hearing as
required by Proposition 218.
11. All customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are treated the
same.As noted in the cost of service analysis, and the specific costs incurred by the
District to provide service, customers in high elevations pay more because it costs
8
more to provide water service to them because of the pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation.Accordingly, there is no violation of equal
protection principles.
12. A public hearing is scheduled for November 19, 2025 as required.
13. Government Code Section 53756 authorizes the adoption of a schedule of fees with
automatic adjustments for a period not to exceed five years provided that any
inflation adjustment does not exceed the cost of providing the service. There is not an
automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year reflect the costs
to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years.
14. The holding in Moore v. City of Lemon Grove(2015) 237 Cal.App.4t1'363 is not
violated because all revenue from the proposed rates for administrative costs are related to
water service and are well documented in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
15. The holding in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Fresno (2005) 127
Cal.AppAth 914 is not violated because there is no unlawful transfer of funds, the
rates include administrative costs required to provide water service and no other costs
and water rates are otherwise compliant with Proposition 218.
16. The holding in Griffith v.Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency(2014)220
Cal.App.4th 586 is not violated because the Districts rates and charges may fund efforts to
identify and design future projects, identifying and funding futures needs of the District is
part of the present-day services, and costs of planning for such future needs may be
recovered from charges imposed in current users.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Henry, in exercising its legislative discretion, the District's Board of
Directors determines pursuant to subdivision(d) of Government Code section 53759.1: (1) the
objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the proposed rates;
(2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the objection no further
review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification or reduction is
needed; and (4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of Article XIII D of
the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Henry Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth in
this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Henry Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Henry Objection.
7. Reid Objection
Procedural Requirements
9
The Reid Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Reid Objection states in Box# 1 that"The basis of my objection is that you're
attempting to set rate increases for 5 years. You don't know what future economic, financial, +
revenue conditions will be in 5 years out so how can you claim to know how much the increases
should be??You [cant]", and in Box#2 "I OBJECT. I shouldn't have to be in law school to
object."The Reid Objection does not comply with the District's substantive requirements for
properly submitting a written objection because it: (1) is incomplete; (2) does not describe the
provision(s) of law that form the basis of the objection,with specific reference to statutes, rules,
constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that are alleged to be violated if the proposed
rates are adopted; and(3) does not describe, with reference to the objector's property and usage
of water, how the proposed rates violate the provisions of law the objector cited.
District's Response
The Reid Objection states policy-based objections and does not provide any legal basis
for the objection, is incomplete, does not describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of
the objection, with specific reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations,
and/or cases that are alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted, and does not
describe, with reference to the objector's property and usage of water, how the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law the objector cited. Because the Reid Objection is noncompliant it
does not satisfy the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The District responds further as follows:
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses to provide water
service, and does not generate excess revenue. Further, the revenues are specifically
identified and used to fund water service and are not used for other District purposes.
3. The cost of service analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically addresses the issue of proportionality for the District's water customers to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218. In this case the customer classes are for
residential customers, non-residential customers, and pump zone based on the cost to
provide service and develop the proposed fixed and consumption charges for each
class.
10
4. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates for each customer class of service.
The fixed charge is based on the capacity of each meter size to reflect the demands
and impacts on the system. The proposed rates by tier are based on the costs to
provide service at the identified tier sizes.
5. Pump zone charges are based on the cost of pumping water to each zone and reflect
the additional costs for each pump zone as the water is pumped through and to the
next pump zone to the benefiting customers.
6. The 2025 Water Rate Study outlines the cost basis for the proposed rates for each of
the proposed five-years that reflect the funding of the District's water utility operating
and capital costs over the specified time period.
7. There is not an automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year
reflect the costs to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years as outlined
in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
8. Government Code Section 53756 authorizes the adoption of a schedule of fees with
automatic adjustments for a period not to exceed five years provided that any
inflation adjustment does not exceed the cost of providing the service. There is not an
automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year reflect the costs
to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Reid Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the District's
Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision(d) of Government Code section 53759.1:
(1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the proposed
rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the objection no
further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification or reduction
is needed; and (4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of Article XIII D
of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Reid Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth in
this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Reid Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Reid Objection.
8. Coombs Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Coombs Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
11
Substantive Requirements
The Coombs Objection generally describes the provisions of law that form the basis for
the Objection as including: Prop 218 requires voter approval for new or increased property-
related fees, including water rates. It mandates that water rate structures be based on the cost of
providing service and cannot be unjustified or inflated.
The Coombs Objection describes how the proposed rates violate the law cited above with
respect to the Coombs property as follows: My property is at the bottom of TD and in Zone 2.
My water use fluctuates monthly based on my use. In the winter months it is almost nil. I am
already being charged a pump charge, base rate and commodity charge. The proposed annual
increases do not reflect the true cost of providing service.
District's Response
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the rate study specifically
outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses to provide water service.
3. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates.
4. Pump zone charges are based on the cost of pumping water to each zone and reflect
the additional costs for each pump zone as the water is pumped through and to the
next pump zone to the benefitting customers.
5. The cost of service analysis provides the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates, and specifically the average unit
costs. The development of the average unit costs, and proposed rates, reflects industry
standard cost of service principles based on the District's specific costs and customer
characteristics to meet the proportionality requirements of Proposition 218.
6. Proposition 218 requires a protest vote to implement water rates. If there is not a
majority protest received prior to the close of the public hearing on November 13,
2025, the District Board may adopt the proposed rates as outlined in the customer
notification.
7. Proposition 218 does not require voter approval for new or increased property related
fees, including water rates. Proposition 218 has a majority protest procedure for
water rates. The District can't adopt the proposed new rates if a majority of the
property owners or customers protest the proposed new rates. The proposed new
12
rates are based on the cost of service as demonstrated in the comprehensive 2025
Water Rate Study.
8. The proposed new rates are based on the cost of service as demonstrated in the
comprehensive 2025 Water Rate Study.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Coombs Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the
District's Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code section
53759.1: (1) the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the
proposed rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the
objection no further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification
or reduction is needed; and(4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of
Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Coombs Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth
in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Coombs Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Coombs Objection.
9. Tattersall Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Tattersall Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Tattersall Objection states in Box# 1 that"No basis has been described for why the
rates should be increased so much. We have received no detailed information supporting the rate
increase.", and in Box#2 "The higher rates to be applied to part time residents is a clear case of
discrimination. Part time residents will pay the same base fee as full time residents. There is no
basis for charging a higher just because you are a part time resident." The Tattersall Objection
does not comply with the District's substantive requirements for properly submitting a written
objection because it: (1) is incomplete; (2) does not describe the provision(s) of law that form the
basis of the objection, with specific reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions,
regulations, and/or cases that are alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted; and(3)
does not describe, with reference to the objector's property and usage of water, how the proposed
rates violate the provisions of law the objector cited.
District's Response
13
The Tattersall Objection does not describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of
the objection, with specific reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations,
and/or cases that are alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted, and does not
describe, with reference to the objector's property and usage of water, how the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law the objector cited. Because the Tattersall Objection is noncompliant
it does not satisfy the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The District responds further as follows:
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses to provide water
service, and does not generate excess revenue. Further, the revenues are specifically
identified and used to fund water service and are not used for other District purposes.
3. The cost of service analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically addresses the issue of proportionality for the District's water customers to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218. In this case the customer classes are for
residential customers, non-residential customers, and pump zone based on the cost to
provide service and develop the proposed fixed and consumption charges for each
class.
4. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates for each customer class of service.
The fixed charge is based on the capacity of each meter size to reflect the demands
and impacts on the system. The proposed rates by tier are based on the costs to
provide service at the identified tier sizes.
5. Pump zone charges are based on the cost of pumping water to each zone and reflect
the additional costs for each pump zone as the water is pumped through and to the
next pump zone to the benefiting customers.
6. The 2025 Water Rate Study outlines the cost basis for the proposed rates for each of
the proposed five-years that reflect the funding of the District's water utility operating
and capital costs over the specified time period.
7. There is not an automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year
reflect the costs to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years as outlined
in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
8. Government Code Section 53756 authorizes the adoption of a schedule of fees with
automatic adjustments for a period not to exceed five years provided that any
14
inflation adjustment does not exceed the cost of providing the service. There is not an
automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year reflect the costs
to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Tattersall Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the
District's Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code section
53759.1: (1) the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the
proposed rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the
objection no further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification
or reduction is needed; and(4) to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of
Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Tattersall Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set
forth in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Tattersall Objection and used to defend
against any action based on the Tattersall Objection.
10. Ridless Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Ridless Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Ridless Objection does not state an objection or provide any information. Box#'s 1,
2, and, 3, and the Additional Page are empty. The Ridless Objection does not comply with the
District's substantive requirements for properly submitting a written objection because it: (1)
does not present the exact issue(s) that the objector intends to pursue in a judicial action or
proceeding; (2) is incomplete; (3) does not describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of
the objection, with specific reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations,
and/or cases that are alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted; and(4) does not
describe, with reference to the objector's property and usage of water, how the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law the objector cited.
District's Response
The Ridless Objection does not state any objection or provide any legal basis for the
objection, is incomplete, does not describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of the
objection, with specific reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or
cases that are alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted, and does not describe, with
reference to the objector's property and usage of water, how the proposed rates violate the
15
provisions of law the objector cited. Because the Ridless Objection is noncompliant it does not
satisfy the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Ridless Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the District's
Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision(d) of Government Code section 53759.1:
(1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the proposed
rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the objection no
further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification or reduction
is needed; and (4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of Article XIII D
of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Ridless Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth
in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Ridless Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Ridless Objection.
11. Frick Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Frick Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Frick Objection generally describes the provisions of law that form the basis for the
Objection as including: (1)proposed rated likely violate Proposition 218 because they exceed the
proportional service costs or generate excess revenue; (2)there is a lack of financial data that
raises concerns under Gov. Code §66013, which requires capital charges to reflect actual costs,
and under PUC §§12811, 12823, mandating fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory rates; (3) the
proposed rates may further violate Art. X, §2 of the CA Constitution by discouraging beneficial
water use through excessive pricing; (4)the proposed rates raise equal protection issues under
federal and state Constitutions due to their disproportionate impact on certain
geographic/elevation-based customer groups without sufficient justification; and(5)the
notice lacked the clarity and specificity needed for meaningful public participation, potentially
violating Prop 218 and the CA Public Records Act.
The Frick Objection generally describes how the proposed rates violate the law cited
above with respect to the Frick property as follows: (1) As a resident in Pump Zone 4, my
property is subject to even higher water charges in the district; (2)No clear cost-of-service data
or justification was provided for these disproportionate rate hikes,which far exceed inflation and
extend years into the future without basis (3) This lack of transparency violates Art. XIII D,
§6(b)(Prop 218), requiring fees to match proportional service costs, and PUC §§12811,12823,
16
mandating fair, reasonable rates; (4) Base rates for all zones have already risen sharply in recent
years, and proposed multi-year increases continue this excessive trend; and (5) Absent clear
evidence linking hikes to actual service costs, they appear to violate Prop 218, Gov. Code
§66013,and equal protection principles by imposing unjustified burdens, especially on higher-
elevation customers.
District's Response
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses to provide water
service, and does not generate excess revenue. Further, the revenues are specifically
identified and used to fund water service and are not used for other District purposes.
3. The cost of service analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically addresses the issue of proportionality for the District's water customers to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218. In this case the customer classes are for
residential customers, non-residential customers, and pump zone based on the cost to
provide service and develop the proposed fixed and consumption charges for each
class.
4. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates for each customer class of service.
The fixed charge is based on the capacity of each meter size to reflect the demands
and impacts on the system. The proposed rates by tier are based on the costs to
provide service at the identified tier sizes.
5. Pump zone charges are based on the cost of pumping water to each zone and reflect
the additional costs for each pump zone as the water is pumped through and to the
next pump zone to the benefiting customers.
6. The 2025 Water Rate Study outlines the cost basis for the proposed rates for each of
the proposed five-years that reflect the funding of the District's water utility operating
and capital costs over the specified time period.
7. There is not an automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year
reflect the costs to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years.
8. Government Code Section 66013 applies to mitigation fees and not to rates; it does
not apply to this proposed rate increase.
17
9. Public Utility Code Sections 12811 and 12823 apply to municipal utility districts and
not to public utility districts; they do not apply to the District or this proposed rate
increase.
10. There are no violations of the United States Constitution or California Constitution
based on the cost of service completed to provide proportional rates by class of
service and all customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are
treated the same. Customers in high elevations pay more because it costs more to
provide water service to them because of the specific pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation that are incurred to serve those customers.
11. Notice of the proposed new rates sent more than 45 days prior to the public hearing as
required by Proposition 218.
12. All customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are treated the
same.As noted in the cost of service analysis, and the specific costs incurred by the
District to provide service, customers in high elevations pay more because it costs
more to provide water service to them because of the pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation.Accordingly, there is no violation of equal
protection principles.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Frick Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the District's
Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision(d) of Government Code section 53759.1:
(1) the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the proposed
rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the objection no
further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification or reduction
is needed; and (4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of Article XIII D
of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Frick Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth in
this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Fick Objection and used to defend against any action
based on the Frick Objection.
12. Scara Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Scara Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
18
The Scara Objection states in Box# 1 that rates should not be increased as proposed
because they will place a considerable financial burden on all households regardless of their
actual water usage, and in Box#2 that the proposed rates should be revised to avoid penalizing
households with lower consumption, such as those using their property as a vacation home or
those who actively conserve water and the current policy discourages conservations and
disproportionately impacts those who use less water, which may raise questions regarding
fairness and legality. The Scara Objection does not comply with the District's substantive
requirements for properly submitting a written objection because it: (1) does not present the
exact issue(s) that the objector intends to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding; (2) is
incomplete; (3) does not describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of the objection,
with specific reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that
are alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted; and(4) does not describe,with
reference to the objector's property and usage of water, how the proposed rates violate the
provisions of law the objector cited.
District's Response
The Scara Objection states policy-based objections and does not provide any legal basis
for the objection, is incomplete, does not describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of
the objection, with specific reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations,
and/or cases that are alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted, and does not
describe, with reference to the objector's property and usage of water, how the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law the objector cited. Because the Scara Objection is noncompliant it
does not satisfy the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Scara Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the District's
Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision(d) of Government Code section 53759.1:
(1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the proposed
rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the objection no
further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification or reduction
is needed; and(4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of Article XIII D
of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Scara Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth in
this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Scara Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Scara Objection.
13. Conway Objection
Procedural Requirements
19
The Conway Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Conway Objection generally describes the provisions of law that form the basis for
the Objection as including: "Article XIII D Section 6 of the California Constitution(Proposition
218)which requires that property-related charges such as water rates: Not exceed the funds
required to provide the service (Section 6(b)(1)); Be used only for the cost of providing the
service (Section 6(b)(2)); Be proportional to the cost of service attributable to each parcel
(Section 6(b)(3)); and Not impose fees for services not directly received by the parcel (Section
6(b)(5)). The proposed rate increases, including elevation-based "pump zone" surcharges, appear
to violate these constitutional provisions by shifting excessive and disproportionate costs onto
certain customers without clear and transparent."
The Conway Objection describes how the proposed rates violate the law cited above with
respect to the Henry property as follows: "I reside in Pump Zone 4, which is subject to an
additional $3.06 per 1,000 gallons surcharge on top of base and commodity water rates. This
surcharge is scheduled to increase further under the proposed 2025-2030 rate plan. These
elevation-based charges disproportionately impact my property and others in higher zones by
imposing hundreds of dollars per year in additional costs unrelated to actual water usage or
service quality. The compounding 7%-6.5% annual rate increases further amplify this inequity,
resulting in total rate growth far above inflation and without sufficient demonstration that these
revenues are necessary to provide service to my property. Therefore, the proposed rates are not
proportional to the cost of service, exceed the reasonable cost to serve"
District's Response
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses to provide water
service, and does not generate excess revenue. Further, the revenues are specifically
identified and used to fund water service and are not used for other District purposes.
3. The cost of service analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically addresses the issue of proportionality for the District's water customers to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218. In this case the customer classes are for
residential customers, non-residential customers, and pump zone based on the cost to
provide service and develop the proposed fixed and consumption charges for each
class.
20
4. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates for each customer class of service.
The fixed charge is based on the capacity of each meter size to reflect the demands
and impacts on the system. The proposed rates by tier are based on the costs to
provide service at the identified tier sizes.
5. Pump zone charges are based on the cost of pumping water to each zone and reflect
the additional costs for each pump zone as the water is pumped through and to the
next pump zone to the benefiting customers.
6. The 2025 Water Rate Study outlines the cost basis for the proposed rates for each of
the proposed five-years that reflect the funding of the District's water utility operating
and capital costs over the specified time period.
7. There is not an automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year
reflect the costs to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years as outlined
in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
8. There are no violations of the United States Constitution or California Constitution
based on the cost of service completed to provide proportional rates by class of
service and all customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are
treated the same. Customers in high elevations pay more because it costs more to
provide water service to them because of the specific pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation that are incurred to serve those customers.
9. Notice of the proposed new rates sent more than 45 days prior to the public hearing as
required by Proposition 218.
10. All customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are treated the
same.As noted in the cost of service analysis, and the specific costs incurred by the
District to provide service, customers in high elevations pay more because it costs
more to provide water service to them because of the pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation.Accordingly, there is no violation of equal
protection principles.
11. A public hearing is scheduled for November 19, 2025 as required.
12. Government Code Section 53756 authorizes the adoption of a schedule of fees with
automatic adjustments for a period not to exceed five years provided that any
inflation adjustment does not exceed the cost of providing the service. There is not an
automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year reflect the costs
to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years.
21
13. The holding in Moore v. City of Lemon Grove(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 363 is not
violated because all revenue from the proposed rates for administrative costs are related to
water service and are well documented in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
14. The holding in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Fresno (2005) 127
Cal.AppAth 914 is not violated because there is no unlawful transfer of funds, the
rates include administrative costs required to provide water service and no other costs
and water rates are otherwise compliant with Proposition 218.
15. The holding in Griffith v.Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency(2014)220
Cal.AppAth 586 is not violated because the Districts rates and charges may fund efforts to
identify and design future projects, identifying and funding futures needs of the District is
part of the present-day services, and costs of planning for such future needs may be
recovered from charges imposed in current users.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Conway Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the
District's Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code section
53759.1: (1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the
proposed rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the
objection no further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification
or reduction is needed; and(4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of
Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Conway Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth
in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Conway Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Conway Objection.
14. Shellito Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Shellito Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Shellito Objection generally describes the provisions of law that form the basis for
the Objection as including: (1) California Government Code § 53759.1 and Article XIII D, Sections
2&6 of the California Constitution, specifically Article XIII D § 6(b)(1)due to lack of
proportionality and nexus to cost of service because the proposed 6.5%annual increase appears
uniform across all customer classes and years without a demonstrated cost-of-service analysis per
class or zone and failure to demonstrate actual financial necessity; (2)Article XIII D § 6(b)(3)due to
22
use of fees for general government purposes because the inclusion of"General Manager,"
"Administrative Services,"and"Board of Directors"operating costs in the water rate base suggests
that rate revenue is being used for non-water-related overhead,contrary to constitutional limits; (3)
failure to comply with procedural transparency under Prop 218 because the mailed notice and online
materials omit key analytical tables(capital reserve balances,depreciation schedules, and comparative
cost-per-gallon metrics)necessary for meaningful public review; (4)Prop 218 § 6(b)(5)due to
excessive reserve funding,citing Griffith v.Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency(2014)220
Cal.App.4th 586,and failure to re-evaluate after material assumptions change; and(5)Proposition
218 Omnibus Implementation Act [53750 - 53758] due to unlawful compounding and pre-
authorization of future rates.
The Shellito Objection generally describes with reference to the Shellito property and usage of
water, how the proposed rates violate the provisions of law cited above as follows:
"Disproportionate fixed charge component The Base Charge represents the "vast Majority" of all
residential bills (TDPUD's own mailer confirms this). A high fixed charge, unrelated to actual
water use, penalizes conservation and may be inconsistent with State Water Board efficiency
policies and Prop 218's proportionality clause."
District's Response
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses to provide water
service, and does not generate excess revenue. Further, the revenues are specifically
identified and used to fund water service and are not used for other District purposes.
3. The cost of service analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically addresses the issue of proportionality for the District's water customers to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218. In this case the customer classes are for
residential customers, non-residential customers, and pump zone based on the cost to
provide service and develop the proposed fixed and consumption charges for each
class.
4. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates for each customer class of service.
The fixed charge is based on the capacity of each meter size to reflect the demands
and impacts on the system. The proposed rates by tier are based on the costs to
provide service at the identified tier sizes.
5. Pump zone charges are based on the cost of pumping water to each zone and reflect
the additional costs for each pump zone as the water is pumped through and to the
next pump zone to the benefiting customers.
23
6. The cost of service analysis provides the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates, and specifically the average unit
costs. The development of the average unit costs, and proposed rates, reflects industry
standard cost of service principles based on the District's specific costs and customer
characteristics to meet the proportionality requirements of Proposition 218.
7. The 2025 Water Rate Study outlines the cost basis for the proposed rates for each of
the proposed five-years that reflect the funding of the District's water utility operating
and capital costs over the specified time period.
8. There is not an automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year
reflect the costs to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years as outlined
in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
9. There are no violations of the United States Constitution or California Constitution
based on the cost of service completed to provide proportional rates by class of
service and all customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are
treated the same. Customers in high elevations pay more because it costs more to
provide water service to them because of the specific pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation that are incurred to serve those customers.
10. Notice of the proposed new rates sent more than 45 days prior to the public hearing as
required by Proposition 218.
11. All customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are treated the
same.As noted in the cost of service analysis, and the specific costs incurred by the
District to provide service, customers in high elevations pay more because it costs
more to provide water service to them because of the pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation.Accordingly, there is no violation of equal
protection principles.
12. A public hearing is scheduled for November 19, 2025 as required.
13. Government Code Section 53756 authorizes the adoption of a schedule of fees with
automatic adjustments for a period not to exceed five years provided that any
inflation adjustment does not exceed the cost of providing the service. There is not an
automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year reflect the costs
to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years.
14. The holding in Moore v. City of Lemon Grove(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 363 is not
violated because all revenue from the proposed rates for administrative costs are related to
water service and are well documented in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
15. The holding in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Fresno (2005) 127
Cal.AppAth 914 is not violated because there is no unlawful transfer of funds, the
24
rates include administrative costs required to provide water service and no other costs
and water rates are otherwise compliant with Proposition 218.
16. The holding in Griffith v.Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency(2014)220
Cal.App.4th 586 is not violated because the Districts rates and charges may fund efforts to
identify and design future projects, identifying and funding futures needs of the District is
part of the present-day services,and costs of planning for such future needs may be
recovered from charges imposed in current users.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Shellito Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the
District's Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code section
53759.1: (1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the
proposed rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the
objection no further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification
or reduction is needed; and(4) to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of
Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Shellito Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth
in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Shellito Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Shellito Objection.
15. Horn Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Horn Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Horn Objection generally describes the provisions of law that form the basis for the
Objection as including Article XIII D Section 6 of the California Constitution and Government
Code § 53759.1 because "The proposed 2026-2030 water rate increases violate Article XIII D,
Section 6(b)(1) of the California Constitution because the rates are not proportional to the actual
cost of service for each parcel or customer class. The proposed increases also violate Article XIII
D, Section 6(b)(3)because system revenues are being allocated toward administrative and
overhead uses not directly tied to water service delivery. Additionally, the District is attempting
to pre-authorize multi-year compounded rate increases without recalculating cost-of-service
annually, which is inconsistent with Proposition 218 procedural and transparency requirements
and Government Code § 53759.1."
25
The Horn Objection describes how the proposed rates violate the law cited above with respect to
the Horn property as follows: "The majority of my bill is determined by the fixed Base Charge,
which does not reflect my actual water usage. This causes me to pay more than the proportional
cost of service required to serve my parcel. Because the rate structure relies heavily on fixed
charges rather than usage-based costs, I am financially penalized despite conserving water. This
violates the requirement that fees not exceed the proportional cost of service for my parcel. The
uniform annual increases also do not reflect my property's specific demand level, elevation zone
costs, or meter capacity, and therefore lack the constitutionally required cost-of-service nexus."
District's Response
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses to provide water
service, and does not generate excess revenue. Further, the revenues are specifically
identified and used to fund water service and are not used for other District purposes.
3. The cost of service analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically addresses the issue of proportionality for the District's water customers to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218. In this case the customer classes are for
residential customers, non-residential customers, and pump zone based on the cost to
provide service and develop the proposed fixed and consumption charges for each
class.
4. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates for each customer class of service.
The fixed charge is based on the capacity of each meter size to reflect the demands
and impacts on the system. The proposed rates by tier are based on the costs to
provide service at the identified tier sizes.
5. Pump zone charges are based on the cost of pumping water to each zone and reflect
the additional costs for each pump zone as the water is pumped through and to the
next pump zone to the benefiting customers.
6. The cost of service analysis provides the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates, and specifically the average unit
costs. The development of the average unit costs, and proposed rates, reflects industry
standard cost of service principles based on the District's specific costs and customer
characteristics to meet the proportionality requirements of Proposition 218.
26
7. The 2025 Water Rate Study outlines the cost basis for the proposed rates for each of
the proposed five-years that reflect the funding of the District's water utility operating
and capital costs over the specified time period.
8. There is not an automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year
reflect the costs to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years as outlined
in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
9. There are no violations of the United States Constitution or California Constitution
based on the cost of service completed to provide proportional rates by class of
service and all customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are
treated the same. Customers in high elevations pay more because it costs more to
provide water service to them because of the specific pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation that are incurred to serve those customers.
10. Notice of the proposed new rates sent more than 45 days prior to the public hearing as
required by Proposition 218.
11. All customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are treated the
same.As noted in the cost of service analysis, and the specific costs incurred by the
District to provide service, customers in high elevations pay more because it costs
more to provide water service to them because of the pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation.Accordingly, there is no violation of equal
protection principles.
12. A public hearing is scheduled for November 19, 2025 as required.
13. Government Code Section 53756 authorizes the adoption of a schedule of fees with
automatic adjustments for a period not to exceed five years provided that any
inflation adjustment does not exceed the cost of providing the service. There is not an
automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year reflect the costs
to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years.
14. The holding in Moore v. City of Lemon Grove(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 363 is not
violated because all revenue from the proposed rates for administrative costs are related to
water service and are well documented in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
15. The holding in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Fresno (2005) 127
Cal.App.4th 914 is not violated because there is no unlawful transfer of funds, the
rates include administrative costs required to provide water service and no other costs
and water rates are otherwise compliant with Proposition 218.
16. The holding in Griffith v.Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency(2014)220
Cal.App.4th 586 is not violated because the Districts rates and charges may fund efforts to
identify and design future projects,identifying and funding futures needs of the District is
27
part of the present-day services,and costs of planning for such future needs may be
recovered from charges imposed in current users.
17. Government Code § 53759.1 sets forth the requirements to exhaust administrative
remedies and not procedural or transparency requirements for the adoption of a
schedule of fees with automatic adjustments for a period not to exceed five years.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Horn Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the District's
Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision(d) of Government Code section 53759.1:
(1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the proposed
rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the objection no
further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification or reduction
is needed; and (4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of Article XIII D
of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Horn Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth in
this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Horn Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Horn Objection.
16. Oliver Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Oliver Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Oliver Objection states in Box# 1 that the proposed rates "will place an undue
financial burden on residents in Truckee particularly those on fixed or moderate incomes", and in
Box#2 "that because property values and assessments in our area have already been rising
substantially, further increases in rates will magnify housing cost pressures. Many homeowners
and renters are already stretched. A rate hike may lead to increased pushback or public
dissatisfaction and could reduce trust in local governance if residents feel sudden increases are
not justified". The Oliver Objection does not comply with the District's substantive requirements
for properly submitting a written objection because it: (1) does not present the exact issue(s) that
the objector intends to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding; (2) is incomplete; (3) does not
describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of the objection,with specific reference to
statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that are alleged to be violated
if the proposed rates are adopted; and(4) does not describe,with reference to the objector's
property and usage of water, how the proposed rates violate the provisions of law the objector
cited.
28
District's Response
The Oliver Objection states policy-based objections and does not provide any legal basis
for the objection, is incomplete, does not describe the provision(s) of law that form the basis of
the objection, with specific reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, regulations,
and/or cases that are alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted, and does not
describe, with reference to the objector's property and usage of water, how the proposed rates
violate the provisions of law the objector cited. Because the Oliver Objection is noncompliant it
does not satisfy the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Oliver Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the District's
Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision(d) of Government Code section 53759.1:
(1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the proposed
rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the objection no
further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification or reduction
is needed; and (4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of Article XIII D
of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Oliver Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth in
this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Oliver Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Oliver Objection.
17. Sanchez Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Sanchez Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies. The Sanchez Objection was
not submitted using the District's Proposition 218 Written Objection Form. The Sanchez states at
the very top of the first page, "Protest—For inclusion in public count under Prop 218". It does
not state that it is an objection. However, it later addresses the legal objection and grounds for
challenge and requested remedies, similar to eh information requested on the District's Objection
Form.
Substantive Requirements
The Sanchez Objection generally describes the provisions of law that form the basis for
the Objection as including: (1) California Government Code § 53759.1 and Article XIII D, Sections
2&6 of the California Constitution, specifically Article XIII D § 6(b)(1)due to lack of
proportionality and nexus to cost of service because the proposed 6.5%annual increase appears
uniform across all customer classes and years without a demonstrated cost-of-service analysis per
class or zone and failure to demonstrate actual financial necessity; (2)Article XIII D § 6(b)(3)due to
29
use of fees for general government purposes because the inclusion of"General Manager,"
"Administrative Services,"and"Board of Directors"operating costs in the water rate base suggests
that rate revenue is being used for non-water-related overhead,contrary to constitutional limits; (3)
failure to comply with procedural transparency under Prop 218 because the mailed notice and online
materials omit key analytical tables(capital reserve balances,depreciation schedules, and comparative
cost-per-gallon metrics)necessary for meaningful public review; (4)Prop 218 § 6(b)(5)due to
excessive reserve funding,citing Griffith v.Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency(2014)220
Cal.App.4th 586,and failure to re-evaluate after material assumptions change; and(5)Proposition
218 Omnibus Implementation Act [53750 - 53758] due to unlawful compounding and pre-
authorization of future rates.
The Sanchez Objection does not describe how the proposed rates violate the law cited
above with respect to the Sanchez property.
District's Response
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses to provide water
service, and does not generate excess revenue. Further, the revenues are specifically
identified and used to fund water service and are not used for other District purposes.
3. The cost of service analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically addresses the issue of proportionality for the District's water customers to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218. In this case the customer classes are for
residential customers, non-residential customers, and pump zone based on the cost to
provide service and develop the proposed fixed and consumption charges for each
class.
4. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates for each customer class of service.
The fixed charge is based on the capacity of each meter size to reflect the demands
and impacts on the system. The proposed rates by tier are based on the costs to
provide service at the identified tier sizes.
5. Pump zone charges are based on the cost of pumping water to each zone and reflect
the additional costs for each pump zone as the water is pumped through and to the
next pump zone to the benefiting customers.
6. The cost of service analysis provides the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates, and specifically the average unit
costs. The development of the average unit costs, and proposed rates, reflects industry
30
standard cost of service principles based on the District's specific costs and customer
characteristics to meet the proportionality requirements of Proposition 218.
7. The 2025 Water Rate Study outlines the cost basis for the proposed rates for each of
the proposed five-years that reflect the funding of the District's water utility operating
and capital costs over the specified time period.
8. There is not an automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year
reflect the costs to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years as outlined
in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
9. There are no violations of the United States Constitution or California Constitution
based on the cost of service completed to provide proportional rates by class of
service and all customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are
treated the same. Customers in high elevations pay more because it costs more to
provide water service to them because of the specific pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation that are incurred to serve those customers.
10. Notice of the proposed new rates sent more than 45 days prior to the public hearing as
required by Proposition 218.
11. All customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are treated the
same.As noted in the cost of service analysis, and the specific costs incurred by the
District to provide service, customers in high elevations pay more because it costs
more to provide water service to them because of the pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation.Accordingly, there is no violation of equal
protection principles.
12. A public hearing is scheduled for November 19, 2025 as required.
13. Government Code Section 53756 authorizes the adoption of a schedule of fees with
automatic adjustments for a period not to exceed five years provided that any
inflation adjustment does not exceed the cost of providing the service. There is not an
automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year reflect the costs
to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years.
14. The holding in Moore v. City of Lemon Grove(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 363 is not
violated because all revenue from the proposed rates for administrative costs are related to
water service and are well documented in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
15. The holding in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Fresno (2005) 127
Cal.App.4th 914 is not violated because there is no unlawful transfer of funds, the
rates include administrative costs required to provide water service and no other costs
and water rates are otherwise compliant with Proposition 218.
31
16. The holding in Griffith v.Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency(2014)220
Cal.App.4th 586 is not violated because the Districts rates and charges may fund efforts to
identify and design future projects, identifying and funding futures needs of the District is
part of the present-day services, and costs of planning for such future needs may be
recovered from charges imposed in current users.
The Sanchez Objection does not comply with the District's procedural requirements for
properly submitting a written objection because it: (1)it does not state that it is an objection.
The Sanchez Objection does not comply with the District's substantive requirements for
properly submitting a written objection because it does not describe, with reference to the
Sanchez property and usage of water, how the proposed rates violate the provisions of law cited.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Sanchez Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the
District's Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code section
53759.1: (1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the
proposed rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the
objection no further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification
or reduction is needed; and(4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of
Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Sanchez Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth
in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Sanchez Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Sanchez Objection.
18. Delatorre Objection
Procedural Requirements
The Delatorre Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Delatorre Objection states in Box# 1 that, "The rate increase is based on ONE
opinion or analysis. TDPUD needs to do own study", and in Box#2, "My home is 45 years old
and your asking me to fund new homes. There needs to have a GRANDFATHER clause."The
Delatorre Objection does not comply with the District's substantive requirements for properly
submitting a written objection because it: (1) does not present the exact issue(s)that the objector
intends to pursue in a judicial action or proceeding; (2) is incomplete; (3) does not describe the
provision(s) of law that form the basis of the objection, with specific reference to statutes, rules,
constitutional provisions, regulations, and/or cases that are alleged to be violated if the proposed
32
rates are adopted; and(4) does not describe, with reference to the objector's property and usage
of water, how the proposed rates violate the provisions of law the objector cited.
District's Response
The Delatorre Objection states policy-based objections and does not provide any legal
basis for the objection, is incomplete, does not describe the provision(s) of law that form the
basis of the objection, with specific reference to statutes, rules, constitutional provisions,
regulations, and/or cases that are alleged to be violated if the proposed rates are adopted, and
does not describe, with reference to the objector's property and usage of water, how the proposed
rates violate the provisions of law the objector cited. Because the Delatorre Objection is
noncompliant it does not satisfy the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The District responds further as follows:
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses to provide water
service, and does not generate excess revenue. Further, the revenues are specifically
identified and used to fund water service and are not used for other District purposes.
3. The cost of service analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically addresses the issue of proportionality for the District's water customers to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218. In this case the customer classes are for
residential customers, non-residential customers, and pump zone based on the cost to
provide service and develop the proposed fixed and consumption charges for each
class.
4. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates for each customer class of service.
The fixed charge is based on the capacity of each meter size to reflect the demands
and impacts on the system. The proposed rates by tier are based on the costs to
provide service at the identified tier sizes.
5. Pump zone charges are based on the cost of pumping water to each zone and reflect
the additional costs for each pump zone as the water is pumped through and to the
next pump zone to the benefiting customers.
6. The 2025 Water Rate Study outlines the cost basis for the proposed rates for each of
the proposed five-years that reflect the funding of the District's water utility operating
and capital costs over the specified time period.
33
7. There is not an automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year
reflect the costs to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years as outlined
in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
8. There are no violations of the United States Constitution or California Constitution
based on the cost of service completed to provide proportional rates by class of
service and all customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are
treated the same. Customers in high elevations pay more because it costs more to
provide water service to them because of the specific pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation that are incurred to serve those customers.
9. Notice of the proposed new rates sent more than 45 days prior to the public hearing as
required by Proposition 218.
10. All customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are treated the
same.As noted in the cost of service analysis, and the specific costs incurred by the
District to provide service, customers in high elevations pay more because it costs
more to provide water service to them because of the pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation.Accordingly, there is no violation of equal
protection principles.
11. A public hearing is scheduled for November 19, 2025 as required.
12. Government Code Section 53756 authorizes the adoption of a schedule of fees with
automatic adjustments for a period not to exceed five years provided that any
inflation adjustment does not exceed the cost of providing the service. There is not an
automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year reflect the costs
to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Delatorre Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the
District's Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision(d) of Government Code section
53759.1: (1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the
proposed rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the
objection no further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification
or reduction is needed; and(4) to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of
Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Delatorre Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set
forth in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Delatorre Objection and used to defend
against any action based on the Delatorre Objection.
19. Wilson Objection
34
Procedural Requirements
The Wilson Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The Wilson Objection states in Box# 1 that the provisions of law that form the basis of
the objection are, "Article XIIII D, of the California Constitution and progeny of caselaw, CA.
Constitution Article XIIII D, section 6".
The Wilson Objection states in Box#2, "Proportionality:proposed assessment is the
same as that for larger homes, despite a clear difference in property size and presumed
benefit. This is a violation of the proportionality requirement, as the increase in fees exceeds
the proportional share of the actual special benefit received. The burden of proof is on the
town to demonstrate its proposed tiered water fees are proportional to the cost of service
attributable to each customer's parcel.
General v. Special Benefits: fails to separate and quantify the general and special
benefits received to each parcel.Assessments can only be imposed for a special benefit
conferred directly upon a specific parcel of property, not general governmental services that
benefit the public at large. Exceeds the cost of providing the service:As an individual who often is
far under my allotment of water under the current fee structure, this increase is,in effect,punishing
those who are more conservative with their water usage. Conservative use of a water resource should
inure abenefit to those who are conscientious with the use of this precious resource. Improper use of
fees:There is not aproper demonstration that the use of fees will be used for specific use."
The Wilson Objection states in Box# 3, "TDPUD needs to comply with Prop 218,
and connect water usage and the services required to the increase in fees. TDPUD must
comply with substantive and procedural requirements justifying their cost and need to
local property owners and taxpayers. Truckee must demonstrate that the increase in the
tiered rates are based on the actual cost of providing water at different usage levels. Patz
v. City of S.D. There is likewise no demonstrable link to encouraging conservation."
District's Response
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses to provide water
35
service, and does not generate excess revenue. Further, the revenues are specifically
identified and used to fund water service and are not used for other District purposes.
3. The cost of service analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically addresses the issue of proportionality for the District's water customers to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218. In this case the customer classes are for
residential customers, non-residential customers, and pump zone based on the cost to
provide service and develop the proposed fixed and consumption charges for each
class.
4. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates for each customer class of service.
The fixed charge is based on the capacity of each meter size to reflect the demands
and impacts on the system. The proposed rates by tier are based on the costs to
provide service at the identified tier sizes.
5. Pump zone charges are based on the cost of pumping water to each zone and reflect
the additional costs for each pump zone as the water is pumped through and to the
next pump zone to the benefiting customers.
6. The cost of service analysis provides the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates, and specifically the average unit
costs. The development of the average unit costs, and proposed rates, reflects industry
standard cost of service principles based on the District's specific costs and customer
characteristics to meet the proportionality requirements of Proposition 218.
7. The 2025 Water Rate Study outlines the cost basis for the proposed rates for each of
the proposed five-years that reflect the funding of the District's water utility operating
and capital costs over the specified time period.
8. There is not an automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year
reflect the costs to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years as outlined
in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
9. There are no violations of the United States Constitution or California Constitution
based on the cost of service completed to provide proportional rates by class of
service and all customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are
treated the same. Customers in high elevations pay more because it costs more to
provide water service to them because of the specific pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation that are incurred to serve those customers.
10. Notice of the proposed new rates sent more than 45 days prior to the public hearing as
required by Proposition 218.
36
11. All customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are treated the
same.As noted in the cost of service analysis, and the specific costs incurred by the
District to provide service, customers in high elevations pay more because it costs
more to provide water service to them because of the pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation.Accordingly, there is no violation of equal
protection principles.
12. A public hearing is scheduled for November 19, 2025 as required.
13. Government Code Section 53756 authorizes the adoption of a schedule of fees with
automatic adjustments for a period not to exceed five years provided that any
inflation adjustment does not exceed the cost of providing the service. There is not an
automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year reflect the costs
to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years.
14. The holding in Moore v. City of Lemon Grove(2015) 237 Cal.App.0,363 is not
violated because all revenue from the proposed rates for administrative costs are related to
water service and are well documented in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
15. The holding in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Fresno (2005) 127
Cal.AppAth 914 is not violated because there is no unlawful transfer of funds, the
rates include administrative costs required to provide water service and no other costs
and water rates are otherwise compliant with Proposition 218.
16. The holding in Griffith v.Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency(2014)220
Cal.App.4th 586 is not violated because the Districts rates and charges may fund efforts to
identify and design future projects,identifying and funding futures needs of the District is
part of the present-day services, and costs of planning for such future needs may be
recovered from charges imposed in current users.
17. The holding in Patz v. City of San Diego 113 Cal.App.Sth 225 (2025) is not violated
because the District has demonstrated that the proposed rates bare a reasonable
relationship to the proportional cost of service attributable to the parcel and
specifically that the rates were not designed primarily to encourage water
conservation rather than to reflect actual costs of service and the tiered structure is
applied to all residential customers.
18. The Objection sates that that the law that forms the basis of the objection is, "Article
XIIII section 6 of the California Constitution". There is no "Article XIIII section 6.
Article XIV of the California Constitution pertains to labor relations and has nothing
to do with the District's proposed water rates. If the reference to "Article XIIII D.
section 6" is a typographical error and the reference was intended to be to "Article
XIII D, section 6 of the California Constitution", then the District is complying with
Article XIII D, section 6 of the California Constitution which pertains to property
related fees and the District's proposed water rates as set forth above.
37
19. The District is proposing to increase water rates pursuant to Article XIIII D, Section 6
of the California Constitution. The District to not proposing to adopt or increase any
assessment pursuant to Article XIIII D Sections 4 and 5 of the California Constitution
and the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 do not have anything whatsoever to do with the
District's proposed water rates. There is no requirement under Article XIII D, Section
6 of the California Constitution for the District to separate and/or quantify the general
and special benefits received to or by each parcel or that rates for water service must
only be imposed or increased for a special benefit conferred directly upon a specific
parcel of property and not for general governmental services that benefit the public at
large.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the Wilson Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the District's
Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision(d) of Government Code section 53759.1:
(1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the proposed
rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the objection no
further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification or reduction
is needed; and (4)to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of Article XIII D
of the California Constitution.
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the Wilson Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth
in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the Wilson Objection and used to defend against any
action based on the Wilson Objection.
20. McBride Objection
Procedural Requirements
The McBride Objection was timely received prior to the District's November 7, 2025,
deadline to submit objections to exhaust administrative remedies and was submitted using the
District's Proposition 218 written objection form.
Substantive Requirements
The McBride Objection states in Box# 1 that the provisions of law that form the basis of
the objection are, "Article XIIII D, of the California Constitution and progeny of caselaw, CA.
Constitution Article XIIII D, section 6".
The McBride Objection states in Box#2, "Proportionality:proposed assessment is the
same as that for larger homes, despite a clear difference in property size and presumed
benefit. This is a violation of the proportionality requirement, as the increase in fees exceeds
the proportional share of the actual special benefit received. The burden of proof is on the
town to demonstrate its proposed tiered water fees are proportional to the cost of service
attributable to each customer's parcel.
38
General v. Special Benefits: fails to separate and quantify the general and special
benefits received to each parcel.Assessments can only be imposed for a special benefit
conferred directly upon a specific parcel of property, not general governmental services that
benefit the public at large. Exceeds the cost of providing the service:As an individual who often is
far under my allotment of water under the current fee structure, this increase is,in effect,punishing
those who are more conservative with their water usage. Conservative use of a water resource should
inure abenefit to those who are conscientious with the use of this precious resource. Improper use of
fees:There isnot aproper demonstration that the use of fees will be used for specific use."
The McBride Objection states in Box# 3, "TDPUD needs to comply with Prop 218,
and connect water usage and the services required to the increase in fees. TDPUD must
comply with substantive and procedural requirements justifying their cost and need to
local property owners and taxpayers. Truckee must demonstrate that the increase in the
tiered rates are based on the actual cost of providing water at different usage levels. Patz
v. City of S.D. There is likewise no demonstrable link to encouraging conservation."
District's Response
1. A comprehensive water rate study developed by HDR Engineering, Inc, 2025 Water
Rate Study, was completed and the study, including a technical appendix with the rate
study exhibits, is available on the District's website -www.tdpud.org.
2. The revenue requirement analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically outlines the costs, both operating and capital expenses to provide water
service, and does not generate excess revenue. Further, the revenues are specifically
identified and used to fund water service and are not used for other District purposes.
3. The cost of service analysis completed as part of the 2025 Water Rate Study
specifically addresses the issue of proportionality for the District's water customers to
meet the requirements of Proposition 218. In this case the customer classes are for
residential customers, non-residential customers, and pump zone based on the cost to
provide service and develop the proposed fixed and consumption charges for each
class.
4. The cost of service analysis provided the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates for each customer class of service.
The fixed charge is based on the capacity of each meter size to reflect the demands
and impacts on the system. The proposed rates by tier are based on the costs to
provide service at the identified tier sizes.
5. Pump zone charges are based on the cost of pumping water to each zone and reflect
the additional costs for each pump zone as the water is pumped through and to the
next pump zone to the benefiting customers.
39
6. The cost of service analysis provides the basis for the fixed charge and tiered
consumption charges for the proposed water rates, and specifically the average unit
costs. The development of the average unit costs, and proposed rates, reflects industry
standard cost of service principles based on the District's specific costs and customer
characteristics to meet the proportionality requirements of Proposition 218.
7. The 2025 Water Rate Study outlines the cost basis for the proposed rates for each of
the proposed five-years that reflect the funding of the District's water utility operating
and capital costs over the specified time period.
8. There is not an automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year
reflect the costs to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years as outlined
in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
9. There are no violations of the United States Constitution or California Constitution
based on the cost of service completed to provide proportional rates by class of
service and all customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are
treated the same. Customers in high elevations pay more because it costs more to
provide water service to them because of the specific pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation that are incurred to serve those customers.
10. Notice of the proposed new rates sent more than 45 days prior to the public hearing as
required by Proposition 218.
11. All customers in the same rate classification and at similar elevations are treated the
same.As noted in the cost of service analysis, and the specific costs incurred by the
District to provide service, customers in high elevations pay more because it costs
more to provide water service to them because of the pumping costs associated with
pumping water to their elevation.Accordingly, there is no violation of equal
protection principles.
12. A public hearing is scheduled for November 19, 2025 as required.
13. Government Code Section 53756 authorizes the adoption of a schedule of fees with
automatic adjustments for a period not to exceed five years provided that any
inflation adjustment does not exceed the cost of providing the service. There is not an
automatic escalator/inflator, the rate revenue adjustments in each year reflect the costs
to provide water service in each of the proposed rate years.
14. The holding in Moore v. City of Lemon Grove(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 363 is not
violated because all revenue from the proposed rates for administrative costs are related to
water service and are well documented in the 2025 Water Rate Study.
15. The holding in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Fresno (2005) 127
Cal.AppAth 914 is not violated because there is no unlawful transfer of funds, the
40
rates include administrative costs required to provide water service and no other costs
and water rates are otherwise compliant with Proposition 218.
16. The holding in Griffith v.Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency(2014)220
Cal.App.4th 586 is not violated because the Districts rates and charges may fund efforts to
identify and design future projects, identifying and funding futures needs of the District is
part of the present-day services,and costs of planning for such future needs may be
recovered from charges imposed in current users.
17. The holding in Patz v. City of San Diego 113 Cal.App.5th 225 (2025) is not violated
because the District has demonstrated that the proposed rates bare a reasonable
relationship to the proportional cost of service attributable to the parcel and
specifically that the rates were not designed primarily to encourage water
conservation rather than to reflect actual costs of service and the tiered structure is
applied to all residential customers.
18. The Objection sates that that the law that forms the basis of the objection is, "Article
XIIII section 6 of the California Constitution". There is no "Article XIIII section 6.
Article XIV of the California Constitution pertains to labor relations and has nothing
to do with the District's proposed water rates. If the reference to "Article XIIII D.
section 6" is a typographical error and the reference was intended to be to "Article
XIII D, section 6 of the California Constitution", then the District is complying with
Article XIII D, section 6 of the California Constitution which pertains to property
related fees and the District's proposed water rates as set forth above.
19. The District is proposing to increase water rates pursuant to Article XIIII D, Section 6
of the California Constitution. The District to not proposing to adopt or increase any
assessment pursuant to Article XIIII D Sections 4 and 5 of the California Constitution
and the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 do not have anything whatsoever to do with the
District's proposed water rates. There is no requirement under Article XIII D, Section
6 of the California Constitution for the District to separate and/or quantify the general
and special benefits received to or by each parcel or that rates for water service must
only be imposed or increased for a special benefit conferred directly upon a specific
parcel of property and not for general governmental services that benefit the public at
large.
Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
With respect to the McBride Objection, in exercising its legislative discretion, the
District's Board of Directors determines pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code section
53759.1: (1)the objection and the District's response thereto do not warrant a clarification of the
proposed rates; (2) not to reduce the proposed rates based on the objection; (3)based on the
objection no further review is necessary before making a determination on whether clarification
or reduction is needed; and(4) to proceed with the protest hearing required under section 6 of
Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
41
The District reserves all rights, claims, and defenses in the event of litigation with respect
to the McBride Objection.Any and all of the District's responses to the other Objections set forth
in this Exhibit B may also be applicable to the McBride Objection and used to defend against
any action based on the McBride Objection.
42