1) There is a huge gap in price increases in 2008 between residential users and commercial users. Fact: Single Family Residential users will pay between 11%-12% while Commercial users will pay 1.39%. 2) The reason 3" pipe users get tax breaks of approximately $310. Fact: Not explained

3) The reason for such confusion in the Prop 218 notices sent to residents in January: Facts: The protest form was hidden, was sent by 3^rd class mail instead of as an insert into the billing statement and the City’s charting formula showed a 6.5% increase across the board. The chart led everyone to believe the rate increase was fairly and equitably distributed.

4) The degree for which good money would be applied to chasing bad money: Fact: It's still unclear exactly what portions of the rate increases would go for salaries, health care, catch-up on pension and other areas.

5) On 2/15/07, the Mayor said the oversight committee would begin sometime in March: Fact: There’s no actual draft language other than quotes to the press on what the Mayor promised he was committed to do.

6) Sewer service fee: Where’s the back up for $35-$38 increase? Facts: Proposition 218 and the City's service study showed different fee increase levels only if everyone had spent hours doing the math. Table 8-1 of the City's study report also doesn’t show how old and new figures meld together.

7) What will happen to the actual rate increases when the Water Dept. has to reconfigure for accuracy because they bill on the higher prices of the winter months? Fact: It is unpredictable without the revised figures.

8) Future increases: Where's the accuracy in the rate increases when we know the County Water Authority & Metropolitan Water District are both expected to get hearings to raise their rates in addition to the increases just passed by the Council? Fact: Not explained yet

9) Page 7-1 of the City's study indicates estimated service charges for 2008 (Page 7-1, Paragraph 2, Item 7.1.1) at $63.7 million. Where is the comparison of costs between the last rate case and this one and an itemized list to justify the increase? Fact: The difference between the previous rate increase and current is $28 million versus $63.7 million.) That's big bucks!!!

10) In April 2002, Mayor Dick Murphy implemented a billing change from bi-monthly to monthly billing starting no later than January 2003. This change was designed to provide low-income ratepayers with 12 smaller bills per month versus 6 larger bills in a year. The change cost approximately $1.3 million to convert billing, $578,000 in envelopes, paper, stamps and other costs that went with doubling the # of bills. The bills are based on estimations one month and actual readings the next month and the difference is the accurate bill. Facts: Customers were calling UCAN to complain about the disparity on the different tier rates. The fact that the company can bill the higher month's rate and the estimated vs. actual meter-reading disparity caused consumers to honestly believe they were being overcharged with the 12-month billing system. In addition, the company waits 6 months to adjust or correct overestimated bills by allegedly comparing what was paid under the old tiered rate. Monthly bills are higher for most people until the adjustment is made. A return to bi-monthly billing would save over 1/2 million dollars in administrative/bill processing and meter reading costs. The yearly savings could be applied to the infrastructure revisions. What’s the point in using this money for inaccurate bills that need to be adjusted?

Comments: The total savings in returning to the previous bi-monthly billing would be about $2 million+ that could have been paying for pipes. Billing and collecting = $17.3 million (5.7 mill to 17.3 mill is the increase) including accounts, meter reading and collections does not provide a reason or justification for the first cost of service study and the drastic increase.

SAM