City of Milpitas violated California public records act

I’m concerned with the water losses of 1.29 million gallons per day inferred in the Bartle Wells Associates study. The losses are costing Milpitas residents $3 million dollars per year. I received a second email dated July 16, from city attorney Christopher Diaz. I asked for the quantity of water sold in 2017.

Diaz’s response was:
“…the city does not have any disclose-able records because the annual audit will be completed in October of this year. The annual audit will contain an accurate numbers for the water sold in 2017.”

The amount of water sold in 2017 has been in the city’s records since Dec. 31, 2017. So the data has been available and accurate for over 8 months. California Public Records Act (CPRA) states that the city must provide the data within 10 to 14 days. I have given the city over three months. Why should I wait till October? The city’s desire to give me the data beyond 14 days is a violation of CPRA, thanks to the council members lack of concern in upholding CPRA. The council members have reduced the residents to second-class citizens below the wishes of city employees, because employees desires have a higher priority than the residents right for an open and transparent city government. Vote for new city council members that will uphold federal and state laws. Vote for Marini for city council, He has been fighting the city over fair utility rates over six years.

Milpitas has accelerated the amount potable water losses every year and passing the cost to residents, exceeding the amount estimated in the Urban water management report by 5 years. The city employees want $2.4 million dollars of the water fund to be transferred to the general fund for services to the water infrastructure. The problem is the employees can not verify the time they spend servicing the water fund.

initiative on water rates for ballot canceled by Milpitas city council

Counter claims on initiative

Milpitas City Attorney Christopher Diaz told the council members that in his opinion the water rate initiative was illegal and the city could be sued if the initiative went into effect. Mr. Diaz is the new attorney and has limited knowledge of the history of Milpitas violations of proposition 218. This are the facts about in the water rate proposition with tired rates.

Attorney made a big deal about the lowest tier not covering the cost to purchase water which means that tier 1 would be subsidized by other tiers:

There are two subsidizes that the city is using now.

1. The city is forcing the residents that do not receive irrigation water to subsidize the parcels that do receive irrigation water by transferring the $10 million dollars for the construction of three wells on the residents that are not going to receive irrigation water.

2. Regarding the sewage rate fees, the residents that are below the average on people per household and/or average gallons per day are subsidizing the residents that are above the average people per household or water consumed. This means a resident could be paying as much as $90/HCF for sewage. If the resident is using 10 HCF with the flat rate fee of $90 dollars the cost is $9.00/HCF above the city cost of $6.15. This is a definite violation prop 218 and is ignored by the attorney and all city council members.

Attorney claimed the initiative could be illegal because the initiative did not provide the basis for how the rates were determined:

The city has not provide the bases for how its fees were determined in the written notices sent to the public for any utility service for that last 16 years. I have always asked the city to do so but get ignored all the time. The city did not disclose the existence of a bond, the cost of the bond or how the $1.30 potable service charge was calculated as required by proposition 218.

The Attorney claimed that there was not a public hearing on the rates.

The city discussed the initiative at 3 public meetings the last meeting was Aug 2. I was limited to 3 minutes but city attorney and employees could discuss the issue without any time limit and I was not allowed to present by spreadsheet on the viewer so the public could see my calculations on revenue received by the city. I showed a profit of $1.5 million over the city’s plan using the $4.75 cost for water.

Attorney claimed that city would have to sue the proponents and city clerk: On what grounds could the city sue? Obtaining an initiative is not against the law, and the city’s attorney even participated in the initiative. The initiative is a right of the public and allowed in California election code. All election codes was followed, there is nothing illegal about the petition’s rate structure. The city used the sue ploy to get the council members to vote against the initiative from going on the ballot in November and it worked.

The city of San Juan Capistrano was charging more money than needed to provide the infrastructure a violation of prop 218. Prop 218 states that you cannot overcharge for the service. There is nothing about undercharging. The city can use general fund money if necessary to provide infrastructure. The city is taking $2.4 million out of the water fund for services to go into the general fund. The city can use general fund money if needed to provide more of the infrastructure. The general fund is paying the city’s water costs so it perfectly legal to use general fund money for the water infrastructure to fix the leaking pipe problem instead of passing on the $2.4 million dollar cost of lost potable water on the water fees.

If leaking pipe losses was paid for from the general fun, the city would take the problem seriously and would be a high priority to fix the leaking pipes, but would rather spend resident’s money on wells which saves the general fund money instead. The Urban water management reports lost due to leaking pipes today is 374 thousand HCF units and in 4 years it will be 485 thousand units a 30% increase that will be passed on to the residents. Today about 750,000 gallons of water is lost each day. See report at

http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Adopted-2015-Milpitas-UWMP-Revised-6-27-16.pdf

The city’s water plan was designed to transfer as much costs to the residents as possible and reduce the city’s costs in the process. So the residents are subsidizing the city and all parcels that use irrigation water when the city and other parcel owners could pay for their own irrigation water, but city chose not to do so and violated election code by not allowing the ballot to be voted on by the public. The city should obey proposition 218 themselves and stop the double standards. 

Mayor candidates Carmen Montano and Debbie Giordano voted for you to subsidizing others for irrigation water and both are running for the Mayor position. Both are ignoring city’s violations of proposition 218.

The city’s claims against the initiative were baseless, but worked in stopping the initiative from going on the November ballot. 

Questions contact marini4mayor@yahoo.com

Ciy of Milpias increases sewage fee above cost of service a violation of proposition 218

Milpitas new utility schedule will charge single family units $90.27  sewage flat rate bimonthly fee.
You may ask what is the city cost to provide this service and what is the cost per HCF for you?
The city cost to provide the sewage service is $6.15/HCF.

Your cost/HCF depends on how may gallons per day your using and how many people are in your parcel.

Let take a simple case. If there is one person per household and that parcel is using 51 gallons a day the total gallons in a bimonthly period is 3,102.5 gallons and that is 4.15 HCF units. One HCF is equal to 748 gallons.  The bimonthly fee is $90.27. The result is  $90.27 divided by 4.15  ( fee/HCF = $90.27/ 4.15) so your charge is $21.76/HCF.  If their are 2 people using 51 gallons a day per person the total gallons would be twice as much so that would be 6,205 gallons or 8.30 HCF your fee is $90.27/8.30 = $10.88/HCF . The result is for two people the cost is $10.88/HCF. I think you get the idea. Any fee/HCF above $6.15 is a violation of proposition 218, which states you cannot charge more then it costs to provide the service, yet the city of Milpitas does this all the time. The more water you use the less it cost/HCF.

 

Your subsidizing irrigation water for the city of Milpitas

Your subsidizing irrigation water  that benefits the city and others but not you. The city of Milpitas uses potable water for irrigation purposes. The city uses 80,000 HCF units and others is 285,000 HCF units. In the water fee increase  the city passed in December,  the city will issue a $25.5 million 4.25% interest, 30 year bond. $10,000 of the bond is for irrigation purposes. This means the city will drill three wells at a cost of $3.35 million each on average and charge you for it. The problem is  your paying for a service (irrigation water) that you will not receive. By state law, proposition 218, the city can not charge for a service that you do not receive, but the city is doing it anyway.  The question is what would the city and others pay if they had to cover there cost  $10 million for the new wells if paid over 30 years.  The total amount of irrigation water is 285,000 + 80,000 = 365.000 HCF units of water.
Annual bond payment $595,982 / 365,000 HCF = $1.62 /HCF. The city does not want to pay $4.38 for  irrigation water so it charges you for it in the Capital Improvement Plan.  Your not going to believe this but it true, in the notice to the public the city wants to lower the current recycled  water fee to $2.78 from $4.08 for irrigation water from the wells that cost $10 million dollars. Your picking up the tab with your portable water fee of $6.43. If the city just left the current $4.08 irrigation fee the city is charging for the service now the city would not need to charge all the residents $10 million for the new wells and would reduce our potable water fee. Over 30 years the current irrigation free of $4.08/HCF + $0.30  can pay for the wells themselves. The city and companies would save on the usage of potable water, and it would be would be a win for everyone.

There is now a petition to charge the residents  $3.35 for potable water for the first tier. I hope you sign it.  Contact marini4mayor@yahoo.com

The cost of Irrigation water
bond payment	city irrigation	other irrigation	total irrigation	cost /HCF
$595,982.00	80,000  +	285,000  =	365,000	$1.63
	current fee $2.75/HCF   +	well cost $1.63/HCF =	total cost   $4.38
Table 5
City of Milpitas - Water Rate Study
FY 2015/16 Est. Water Use by Customer Class1
User Breakdown of Water Sales	Est. Potable Sold	% of Potable Use	SFPUC Water	SCVWD Water
Residential	1,591,000	54%	1,121,655	469,345
Commercial	434,000	15%	305,970	128,030
Industrial	476,649	16%	336,037	140,611
Institutional	90,000	3%	63,450	26,550
Irrigation	285,000	10%	200,925	84,075
Ed Levin Park	2,610	0%	1,840	770
CITY Domestic	10,000	0%	7,050	2,950
CITY Irrigation	80,000	3%	56,400	23,600
	2,969,259	100%	2,093,327	875,931

* Note: If the city wants to pay for a 30 year 4.25% bond the annual payment would be $595.982 so
$595,982/365,000 HCF = $1.63/HCF. The current cost of irrigation water is $2.78. Adding the cost of the bond would make the total bill at  $2.78 + $1.60 = $4.38.

water petiton

INIATIVE MEASUER TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS

 

The City Attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the purpose and points of the proposed measure.

  Initiative Measure Regarding the City of Milpitas Water Rates and Charges

This Measure would amend Milpitas Municipal Code, Title VIII, Chapter 1, Section VIII-1-6.13 with regard to water rates and charges based on quantity per hundred cubic feet or “HCF.” On December 15, 2015, the City Council of the City of Milpitas adopted Ordinance No. 120.47 imposing new water rates and charges. Ordinance No. 120.47 amended Milpitas Municipal Code Section VIII-1-6.13 to impose new quantity charges per HCF to include both a volumetric charge and a capital surcharge, as follows:

RATES AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR QUANTITY CHARGES ($/HCF)
Customer Class	Volumetric Charge 1/15/2016	Volumetric Charge 4/1/2016	Capital Surcharge 4/1/2016
Residential:	$4.75	$5.13	$1.30
Commercial / Industrial / Institutional / Construction Meter	$4.75	$5.13	$1.30
Irrigation (potable)	$4.75	$5.13	$1.30
City Accounts (potable)	$4.75	$5.13	$1.30
Ed Levin Park	$3.75	$3.79*	NA
Recycled - Irrigation	$2.42	$2.78	NA
Recycled - Industrial / Dual Plumbed/ Construction Water	$2.42	$2.78	NA
City Accounts (recycled)	$2.42	$2.78	NA

 

 

 

The Measure would impose a volumetric charge different from the City’s volumetric charge and eliminate the capital surcharge. The legality of this proposed Measure is unknown at this time.

 

               RATES AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR QUANTITY CHARGES ($/HCF)

Category	Charge
Residential:0-10 HCF	$3.35
Residential:11-20 HCF	$4.45
Residential:21-30 HCF	$6.00
Residential:>30 HCF	$6.42
Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, Construction	$6.42
Potable Irrigation	$6.42
Ed Levin Park	$3.79
City of Milpitas	$6.43

·         Keep the current rate of $4.08 for Recycle Irrigation, Recycled Industrial, Dual plumbed, Construction at $2.65, and Recycled City of Milpitas $2.78

__________________________________________________________________________

More information about the current water rates  from city of Milpitas 

            http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/FinalWaterRateStudy.pdf

 

             http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/FinalWaterRateStudy.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Petition to change the Milpitas water fee schedule approved Dec 15

 An Initiative to change the current fee approved Dec 15 2015 to the water fee schedule similar to the fees approved August 4 2015.

 This initiative changes the current water schedule to provide a schedule that provides an incentive to save water by providing tiers and removes the additional cost that raises the fee to $6.43 in April 2016. The current fee does not reward parcel owners because tiers are eliminated in the current fee schedule. This initiative requires the city to provide tiers, drop the 30 year $25.5 million dollar bond and provide a capital improvement fund of $20 Million instead of the $42 Million.  The water supply augmentation does not solve the water crises and Milpitas approving by thousands of more parcels makes the water crises worse. email marini4mayor@yahoo.com for comment.  Please sign the petition.

____________________________________________________

 The following is the reason for the petition. (500 words or less)

 Proposition 218 requires that the city provide the basis for the calculated fees in the written notice to the public. The written notice sent in October did not disclose the 30-year $25.5 million bond at 4.25% interest, the transfer of $2.5 million out of the water fund to the general fund and the doubling the capital improvement fund from $20 Million to $42 million. $10 million of the bond fund for ground water that will not be provided to the majority of parcel owners. Proposition 218 requires that you cannot charge for a service that will not be provided to the parcel owners.   Section 6 (4) states:

"No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with Section 4.”

To raise a bond it must follow California Article XIIID section 4, which requires the city provide a ballot and the majority of voters must vote in favor of the bond, not by asking the parcel owners to send in a protest letter against the proposed bond.  The bond was not even disclosed in the notice sent to the public.

The city of Milpitas failed to provide a proper notice to the public and hide a bond under section 6.  This is not the service we expect from our elected city council members.  The city current capital improvement program does not solve the water drought problem effecting Milpitas.  The city council has made the crises worse by approving thousands of new parcel developments increasing by millions more water needed instead of conserving water.

 

Anyone interested in signing this petition email marini4mayor@yahoo.com

Presentation Censord

I asked the city of Milpitas to show my slides on the violations of state laws when the issue of new water rates were to be voted on by the city council on Dec 15, 2015. I was denied my right to present my slides. The slides show all the violations of California constitution article XIIID section 6 which deals with utility rates.

The first slide is for the proposed new water fee increase and the city non discloser of the basis for the fee increases . The second slide is for sewage overcharges.

The city did not disclose the ground water project and it will not be available to all parcels but the city is charging all parcels for this project. The stated violation is the following.

 (4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question.

 Regards, Robert Marini

Questions send email to marini4mayor@yahoo.com