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

In the new utilty notice, Milpitas is issuing a $25.54 Millon bond and $42 Million in capital improvment expenses.

Another increase in utility fees coming in January and July 2016. Milpitas council already approved a utility fee increase on August 4, raising the water fee from $2.62 to $3.62 even though council members were aware that the city was going to hire a consultant to evaluate the water fees. On Oct 6 Milpitas approved a new utility notice. In August I asked why you’re approving a fee increase when you’re going to reevaluate the fees with the consultant. I got no answer as usual. The new notice will not disclose the city new bond purchase.   

Bartle Wells Associates was hired at a cost of $60,000 because of the San Jan Capistrano court case. The Capistrano residents were overcharged for water and sued the city and won the case.  The consultant advised city of Milpitas to increase the water fees even more by doubling the Capital Improve budget from $22 million to $42 million and take out a $25.54 million dollar bond for financing more projects. The city council members liked the idea so we are going to get a new notice for utility fees in November. The council members never want to miss an opportunity to raise your fees/ taxes. The city just wasted $10,000 for mailing out the last notice. The cost for the $25.54 million dollar bond at 4.25% interest is $1,522,139 every year for next 30 years, which is $45,664,170 to repay the bond with interest. This is not disclosed in your new water utility notice.  Starting in January your water fee will be $4.75 for all parcels, except Ed Leven Park at $3.75, followed in July with $5.13 but that still not enough to pay for bond and capital improvements projects (CIP) so additional charge of $1.30 called “portable capital surcharge” will be added to your July utility water bill, for a total of $6.43 an increase of 145.42% or 2.45 times the current fee.  Your water bill will increase by 8% every following year.  Bond and CIP charges make Milpitas the highest paying water utility bill in Santa Clara County.  Milpitas already has the highest sewer charges in Santa Clara County.  The city  CIP includes supply augmentation (digging for wells) cost $10 million at Dempsey RW $4.5 M, Yosemite RW 3.3 M and Landess RW 2.2 Million and Curiis well 3.3 Million in additional to the $1.3 million already spent for this well. The city thinks it can drill it way out of the water crises. Apparently the city never head about subsidence, which is when you pump water out of the ground and the ground sinks. Annually the city take out $2.61 million out of the water fund to put in the general fund for administration costs reimbursement and will  increasing that amount at 4% every year and of course there are additional personal services that costs of $2.7 million.  I looks like the city has add an new source of revenue for he general fund. These fund are supposed to be separate.  Is the city is pilfering the water fund?  The planning commission approved another 1,069 on Oct 28. The city has already approved over 2,000 this year but that not enough for the city. We have a water shortage but The city wants more more revenue by increasing the number of parcels. It your job to conserve water not the city's job. Anyone want to drink recycled tolite water? Sorry that comming soon.

Next year vote out of office the council members like Carmon Montana that rubber stamp any fee increase to the public and be thankful that Jose Estevez and Giordano are termed out of office. If you have any questions talk to your city council members or email me marini4mayor@yahoo.com .  For more detailed information on new water charges check out the web address at http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2015/100615/item_01.pdf

Next year vote for new council members such as myself to prevent you from being overcharged for services. Your new notice will be coming in your mail so please send in your protest letter and let the council member know you’re not happy with the new charges by indicating the following in your letter:

 Date  _____________________

I protest the proposed fee increase for utilities.
Name             _____________________________
Address or parcel id   _____________________________
                                        ____________________________

Signature           _____________________________

 

firing the city attorney of Milpitas

Reason why the city should fire the city attorney of Milpitas

The basic duty for a city attorney is to advise the city Council and Manager when the city is in violation of state laws. The city has violated many state laws and has gotten away with it.

The following are violations of California Constitution Article XIII D section 6

1. The city must disclose the basis for how the utility fees are calculated in the written notice sent to the parcel holders, when the city increases a utility fee. The city has not disclosed this information in the written notice sent to the public. The most resent notice does not provide enough information on the water, sewage and meter fixed fee. The city only disclosed the cost of the water and sewage fee. For the water fee the city did not disclose how many millions of gallons of water to distributed  the costs, to arrive at a fee.

The  parameters needed for the sewage charge are the average number of people per household, gallons per day, and the quantity of parcels. Only the cost to the city was disclosed.

The city did not disclose the costs for “meter fixed fee” which is a fee that depends on the size of the pipe connecting to the parcel.   The city just increases the this fee an arbitrary amount every year.

2. The city has collected more money than necessary to pay the sewage fee in 2011, when the city had a reserve fund of $8 Million dollars. The city has a formula for some fee but will not disclose this in the written notices sent to the public or even use the calculated results. see youtube.com and search for  "Council member Debbie Giordano asked a question"

3. The resident’s parcels are not charged a proportional fee for the sewage service attributable to the parcel, but  business, churches, schools and the city itself  are charged a proportional fee. A proportional fee means that they charged for what they actually use, like your water fee, only non residential parcels are charged a proportional fee. The people in single family parcels are overcharged when there is less then 4 people per parcel. Multifamily parcels aver overcharged when there is only one person per parcel.

Other laws the city has violated:

The city was suited for not disclosing who was at the mayor’s private party at city hall. The city lost $80,000 of the tax payer’s money. In this case the city had violated California public records act. The city sued a private citizen because the sign was too big. The city lost $20,000 for violation of a citizen right of free speech.
There is no penalty when the city is violating state laws , the result is the council members do not care and they are not going to bite the hand that feed them. They work for the city not the public or voters who put them into office.

Will the city start upholding state laws with an outside attorney firm, I doubt it.

If  you like to contact me or comment send email to marini4mayor@yahoo.com or twiter.com/Milpitas_news.

Send in your protest letter before August

Milpitas sent out a written notice to all parcel owners of the new fees for your utilities and you’re asked to conserve more water by 20%. The problem is if you conserve more water they will raise your water fee even more. The reason is the city distributes their overhead over all the water the city purchases from two sources, which are the SFPUC and SCVWC. The city distributes their cost over fewer gallons so they just raise the fee to cover their overhead. The other problem is that the city is always increasing the number of parcels. Debbie Giordano is a real estate agent so her interest is to provide as many homes as she can to act as an agent for buyer or seller in the future. The more stock available the more profit she can make as an agent. Marsha Grille was provided pack money from real estate agents and the other council members care less about the drought they care more about raising revenue for the city.

 Increasing the number of parcels undermines the goal to conserve more water. For example if 10 parcels conserve 10% of their water usage, then only one new parcel can be built without increasing the amount of water that the city buys form the water agencies and will not increase the demand for water. The city has approved over 1,000 new parcels in the last 6 months, and 500 this month. See Milpitas Post May 8.  This means that it will take 15,000 existing homes to conserve 10% of their water usage without increasing the amount of water the city uses, that over half of all the parcels in Milpitas. That is why the city want you to conserve by 20%. The more water you conserve the more new houses they will build without buying more water from SFPUC and SCVWD. For every 1,000 new households the city needs 54.7 million more gallons per year. The more you conserve the higher your fee.

The result is in 4 years you will be getting recycled toilet water to drink. The city benefits from the additional property tax money on the new parcels. On average the city gets about $1,000 for every new parcel. Eighty percent of the city's revenue is spent in salary and benefits. Half of all the city revenue comes from property tax. This means it in the city interest to increase the number of parcels, conserving water is your problem, the city is going to increase the demand. Council members will even approve drinking recycled sewage water in the near future if that becomes necessary and you will pay $7.00/HCF or more.  (1 HCF = 748 gallons) . The cost to water has doubled in four years from 2011 and will double again in less than 4 years.

What can you to stop the city from increasing the number of parcels?  Send in your protest letter to stop the fee increase so the city gets the message before August, you not going to approve a new fee increase until the city stops increasing the number of parcels and next year do not reelect council members who are approving more housing units. Vote for mayor or council members that will put a moratorium on increasing housing units. The choice is yours.
 

What should the message say is shown below: Make sure that you put the date,  address  and sign the protest letter.
example:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/25/2015

Name :          John Doe
Address:       1234  Space way
                    Milpitas ca. 95034     

I protest the new utility fee increase.

Signature ___________________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Send protest letter to:

 Milpitas City clerk
 City of Milpitas
 455 East Calaveras Boulevard
 Milpitas, Ca. 95035
(408) 586-3240

Contact Robert Marini at

marini4mayor@yahoo.com for comment.

                                  

Marini for Mayor

           Robert Marini for Mayor of Milpitas.

For the last 4 years I attended the city council meeting to represented the residents of Milpitas in an effort to make Milpitas a better place to live and improve the quality of life for residents. The city has opposed these efforts by overcharging for utility services. Your paying over a million dollars more today for just sewage service then last year. 

Is your life better today then 4 years ago? The city was increasing your water rate by 14% ever year. This year your fee went up from $2.63 to $ 6.43  this is a 145% increase . You sewage charge increased 14.5% in just one year. These rate increases are way above the rate of inflation and now Milpitas water rates are the highest in Santa Clara county. Milpitas also has the sewage rates in Santa Clara county.

The following is my platform.

1. Uphold the constitution of the state of California.
I have informed the city council that they violated California constitution Article XIII D section 6, which pertains to utility rates. The city council members have ignored this over the last three years. The council members represent the city against your interests. They ignore the state constitution laws because there is no penalty for ignoring state law.  The basis requirement of a city council member is to uphold the laws of the state .

 The city's council members have ignored the following laws:
 California constitution Article XIII D section 6 1:
The city does not provide the basis of the calculated fees in the written notice sent to the public. This means is the city has not disclosed the cost, number of parcels, gallons per day and persons per household parameters necessary to calculate the fee, which is required by section:

California constitution Article XIII D section 6 (B) 1
The city violated this law by overcharging parcel owners for sewage service. The total fee collected was exceeded  the money needed to pay the expenses for the sewage charge. The city had a reserved fund of $8 Million and still overcharged the residents by $291,000.

California constitution Article XIII D section( B) 3
was violated because the sewage fee is not proportional fee.  A proportional charge means your not charged for what you use, which is a fee per HCF (748 gallons), just like your water fee, but instead are charged a fixed fee. This means no matter how much sewage is generated your charged the same. The flat rate method of charging for services overcharges parcels that have less then the average people per household and under charges parcels that are over the average.

Seniors are the most negatively effected by a flat rate charge, because there is less then the average number of people per parcel. The type of parcel you live in effects your fee.
It assumed that there are 3.35 people in single family and 2.05 people in multifamily units. Single family units now pay $208 more for the same service that over 7 thousand multifamily parcels pay even if both parcels create the same discharge of water into the sewage system.
 Seniors in single family parcel that have only 2 people or less are overcharged service. They should be charged 2/3 of 86.92. If you're on vacation for two months and do not create any sewage water your still charged the same. Business are charged for what they actually use. They are charged proportional to what they actually use, but residential parcels are not.

2. There should be a moratorium on new housing development because of the drought. The city is asking a you to voluntarily conserve 20% more water but the city is always increasing the number of parcels every year.  Next year it will be mandatory 20% reduction in water usage. How is the city going to decease the water usage if it increase the number of parcels every year?

3 No pensions for part time employees. The city council members do not work full time and are paid $100/hour for 23 hours a month. That is very generous salary for part time work but they are also getting a pension. Most council members have full time jobs which provide for a pension. Now they are getting two pensions from multiple sources.

4 The city should stop wasting the tax payer's money for nonsense   projects. The city gave a grant of 1.5 million dollars to SunPower  just to hire 80 minimum paying jobs. The city hired a consultant  for $175,000 to tell the city what goals to achieve based on  community input. With all the commissions the city has it should  not need to ask an outside consultant. The city spent $175,000 just  for a statue and the city council members approved $60,000 for  a feasibility study for a skate park. 

5 The public need to set a term limit of 8 years for service because  the council members are taking money from private interests  groups. Once they get in office the public can not get rid of them  because of the campaign contributions. One council members is a  real estate agent and is always approving new development  because she make money selling homes in her private business.

6. We need to support our schools and provide for  a junior    collage. With the number of students in school this could help  students to get a higher education while remaining in Milpitas.

7. The city should be open and transparent in providing the costs  and other parameters so the residents can determine if they are  charged fairly for utility service. The city employees  should obey  the laws of the constitution of the state of California and the  council members should uphold the laws and honor the oath they  took.

It easier to vote a council member out of office then oppose a unjust utility fee increase.  It takes over 9,500 parcel owners to over turn a fee increase and not one person need to support a tax increase. All you need to remove a council members is a simple majority of votes for the opposing candidate in office.

We need a Mayor that will represent the residents of Milpitas instead of what we have today, which is a Mayor that defends the city against the residents and does not care that your overcharged for service and will not uphold the laws of the state of California.
Please consider Robert Marini for Mayor.