Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Prop 218 and the Water Rate Hike

In the Tattler comments section recently a very interesting conversation broke out regarding the possibility of Proposition 218 allowing bill payers here a say on any proposed hike in our water rates. I thought I'd post the exchange here because I think this matter deserves some further review. Given the as yet unstated agenda of our new City Council, everything should now be considered subject to further examination and review. And if it involves us paying more for a basic city service, then we have an obligation to exercise due diligence. Otherwise we are really doing nothing here.

This is what I wrote about the matter in my May 12 review of our most recent City Council confab:

Bruce Inman spoke about the many reasons why our water rates will go up. There were quite a few of them, and he at least seemed to feel he'd made a good case. Of course, we had to be told that it was good for us because it would help us save water. Tiered rates encourage people to use less, or so the theory goes. But wouldn't it be great if just once when utility rates or taxes are raised we aren't helpfully informed that it is beneficial to our well-being? I'm not sure how much longer the tired notion that having to pay more for government services is good for us will work. Maybe the consultants told Bruce to say that?

Apparently there is a way for the public to overturn any water rate hike under Prop 18. It involves getting 51% of the city's water customers down to a public hearing and counted as being against it. The logistics of making such a protest stick are pretty daunting, though. Just the cost of getting enough torches into the hands of a few thousand people alone would be excessive. The Council voted to move this on to its inevitable conclusion, and a nearly 16% increase in our water rates goes to a public hearing in July.

There wasn't much of anything said in comments about this the next day. However, on Thursday of last week the following exchange broke out on the water rate hike proposal put forward by Mr. Inman. Here is how it went.

May 13, 2010 7:12 PM: Re: Water Hike ... Needed for aging infrastructure or an excuse for gouging the "Little Persons" to enable a free lunch for the Development interest. Have you forgotten the "much needed" new pipeline on Grandview? It was promoted as an emergency situation. Of course, as it turned out, it was used to provide water to the Stonehouse development.

May 14, 2010 5:40 PM: Proposition 218, don't we need a vote of the residents to raise water rates? Sierra Madre could soon be in violation of this proposition. Easy to look up. Our last City Attorney (Michael Colontuano, Sandra Levin's partner) wrote an interesting article about this in 2004 for the League of California Cities magazine. Yes, the water rate increase could be used for bringing about a bigger pipeline for the development we avoided by defeating the Downtown Specific Plan. That will be back on the table now with Mosca, Moran, Buchanan and Walsh at the wheel. Keep an eye on closed meetings regarding the parking lot below Howies. That is one of the last public properties that the city (citizens) still own.

May 14, 2010 5:40 PM: Proposition 218 (ceres.ca.gov) - In November 1996, voters enacted Proposition 218, a Constitutional amendment intended to close the so-called Proposition 13 loopholes relative to excise taxes, benefit assessments, and fees, and to settle arguments over the applicability of proposition 62, the voting requirement for general taxes. Proposition 218 added Articles XIII C and XIII D to the California Constitution. Pursuant to Section 1 of Proposition 218, it is to be known as the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act." Proposition 218 both controls how general taxes are levied and requires certain previously levied general taxes to be ratified by the voters.

Proposition 218 reduces all taxes to either general taxes or special taxes. It defines a general tax as "any tax imposed for general governmental purposes." A special tax is "any tax imposed for specific purposes which is placed in the general fund." No special district (the definition of which includes school districts) may impose a general tax. By virtue of their specific purpose, taxes imposed by a special district are defined as special taxes. Charter cities, who has successfully argued that the statutory initiative Proposition 62 did not require them to submit general taxes to popular vote, now lose that argument to Proposition 218"s constitutional amendment.

No local general tax may be imposed, extended, or increased until it has been submitted to and approved by a majority of voters in the jurisdiction. Tax proposals can only be considered at scheduled general elections, unless the governing body of the city, county, or special district unanimously votes to place the question on the ballot at a special election.

May 16, 2010 6:08 PM: Prop 218 will not be triggered for a water rate increase. Colontuano is considered the premier Prop 218 attorney working on behalf of cities throughout the State. He figures out ways to circumvent the spirit of Prop 218 while still being in legal compliance, or at least creating a defensible position.

May 16, 2010 8:46 PM: We watched Colontuano create a defensible position here - for the hillside developers.

That is where things stood for a day or so. But then the following post was left a couple days later, and I have now been told by someone who knows better than I that this is pretty much the definitive comment of the series. Check it out.

May 18, 2010 11:10 AM: Prop 218 - for a water hike affecting all residents with a water bill, they must have a 45 day notice in writing (by mail) of the increase. The residents have that time period to contest the increase in writing (sent to the City Clerk so it gets recorded) and if a majority rejects it (again in writing) the City Council can not implement it. Demand a mailer that has a return rejection form included. The City of San Diego has a notice like that. Cities will try to be sneaky and not properly inform the public that they can reject a water rate hike. This is the aspect of Prop 18 that does not require a vote of the people but does require the mailed notice which people can then reject in writing. So we can make a difference and fight their funding. The budget is balanced now. Watch the parcel numbers on the closed meetings so they do not sell the three parking lots we still have as public property (not owned by the CRA). The lot below Howie's, East Montecito (Baldwin and Montecito), and the Mariposa parking lot. They have to be publicly noticed for sale at a City Council meeting. There are rules per the State of California. Read them and make sure they are followed.

Sounds like this return rejection form on the water rate hike notice to be sent out by City Hall is a good enough issue. And definitely something that needs to be discussed during Public Comment at next week's City Council meeting. We have some rights here, and there is no good reason for our not exercising them.

73 comments:

  1. Sitting down on the jobMay 19, 2010 at 6:53 AM

    The equation is simple. To add more porcelain thrones to the community you need more water. More H20, you're going to need more money. Where does the money come from? Your wallet. See ya'll at City Hall!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is odd how Measure CC would have required a 2/3s vote to pass, but this water gouge needs a 51% rejection to fail. Are we sure it wouldn't take a 34% rejection to fail?

    ReplyDelete
  3. H2O Rate ProtesterMay 19, 2010 at 7:04 AM

    Okay Tattlers. Most of us received the 45-day notice yesterday. The clock is ticking. Don't wait for a return rejection form. Today, take a scrap of paper and write, "I protest a water rate increase. Do not increase my water rate." sign it - one from you and one from your spouse. Address it to the City Clerk and mail it today! Or better yet, walk it to City Hall and get a signed receipt (make additional copies of your two letters and have the clerk sign as received with her name and date).

    Make a copy your blank letter 20 times and hand it to your friends and neighbors for their signatures, names, addresses and date. Have them do the same thing. It may be that one letter = one rejection. Don't have one letter with multiple signatures.

    The goal? We think its going to take 51% of the residents - that's about 2,500 households or 5,000 residents.

    DoIt! Friday, day after tomorrow, is a dark Friday at City Hall. You have a long weekend to distribute your rejection letters. Let the deluge begin!

    ReplyDelete
  4. DIRT ALERT at 6:57 am!!! Trying to muddy the water, no pun intended. All voters know that different issues and elections require different majorities. The bar on the water rate is 51% for rejection. 34% would insure we fail. Watch for disinformation and reject it!

    ReplyDelete
  5. 7:04 - I didn't get a copy of the letter. Or maybe the guinea pig ate it. But of you could get a copy to me I'll scan it and post it here. Might make a good template for sending in rejections.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's right, 7:04 am. This is not a registered voter thing. This is a resident/water user thing. How many water bills go out? That's 51% of the water bill receivers to reject the water increase. The 16% water bill increase.

    And remember, between mailing your protest and the City Clerk counting your protest is a staffer. Just saying handing in your protest and getting a receipt is insurance your protest won't go astray.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If all you Tattlers will recall it was Joe Mosca's first vote on the very first night he sat in the big black chair some years back that swung the vote to install the alleged emergency pipeline on Grandview. We who were there said to ourselves. Mein gott! What have we done.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Topsy has grown up to be a big monster now, 7:17. We can only hope someone in Sacramento offers him the cushy bureaucratic job he craves soon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In the past Bruce Inman sent out cards to residents. Returned card were counted as noted; cards not returned were counted as against. How's that? An example: send out 1000 cards asking how residents felt about an issues (yes or no); count all yesses or noes as noted. Then, let's say 500 card were never returned, the non-return were also counted as noes. Total returned yesses versus returned noes + non-returns counted as noes. = failure.

    It is possible that Inman will pull a similar stunt. All rejections counted as against rate increase; all non protesting residents counted in favor of rate increase. Guess who'll win?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Is this because Wistaria Village only has to pay $40K for the entire project instead of $40K for each of the 54 proposed condos in infrastructure fees? So instead of $360,000 in infrastructure fees, the WV will only have to pay $40K and we the water rate payers will make up the difference?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The big tip off should have been the consultants Bruce had backing him up. Where there are consultants, there are shenanigans. They go hand in glove.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Crawford,
    very interesting that you didn't receive the notice.

    Think they didn't want you to post an article like you did today? I think so.

    Thirsty,
    I sure remember that meeting. Bart Doyle was there.
    So was MaryAnn MacGillivray and attorney Linda Thornton. They were the only two residents who spoke up against the water pipe deal.
    Zimmerman and Watts, then the minority on the traitor Mosca, Buchanan and Joffe council voted against the deal. The deal passed. Thanks, Mosca.

    We are in dire trouble now, thanks to the stupidity, complacency and/or greed of Sierra Madre voters. It's only MaryAnn on the council of 5 who is fighting for us.

    Miss Kurt and Don yet ?
    You will.....wait until the city sells the Howie's parking lot to developers. They will, because they only need 4 out of 5 votes to do that, and now they have them.
    Thanks, Sierra Madre voters....you idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  13. tired old man of the mountainsMay 19, 2010 at 8:54 AM

    Mayor Pinnoccio, and his Marionettes will waste no time pushing the Kiwanis Club agenda (realtors and developers). We are about to start footing the bill for the coming developments, just like we footed the bill for the DSP.....

    ReplyDelete
  14. What kind of water usage do you think will take place in the hillside Stone developments? Modest little homes with 1 or 2 bathrooms, hah. Try big mansions with pools fountains saunas grounds to say nothing of the water needs to fight fires up there.
    H2O disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  15. City Clerk City of Sierra Madre
    232 West Sierra Madre Blvd.
    Sierra Madre, CA 91024
    Dear Sierra Madre City Council, City Manager, Director of Public Works, and City Clerk,

    I protest the proposed water rate increase charges for 2010 to 2015.

    Sincerely,

    Date:_________________________________
    Name:_________________________________
    Street Address:_______________________
    Sierra Madre, CA 91024

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey not to worry about our millionaires enclaves.
    They'll be greener than the greenest green in style, design, and execution. Marvels of sustainability.
    Templates for excessive consumption done right.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sending my NO in todayMay 19, 2010 at 9:11 AM

    Once again we see our biggest problem is education. Unless the Looney Views News decides to go with the good of the people, it'll be a dis/information struggle again.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Looney Views News will be all for the water rate hike. There isn't a tax or rate increase that they haven't supported. They're just a mouthpiece employed by local bad government to sell their money grabs to the public.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm hopeful that finding a piece of paper on the doorstep that says in CAPS, I PROTEST THE WATER RATE INCREASE might catch some eyes & get some action!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I refuse to pay for the swimming pools at One Carter and Stonehouse!

    I am against these shameful developments and even more against paying for their water on my dime.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Help finance overdevelopment with your hard earned tax and utility money! It's fun! It's easy! And all you have to do is sit on your fanny and do nothing!

    They're count on you to do your part. Which in their opinion is shut up and stay out of the way.

    ReplyDelete
  22. How about setting up in front of Albertson's, Ralph's, and downtown, to have S.M. residents sign copies of 9:04's letter to turn in to the city clerk ?

    ReplyDelete
  23. It should be called the Mosca water rate hike,
    so people know the consequences of voting this guy into office

    ReplyDelete
  24. The water metaphor is a good one since under the Gang of 4 we'll soon be DROWNING in debt like all those other regionally compliant cities.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Protest any water rate hikes that will be supporting NEW development.

    If we have to pay a water rate hike, it should only be for water WE use, not to accommodate new development.

    This is a scam, and the gang of 4 will DROWN us in DEBT. Great metaphor, 9:50.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 9:38, we are most definitely paying for the Stonehouse & Carter pools, and anything else they need.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Protest any water rate hikes.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I am not aware of any "majority protest" action which has been successful here in Southern California? I suggest someone contact the water company/city and get "their" specific rules for
    tabulating the opposition results.
    As I mentioned before, Colontuano is considered the premier Prop 218 attorney representing cities/gov't agencies attempting to raise fees and taxes via Prop 218....this is not an compliment, just an observation. I believe, he has been able to purchase a significant ranch in Northern California, along with his own airplane, from the proceeds he has received working on Prop 218 issues?
    I believe any water rate increase must be for providing the water/service, not for an improvement that will have no effect upon the users....may be a legal problem if the increase is going to be used a project that will enhance future development?

    ReplyDelete
  29. gilman, thanks - always interested in reading your posts.
    The usage for current developments in the hillsides of Sierra Madre is a done deal, and the new home builders have to chip in. Posters are just venting, and not wanting more like developments from here on to bankrupt the water supplies.
    The references to Stonegate and Stonehouse/Carter are actually crying over spilt milk, but it's good to remember what happened and what we want to avoid.
    Colontuano is largely responsible for the implementation of the hated hillsides developments.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Maybe this is all the reason for that $1.5 million dollar well we're supposed to be involved in drilling? The one we're doing along with Arcadia? More water for the great wave of SCAG housing that is being quietly planned for?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Water water everywhere more expensive than everMay 19, 2010 at 10:47 AM

    Gilman, you are a usally unimpeachable resource. This is what it says, "The city imposes its water rates in order to fund the City's costs of operating and maintaining the water system, as well as to pay off the costs of improvements to that system. Water rate proceeds may not be used by the City for any other purpose. The proposed water rates were calculated by the city in order to evenly spread applicable costs amongst water users according to the cost of providing service to that user." Whatever evil deviousness may be lurking between the lines it is imperative that the residents/users of water in Sierra Madre reject the proposed water rate increase in the manner specified in the Notice of Public Hearing.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I can speak for myselfMay 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM

    Boysen, don't think of yourself as a spokesperson for the residents or the Tattlers. We aren't as ignorant as you seem to imply. Nor do we need an apologist to Gilman for our posts.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Old Kentucky 8:33
    Can't you post without calling people names, it
    does not help your causes
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  34. I have always been amazed that certain people complain about some of the talk on this blog, yet never once have had anything to say about the vast buckets of toxic slime that were dumped on Sierra Madre by the Mtn Views News or the Sierra Madre Weekly earlier this year.

    Very strange, that one.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The backers of development in SM work far into the future their devilishness to perform. Trying to shut down Alverno's revenue source was in itself a ploy to set the property up for sale. Don't think One Carter and Stonehouse are the last developments in Sierra Madre's hillsides or anywhere for that matter. 28 Homes at One Carter, 54 condos at Wistaria Village -- we know about these and can react accordingly. Stonehouse can be reconfigured into smaller developments and go forward if we aren't careful. Water consumption isn't equal between single family dwellings and condos, but in aggregate the square feet of consumed water is staggering. Think of all the older larger homes in SM that have been torn down and replaced by multiple units. Then think about that over time.

    ReplyDelete
  36. !!@##$%&***!May 19, 2010 at 11:07 AM

    I personally think Old Kentucky is rather colorful and OK in my book. If you require politically correct phrasing and punctuation perhaps you are on the wrong blog. I believe Bill Coburn, Terry Miller or Hail Henderson may speak to your sensibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Water is a liquid that can be stored in tanks, pipes, in the ground, resivoirs, etc. Like the liquid gasoline it is verticle in securing and distribution (water pressure at the discretion of water officials), and is freely manipulated for proper and dishonest purposes. As I have already posted Water Districts and City Administrations are notorious for "managing our water for their benefit". Some water jurisdictions have been criminally charged for their practices. Water turns to Gold is the reoccuring theme.

    ReplyDelete
  38. water, water everywhere @ 10:47

    I think your coverage of the process and mandate is spot on. Unfortunately, sometimes the legal requirements can be manipulated by those in charge...I am not saying they are in this case.
    However, if the increase is actually being used to fund an "extension" of the water system for the benefit of a few, while being paid for by everyone, it may pose a problem if challenged. An "extension" is not an improvement. However, such things are often done by our elected officials and our only recourse is the courts...a long, costly process.
    I agree that getting the affected owners to oppose the increase is the way to go.
    Might also make sense to take a look at the expenditures for the water company, it would be interesting to see how the funds are actually spent.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Good advice and I thank you for it. Public Records Request is in order I think.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 10:52

    I guess you didn't like my reminding people about the sale of the Howie's parking lot?

    I'm glad it offended you, since you probably are one of the "investors".

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yep that Bruce Inman is a SCAPper. So. California Alliance of Publicly owned Treatment Works, SCAP is a member of Clear Water Summit Partners and from those sites you go directly to CA.gov Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, SCAP is having a board of directors meeting on June 1, 2010 at the Dump near Puente Hills on Workman St. Water and Trash together, hum did anyone see the huffington post video/story on the lady who lost her house due to a 300.00 water bill, yes a lien on unpaid water bills is creating a tax lien foreclosure land grab by the wall street group.

    Are your properties liened if you do not pay your water bill? How about your trash bills?

    Oh yes, while researching the above entities, by
    using yahoo and "Inman, Bruce director of public works Sierra Madre" I found a reference to Sierra Madres Chamber of Commerce and a recommendation date 9/22/09 by Bill Coburn endorsing SCAG membership, for regional purposes. A mention of Mr. Inman was there.

    How come the money is not coming out of the redevelopment agency for infrastucture repairs.

    Why is it being wrapped up in a bow and presented as a water tax hike?

    ReplyDelete
  42. OK - great post. That bunch is about as civil as a basket of baby rattlesnakes.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Tattler Family TrustMay 19, 2010 at 12:15 PM

    Does anybody know if Fran Inman aka Frances L Inman of Titan Magazine, Inman News, Majestic Realty, Contributor of transportation awareness and Chambers of Commerces. Oh yes, there is a non profit organization "Majestic Realty Foundation" with her/him at the head in City of Industry, Crossroads over by the dump. I found a 1984 ficticious filing for Frances as Prosource Group with a Davis, Larson, and Rood,
    at one wilshire.
    I found a firm called Inman Weisz& Steinberg, which gave me pause, since the chamber of commerce has a picture of a steinberg, courtesy of bill coburn. Probably nuthin,

    Does anyone know if he/she is related to Bruce Inman?
    It seems So Cal politicians are so family oriented.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Getting a lot of rather foul mouthed posts from the Civility Club this fine day. Rejecting them, of course. But a nice sign that today's entry has hit paydirt.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Problem reaction solution, developed doldrumsMay 19, 2010 at 1:24 PM

    Hi Mod, I just saw a story in the SGV Tribune, it isn't in the Pasadena Star News of course but it is titled "Event showcases county need for economic plan" There is a water reference there. It is a how to not do, let us do it to you kind of story brought to by the fine folks of the LA economic development cousin of San Gabriel Economic Partnership family and held at Huff headquarters Pacific Palms. It positively reeks of civility in a dire way.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 10:50, no offense meant. I was thinking that Gilman wasn't from town and might not realize that when someone posts "I'm not paying for the pools at Carter/Stonehouse" that he or she actually is paying for those pools. Unless the land is purchased from Capital Finance in Maryland, those developments are in process.
    I'll be more specific next time.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Fear is the mind killerMay 19, 2010 at 1:36 PM

    I searched prop 218, Howard Jarvis has taken a yes stand on it. It needs to pass to reinforce the progress of prop 13, so a vote is necessary to okay any assessments, versus new heavy imposed on the citizens by the cities increases like a water hike without their choice.

    Water is the new spice in the california dune story.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Oh my Gawd, you got to see this video, GuardianAngel246 on youtube, has put a video up on Arnold. Arnold has those reptilian slit eyes, my friend humanswin did the famous George Bush reptilian eyes video.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Cal Am water captiveMay 19, 2010 at 2:42 PM

    Do so appreciate the "unveiling" of water issue corruption on this board. I've run up against significant sellout on my City Council to Cal-Am and County water deals. PUC protests work (I did that), but do not change things in the long term.

    You all understand that new wells will overdraft the Raymond Basin?

    ReplyDelete
  50. I love Dune! Frank Herbert. Not the later stories. Great association.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Illuminati thing is nuts. Power finds its own circles, starting with D.C, Harvard, 10 Downing St., etc. as well as the Bohemian Club and Grove camps in the Bay area. No big mystery, just your typical Old Boys Club and corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I think Neuroblast should upload the video of Zimmerman asking for a delay to study the contract hooking us up to the MWD waterline. And, Joe's reaction to that very reasonable request.

    ReplyDelete
  53. We have to be our own Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  54. We need a Paul.
    And some worms.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I miss Kurt Zimmerman and Don Watts.

    (so does MaryAnn).

    ReplyDelete
  56. I do like the image of Bart Doyle as Baron Harkonnen moving about with the aid of suspensors. Okay, enough of Dune.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Cal Am, 2:42, I saw a Sierra Madre legal dispute regarding springs and wells and ownership back in it was 1956 or 1959, it is on one of Inman related sites, I saw it by searching Sierra Madre in I believe in the Clean Water summit or the CA. Gov Water quality site.

    Please tell me what above the raymond springs means, oh wait was that the name of the owners of the springs and another city was trying to take it? Could you expound on the statement you made?

    I'll go look at Cal Am..

    ReplyDelete
  58. When Dirt Council shenanigans are uncovered they are referred as "worm sign."

    ReplyDelete
  59. Kiss Kiss Cal AmMay 19, 2010 at 4:23 PM

    10:32

    0001118935 AMERICAN WATER CAPITAL CORP
    SIC: 4941 - WATER SUPPLY NJ
    0001410635 American Water Capital Corp.
    SIC: 4941 - WATER SUPPLY NJ
    0001260536 AMERICAN WATER PURIFICATION INC KS
    0001041580 PRIME STAR GROUP INC
    SIC: 2080 - BEVERAGES
    formerly: AMERICAN CAREER CENTERS INC (filings through 2002-05-15)
    AMERICAN WATER STAR INC (filings through 2008-04-17)
    TUNLAW CAPITAL CORP (filings through 1999-11-12)
    NV
    0001280908 AMERICAN WATER STAR INC
    0000318819 AMERICAN WATER WORKS CO INC
    SIC: 4941 - WATER SUPPLY NJ
    0001410636 American Water Works Company, Inc.
    SIC: 4941 - WATER SUPPLY NJ
    http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar

    This is "We are American Water" ticket traded as AWK from the Cal Am site, just search SEC and search American Water, New Jersey and stars go figure, you can open the red numbers on the SEC site to get further information

    ReplyDelete
  60. I am thinking anti trust monopoly breakup might be in orderMay 19, 2010 at 4:48 PM

    That water supply entry shows a 37% increase in profit over last year. Open that press release document. Back to Dune Water is the Spice, Wall Street has folded time for this company since 1886. Bet the stock figures are jumping today.

    Rockaway

    ReplyDelete
  61. Felton, CA was successful in breaking Cal-Am's grip on their water system and are now operating it as their own municipal system for far less money. This was back when it was a subsidiary of RWE Thames, then spun off as American Water, with Cal Am as a subsidiary. Communities across the state are getting rid of this corporation that brokers water without providing services, and then doubles the fees.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Cal Am, The web site said "all over the country our states" etc, and mentioned Rosemead, California American is a member of Rosemead chamber of commerce, a Raul Saenz, in San Marino, but checked and rosemead has 5 different water companies to choose from. Searched another close city utilites, then checked Sierra Madre utilities and there was a handy dandy little site called Fran and Rowena of the Inman news group, it states Sierra Madre has its Water and Trash together, of course you can find the best people to buy property from too it is an all purpose site. Who does the city of Sierra Madre buy its water from?

    Anybody know? I mean if the broken blades story Sir Eric featured a while back.

    Okay you get water from 3 sources groundwater, streams & "The State Water Project" which has 29 water contractors servicing CA. It is CA.gov Department of Water Resources hum hum

    ReplyDelete
  63. Jackue Cousteau of the mountain.May 19, 2010 at 7:39 PM

    I think it prudent that we have access to other water sources than what we have now, correct me if I'm wrong..as of this writing Sierra Madre is relying on water sources due mostly on geologic conditions, Wells, springs, runoff, holding facilities allowing for percolation into the groundwater system etc....So that being the case,we, Sierra Madre, beholden to geology and current seismic and local tectonic configurations are literally rolling the dice that conditions remain static. In 25, 32,45, or 90 seconds it can all change.....for the worse case scenario imaginable, no water at all, is that a risk we should keep taking? We need to hook up to this alternate source and then legislate around existing infrastructure, not legislating around non existant infrastructure.

    ReplyDelete
  64. water, water everywhere...

    If you look at water company expenditures, look for any transfer of funds into the City general fund. It is illegal to charge water rates that include a funding into the general fund, instead the rates must reflect the cost of providing the actual service (water)
    I can't imagine they would be dumb enough to actually transfer money into the general fund but stranger things have happened.
    Also would be interesting to know if the Water Division has/is "loaning" any money to the City particularly related to any new developments.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Cal Am Water captiveMay 19, 2010 at 9:46 PM

    Raul Saenz is the operations manager for Cal Am in its office located in San Marino. Maybe he lives in Rosemead.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Water, water everywhereMay 19, 2010 at 10:08 PM

    Gilman, you are a treasure. Thank you for your insights.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Gilman, the Sierra madre water division site hasn't been updated since 2003-2004, it also only lists two sources of water, and the CA.Gov water resources claims sierra madre is getting water from three places, There is a consumer confidence report date 2009, but no author only a call Mr. Reynoso reference to the report, in spanish a word contractor and chris cimino. I know you can read a copy of the city budget by going to the city clerks office, somebody should call inman on this.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Okay gilman, Sierra Madres Water District is San Gabriel Valley Water District, they are receiving grants funds from State of California Clean Water revolving fund program, we are region 4 Los Angeles 2010-2011 and there are three grants given to San Gabriel Valley water district,
    5888-110 Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District City of Industry (Phase IIB) Project C 19,000,000 31,000,000 N/A
    4 5883-110 Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Recycled Water Rosemead Extension Project C 7,500,000 7,500,000 N/A
    4 5115-110 Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District SAN GABRIEL VALLEY WATER RECYCLING PROJECT PHASE IIB C 20,647,000 20,647,000 02/25/09
    What does this mean, there are also grants to LA county sanitation, the large document is CA.Gov State Water Resources Control Board "financial Assistance program grants and loans" there is a reference to BIA protesting an MS 4 document under Sierra Madre 2002

    ReplyDelete
  69. 9:46 they did a water garden for rosemeadMay 20, 2010 at 12:30 AM

    Mod, there is a difference between Upper San Gabriel valley and San Gabriel Valley Muncipal although both along with Three Rivers are on site pertaining to Sierra Madre, all of them fall under LA metropolitan. Sierra Madre has received grants for enlargment and seismic retrofitting of a reservior.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Unruly & Scarlett T...

    Sorry I do not know the answer to your questions. I am no expert on water per se, but am pretty familiar with Prop 218 issues.

    I did see that the city website for the water division has not been updated for years? I can only guess that the 3rd source of water is the city buying rights to water in case it is needed? and that the grants/loans are for specific improvement projects? again, just a guess.

    It would be very interesting to know if the City maintains a separate fund for all water fees collected or if these funds are going directly into the general fund.

    Sorry I can't be of more help....will do some research over the next few days.

    ReplyDelete
  71. The city can not fund development with PAPER WATER. The water has to be hooked up and not to come in the future. Look the law cases on that. Tell rather write, email Castro(our community development director) and Sandra Levin that the CUP notice Board on DR. Sami's property on Sierra Madre Blvd for the 7,000 sq ft office space needs to be renotice in the year 2010. No permit was pulled in 2006 and no work was done on the propject . It has expired and must be renewed properly included any environmental issues review. If it is approved under the year 2006 ...that was before measure V was approved in 2007 (don't let this set a precedent). Posted as such is an illegal Conditional Use Permit. If not enough parking next a parking structure will be proposed ...Where? in the Marisposa Parking lot...just like it was proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Thanks 1:13. Keep that good information coming!

    ReplyDelete
  73. Its unfortunate that so much misinformation is posted on this particular topic. For a proposed water rate increase the utility needs to provide a 45 day written notice to all water customers/property owners. The customers/property owners may file a written protest against the proposed increase to rates. A husband, wife, kids, etc. sending in protest letters doesn't count as multiple votes (although it may end up being counted). Under Prop. 218, the City must receive 50% + 1 vote (not 51%) to reject the proposed rate increase and require a formal vote.

    Blogs and posts are the

    ReplyDelete