|
|
CITY OF YUBA CITY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS
Sealed proposals will be received at the City Clerk's
Office, City of Yuba City, located at City Hall, 1201 Civic
Center Boulevard, Yuba City, California, 95993, until 10:00
A.M. on August 24, 2010, at which time they will be publicly
opened and read aloud, for construction in accordance with
the specifications to which special reference is made as
follows:
WALTON WATER TRANSMISSION LINE – SURFACE RESTORATION
Contract No. 10-17
No bid will be considered unless it is made on the bid form
furnished by the Public Works Department. Each bid must be
accompanied by cash, cashier's check, certified check, or a
bidder's bond executed by an admitted surety insurer made
payable to the City of Yuba City for an amount equal to at
least ten percent (10%) of the total bid amount, such
guaranty to be forfeited should the bidder to whom the
contract is awarded fail to enter into the contract. General
Work Description: The City of Yuba City is accepting
proposals for overlaying and performing trench restoration
on Lincoln Road from Ohleyer Road to Garden Highway, Bunce
Road/Clark Avenue from Lincoln Road to B Street and B Street
from Clark Avenue to Cooper Avenue. The work is described in
more detail in the project plans and specifications. No
pre-bid meeting is scheduled for this project. Bids are
required for the entire work described herein. No bid will
be accepted from a Contractor who is not licensed under
Chapter 9, Division 3, California Business and Professions
Code. The Contractor shall possess a Class A license. In
accordance with the provisions of Section 1770 to 1790 of
the Labor Code of the State of California, the City of Yuba
City has ascertained that the general prevailing rate of
wages applicable to the locality in which the work is to be
done to be listed in the “General Prevailing Wage Rates as
determined by the Director of Industrial Relations,” which
is on file at the Public Works Department and available from
the California Department of Industrial Relations Internet
website at www.dir.ca.gov. The Federal minimum wage rates
set forth in this project as predetermined by the United
States Secretary of Labor are set forth in the book entitled
“Notice to Contractors, Special Provisions, and Contract
Documents.” Addenda to modify the Federal minimum wage
rates, if necessary, will be issued to holders of the plans
and specifications. If there is a difference between the
minimum wage rates predetermined by the Secretary of Labor
and the general prevailing wage rates determined by the
Director of the California Department of Industrial
Relations for similar classifications of labor, the
Contractor and subcontractors shall pay not less than the
higher wage rate. The Department will not accept lower State
wage rates not specifically included in the Federal minimum
wage determinations. This includes “helper” (or other
classifications based on hours of experience) or any other
classification not appearing in the Federal wage
determinations. Where Federal wage determinations do not
contain the State wage rate determination otherwise
available for use by the Contractor and subcontractors, the
Contractor and subcontractors shall pay not less than the
Federal minimum wage rate which most closely approximates
the duties of the employees in question. It is mandatory
that the Contractor to whom the contract is awarded and any
subcontractor under him pay not less than said specified
rates to all persons employed by them or either of them in
the execution of the contract. This project is subject to
the “Buy America” provisions of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. This contract is subject to state
contract nondiscrimination and compliance requirements
pursuant to Government Code Section 12990. WALTON WATER
TRANSMISSION LINE – SURFACE RESTORATION The total quantity
of materials estimated for this contract is in the table
below: Bid Unit of Estimated Item Item Description Measure
Quantity Region 1 - East of State Route 99 1 Traffic Control
LS 1 2 Asphalt Concrete Overlay (3/4" Agg.) TON 6,369 3
Asphalt Concrete Level Course (1/2" Agg.) TON 3,410 4
Pavement Reinforcing Fabric SY 26,152 5 Cold Plane / Conform
Grind Asphalt Concrete SY 19,058 6 Adjust Valve Boxes and
Manhole Lids EA 185 7 Class 2 AB Shoulder Backing Ton 440 8
Replace damaged signal loops and equipment LS 1 9
Thermoplastic - Detail 22 - Two Way No Passing LF 6,416 10
Thermoplastic - Detail 32 - Two Way Left Turn Lanes LF 7,118
11 Thermoplastic - Detail 38 LF 1,546 12 Thermoplastic -
Detail 39 - Bike Lane LF 11,277 13 Thermoplastic - Detail
39A - Bike Lane Drop LF 2,400 14 Thermoplastic -
Crosswalk/Limit Line LF 1,018 15 Thermoplastic - School
Crosswalk LF 1,162 16 Thermoplastic - School Crosswalk (2'
width) LS 490 17 Thermoplastic - "STOP" SF 418 18
Thermoplastic - "SLOW" SF 115 19 Thermoplastic - "SCHOOL" SF
150 20 Thermoplastic - "XING" SF 84 21 Thermoplastic - "XINGS"
SF 26 22 Thermoplastic - "KEEP" SF 24 23 Thermoplastic -
"CLEAR" SF 27 24 Thermoplastic - Bike Lane Symbol SF 203 25
Thermoplastic - Bike Lane Arrow SF 203 26 Thermoplastic -
Type I (10') Arrow SF 28 27 Thermoplastic - Type IV (L)
Arrow SF 585 28 Thermoplastic - Type IV (R) Arrow SF 105 29
Thermoplastic - Type VII (R) Arrow SF 54 Region 2/3 - West
of State Route 99 1 Traffic Control LS 1 2 Asphalt Concrete
Overlay (3/4" Agg.) TON 3,261 3 Asphalt Concrete Level
Course (1/2" Agg.) TON 1,782 4 Pavement Reinforcing Fabric
SY 18,096 5 Cold Plane / Conform Grind Asphalt Concrete SY
7,595 6 Adjust Valve Boxes and Manhole Lids EA 76 7 Class 2
AB Shoulder Backing Ton 799 8 Replace damaged signal loops
and equipment LS 1 9 Thermoplastic - Detail 22 - Two Way No
Passing LF 6,505 10 Thermoplastic - Detail 38 LF 298 11
Thermoplastic - Detail 39 - Bike Lane LF 8,384 12
Thermoplastic - Detail 39A - Bike Lane Drop LF 1,000 13
Thermoplastic - Crosswalk/Limit Line LF 131 14 Thermoplastic
- School Crosswalk LF 671 15 Thermoplastic - "STOP" SF 110
16 Thermoplastic - "AHEAD" SF 31 17 Thermoplastic - Bike
Lane Symbol SF 77 18 Thermoplastic - Bike Lane Arrow SF 77
19 Thermoplastic - Type I (10') Arrow SF 28 20 Thermoplastic
- Type IV (L) Arrow SF 60 21 Thermoplastic - Type IV (R)
Arrow SF 30 Plans, specifications, and proposal forms for
bidding this project can be obtained at the office of the
Public Works Director, City of Yuba City, 1201 Civic Center
Boulevard, Yuba City, California, 95993, for a
non-refundable deposit of $60.00 per set. An additional
non-refundable deposit of $5.00 for shipping and handling is
required for those requesting delivery by U.S. mail. Deposit
shall be in the form of a cashier's check, personal check,
or business check. The successful bidder, at bidder's own
expense, shall furnish a faithful performance bond and a
payment bond each in an amount of one hundred percent (100%)
of the total bid, respectively, and in the form prescribed
for use by the City of Yuba City. The bonds shall be
provided to the City at the time of execution of contract.
Pursuant to Section 1773 of the Labor Code, the general
prevailing wage rates in the county, or counties, in which
the work is to be done have been determined by the Director
of the California Department of Industrial Relations. These
wages are set forth in the General Prevailing Wage Rates for
this project, available at the Labor Compliance Office at
the offices of the State of California, Department of
Transportation, District Director of Transportation, for the
district in which the work is situated and at the office of
the Yuba City Public Works Department. In its discretion,
the City Council of Yuba City or its designee may reject any
and all bids presented, may accept an item or group of items
of any bid, may modify or cancel in whole or in part the
notice inviting bids, and may determine to re-advertise for
bids. Similarly, the City Council or its designee reserves
the right to waive informalities and minor irregularities in
any bids received. If two or more bids received are for the
same total amount or unit price, quality and service being
equal, the City Council or its designee may accept the one
it chooses or accept the lowest bid made after negotiation
with tie bidders. The officer or employee conducting the
bidding procedure shall present the bid tabulation to the
City Council or its designee for consideration and award if
deemed appropriate. Bids will be required to set forth the
price of the items bid upon, the total sales and use taxes
that will be due on the purchase or use of the items bid
upon, and a total figure for the price plus tax. Any
difference between the taxes shown on the bid as the total
figure and that actually due shall be the responsibility of
the bidder. No charge for delivery, shipping, parcel post,
packing, insurance, license fees, permits, or for any other
purpose will be paid by the City of Yuba City unless
expressly included and itemized in the bid. In connection
with any discount offered, time will be computed from the
date of delivery of supplies and/or equipment acceptable to
the City or from the date correct invoices are received in
the office of the officer or employee conducting the bidding
process if the latter date is later than the date of
delivery. Payment will be deemed to be made, for the purpose
of earning the discount, on the date of the mailing of the
City's warrant. Labor surcharge and equipment rental rates
to be used on this contract shall be those in effect when
the work is accomplished. Pursuant to Section 22300, Public
Contracts Code, the Contractor may elect to receive one
hundred percent (100%) of payments due under the contract
from time to time without retention of any portion of the
payment by the public agency in accordance with the
provisions of Section 22300 of the Public Contracts Code.
Such securities, if deposited by the Contractor, shall be
valued by the public agency's finance director (treasurer),
whose decision on valuation of the securities shall be
final. Unit prices shall be shown on bids submitted as well
as a total price for each item bid upon. Please direct
questions to the Department of Public Works, (530) 822-4786,
attention Kevin Bradford. TERREL LOCKE, CITY CLERK CITY
COUNCIL OF YUBA CITY August 9 & 17, 2010 Ad #00103500
Hillcrest
water project price tag adds $1.65 million for road fixes
By Ashley Gebb/Appeal-Democrat
2010-07-21 23:09:29
Another $1.65 million can be
added to the pricetag of the Hillcrest surface water
conversion project to fix road damage sustained during water
main installation. City officials disagree on
how much culpability for the repairs lies with Hillcrest
users, but those residents will pay 37 percent of the total
cost to repair the roads with fresh overlays. The remainder
will be funded through city gas taxes and water funds. The City Council voted
Tuesday to go out to bid for the restoration.
The $1.97 million project is
significantly higher than the $342,000 standard trench
restoration would have cost, but the overlay project will be
a higher-quality and longer-lasting fix, said Public Works
Director George Musallam. "It doesn't make sense just
to do the trench restoration and leave the rest of the road
damaged because of the project," he said. The surface water connection
replaces the Hillcrest groundwater source, which was high in
arsenic and required extensive and costly treatment. The $20
million project included a water storage tank and connection
piping that allows for future growth, and about $10.2
million of the total cost is funded through Hillcrest water
users.
The city installed water
transmission and distribution mains in B Street, Clark
Avenue, Bunce Road and Lincoln Road. During the course of
construction, significant damage was sustained on various
street sections, adjacent travel lanes and paved shoulders. The damage expedited the need
for overlays on those streets, which otherwise would not
have been done for several years, Musallam said. The city has calculated
Hillcrest users' share of the $1.97 million restoration to
be 37 percent, roughly $730,251 that will be paid through a
surcharge, Musallam said.
The road restoration does
raise residents' surcharge slightly, because it is more
costly than standard trench restoration. But the city was
also able to lower the surcharge through construction costs
savings, grants and other measures. "If we continued with the
trench restoration, their charges would be less," Musa lam
said. "But the problem is, we wouldn't have been doing any
overlays if it wasn't for this project."
City Manager Steve Jepsen
said at Tuesday's council meeting that 100 percent of the
cost can be attributed to the Hillcrest waterline
installation. City gas taxes will fund
$864,000 of the restoration because of existing deficiencies
unrelated to the Hillcrest conversion, Musallam said.
Hillcrest water users are responsible for paying 67 percent
of the remaining $1.11 million, and the city water account
will pay the rest to account for improvements that benefit
other customers.
"At the end of the day, the
surcharge for property owners will be among what they
approved, probably lower," Musallam said. Construction will likely take
place between April and June. New overlays will be installed
on B Street from Cooper Avenue to Clark Avenue, Clark Avenue
and Bunce Road from B Street to Lincoln Road and Lincoln
Road from Eastcrest Court to Ohleyer Road. Completion of all components
of the conversion project will not happen until next year,
but all Hillcrest users should be on surface water by the
end of 2009, Musallam said.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
CITY OF YUBA CITY GROUNDWATER REGION 3 (#5110003) HAS ARSENIC LEVELS ABOVE THE DRINKING
WATER STANDARD
SECOND CALENDAR QUARTER 2010 NOTICE
The City of Yuba City Utilities Department is dedicated to providing high quality water and excellent customer service. We routinely
monitor your drinking water to ensure compliance with all health standards. Based on the average of the last four quarters of testing, your
drinking water (Region 3 Groundwater) exceeds the federal drinking water standard for arsenic. The City has already taken action to lower
arsenic levels in your drinking water, but have not been able to lower it below the federal standard. While this is not an emergency, we
want you to know what happened, what you should do and what we are doing to correct this situation.
New Drinking Water Standard In January 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) lowered the drinking water standard for
arsenic, a naturally occurring compound in the local groundwater, from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 parts per billion (ppb). Groundwater
Treatment Plant #3, operated by the City of Yuba City Utilities Department, exceeded that new standard:
* The current annual average arsenic concentration for Groundwater Treatment Plant #2, which operates year round, is 8.8 ppb.
* The current annual average arsenic concentration for Groundwater Treatment Plant #3 is 12.3 ppb. This is above the USEPA standard, so you
will be notified quarterly until the standard is met or your water source is converted to the City's surface water system.
WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?
* This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified immediately. However, some people who drink water containing
high levels of arsenic for many years may experience skin damage or circulatory system problems and may have an increased risk for cancer.
* You do NOT need to use bottled water.
* You do NOT need to boil your water or take other corrective actions.
* If you have specific health concerns, please consult your medical
provider.
What Steps Are We Taking?
The City is always working to keep arsenic levels in compliance by adjusting treatment processes. The City expects to have Region 3 (area
south of Lincoln Rd) permanently converted to Surface Water by Fall of 2010. Region 2 (area North of Lincoln Rd) is currently receiving and
should continue to receive surface water until permanently being converted at the same time. See attached map. We will continue to
rigorously monitor your water supply to ensure it meets federal and state drinking water standards and keep our customers informed. Notices
similar to this one will be sent to customers every 3 months until your drinking water is in full compliance with the arsenic standard.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
* Contact Water Treatment Plant Supervisor John Westhouse at (530)
822-4637.
* For questions about general water safety standards, contact the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Hotline
(1-800-426-4791).
* Find more information about arsenic rule compliance on the EPA Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/compliance.html
* Visit our website at
http://www.yubacity.net/utilities/hillcrest-surface-water.htm and see
Hillcrest Water Conversion Schedule
A brief review of the history is
necessary to understand the Hillcrest Water System (HWS)
problem. Early in the year of 2000 the city annexed the Walton
Area without the proper water infrastructure to support its' new
citizens. Water was supplied by same private company that
supplied water for many years.
THE
ANNEXATION FLIER:
In
an Walton Annexation flier
the
City stated that Hillcrest customers would receive a State
Certified Water Supply from the City. How could the City
guarantee this when they didn't have sufficient surface water or
the piping necessary to connect the Hillcrest customers to the
City's surface water plant nor did they own the Hillcrest Water
Company? In addition, the City said that "If desired by area
residents" the City will assist you in creating an
assessment dis trict process that is used for water line
extensions. This statement would lead one to believe that
connection to City service water was not a mandatory requirement
before or after annexation
Prior to the City's purchase of
the Hillcrest Water Company (HWC) In September 2000 in a
newspaper article, the City Utilities Director said that the
HWC wells would give the city a back up water supply
for future droughts and emergencies. Certainly, this is a
benefit to the entire city!
In a newspaper article
a City official said that the City will not require home owners
to install water meters on their properties, if they have an existing home, However we have now been told that all homes
connected to the HWS not having an existing water meter will be
charged for one.
In this same article the
Utilities Director is stated to have said that after the HWC
company purchase, that the City Council will have to decide who
will pay for upgrades - indicating that the city wanted to
purchase the HWC even before the City Council knew who and how
the city would pay for the upgrades!
As a side note and not part of
this water discussion, it should be noted that the City promised
Walton area residents that they would receive City police
protection - it has been over eight years and the Walton area is
still waiting for the City to fulfill this promise!
CITY MEMO TO THE SUTTER COUNTY
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO
In February 21, 2001 The Yuba
City Administrator made a plea in a memo
to LAFCO to provide city water service within its' Sphere of
Influence (SOI) - which inclu ded a large area outside city
limits. Also indicated in this memo was that primary conduit for
this water service would be the Hillcrest water System (Walton
was already within the City limits). Again, this indicates that
development in the SOI would be a benefit to the entire city for
future city development - a desired planning goal for
Yuba City!.
It is also stated that the HWC
water system would not meet recently passed arsenic rules and
that the costs for these improvements has not yet been
estimated.
In this same City memo the City
states that they intend to convert HWC customers to surface
water. However, the City did not determine who will pay for the
required water plant and water distribution improvements?
Later in this memo it states that
the City intends to have all the these costs borne by the
Hillcrest customers. One would guess the City didn't know and
did know in the same memo who will be burdened with these costs!
Doesn't this sound like bureaucratic doubletalk?
How can they make a determination
that the Walton citizens will pay all costs without a
Proposition 218 vote by the Hillcrest water customers and
especially when they didn't require this as condition in the
Walton annexation flier? In the Annexation flier in 2000 and in
this memo the statement that the HWS can request conversion to
surface water. There was not a condition or mandate for
conversion to surface water in the Annexation flier. Could it be
that annexation would have been a more difficult sell to the
Walton residens if they knew that they would have to have to
pay $20,000,000 dollars in the future for connection to City
surface water?
Isn't this gracious of Yuba City
to purchase a suspect water system in the city's name that
provides benefits to the entire city; doesn't know how much it
will cost to fix the problems or who will pay, and then
determines that Hillcrest water users will pay the entire cost
of the project without having a chance to vote on the HWC
acquisition?
SUTTER
COUNTY
LETTER
TO LAFCO:
On March
22, 2001 Sutter county sent a letter to LAFCO concerning
Yuba City's
requested expansion of it's water service into the SOI. This
letter considers the
Yuba City
request to provide water service beyond the city limits into the
Sphere of Influence including the areas served by the Hillcrest
water Company. As stated in the letter,
Yuba City
did not have sufficient water rights to serve all of Hillcrest
customers. The letter noted that LAFCO did not need to evaluate
if the City has sufficient water rights but to evaluate t he if
the City can provide service (through the acquisition of
Hillcrest) beyond it's City boundaries . This is a clear
indication that the City was using the HWC purchase to be able
to gain water service rights to provide water to the SOI even
though the City did not have enough surface water rights to even
support the HWS system customers. This is clear indication that
the City was using the Walton Annexation and the HWC as stepping
stones for future City growth and development. Again, this is a
definite
Yuba City
benefit.
Before I start I
would like to thank Mayor Ramirez, Councilman Gill and their
staff for providing an abundance of information on the Hillcrest
water system. Based on the information presented to date I have
made the following conclusions;
When the Walton
area was annexed, the City did not have the infrastructure to
support the annexation. After more than seven years, the city
has not completely fulfilled all of their promises. Why did the
City rush to annex the Walton Area? The City needed this
annexation as a stepping stone to further City growth. When the
City purchased the Hillcrest Water Company we became part of the
city’s water system and expected to be treated as any other
water customer. However, we were placed in a separate water user
category within a separate financial account. Now the City
contends that the Hillcrest Water Company was purchased for the
Walton Area. The City implies that Walton Area residents are
responsible to either fix the system or switch to surface water.
If we decide to choose surface water it would be like paying a
seven year old retroactive reconnection fee at today’s prices.
If we fix the system we will be fixing the city’s water system.
At the time of
annexation we were connected to the Hillcrest Water Company and
there was no overwhelming demand by the Walton Area residents to
make this purchase. This company could have continued as a
private water utility regulated by the California Public
Utilities Commission. For whatever reasons, the City decided to
make this purchase. There are several written indications of
intent contained in city documents to use the Hillcrest Water
System to further City growth. I will quote from one document
dated February, 2001 as follows:
“Yuba
City requests that LAFCO, under government code 56133,
authorize the City of Yuba City to
provide water service within its sphere of Influence at your
next meeting – March 22.
.” The primary conduit to provide this
service will be the Hillcrest Water System,
which the city is in the process of acquiring”.
One can only
conclude that the City purchased the Hillcrest Water Company to
provide water for future build out and growth in the City’s
Sphere of Influence. This growth was needed to collect new
developer impact fees which benefits the entire City
The City knew that
at the time of the purchase that there was an arsenic problem
with the Hillcrest wells. After seven years, we are told that
this is a Walton Area problem and its residents must pay to
correct it at cost somewhere around 20 million dollars. Why
didn’t the City address this problem sooner with a more
permanent solution instead of taking a patch as needed approach?
An earlier solution might have cost much less than it would
today. One might conclude that the City used the Hillcrest wells
as a temporary solution to further city growth and then
deactivate them when no longer useful.
When the City
purchased the Hillcrest Water Company, the City was obligated to
accept the liabilities of that purchased. This included existing
connections of Hillcrest customers. When the City purchased the
Hillcrest water system we were officially connected to the
City’s water system. To be fair and equitable any improvements
to the City’s water system including the Hillcrest water system
should be shared by all Yuba City residents.
Thank You
Don Kessel - Ad Hoc
Advisory Member
I would like to
thank the Mayor and the City Council for the opportunity to
speak tonight.
Over the past
several months we have heard comments from City officials and
City staff that their actions are in our best interest. I want
to explain why we are reluctant to accept unconditionally what
the City has proposed for the Hillcrest Water System project.
In the July
meeting, an arsenic problem was used as a reason to encourage
Walton residents to connect to surface water and pay for it
through an assessment district. At that time Hillcrest Water in
our region met the EPA arsenic standard and is still meeting
that standard.
During this
meeting, the City presented solutions to correct the arsenic
problem. What wasn’t indicated in this meeting was that the
project design included infrastructure to support future growth.
Had a challenge not been made to these proposals, inappropriate
costs would have been assigned to our Walton residents? Miles of
new and oversized piping are also designed into this project. To
date, our existing piping has been adequate. Why is so much new
and oversized piping required?
In October, 2006
a meeting was held in which the City’s Sutter Heritage Plan was
discussed. At this meeting they discussed a proposed housing
development near Walton and Pebble Beach. Also at this meeting
the following information was revealed: “Sewer and water fees,
including connection fees and installation of major trunk
lines…shall be incorporated into the cost of the development and
shall be part of the development agreement.” How could the city
promise surface water for this development if the city didn’t
have infrastructure to support it? If the City doesn’t require
the developer to put in the major trunk lines, where are the
funds coming from? Just by coincidence, there is a 30” pipe and
other growth infrastructure built into the Walton Area project.
Also discussed,
was a proposed $60,000 impact fee. Why was this fee
significantly reduced? Did the City over state their first
estimate? Or could it be that the developer couldn’t sell homes
with a $60,000 impact fee attached? One wonders if Yuba City
citizens are now subsidizing developer fees. Without new impact
fees the City cannot pay its existing debt service!
With the housing
slump and deteriorating state and national economic conditions
how will the City continue to make these payments? The answer is
simple and obvious - through increased taxes and fees from all
its citizens!
California law
states that. “The department shall not approve an application
for a project with a primary purpose to supply or attract future
growth.” The Hillcrest Water system was originally purchased for
growth for the City’s Sphere of Influence. The City’s Hillcrest
Water project clearly indicates design for future growth. We
have been told that the low cost loan was for us, however, the
City also benefits from this loan for the growth they added to
the project. How does this affect the status of the loan?
The City has not
discussed their responsibility or its program to protect the
City’s water wells from contamination as specified in California
law. The law states that a program to protect well heads should
be implemented. We would like to know what has been done over
the last seven years to protect Hillcrest wells from
contamination?
The City is now
requesting a 41 thousand dollar engineering study to determine
the “most economical solution” solution and to define specific
benefits and cost to each Walton Area resident. It should be
noted that an engineering study is required by Proposition 218
before a vote can be taken by its citizens. Based on the number
of citizen protests collected, the City is now aware of citizen
dissatisfaction. The City now needs to plan to follow
Proposition 218 procedures.
In summary,
there aren’t any specific benefits for Walton area residents.
Our well water is meeting EPA standards and there is adequate
infrastructure to support it. Without the Hillcrest water
project, future growth and annexation in this area will be
difficult. Without this growth there will be no new homes, no
new impact fees, and no funds to pay City debt service. The
Walton conversion to surface water is an important part of the
City’s puzzle for continued growth - and costs should be shared
by the entire City.
Thank You.
Don Kessel
|
