Opinions sent to us

Opinions & Questions: The following is the information presented to the City Council at an important meeting last night, October 20, 2009 by Don Kessel, resident in the "Walton" area and member of the "Hillcreast Water Ad Hoc Committee." We are subject to the proposed increased surcharge for City surface water. There was a lot of information that was difficult to follow presented by the Water Department Director, Mr. Bill Lewis. I was present and will have to watch the meeting again on Friday. This is a very complex subject and answers to Mr. Kessel's questions were not answered. Bottom line, the City Council is not questioning the higher amount that was presented by Mr. Lewis and approved his signing loan applications for a higher amounts without knowing who is paying that higher amount. The higher amounts are not the amounts previously presented to the City. As difficult as it is to understand the maneuvering of the amounts, Council spent a minimum of time on it. The majority of the meeting was spent on two matters before the Council: banning smoking in all the Yuba City Parks and permits for vendors. This was a very interesting meeting and if you did attend, please watch it Friday night on Comcast's local Channel 18 or 19. If you do not have Comcast, please watch it on the City link. Suzanne Connelly Donald Kessel Yuba City, CA 95993 October 20, 2009 Yuba City Council Council Members City of Yuba City 1201 Civic Center Boulevard Yuba City, CA 95993 Dear Council Members: I am troubled with the October 20, 2009 agenda item 12 concerning the recommendation to authorize our Utilities Director to sign documents for State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans for Region's 1,2 and 3. Since the approval for conversion of the Hillcrest Water System to surface water, several changes have been made to the project. Earlier estimates of cost made by the Utilities Department on April 25th 2008 did not describe the need for a 14 or 16 inch pipe. A 24 inch pipe was required for Region 1 but was not included in tonight's document New requirements have been added and project costs have increased. It would appear that, in this poor economy, that construction costs should decrease not increase. In tonight's document the SRF loans cited in the "SRF Funding Breakdown" does not match with the narrative on page two. Which amount is correct? Also in the "SRF Funding Breakdown" It shows the repayment source of the City to be almost 16 million dollars. In the narrative version on page four, it states that the City is responsible to fund about 4 million dollars. Is the City paying 4 million or 16 million? It appears that it would be appropriate to pay for this 11.5 million only through future developer impact fees. In addition, there is no cost breakout for design services, construction management or for contingencies. In the April 25th document it was stated that the property owners share for the project was almost 12 million dollars for Regions 1,2 and 3. In tonight's document the SRF loans amounts to almost 26 million. This increase is mainly due to the inclusion of about 11.5 million dollars of water plant capacity charges. It appears inappropriate to include plant capacity charges as part of region 1,2 and 3 loans. As stated in the Hillcrest ad-hoc committee report dated July 1, 2008 "The plant capacity fee and all distribution system over-sizing should not be charged to these customers". This leads to the question as to who is responsible to pay for these water impact charges? Will it be the entire City or will this additional 11.5 million dollars be charged against Hillcrest customers at a later date through increased water rates, user charges, assessments, or other legal means? In either case Hillcrest residents and all City residents should be aware of what charges they are obligated to pay and that they will be encumbered for an additional 16 million dollars. With all due respect, I do not believe that the City Council should approve this resolution tonight and should refer it back to the Utilities Department for clarification to determine their reasons for inserting water impact fees, changes and additions into the loans and who is responsible to pay them. I believe that this project has become so convoluted that it is unclear as to who benefits from each part of the project. It would now appear appropriate to conduct an independent benefits analysis to ensure all Yuba City residents are being charge correctly. Sincerely: Donald Kessel Donald Kessel 1964 Pebble Beach Drive Yuba City, CA 95993 October 6, 2009 Yuba City Council Council Members 1201 Civic Center Boulevard Yuba City, CA 95993 Dear Council Members: With all due respect I have some concerns as to the accountability and transparency of the Hillcrest groundwater conversion. A Utilities cost breakdown dated April 28th, 2008 was presented to the City Council stating that the cost of the Hillcrest groundwater conversion project for regions 1,2 and 3 would cost about 17 million dollars. The property owners share would be about 12 million. This amount included Design and Engineering costs, Construction Management Costs and Construction Contingency costs. Tonight, as stated in agenda item 10, the Hillcrest groundwater conversion State Revolving Fund loan is quoted as approximately 29 million dollars. This is a State Revolving Fund loan increase of approximately 12 million dollars - twice the amount of the April 28th property owners projected costs. In addition, in tonight's presentation of Contracts 09-05, 06, 07; 19 and 31 amount to about 10 million dollars. The cost of the Sanborn Storage and Pumping Plant are not included in tonight's contracts and could cost about an addition 6 million dollars raising the cost well above the figures stated in the April 28th cost breakdown. There was no requirement shown for a 14" or 16" pipeline and only a 24" pipeline for Region 1. One would expect the construction costs to go down in this depressed economy - not up. Of special note, the Hillcrest wells are included as part of the water supply for the Lincoln East Specific Plan. Prior to Proposition 218 the HWS customers were told that these wells contained too many contaminants were too expensive to maintain. The Utilities Director recommended to the City Council that, if Hillcrest water customers didn't convert to surface water, the Hillcrest water system wells should be sold to a private company. Evidently, the City has had a change of mind and has included them as part of the City's water supply for the Lincoln East Specific Plan. This indicates that these wells are of some value to the City. Whatever that value is, it was not credited to reduce the cost of the Hillcrest groundwater conversion. In summary, There appears to have been several changes from the April 28th, 2008 cost breakdown that resulted in the increase of over 12 million dollars in the SRF loan. I respectfully request that the City Council direct its staff to provide an updated written detailed report as to all changes, additions and costs to Hillcrest groundwater conversion project, both current and projected, since the April 28th cost breakdown. This report should include the reasoning and the approval authority for each change, addition and cost. All costs should clearly indicate what Hillcrest water users are responsible to pay and how it affects the Hillcrest surcharge. The City should also indicate what it is responsible to pay. If the additional State revolving fund costs are for non-Hillcrest projects then City residents including Hillcrest residents could be encumbered for additional 12 million dollars to be paid by them possibly through increased water rates. I sincerely hope that City Council and its staff will review and provide an update report on the Hillcrest groundwater conversion so that the Hillcrest water user knows as to what they are being charge and what the final surcharge will be. Thank You, Donald Kessel MEMORANDUM To: Jon Coupal From: Eric Eisenhammer, David Wolfe Re: Tax increase package for an average family of four Date: February 13, 2009 Gas Tax: Proposed 12 cent/gallon increase: According to the Board of Equalization Californians consumed 15,461,861,205 gallons of gasoline in 2008. California has over 38 million people. Therefore, Californians consume on average 407 gallons per person or 1628 gallons per family of four. Based on these calculations, a 12 cent increase in the gas tax would cost the average family of four $195.36. The same conclusion can be reached if one assumes families of four with two cars each driven 16,280 miles per year at 20 miles per gallon. Reduce Dependent Child Tax Credit from $300 to $100: A tax increase of $200 per child. 11.1 million taxpayers filed for this exemption in 2006. Cost to an average family of four (two dependents): $400 Increase Sales Tax by a proposed one percent: According to the Board of Equalization, a one percent increase would result in an annual tax increase of $266 for an average family. HJTA, using Federal labor statistics, has also drawn similar conclusions Proposed .5 percent increase in the Vehicle License Fee (from .65% to 1.15%) As a general rule of thumb, for every $10,000 of car value (a rough determination of your car’s value can be determined by a Kelly Blue book) would result in an additional $50 of new taxes per car. Assuming a two-car family, at minimum this would be a tax increase of $100. However, staff in the Appropriations office estimates that the average increase will likely be between $130-140. Proposed 2.5 percent income tax surcharge on all income tax liability: In the last (2007-2008) fiscal year California received $54.8 billion in income tax revenues. Multiplying this number by 2.5 equals added income tax revenues of $1.37 billion. In 2007, there were 15 million income tax returns. So roughly, every tax return will pay an additional $91 dollars in income taxes. This tax would apply beginning with the 2009 tax year and is not retroactive. Based upon these numbers, we believe the impact on the average family of four would be at least $1100 annually. Further, the numbers for sales and VLF tax increases are difficult to compute accurately, potentially making this burden higher. To: Members of the California Legislature February 13, 2009 Re: Negative Impacts of New Taxes Dear Members of the California Legislature: We, the undersigned representatives of taxpayer organizations in California, continue to oppose any budget resolution that would increase taxes – temporarily or otherwise. It is unfair to demand even more of taxpayers when the state already has the highest sales, income, and gas taxes in the country. Higher taxes will accelerate net domestic out-migration of California’s most productive citizens. No one denies that California has a serious cash flow problem. But it is inaccurate to assert that California is running out of money. Taxpayers will generate about $90 billion in General Fund revenue, approximately the same amount produced in 2006- 2007. Families throughout California have seen far more draconian reductions in revenue on a percentage basis and yet most find a way to manage. California state government can survive on $90 billion. California continues to overspend. Those agencies and interests which rely on taxpayer dollars for their existence have rarely had to prioritize spending because they've always believed themselves to be entitled to a blank check. Those days are over. Taxpayers deserve real and appreciable spending reductions coupled with systemic remedies for waste, fraud and abuse. The proposed budget doesn’t even come close to accomplishing this objective. Signed: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) National Taxpayer Limitation Committee (NTLC) National Taxpayers Union (NTU) Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Americans for Prosperity—California "National Federation of Independent Business – California". Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers (FACT) Humboldt Taxpayers League Lafayette Taxpayers' Association Pleasant Hill Taxpayers Association Solano County Taxpayers Association Stop Taxing Us: Colton Sutter County Taxpayers Association United Californians for Tax Reform United Organization of Taxpayers A resident's letter to the City Council October 8, 2008 Yuba City Council Dear (I sent letters to each one of them.) At the end of your November 30th Hillcrest Water meeting, you affirmed for me in specific fact provided by you, what I knew from the first meeting, so long ago: it was always tax payers paying for development, it was never the quality of our water. You provided that proof when you specified that District 1 would get ground water if they didn’t oppose the $20.00 increase, proving that either the 22 inch pipe (revised from 30 inches) isn’t necessary to bring ground water and/or the $20.00 per customer in district 1 alone will pay for it, without district 2 or 3. How could you offer ground water to District 1 without District 2/3 approval of the $20.00, if facts were otherwise? I felt it was useless to bring these facts to your attention at the time. Since Nov. 30, Wall Street and Washington economic events have changed our lives. We don’t yet know the full effect of the changes. We do know that collectively, we are more powerful than working in groups that fight each other. Good jobs could be scarce, small business at risk, prices are going up, our dollar buys less, but income stays the same, or goes away all together. Volunteers invited by you, our leaders could do research, build bridges between groups, spread information and serve in ways not yet apparent. The people who organized the Hillcrest residents are a proven source of ability and energy. Why not begin with them? They are good people, just like you are and want what is best for all citizens, just like you were elected to do and are doing. When will you involve citizen groups and build a strong community feeling that supports the continuance of the exceptional quality of our life? In listening, and acting on honest ideas, you demonstrate wise leadership. Please let me know the time and place of the meetings of your recently appointed economic advisory council. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Pat Hill This is an issue that should have been reported by the local newspaper on behalf of the Public. Sutter County & perhaps Yuba City employees do not CONTRIBUTE funds for their future Pensions, however the Public GUARANTEE funds to pay lucrative pensions for retired employees. The average (Miscellaneous) county employee can work until age 55 and retire with a Guaranteed Pension $3500 + per month together with medical benefits until age 65. In addition they will receive approximately $1500+ per month from Social Security at age 65. These pensions are funded from the County & City general fund utilizing PERS to invest the money and hoping to benefit from an ever expanding Stock Market. NOW TO THE PROBLEM FACING AMERICA TODAY. The Stock Market has "TANKED" and it appears that the PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION will require the City & County to pay into their accounts an amount in excess of 40% of the total value of the fund. (could be $50 million or more) Has our elected officials & administrators debated this issue? Where will the City and County find the funds to make up for the losses sustained by Stock Market losses - PERS will demand that the account be brought current in order to sustain the monthly pension payments. The Council and Supervisors may be knocking on our doors asking for donations to the Pensions which they quite liberally voted on in 2004. May I suggest to you the public, please telephone your elected officials and get answers on this a very Grave Problem. To the Supervisors/Administrators please utilize the local media to present your position on this problem and how you intend correcting it.. It may be time to Re-organize our Pension Program and possibly advise the present retirees that they have to be willing to accept a reduction in their monthly pension checks. Philip Treanor What is happening here in Yuba City behind closed doors is more then MURKY. I have several issues that s/b out in the open and included in the record. The first one is: I was one of three residents that toured the Water Treatment plant and were told by staff that when the 3,000 homes then purposed to be put on surface water were put on, there would be no more capacity. That meant that there could be 3,000 homes put on surface water before the treatment plant would have to be enlarged. Since then, there have been more homes built and put on surface water. Also, there are 800 homes that have recently been put on surface water too. According to that information, there is not enough capacity left for the remaining 2,200 homes in the annexed 2/3 area. Region 1 has not been annexed but is being offered City Surface water which again would reduce the capacity to a point that the annexed area could not be furnished surface water at all. Only three residents were told this by the Water Department Staff prior to the first protest. Second: The Council has found that the Mayor does not need to follow the FPPC sanction of repayment of City Funds for one of his mass mailings; they will pay the fine or fines for him. There is another mailing yet to get a finding on. This was done in a closed session of the City Council with four members making this decision. Was the Brown Act violated? Who knows what other MURKY issue is involved? Is there a blank check for the continued attempts to force the residents to pay for this enlargement of the Yuba City Surface Water System? At the last Council meeting, Taj Mann stated that no other proposals have been offered by the protesters. All residents should know there have been meetings to discuss other options. They were refused by the Council members in the discussions. Lastly: The Mayor argues important issues on blogs. The Mayor has been lobbying, cajoling and accusing residents of actions only put forth by him with no substantiation. He directed a message to me. I would like to read it to you but it would take too long. It shows how the mayor is criticizing an unknown resident of Yuba City As soon as I read it, I sent this letter to the Mayor and the City Council. If there is time allowed, I would like to read it. If not, to summarize: I objected to the wrong and the offensive statements said to Suzanne1 11-17-08 Dear City Council and Friends: In regard to Blogs appearing in the Appeal Democrat site: I have read the response from the Mayor written at 11:23:42 AM on Saturday, 9-16-08. I do not know what message his response is to. When he wrote it I was on an airplane returning to Sacramento after a trip out of state and country. I would like to see the message that his blog is in response to. To the Mayor: It appears you are writing to me but you are incorrect. I did not write to you and you might consider that there may be more than one Suzanne reading the Appeal Democrat. I am curious as to the message that Suzanne1 wrote to you to see if you were appropriate in your response. You may need to address her message with other information. Please respond to me at my e-mail address with the message that you were responding to. My opinion is that the correspondence is not appropriate. The Mayor is writing a personal response to Suzanne1 who at the time she wrote the blog, was anonymous. In doing this, I have been offended by the response based on the assumption that I wrote the unknown message. Suzanne Connelly The very next day instead of hearing from the Council or the Mayor, I got an e-mail from Lloyd Layton a person that I have not met. It also refers to blogs not written by me. It seems that someone on the Council or the Mayor sent my letter on to Lloyd Layton. It is long and can not be included here because of our time limitations. To summarize; he thinks I am another blogger and wants to discuss the annexation of Region 1 with me. Apparently, there must be residents discussing the annexation of Region 1 with Lloyd Layton and whoever they are want me to be included. Again, these discussions are not in the open and taking place behind closed doors. He states in his letter to me: “However, I would support a separate effort to annex our area into the City.” THE LETTERS SHOW MURKY MOTIVES. I think the Mayor and or the City Council should respond to me re: the Mayor accusing me and degrading me on a blog. I do not think my letter s/b sent out to another person so that he can speak to me on behalf of the Mayor. The Mayor was wrong and should have apologized to me. After all, he is putting lies about me out to an unknown public audience. I would like to give and put into the record the letters I have referred to. Thank you for your time and attention. MAYOR’S BLOG MESSAGE Yubacitymayor wrote: suzanne1, After all the time you have invested and the questions you have posed you still act as if you don't understand it. I believe you also said at some point that you didn't want to necessarily go with the cheapest resolve. You mention fairness and the Master Water Plan. As a matter of policy, each new customer, of the Surface Water System, is charged a plant capacity cost as part of their hook up fee. That amount today is roughly $3,700.00/per parcel. That cost was forgiven to all of the remaining HWS customers in the option to convert. Future water supply is and will continue to be of great concern to everyone in Ca. What I have said, consistently, is to get diverted from the issue of deficiencies within the HWS could have expensive consequences. I have also said we are and have been for five years working diligently on new water contracts. The gift you reference was not exclusive to Region 1. It would appear to me that just maybe the people in Region 1 were not exposed to the misinformation that was aggressively distributed by the "Murky Water" groups first protest form that opposed the Cities option before it was put forward. THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE "MURKY WATER" PROBLEM. This along with the fact that their leader-ship allowed DEFEAT TO BE SNATCHED FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY. The City says "you voted against surface/river water so we are done" and "we are going to sell" must be in your imagination or your not reading responses I have made to other questions. 11:23:42 AM11:23:42 AM LLOYD LAYTON’S E-MAIL MESSAGE TO ME Ms. Connelly, I just read a blog from yesterday in which annie1 raised the topic of the City making a proposal to deliver surface water to Hillcrest 1 that would be contingent on Hillcrest 1 agreeing to annex into the City. I don't not know if you are annie1 but certainly a fair number or people seem to think you are so I am going to send this to you just in case. I think that annexing Hillcrest 1 into the City makes a lot of sense. In fact, myself and several others attempted to do that a few years ago. Our main reason was that we could see the potential problems with the Hillcrest water system (HWS) that were on the horizon and being in the City would give us an extra alternative in dealing with those problems. Our effort was unsuccessful by a wide margin. As we walked the neighborhoods, I can tell you that the main reason that the annexation effort failed was that people were afraid that they would be forced off of their individual wells and septic systems at great expense to them. I talked to Rick Dais about this at the time and he assured me that he was not spreading that information. So, I don't know who it was that was spreading it but I can tell you that someone was. Annexation is a very difficult sell when people on septic tanks and individual wells think the City will force them to convert to sewer and water. It doesn't help to point out to those concerned people that the City hasn't forced anyone in any of the areas that have been annexed to convert from their septic systems and individual wells to sewer and water. Police protection was one of the issues that was raised during that debate. As I recall, we learned then that there is an agreement between the City and the County that says when a certain number of people are annexed into the City, then that will trigger a change in law enforcement coverage from the County to the City that affects all of south Yuba City. We were told that annexing our area would have triggered that change. Until that happens, your area as well as ours will remain under County jurisdiction. There are a number of reasons why I would not support tying the two proposals together (surface water and annexation). A few of the issues are that going through the LAFCO process is long and will be complicated by deciding who should be included in the annexation effort. Do you just include the HWS area or do you include all of the area north of Hunn Road that is served by individual wells. Including that area is a real killer because they were adamanetly opposed to annexation. However, From: egats0408@aol.com: If we "win", what have we won? Will we get better water? Will the City go back to the table to figure something else out for us? I'm hearing & reading so many comments about how it will ruin our chance for good water for years if the City's proposal is shot down, as City will just keep us on the well system & sell it to a company who will charge us a fortune for the same crappy water. Please address this! I want good water, just not the way the City was going about it! Response: There is both good and bad to this process. Which first? The good is that people have come out and gotten involved in a very important issue. There will continue to be very serious problems with water provided to all that live in California. This we have learned through all of this. If this vote process had been handled in a proper way the decision would be acceptable as in any democratic process. However, the term "lies" has come into play. Even this could be dealt with if the "lies" were identified. There was a good process set up by the Mayor called the: Ad Hoc Committee. It was not followed through to the defined end. It was a twisted way to not accept the input put forth by the Advisory group and later the residents. The only thing I know for a fact, is that my water is ok. When the refurbishing took place to filters that my water must pass through, the prior problems with my water ended. Other residents should demand the same for their water. The worse complaints come for residents on the other side of 99 (Region 1). They can not demand the same quality water as I have because they are not city residents. They reside in the County. They protested being annexed and won the protest. Now they may recieve city services if the plan proposed by the Mayor goes into effect. This situation brings up another. Did you know that if a person outside of Yuba City wants to go on a senior trip or take a water exercise clase, they have to pay an increased fee. Please take note of this. If they want to benefit from City Services, they MUST PAY AN INCREASED FEE. It is determined by the the person's zip code. That is because as City residents we do pay some taxes that go to these services. Will this also apply to this issue? It has not been included in the discussion. I am not afraid of the supposed threat by the City that they sell the well system that they purchased through imminent domain. Which may mean that they could not if they tried. However, if legally that would occur the good to the residents would be governance by the PUC. The PUC will by law require testing and required action. Also, the Utility Company owning it will be allowed to make a defined profit. (I have not researched this but have been told that is the case.) Also, it would be possible for the owners to sell water to Yuba City when the need occurs. At this time, that looks like something that could occur when the water contracts are renewed. The worse thing that this has brought out is the credibility (lack of) by our city government. There would be a long list of all the events that have taken place that have caused this. Apparently, you are aware since appears that you have followed the process. Thank you for being involved. August 25, 2008 Ms Terrel Locke, City Clerk City of Yuba City 1201 Civic Center Boulevard Yuba City, CA 95993 Dear Ms Locke: This letter is to document observations of myself and others during the vote counting for the Proposition 218 vote regarding the city’s proposed water rate surcharge. This ballot issue is important to all of Yuba City and independence and integrity of the elected office of City Clerk is essential in fostering public confidence and trust. As you know, the public hearing was held Monday, August 18, 2008. Time for presenting protest ballots, “withdrawals” and other forms of agreement or disagreement was closed by the City Council on Monday, August 18, 2008. Ballot counting was scheduled to begin at noon, Tuesday, August 19, 2008, in the Sutter Room at City Hall. At approximately 11:45 a.m., Tuesday, August 19, 2008, I entered the Sutter Room, observed the sealed box at the north end of the table along with the box the opponents turned in on August 18, 2008. There were no envelopes and other papers, with the exception of a copy of the City Clerk’s ballot requirements, on the table, the chairs and floor near the table. There were three white binders with legal size paper that showed the house numbers and address information you were going to use to tally the ballots. At around noon, Tuesday, August 19, 2008, Darin Gale, Northern California Building Industry Association representative, carried a large, approximately 9” x 12” manila envelope into the Sutter Room and handed it to you. It appeared you placed the envelope on the floor. You slit the tape on the box that contained ballots that you said were deposited at the City Hall. The box had a small, approximately ¾” x 5” slit in the lid. You removed some lose postcards, smaller 4-¼” x 3-1/8” cards from door hangers and some envelopes. When you opened a white business size envelope that contained an estimated 30 of the smaller cards from the door hangers, I asked you where these cards came from and you responded, “in the mail.” I then asked you to set the contents aside as we may have a problem with how they were delivered. You refused. I asked you to at least count the cards. You refused. I asked to see the envelope they arrived in and you showed me a plan, non-addressed envelope with what appears to be a US Postal Service return address. I could see no postage on the envelope. After sorting the contents of the “sealed box,” you stood, stepped to your right and held a large manila envelope (appeared to be 9” x 12”) sealed with clear mailing tape that looked like the one Darin Gale delivered to you earlier. I asked what it was and where it came from. Your response, before opening the envelope and revealing the contents, was that just as opponents had gone out and gathered signatures to support their position, opponents of our position also gathered signatures in opposition. You then slit the envelope and removed what appeared to be 75-100 8-½” x 11” white sheets and placed them to the left on the table on top of a stack containing other letter-size items. A few minutes later, I walked around the table and noted the sheets contained a logo used by proponents of the City’s proposal and were filled out rescinding a possible prior signature in opposition to the City’s plan. The Appeal-Democrat reported Thursday, August 21, 2008, that 436 possible “withdrawals” were not yet reconciled with protest signatures. One of our observers counted the two “postcards” identified as “withdrawals” as they were being sorted and placed in stacks. There is a significant difference between that observer’s count and the count reported in the Appeal-Democrat. The difference may be the letter-size “withdrawals” contained in the 9” x 12” manila envelope, which were not integrated with the postcards. Sincerely, Elaine A. Miles Yuba City Groundwater Advisory Council Member 487 Anita Way Yuba City, CA 95993 (530) 671-7916 A couple of my neighbors who supported us previously have decided to withdraw their protest because they are afraid the City is going to sell the well system and we will end up worse off than we are now! Also, water pressure in my neighborhood has gone to about half of normal. Is City doing that on purpose? Seems the water pressure coincides with our push to collect signatures, etc. Very same thing happened the first time walkers were out collecting sigs! (Or am I just getting paranoid?) Response from Murky Water: She might tell the neighbors that the City cannot sell the system because we can prevent them from doing it through the same type signature drive. It would take 2-3 years to accomplish it if it is even legal--there is a government code that says that if they sell a portion they must sell to another municipality--and there is no other municipality other than Y.C. Also, PUC says it is probably not going to be allowed since they used eminent domain to get it. I received the request to withdraw my protest from the City. I do not plan on signing the post card. In the letter under item “The City has very few options” states that “Shifting the cost of conversion citywide to customers, who derive no benefit from the Hillcrests conversion, is not legal”. Unless the City can demonstrate that all fees collected from the residents of Hillcrest water area from the City of Yuba City water billing each month are held in a separate account, (not in the general operations and maintenance funds) and can also demonstrate that fees collected from Hillcrest residence have not been used for any improvements (“benefit”) of the City’s water system that supplies other area residents of Yuba City, the referenced statement in the letter is probably is false. Just a thought, I may be wrong about this but if it helps? Response from Murky Water: The City claims they have kept the accounts separate always--but I doubt that has occurred since it took about a month to produce the financial records (summary) for us and I was told privately that it took hours and hours to get that ready for us. However, it is not just the separate account, it is the fact that the City will have to get a vote of the entire City--which says it is an asset to the entire City and they therefore benefit--to sell, but can only charge a segment of their entire water system for the improvements supports us. In addition, a "nominal charge" of $4-5 a month for the completion or furthering of the Citywide goal of having a water system that "loops" the city can be justified. The unjustified costs would be if they were going to give only the people down here something, say reverse osmosis systems, that the rest of the city does not get and charge the rest of the city. Receiving the same water at the same price does not get it. They are worried about this position obviously. Additionally, there are transfers out of the Enterprise for HWS to the General Fund. When the Yuba City Water Treatment Plant did an improvement costing $24 mil it was to expand its capacity and install a new filtration system. It seems that would be a benefit to the City. However, the cost of that improvement was not split and passed on to the surface water users. It was financed by the sale of bonds. The City has a policy of increasing the rate payers rates by 4.5 percent annually. Why does that policy not apply to the South Area in our case. Another Murky part of the picture: If this new surcharge is passed and included in the South Area water bills, the payment for the loan that is now in the South Area water bills will go to the Surface Water users. Could they protest that? Petition? Water Rate Proposed Increase. As Owner of residential property on Marina Drive in Yuba City, City limits (I protest the unilateral Water Rate increase scheduled for "Proposition 218 Protest Public Hearing" pertaining to "Proposed Conversion To Surface Water" before the City Council on August 18, 2008. I further protest the subterfuge of counting all properties as a positive vote unless the owner files a written protest (negative vote). Why not have all properties count as a negative vote unless specifically a positive vote (written of course) is submitted by the property owners. And further; negative votes are only registered if the property owner actually finds the protest instructions cleverly buried on the back page of a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, and files the protest, IN WRITING exactly as outlined. What does property description have to do with an owners protest? Suppose it is a horse stable? Are some properties disqualified from voting depending on property description or City discretion? Is the description requirement actually the legal description from the property deed? And I further protest being converted from Hillcrest well water to Feather River water. If we the property owners own the Hillcrest well system and, if City of Yuba City plans on using it as a backup system will the City purchase Hillcrest from we the actual owners? Once the proposed service pipe is installed (to hook our properties up to River water), will the City use it for reverse flow to supply Hillcrest water to other parts of Yuba City, not currently on Hillcrest system, when River water is curtailed or stopped? If so, ALL of Yuba City must participate in the proposed service pipe. I live in Region 2/3, Sandpiper Drive. Don't think this is as much a "water rights" issue as it is a "breach of contract" issue. Water "rights" are established. It is the method of, and fees for, delivery of that water that is in question. City promised no new fees, etc. when we were incorporated and they should assume responsibility for any upgrades necessary to existing infrastructure; the cost would, of course, increase taxes to some degree but it would be shared by all and therefore be less painful than having a relatively few households carry the entire burden! How are you going to get the brown out of my water with the existing ground water? I need to change my RO water filters an four extra times a year at $40 per change. Not to mention salt for the water softner and replacing damaged fixtures from the bad water. Lets not go down the road of we will be financing a water system for future housing. New construction pays very high connect and user fees. Response from Murky Water: Thank you for your comment and question to Murky Water. It seems that there are areas in the HWS area that have differing circumstances with their water. There are areas that do not have the problems you describe. The protest to the proposed plan of the City is the charge for the enlargement of the city surface water system. Please read additional information that has been gathered and posted on Murkywater.org. Are volunteers needed to spread the word about the water assessment, especially in Area 1? Absolutely! It does not matter where you live, we need to cover this area for our own sake. Please Contact ASAP Elaine Miles 671-7916 Bob van Oosterhout 674-7969 Janet Baur 673-2716 To: Hillcrest/Walton Water Users In an effort to keep you informed of our water situation I feel it necessary to write another e-mail. Our recent meeting held at the Moose Lodge on April 13th was well attended and very informative. It was a meeting by and for our citizens but the City of Yuba City officials decided to attend to see what we are up to. Mayor Ramirez responded a few times and Bill Lewis also spoke both in defense. Bob van Oosterhout told them they had a three minute time limit, which of course is what they do to us at their Council meetings. This brought some cheers from the audience. The Monday and Tuesday following our meeting the first of the City’s : $75,000 (of our money) ”Educational Pamphlets” arrived in mailboxes and much to the dismay and surprise of Hillcrest water users, the City has included Area 1 which is East of Hwy 99 in the assessment district. Their well water still tests okay but a couple of developers that live there encouraged the city to include them. Bill Lewis claims this was announced at our citizens meeting on the 13th but no one heard it and the newly included citizens were not at the meeting so it came as a total shock, if they know it all. Most assumed they are not involved and threw away the expensive brochure with their area marked as a target. They were not invited to our April 13th meeting because it did not involve them, or so we thought. We here on the West are now working to inform them and they have to play catch up to what we have been doing for almost nine months. When an East side citizen telephoned the City regarding this, Ian Pietz said the East side area would pay much less than us here on the West of 99, more in the range of $3,600. Of course when confronted, they deny this. I see this as a sly, and very unethical way of coming in the backdoor to get more homes involved and diminish the force of our 1,700 plus petitions protesting an assessment. The City has once again lied and proven we can’t trust them. How unfortunate we can’t trust the people we vote into office and pay them to look out for us. We need to get over 50% of all the Hillcrest citizens to protest an assessment to use Prop. 218; which helps protect us and forces this to a vote of the people. The city may not allow us to a vote without this protest. If a ballot is mailed to you, fill it out and give it to the committee. We will make sure your vote is counted. To agree to an assessment district will just be like signing a blank check and I am not willing to do that. Give me an exact amount and let me decide if it’s worth it. We need a few citizens willing to sign up to attend some of the Yuba City Council Meetings, get their printed agenda and make a few notes what transpired. City Council meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1201 Civic Center Boulevard. Call (530) 822-4601 for more information. Thank you to a few anonymous donors for the funds left in the “cookie jar” at the Moose Lodge. We will use this to support our water campaign. Thank you to the Moose Lodge for providing us meeting space without charge. This really builds customer relations. This is part of their community service. Please forward this letter to all you know. If anyone wishes to be placed on the this e-mail information mailing list, please send me your address. Thank you, Janet Baur, edbaur@sbcglobal.net 530- 673-2716 Our webpage is constantly being updated: www.murkywater.org Hey, fellow Yuba Citizens, we must be doing something right here. First it was regions 2,3, who the City was trying to con into paying for their Future Growth infrastructure. Now it's regions 1,2,3. How many regions are there ? We've said all along if the City can get ALL the City property owners to accept this deal, we would to. In the meantime, we're going to have to keep educating more brothers & sisters what this "deal" is really about. Response to Comment: The reason the City had to include another area is that we have shown that we have enough signatures on the circulated Protest to not pass the vote to be put into a Special Tax Assessment District. By including more resident taxpayers, the City with the help of a contracted firm to further educate the ground water users in the South Area, is hoping to "pollute" our endeavor to show that we do not want to pay for this change . Our very own Hillcrest Water Enterprise Fund will be paying for the hired educators. The first training session was the recently received flyer with the darling little girl drinking out of the hose. Oh my, my she is drinking that water. Is that a push for the water we have now? From: A Friend in the Area. The flyer about Walton water that came to day in the mail from the City of Yuba City is accurate. Contesting it requires research on the proposed expansion of building in the Walton area, finding the developer involved, where he lives, what his financial picture is, how many mansions and race horses does he own, etc., times, places, of permission already given, and some kind of picture of the city services that will have to increase to serve this new development. In Camden New Jersey, the city has a program that employs construction workers and helps each home go green. Wouldn't that kind of program fit here to employ construction workers and defuse the argument that we need those jobs. If we could all go green with little expense to the property owner, we would all be far ahead. More development continues the cycle of increase in services that the city will never catch up with, because the money to just sustain what we have doesn't include expanded services needed for more people coming in. If we stop development we stop population growth and the city could stabilize their money. The flyer could mislead Walton people into voting for the water district, then we are all stuck for paying for development expansion, and the city can charge us what ever they want, and let the rest of the city continue to benefit from what we have to pay. We should be able to get that word out. I'm not sure how I can help, but I will, if asked.