From the Gilroy Dispatch:
If more than half the well owners in South Santa Clara County protest next year's groundwater charges, then the fees will not be levied as they have in the past.

When the Santa Clara Valley Water District begins the annual process of setting groundwater extraction charges next week, one topic of discussion will be the "majority protest procedure" allowed under Proposition 218, a constitutional amendment that requires voter approval for taxes and property related fees.

... if a majority of well owners protest in writing to the charges, then the district cannot collect them, based on Proposition 218.

But allowing a majority protest is not enough to satisfy Proposition 218, according to Tim Guster, general counsel for San Jose-based Great Oaks Water Co. If a majority of well owners end up protesting next year's groundwater charges, that only means the water district cannot take a vote and there will be no imposition of the fees.

"If there is not a majority protest, a vote must still be taken," Guster said. Such a vote can be cast among either the well owners or the general electorate.

Note: The Encinitas City Council have already indicated that they do not intend on letting the public vote on water rate increases and, instead, they intend to vote for a rate increase without seeking the approval of the majority ratepayers. ETA members are divided on whether or not this is a reasonable way to proceed, but it does make all non-responses function as yes votes for any rate increase. The council cannot claim they have no other option, because they do.

When the city council purchased the Mossy Dealership for a public works yard the city told the public the site would be turnkey, and that justified the $9 million dollar purchase. It was not turnkey and the city has put in well over a million dollars in undisclosed needed upgrades. The purchase price of the property was highly suspect at the time and the public warned the council to review the appraisal. This warning was not heeded, and immediately after the purchase Deputy Mayor Houlihan admitted to not knowing about some basic facts about the appraisal. Assuming Houlihan was attentive during the closed-door meetings about the purchase, this is indicative that the council did not discuss the basics of the appraisal. Since that time, professional appraisers have publicly criticized the appraisal (and other city appraisals) and recommended simple policy changes to improve the land transaction process. The council has not discussed changes.

The appraisal can be found here.

The city paid a million over the fair market value in their own appraisal and that fair market estimate was at least a million dollars too high. The San Dieguito Water District ratepayers are paying for that mistake. The city moved the SDWD staff to the new PWY and charged the SDWD for part of the cost of the purchase. The cost allocation was never approved by people representing only the SDWD ratepayers.

Herb Patterson, who is a frequent Hoodlink contributor, reviewed the cost allocation report produced for the city staff. He concludes that, no rational person could examine the deal and believe the Council had done their fiduciary duty toward the ratepayers of the SDWD.

The City Manager responds by saying that by looking at the number of employees using the site, either SDWD or city staff, the SDWD could have been charged more than they were. The Manger goes on to say that all parties decided that would not be fair [It would have also increased scrutiny]. The City Manager does not mention that none of the parties involved had the unconflicted duty to watch out for the SDWD ratepayers.

Read, review, and comment on the report and exchange here.

If the SDWD customers got a fair deal in the Mossy deal it is not obvious that the ratepayers were safeguarded. The City Manger seems to make the point that they could have easily been charged more. Adding independently elected water district officials to negotiate for the water customers with the city could eliminate that vulnerability.