City officials say sewer rate protest letters must follow state guidelines
Residents are organizing against the proposal but some information circulating in online forums is incorrect, city officials said. They are warning that only protest letters with the appropriate information will be accepted.
City officials said they've received a number of emails regarding the rate increase but that state law requires certain steps for official submissions.
"It needs to have a wet signature," said Evette Roldan, the city's wastewater manager, referring to a handwritten signature.
"You can't have a photocopy, can't email it in, can't be an electronic submission. That sort of thing," Roldan said. "Coming to the council meeting, just speaking at the council meeting doesn't count as a protest."
Letters notifying residents of the proposed increase were sent out April 11 under a state law known as Proposition 218 that requires jurisdictions to notify constituents. Under Prop. 218, if a jurisdiction receives protest letters from more than 50% of the impacted residents, the increase can't be enacted.
In order to qualify as an official protest, letters must include an original or "wet" signature, the property address, the property parcel number and the name of the property owner.
Protests for multiple properties owned by a single person can be included in one letter, but they must include the address and parcel number of each property.
Letters do not have to state a reason for the opposition.
Address parcel numbers can be found using the Assessor Property Search function on the Kern County Record Assessor's office website at kerncounty.com.
Because letters must be signed in-person by the property owner, letters must either be hand-delivered to the clerk's office or sent by mail. Emailed copies of protest letters, including photos of signed letters, are not acceptable, nor are electronic signatures.
Letters may be submitted to the city clerk at Bakersfield City Council meetings. Any such letters must be submitted to the city clerk before the end of the public hearing scheduled for May 28.
Bakersfield residents are looking at a more than 300% increase in their sewer rates, raising the annual fee for a single-family home from $239 to $950.
The increase is needed to cover what the city says is as much as $600 million in emergency upgrades, including a new treatment plant to replace the city's aging Plant 2 on Planz Road, originally built in 1958.
The city council voted to send Prop. 218 notices after long deliberation at their March 26 meeting. The vote was split 3-2 with two members absent.
If the city does not receive the requisite number of Prop. 218 protest letters, the proposed increase will still have to pass a vote of the city council.
"Right now, it's basically out to vote in the public," Roldan said of the protest process.
"If we receive 50% official, majority protests, it basically takes it away from the council. People (will) have spoken and they voted it down," Roldan said. "Absent the majority, it's a council vote."
Angered by such a large increase so suddenly, several residents have expressed further frustration that instructions for submitting an official protest aren't clearer.
"It doesn't say anything about whether it has to be handwritten or typed or whatnot. And the other thing is, it doesn't have a link to how to find your parcel number," said Johnny Olaguez, a resident who's trying to organize opposition to the increase.
An unsuccessful candidate for the Ward 6 council seat last year, Olaguez posted a flier to social media calling on residents to attend the council's Wednesday meeting to give public comment on the increase.
Olaguez said he plans to be there with pens and a stack of template letters to help people fill out their protests.
"To have me jump through all these hoops to have to oppose this. I'm very knowledgeable and I know computers," Olaguez said. "But when you talk about, you know, grandma who's 80 years old living on fixed income. If you're going to have to go down to Kern County get her parcel number, write a letter, sign it, drop it off. That just seems like a little bit too much work."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
California homeowners rejected a property tax. Now, fire districts struggle
Multimillion dollar homes around Folsom Lake in Granite Bay offer exclusive views. The tree-lined neighborhoods in the suburb — containing the Sacramento region's highest median household income — is at a very high fire risk, according to Cal Fire. Yet, 53.1% of residents in this wealthy enclave rejected Proposition 218, a fee on properties, in 2022 to raise money for the South Placer Fire District, the local station serving Granite Bay, Loomis and southern portions of Penryn and Newcastle. Two stations out of six shut down in September 2022 as funding streams failed to keep apace with expenditures. Firefighters for years have raised the alarm about fire protection districts pinching pennies as scant dollars cannot cover soaring costs of fire trucks and equipment. Industry standards recommend replacing each after a certain amount of years to protect first responder. A fire truck can cost $1 million, which at times, can be impossible to buy for small, rural fire protection districts, such as those scattered across Yolo County. But agencies in well-populated areas — such as Granite Bay and Truckee — also contend with financial shortages. The problems, five fire district chiefs across Yolo and Placer counties say, stem from referendums about taxes and legislative decisions made in the last century which whittled away money. Prop. 13 limited property tax gathering; Prop. 172 created a public safety sales tax for first responders, but none went to Placer County fire protection districts; and the Legislature also earmarked a certain portion of property taxes must flow to schools. 'How do we keep going in the face of what seems to be a daunting task of the increasing cost?' said South Placer Fire District Chief Mark Duerr, who serves about 38,000 people. On Tuesday, this struggle reemerged at the Placer County Board of Supervisors. Wayne Nader, a former board member for the North Auburn and Ophir Fire Safe Council, raised concerns during public comment about the difficulties of buying a ladder truck which he said could cost $3 million and take years for it to be delivered. Fire protection districts are categorized as special districts and only serve a county's unincorporated areas. They are independent from a county's budget and reliant upon funds raised by its communities. Placer County does not directly give money to fire districts out of its $1.4 billion budget, but has offered support to firefighters by waiving the cost of special elections and offering dispatch services for free, said county spokesperson Chris Gray-Garcia. Unless changes are made, fire chiefs said, fire protection districts could face increasing challenges to provide services. 'I cannot fathom a world that exists in the next three to five years where small one to two stations can afford to operate,' Duerr said. How Prop. 13 cut away funding There have been three cost measures the Placer Hills Protection Fire District — which serves the communities of Applegate, Meadow Vista, Weimar, Clipper Gap and Eden Valley — embarked on in recent years to meet costs. Residents in the 34 square miles approved Measure A in 2019 to levy a special property tax. The district, containing about 12,500 residents, also approved raises in 2020 and in 2024 to raise fire impact fees. But those increases do not come close to offsetting capital costs, said Placer Hills Fire Protection District Mark D'Ambrogi in an interview. Residents have been supportive, willing to fork over $300 to $400 per year for medical services and fire protection measures, said Alex Harvey, a Placer Hills Protection Fire District board member. 'There comes a point, though, when you can't keep taking money,' Harvey said. The main concern for fire chiefs boils down to how exactly Prop. 13 is allocated. California voters approved Prop. 13 in 1978, a watershed decision, limiting property taxes collected by local government. Before Prop. 13 was approved, municipalities could determine it's own property tax rate based on the land's market value, or the monetary value it would be sold for, according to the California Legislative Analyst's Office. But the new referendum capped property taxes while only assessing properties based on its value at the time of purchase. 'As a result, under Proposition 13 the taxable value of most properties is less than their market value,' according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. In the South Placer Fire District, only 5 cents from every $1 collected of property tax goes to special districts and distributed to all special districts across Placer County, Duerr said. There's also a disparity across the fire districts who receive funding. The Placer Hills Fire Protection District gets about 6 cents, while the Newcastle Fire Protection District gets about 3 cents, D'Ambrogi said. This division in property tax has led to lawsuit between one fire district and Placer County. The Truckee Fire Protection District — which serves Truckee and other unincorporated areas of Placer and Nevada counties — filed a lawsuit earlier this year alleging Placer County is 'withholding at least $200,000 per year of property taxes from Truckee Fire needed to fund its essential fire safety and medical services.' The lawsuit alleges county officials withheld property taxes from Martis Valley and areas called 'Zone 7,' required to be allocated under Prop. 13 and Assembly Bill 8, the legislation which codified the tax referendum. 'After years of failed efforts to persuade Placer County to honor the law, Truckee Fire now seeks judicial assistance in righting this historic wrong — before it is too late to protect its communities from wildfire,' according to the lawsuit filed in February. Placer County denied the allegations, and said enough time has passed that some allegations listed in the lawsuit fail to 'constitute a cause of action,' according to the county's court documents. In addition, none of the funding allocated for public safety agencies under Prop. 172 in Placer County. The referendum, approved in 1993, created a half-cent sales tax to law enforcement. The Placer County Sheriff's Office receives the largest amount, with about $46 million, according to the county. Truckee Fire Chief Kevin McKechnie serves a large district which grows around peak travel times as tourists flock to beautiful California resort. In the summer and winter, the population triples to about 60,000 people, he said. He commended his community for passing Measure T in 2021, which placed a $179 tax per parcel, and will sunset in eight years. Money raised under this measure can only be spent on fuel reduction and wildfire prevention projects. But the voter-approved initiative does not allow him to buy fire trucks, pay firefighters or fix stations. 'It's one of the best tools I have right now,' McKechnie said. 'But it is limited.' Dual worries weigh on McKechnie. To sufficiently provide services to his community, the same personnel must operate different types of equipment, which require different skillset. He also seeks to buy new fire trucks, some of which he's had for 30 years. But funds are scarce. 'I gotta be honest with you,' he said, 'I don't have a plan for that.' Solve the daily Crossword
Axios
7 days ago
- Axios
Judge tosses lawsuit over Chandler mayor's eligibility
A judge dismissed a lawsuit arguing that Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke is ineligible to hold office due to disputed language about term limits in the city charter. State of play: Questions emerged in May over whether Chandler's city charter permits people to serve two consecutive four-year terms as City Council members and then another two as mayor, or if they're limited to eight total years for either office. Hartke and former Mayors Boyd Dunn and Jay Tibshraeny served two terms on council before their two mayoral terms. Driving the news: Maricopa County Superior Court Judge David McDowell in late July dismissed a lawsuit filed by Ruth Jones, who ran against Hartke in 2022, seeking to have him removed from office. The judge ruled the suit was a challenge to Hartke's qualifications for office, which, under state law, must be filed within 10 days of submitting nomination papers. The judge added that lawsuits under a different statute challenging the eligibility of winning candidates must be filed within five days of an election's certification. What's next: Voters will have a chance to settle the term limits question before next year's Chandler election. The City Council referred Proposition 410 to the November ballot, which would amend the city charter to clarify that people can serve a total of 16 consecutive years — two terms as a councilmember and two as mayor. Anyone who serves 16 consecutive years wouldn't be eligible to hold office again until at least four years after the end of their last term. Prop. 410 will be on a special election ballot with several other measures. What she's saying: Jones told Axios the ruling was an "unfortunate result" and said her lawsuit wasn't an election challenge. "I neither seek to challenge that election or become mayor," she said, adding she hasn't decided whether to appeal. The other side: "I'm glad to get it behind," Hartke told Axios. The intrigue: The special election could clarify the eligibility of at least one mayoral hopeful — two-term City Councilmember Matt Orlando, who is running for Chandler's top office. If voters approve the charter language, it would head off a potential lawsuit challenging his eligibility. But if the measure fails, it could leave Orlando's candidacy at the mercy of the courts. He told Axios he's confident voters will approve the change.
Yahoo
07-08-2025
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom says he's always supported nonpartisan redistricting. Has he?
Reality Check is a Bee series holding officials and organizations accountable and shining a light on their decisions. Have a tip? Email realitycheck@ As Gov. Gavin Newsom champions a redistricting overhaul — citing GOP gerrymandering sparked by President Donald Trump's order for Texas to carve out another five Republican seats — records show he did not initially support the state's nonpartisan redistricting commission despite his recent statements that he broke ranks with his party over the issue. The California governor has become the Democrats' most vocal champion of partisan redistricting after Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ordered a special legislative session last month to redraw district boundaries and shore up the GOP's congressional majority ahead of the 2026 midterms. Newsom has proposed that voters approve temporary new congressional maps, drawn up by state lawmakers, in a special Nov. 4 election, which would be in effect for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, before reverting redistricting power back to the commission. Democrats in Maryland, Illinois and New York are considering similar efforts, which has become the party's most potent weapon in opposing Trump. Democrats in California's congressional delegation have reviewed one version, which targets five districts held by Republican Reps. Kevin Kiley, Ken Calvert, David Valadao, Darrell Issa and Doug LaMalfa. The new boundaries would force more liberal voters into those districts, making them easier for Democrats to flip and counteract the five seats the GOP is hoping to pick up in Texas. Newsom, purportedly eyeing a run for higher office after he is termed out of the governor's mansion next year, said earlier this week he will not move ahead with his own effort if Texas backs down. He said he supports redistricting despite personal reservations about undercutting the Citizen Redistricting Commission, a nonpartisan 14-member state body established in 2008 via Proposition 11, that draws congressional and legislative maps after each Census count. 'I actually was one of the few Democrats back in the day (to support it) when we created the independent redistricting commission, which I think personally should be the case in every state,' Newsom recently said on his podcast. 'This is ridiculous. This gerrymandering is outrageous. I don't like it on either side, and so I supported that.' On Wednesday, he sent a short email to supporters claiming the tactic was one of last resort: 'I've long supported independent redistricting. I can't stand these gerrymandered districts. But Democrats can't just sit there and act holier than thou while we watch our democracy be totally degraded.' 'I think our democracy would be well served with some competition' However, there is no evidence to suggest that Newsom, who was mayor of San Francisco when voters approved Prop. 11, weighed in on the issue at the time. Prop. 11 established the Citizen Redistricting Commission, which proponents said would enact political reform by forcing incumbents to run competitive races and reflect the state's ideological and racial diversity. Two years later, in 2010, Newsom opposed Proposition 27, an unsuccessful measure that would have voided Proposition 20, a competing initiative that passed in the Nov. 2010 election and that granted the commission power to redistrict congressional boundaries. Prop. 27, which would have eliminated the commission, failed to pass, drawing cheers from opponents who derided it as politicians' attempt to snatch back power and draw up districts favoring them and their allies. A list of California elected officials who endorsed Prop. 11 as of Oct. 22, 2008 does not include Newsom or any other San Francisco elected officials. Only the San Francisco Chronicle and Howard Epstein, then-chair of the San Francisco Republican Party, are listed as proponents in that city. Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, former Sen. Barbara Boxer, and the California Democratic Party opposed the measure at the time. And despite Newsom's claims to have broken with his party at the time, several Democrats led the campaign in favor of Prop. 11, including former Gov. Gray Davis, former Assembly Speaker and Senate President pro Tem Fred Keeley, former Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg and former State Controller Steve Westly, according to a list of supporters. Nor does Newsom's name appear on a list of donors or committee members financially supporting Prop. 11. An exploratory committee for his short-lived 2010 gubernatorial bid only donated to one statewide ballot measure campaign in 2008: the No on Prop 8 campaign, which sought to uphold same-sex marriage in California. Newsom gave the group a total of $20,000, according to campaign finance records. More recently, in 2023 the governor vetoed Assembly Bill 1248, which would have created local independent redistricting commissions in municipalities with more than 300,000 residents or school districts with more than 500,000. He also vetoed Senate Bill 52, which would have required independent commissions in cities like Los Angeles, whose city council had just suffered a scandal where three members were recorded making racist comments during a private meeting on redistricting. The governor said in a veto message that AB 1248 would have created 'a state-reimbursable mandate in the tens of millions and should therefore be considered in the annual budget process,' which he also cited when he vetoed SB 52. Nathan Click, Newsom's campaign spokesperson, pointed towards Newsom's support in July 2001 of a local San Francisco charter amendment, Proposition G, overhauling local redistricting and ensuring that the process reflected census population changes and neighborhood diversity. Newsom was one of 10 supervisors on the 11-member board to vote to place Prop. G on the Nov. 6, 2001 ballot, which it passed. Leland Yee, who as a state senator later pleaded guilty to a corruption charge, was Prop. G's sole opponent. 'San Francisco deserves a redistricting process free of undue political influence that uses the best available information and that has clear deadlines,' the 10 supervisors said in their supporting argument. Click also highlighted statements Newsom, then running for lieutenant governor, made in 2010 opposing Prop. 27. 'Democrats have had it too easy,' the Los Angeles Times quoted Newsom during a debate against former Republican Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado. 'I think our democracy would be well served with some competition.' Fighting fire with fire As California lawmakers advance with Newsom's proposal to carve out five more Democratic congressional seats, his efforts pit him against former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has emerged as the face of an opposition campaign from Charles Munger, a California Republican donor who originally financed Prop. 11. Munger, who did not respond to requests for comment, has vowed to sue if Newsom is successful. So has Steve Hilton, a Republican running for governor in the 2026 election, who said this week he's preparing to file the 'moment' lawmakers send an amendment to the ballot box. Opponents on both sides of the aisle have accused Newsom of softening his past political positions to appeal more widely to moderate voters as he road-tests a possible presidential campaign. As a San Francisco supervisor, he was seen as a moderating force on the liberal board before entering the governor's race as a progressive. In recent months, Democrats in the Legislature and nationally accused him of equivocating on his past support for transgender rights after saying he agreed with Republicans who oppose allowing trans athletes to compete in sports, and he has come under fire for calling his party 'toxic' as it struggled to counter Trump after the 2024 election. Fifteen years later, Newsom is emerging as the Democrats' loudest advocate for retaliation as Texas Republicans look to eke out another five seats by slicing up Democratic-held districts. The effort to counteract Republican gerrymandering has united an opposition party that until recently was foundering amid historically low approval ratings and interparty fighting. Newsom met with six Texas Democrats in Sacramento days before they and dozens of other state representatives fled Austin in a successful, ongoing bid to deny Republicans a quorum to move forward. The Bee's Nicole Nixon contributed to this story.
