The Unofficial Mayor of Tustin California – "You've Been Pimped!"
No Smoke Detectors – No Fire Sprinklers – No 24 Hour Security Patrol to Detect Fires Early – No Technology – No Security Cameras – Not Even a Webcam – there's More Security at a 7-Eleven – No Nothin' – No One Will Buy Your House Now Either – "Remember there's Another Hangar Too"!
Just a Reminder – “Summer is Over” – and It’s Time to Turn the Water Off! – City of Tustin to Raise Water Rates by 50% and More!
If Your Five Year Water Usage Looks Like This – “Congratulations” – You’re the Winner!
Editorial –
I think that an Audit of Tustin Water Services would not only find enough – Waste – Inefficiency – Overtime Fraud – Pension Spiking – Contractor Fraud and Overpricing to “eliminate” any Need for a Rate increase – but as a Goal – I would Also Expect to be able to Achieve a 30 Percent Rate “Decrease”.
I’m willing to put up the first one or two thousand dollars to retain a Law firm to get started – later being reimbursed by Taxpayers / Ratepayers who I have No Doubt will be Thrilled with the aspect of an Outside Audit. The Law firm will communicate on behalf of Rate[payers – Making Claims and Demands – the Ratepayers will be Happy to Pay for all of this directly coming form the City of Tustin and Tustin Water Services Budget.
Spending time at Public Hearings and Watching Power Point Presentations is Frivolous as Public Employees and their Council Rubber Stampers – Just Like the PUC in California will Green Light any Possible Increase in Rates Taxes and Revenues. That’s How they Do Business.
Trivia – in 1958 the Tustin Water Works Charged Just $5 per Month for Water – All You Could Use – There Wasn’t Even a Meter.
–
Tap water may seem free, especially in comparison to Perrier or Evian. But in fact, getting it to kitchen faucets comes with a price tag – and one that is inching upward, Tustin officials say.
“The cost of water has continued to rise annually,” said Michael Grisso, the city’s water services manager.
For the first time in five years, Tustin is looking at passing along those increases to consumers through a rise in rates. Early next year, the City Council will vote on a multi-year, incremental rate hike.
If council members approve the staff proposal, rates almost immediately will increase 6% per year for five years.
Current single-family residential rates are based on an escalating tier structure that starts at 84 cents per unit of water and caps at $4.05 per unit. One unit of water is equal to 748 gallons.
“Costs of operating and maintaining the water system have grown over the years,” Grisso said. “Electricity costs have increased, construction and maintenance costs have increased, material and labor costs have increased. The city is projecting these costs will continue to increase.”
About 80% of Tustin’s water comes from the local groundwater basin managed by the Orange County Water District. While it’s the least expensive source, Grisso said costs to the city have gone up 42% during the last four years.
The rest of the city’s water is imported from the Colorado River and Northern California. Transportation logistics make that water pricier, with costs going up about 10% during the last four years, Grisso said.
The City Council vote will directly follow a public hearing scheduled for Jan. 21.
Frustrated by discolored drinking water pouring from their taps, four Compton residents filed a class-action lawsuit late Monday against their water provider, Sativa Los Angeles County Water District.
The lawsuit, filed at Los Angeles County Superior Court, accuses Sativa of failing to provide quality drinking water, misappropriating taxpayer dollars and causing a financial burden on its low-income customers in Compton and Willowbrook. It comes days before a crucial decision by county oversight officials on whether to dissolve the small public water district.
“Sativa mismanaged public funds by failing to use them for the intended purpose of maintaining and improving the water district’s infrastructure for the delivery of potable water,” the lawsuit alleges.
The claims in the suit echo some raised by oversight authorities about Sativa in recent years.
The district has been accused of financial instability, nepotism, poor maintenance and mismanagement. It has fended off two previous dissolution attempts by L.A. County’s Local Agency Formation Commission — the state-appointed body charged with monitoring special districts.
The commission meets Wednesday to consider initiating its third attempt to dissolve the district.
That decision will come amid mounting complaints by residents of discolored water that smells of chlorine or rust. Residents said the water stains white clothes and forces them to purchase bottled water with which to drink, cook and bathe, according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs include four mothers who said they are affected by water problems dating as far back as five years.
“It’s a wake-up call for everybody, even for those who [oversee] the district,” said Martha Barajas, one of the plaintiffs. “Maybe people will listen to us now.
“We’ve given Sativa plenty of time to fix the problems,” she added.
The 1,600 households served by Sativa pay a flat rate of $65 a month, adding up to nearly $1.3 million in annual revenue.
Sativa says it lacks the estimated $10 million to $15 million needed to upgrade the 70-year-old pipes it blames for depositing manganese in drinking water, which can make faucets run brown.
The lawsuit states Sativa “miserably failed again and again” to meet state clean drinking waters standards. It points to a compliance order from the State Water Resources Control Board last month that said Sativa violated the state’s health and safety code when it neglected to maintain the minimum water pressure, delivered “muddy water” and did not engage in proper flushing.
The order said water tested from Sativa wells, faucets and hoses contained higher-than-normal levels of manganese and was sometimes cloudier than standards allow. The state water board noted that from March 2017 to May 2018, Sativa received at least 97 complaints of brown water from customers.
In addition to dirty drinking water, Sativa has come under fire after The Times reported allegations that the district had hired paid supporters to attend a forum to address the problem. Sativa’s board and its administrative manager, Maria Rachelle Garza, strongly denied any involvement. Days later, Garza was placed on leave.
The defendants in the lawsuit are Sativa and its five board members: Luis Landeros, Christina Casillas, Juan Aguilar, Roxsana Zepeda and Lucia Castrellon. They could not immediately be reached for comment.
Landeros previously told The Times that the district is working to fix the problem but needs financial help from the state and county.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-compton-lawsuit-sativa-20180709-story.html
Hangar Fire - "Without Litigation" - City of Tustin Already On the Hook for $90 Million in Clean-Up Costs - "Not Including the Actual Hangar Property" - and Heading for a Billion Dollars - Developers Likely Not Off the Hook Either - Property Value Assessments Undergoing Official Review - Ask Yourself - Would You Buy or Rent at the Tustin Legacy - Remember there's "Another" Hangar Too
Addicted? 1-800-662-HELP
URGENT REMINDER - if You're on Southern California Edison's - "Time to Fuck You" - "Electricity Rate Plan" - "Opt Out Now" - Call Today or Visit the Website - 1-800-810-2369