In repeat fashion from last year, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District has hired a Certified Public Accountant firm to oversee
the tabulation process of groundwater rate protest letters.
In repeat fashion from last year, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has hired a Certified Public Accountant firm to oversee the tabulation process of groundwater rate protest letters.
Water district clerk of the board Michele King will count and verify letters again in the second year the district has held a protest procedure. On Wednesday, King began counting protest letters. It’s expected to take between three to five days to complete the process at a rate of $2,400 to $4,000 to C.G. Uhlenberg LLP based in Redwood City.
By using the competitive bidding process, the district will save 14 percent in CPA costs, according to the district, compared with last year’s bid.
The time period for well owners in South County – about 4,000 – to submit a protest letter ended April 26 at the close of the public hearing. The water district, which sells water wholesale to cities, individual well owners and other agencies, has proposed a 3.6 percent rate increase on water rates that will likely determine how much water retailers charge their customers. If the protest is successful, water rates will remain at their current price of $275 per acre foot for municipal and industrial use and $16.50 per a/f for agricultural use. If it fails, prices will increase pending a final vote by the board of directors due next month. Fifty percent plus one of well owners must send in valid protest letters for a successful protest.
Last year and also the first year the district allowed well owners to protest, just 433 valid protests were counted in South County and 84 valid protests from North County.
The ability to protest stems from a decision by Superior Court Judge Kevin Murphy in 2009 that said the district was illegally collecting groundwater fees, which are supposed to be put to a yearly vote by well owners under Proposition 218 and the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act. Murphy determined that the water district had to refund San Jose-based Great Oaks Water Co., which sued the district, more than $4.6 million – a year’s worth of illegally collected groundwater charges – after determining Great Oaks was overcharged in 2005-06.
Check out the Times’ Tuesday edition for an update.
