City of San Marino
Written Response to Written Objections and Protests for Proposed Sewer Rates
Public Hearing June 27, 2025
(AB 2257 – Government Code Sections 53759.1 and 53759.2) The City of San Marino (“City”) provides this written response to timely written objections related to the City’s proposed approval of sewer rates. This response also includes responses to submissions received by the City that are related to the sewer rates, were received by the City during the time for submitting written objections, but which do not meet the requirements for filing a “timely written objection” in accordance with Government Code Section 53759.1 and the City’s Sewer Rate Setting Procedures (Resolution No. R-25-09).
By April 28, 2025, the City mailed the “Public Hearing Notice” (Exhibit “A”) to each record owner served by City sewer services, and the City posted the Public Hearing Notice on the City’s webpage (“www. SanMarinoCA.gov/Sewer”). The Public Hearing Notice also prominently identified supplemental documents that were concurrently posted on the City’s webpage, notably including a copy of the Rate Study that identifies each parcel to be charged, the amount of the rates, the basis upon which the rate was calculated, and the reason for the change in rates. The Rate Study was included on the City’s webpage, and it is labeled “City of San Marino Sewer Rate Study” (dated April 29, 2025, prepared on behalf of the City by Raftelis).
The Public Hearing is scheduled for June 27, 2025, for the City Council (“Council”) to consider approval of recommended sewer service charges and rates, in accordance with the requirements of “Proposition 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6) for approving increases to “property related fees.” The Proposition 218 hearing process includes the opportunity for property owners to submit a “Written Protest” prior to the close of the public hearing, and the City is prohibited from approving the increase if there is a “majority protest” (owners of more than 50% of the parcels connected to the City’s sewer system in the incorporated City limits).
The Public Hearing Notice also provided an opportunity for property owners to submit to the City a “Written Objection” to the proposed rate increases by no later than the identified “deadline” of June 12, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. Any written objection is required to identify the grounds for alleging the City did not comply with Proposition 218. In accordance with “AB 2257,” the City is required to provide a written response at the public hearing for each timely written objection received prior to the deadline (“AB 2257” is Assembly Bill 2257, Chapter 561, Statutes of 2024; codified at Government Code Sections 53759.1 and 53759.2).
As of the time of the deadline, the City received 8 “Written Objections” from the properties:
(1) 1351 San Marino Avenue; (2) 2270 Lombardy Road; (3) 1340 Blackstone Road; (4) 1570 Rose Avenue; (5) 1341 Oxford Road; (6) 1730 S. Los Robles Avenue; (7) 1891 Windsor Road; and (8) 1832 Saint Albans Road. The text of each of the eight Written Objections are identical and are summarized below. All eight Written Objections are attached as Exhibit “C.”
Summary of Eight Written Objections:
City’s Response to Written Objections and Protests
1. The proposed sewer charges do not comply with Proposition 218 because they are not proportional to the benefit received by property owners.
2. The proposed charges are a flat fee of $522 per residential property, which does not account for variations in water usage or the number of residents at each property.
Properties with higher water usage generate more sewage and impose a greater burden on the sewer system, yet they would pay the same fee as properties with lower usage.
3. Other cities charge based on water use instead of a flat fee.
4. There is insufficient justification to demonstrate that the flat fee complies with the proportional requirement of Proposition 218.
Therefore, the City has prepared the “Written Response” to the Written Objections as set forth on Exhibit “B” (attached hereto). The Written Response provides the grounds and substantive bases for which the concerns identified in the Written Objections do not result in a justification to amend the proposed changes and increases to sewer rates, as described in the Public Hearing Notice.
Other than the 8 Written Objections identified above, the City received the 24 “Submittals” identified on Exhibit “D” (attached hereto) from property owners prior to the deadline of June 12, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. The Submittals were identified by the owner as a protest and/or an objection to the proposed update to the sewer rates. However, none of the Submittals meet the definition of a timely “written objection” (as defined by California Government Code Section 53759.1(c)(4)) since they do not specify the grounds for alleging the proposed sewer service rates do not comply with the requirements of Proposition 218 (California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6). Therefore, the City will consider each Submittal as a timely written protest during the public hearing on June 27, 2025; provided, however, only one written protest per property will be counted when determining whether a “majority protest” was received by the City.
Although the City is not legally obligated under AB 2257 to provide a written response to the Submittals, the City provides this written information to explain how the concerns raised in the Submittals do not establish grounds for amending or altering the proposed changes and increases to the City’s sewer rates. This response incorporates by reference the substantive information included in the City’s Written Response to Written Objections.
As identified on the Public Hearing Notice, which included documents available on the City’s website (www. SanMarinoCA.gov/Sewer), the City calculated the amount of the proposed sewer service rates in accordance with Proposition 218 in order to charge each customer the amount needed to pay the proportionate cost of providing sewer service to each property owner.
The sewer service charges fund the proportionate cost of sewer services that benefit those who are charged, and are established as a fee for a property related service in City’s Response to Written Objections and Protests
accordance with Proposition 218 (California Constitution Article XIII D). Each user is charged their share in proportion to their Sewer Units. Sewer units are described in Section 3.1.1 of the Rate Study. Therefore, the California Constitution distinguishes “fees” for property related services (that are subject to the majority protest public hearing process under Proposition 218, as followed by the City for the proposed sewer rates) as compared to “taxes” that require voter approval and are subject to the limitations of Proposition 13. Under Proposition 218, property related fees such as the proposed sewer rates do not require voter approval.
The City carefully set the sewer service rates in an amount that was limited to what will be needed to provide the sewer services to customers. The proposed sewer service charges will fund the operating and capital expenses, and the reserve policies that determine the overall charges needed for a sustainable sewer enterprise as described in Rate Study Section 3. Section 3.3 of the Sewer Rate Study Report has a table summarizing the five-year Capital Improvement Plan as proposed by the most recent Wastewater Master Plan. Over the next five-years, approximately $20 million in capital improvements are needed to help maintain the City’s sewer system. The proposed sewer charges will fund approximately half of the needed capital improvements, leaving half of the needed improvements unfunded by revenue from sewer rates. The City Council will maintain oversight regarding the prioritization of expenditures of sewer rate revenue, and other potential sources of revenue, to fund improvements to the City’s sewer system, through the Council’s approval of the annual budget as well as approval of design and construction of individual projects. The proposed sewer charges will also help fund operating costs as shown in Table 3-5 under Section 3.5 of the Sewer Rate Study Report (specifically lines 14 through 17). Adequate reserve levels are also needed for selfsustaining utilities and Section 3.2 of the report has additional details regarding the reserve target levels recommended.
As identified in Rate Study Section 3.4, there is a 3% annual revenue increase for the sewer service charges. The 3% revenue adjustment each year is the projected revenue increase needed to fund the expenses described in Section 3 of the Rate Study over the study period. The financial plan can be found in Section 3.5 of the report, which was used to develop the proposed sewer rate charges.
Although sewer service charges will be collected through the county tax bills, the sewer service charges are not a tax. Thus, the limitations imposed on property taxes under Proposition 13 (California Constitution Article XIII A) do not apply to the sewer service charges under Proposition 218. As distinguished from ”fees” that charge customers based on a benefit provided to those who pay, property taxes fund a broad range of municipal services provided to the general public such as police and fire protection. Therefore, the 2% limitation on annual increases of property taxes under Proposition 13 does not apply to sewer service charges under Proposition 218.
City’s Response to Written Objections and Protests
Conclusions and Recommendations
Therefore, City staff recommends that the City Council: (a) consider the substance of each timely written objection and the written response from City staff; and (b) determine the timely written objections do not result in any amendment to or alteration of the proposed sewer rates, based on the analysis included on the City’s website (notably including the Rate Study) and presented as a part of the public hearing on June 27, 2025, which provides the substantive bases for the Council’s approval of the sewer rates as proposed.
Why is San Marino Changing How Sewer
Services Are Funded?
San Marino’s sewer system collects
wastewater from homes and businesses
and sends it to the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District (LACSD) for treatment.
Until now, the city has used general tax
revenues (the City’s General Fund) to pay for
sewer services, so property owners have not
received a separate sewer bill.
However, most cities in California fund their
sewer systems through Enterprise Funds,
where customers pay directly for the services
they receive. This approach ensures sewer
revenue is only used for sewer expenses
and helps keep sewer operations financially
independent and legally transparent.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING April 2025 PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE CHARGES This notice provides information about a proposal to establish a sewer service Enterprise Fund in the City of San Marino
WHY YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS NOTICE
The City of San Marino proposes
establishing a new sewer service charge
for placement on the annual tax roll for
properties connected to the City’s sewer
system. This notice explains the reason for
this charge, what the proposed charges
are, and how the public can participate in
the process to comment, protest, or object.
During the noticed public hearing, the City
Council will consider all comments from
the public regarding these proposed new
charges, along with any written protests or
objections submitted by property owners
or tenants responsible for paying the new
charges.
您为何收到此通知
本通知提供有關聖馬利諾市設立汙水服務事
業基金的提案資訊。
What is a Sewer Enterprise Fund?
A sewer Enterprise Fund works like a
dedicated account for sewer services. All
money collected from sewer charges would
be placed into this fund and could only be
spent on sewer operations, maintenance,
and improvements. None of the money can
go to unrelated city services like police, fire,
or parks.
Background
To prevent costly failures and protect public
health, the City has planned approximately
$2.25 million per year for critical repairs and
upgrades over the next five years. However,
rising costs, stricter regulations, and the need
to build fiscally responsible reserves have
made this approach unsustainable, requiring
the City to establish a dedicated sewer
service charge to ensure reliable long-term
funding.
Proposed Sewer Service Charges
The table across shows the proposed
maximum annual sewer service charge
per Sewer Unit (SU) through 2030.
Established by the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District (LACSD), one SU represents
the typical wastewater flow from a singlefamily home. This means a single-family home is assigned 1 SU, while larger properties—
such as restaurants and schools—that
generate more wastewater are assigned
additional SUs to reflect their higher usage of
the sewer system.
Starting July 1, 2025, the proposed maximum
annual sewer service charge for residential
customers is $522.00. The charge would
appear either as a single charge on your
property tax bill or in a direct bill from the
City. The annual amount is equivalent to
$43.50 per month. The City Council will
annually conduct a public hearing to consider
the amount of the charge which may be
less than, but not more than, the proposed
maximum amount. The maximum amount
includes an annual increase of 3% each year
to keep up with inflation and system costs,
reaching a maximum of $587.52 annually
(or $48.96 per month) by Fiscal Year 2030.
The annual charge for non-residential
customers—including restaurants, offices,
and laundromats—is based on estimated
wastewater flow relative to a typical home.
To determine the number of
Sewer Units (SUs) assigned to
your non-residential property,
contact the City.
Why is an Enterprise Fund Better Than
Using General Tax Funds?
Using general tax dollars to pay for sewer
services creates several problems:
• The General Fund normally funds other
essential services, like public safety and
parks.
• Sewer systems work best when funding
is reliable and directly tied to the cost of
service.
• State law considers sewer service a
property-related service, meaning it is
better suited for customer-paid charges
than funding through general taxes.
By switching to an Enterprise Fund, San
Marino can ensure long-term financial
stability for the sewer system and comply
with state laws that require transparency and
cost-based rates.
How Did the City Determine the
Proposed Sewer Service Charges?
The City engaged an independent public
finance firm to conduct a sewer rate study.
Having an independent third party perform
the sewer rate study ensures an unbiased,
objective analysis of costs and needs,
helping to establish fair and equitable
rates. Those total annual costs were
proportionately allocated as sewer charges
to each customer based on the number of
sewer units per customer. The proposed
charges were determined by dividing the
annual cost to operate the sewer system by
the number of sewer units as defined by the
Los Angeles County Sanitation District.
Aging Sewer System Requires Critical
Repairs and Dedicated Funding
San Marino’s sewer system relies on aging
pipelines, pump stations, and manholes —
many at or near the end of their useful life.
The Rate Study Report is available on the website at www.SanMarinoCa. gov/Sewer. Scan this code to be taken directly to the website:
Proposed Maximum Sewer Service Unit Charges - FY2026-FY2030 Any protest OR objection must: (1) be in writing identifying the name of the property owner, and the street address or other clear identification of the property subject to the sewer charges; (2) be submitted by the property owner;
and (3) comply with the relevant requirements for a
written objection or written protest (as outlined below).
NOTE: this Notice defines the phrase “property owner” to include a tenant that is obligated to pay the sewer charges.
The main differences between an objection and a protest:
a) the deadline and method for timely submission; b) the additional information required for an objection; and c) a legal challenge to the proposed sewer charges may only be filed by a property owner who submitted a timely written objection.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: TIMELY WRITTEN
OBJECTION (Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies)
A timely written objection must specify the grounds for alleging that the proposed sewer charges do not comply
with Prop 218. The City has documented how the sewer
charges comply with Prop 218 in the Sewer Rate Study
and the Sewer Rate Setting Procedures, which are posted at www.SanMarinoCA.gov/Sewer. The deadline for
written objections is June 12, 2025, at 4 p.m. PDT. To be considered timely, an objection must be received by City at the “SUBMITTAL LOCATION” listed below, prior to
the deadline.
Exhaustion of Remedies and Statute of
Limitations for Challenging Proposed Sewer
Charges
You are hereby notified that in order to file a judicial action or legal proceeding to challenge the proposed
sewer charges, you must file a timely written objection, and you must commence the action or proceeding within
120 days of the City’s approval of the sewer charges.
Failure to submit a timely written objection bars any right to challenge the proposed sewer charges through a judicial action or legal proceeding. (Gov Code Section 53759.1(c).) After the effective date of the City’s approval of the
sewer charges, there is a 120-day statute of limitations for challenging the sewer charges. (Gov Code Section 53759.) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
TIMELY WRITTEN PROTEST
A written protest must be submitted in paper form,
signed by the property owner, and clearly state that the property owner opposes the proposed sewer charges.
To be considered timely, a written protest must be
received by the City, by Mail or In Person, at the
“SUBMITTAL LOCATION” listed below, prior to the
close of the public hearing on Friday, June 27, 2025.
Only one protest will be counted per parcel. Owners of
multiple parcels may file one protest for each parcel owned within the City’s service area. Since protests must be received by mail or in person, any protest submitted by email will not be counted. If timely written protests are received from owners of a majority of parcels (50%+1) within the service area, the proposed sewer charges will not be implemented.
If adopted, the proposed sewer charges will take effect beginning July 1, 2025. The reasons for the sewer
charges, the basis upon which they were calculated, and the amount of the proposed charges are described in
more detail in the Rate Study, which is posted at www.
SanMarinoCA.gov/Sewer, and available for review at
the City Clerk’s office. If you have any questions, please call (626) 300-0781. City staff can assist in answering questions about rates, the rate study, or your bill.
FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
Annual Charge per SU - Applicable
to Residential AND Non-Residential
Sewer Service
$522.00 $537.66 $553.79 $570.40 $587.52
SUBMITTAL LOCATION
City of San Marino City Clerk’s Office
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
Via Email: [email protected]
How to Submit a Written Objection or Protest
City of San Marino
Public Works Department
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE CHARGES To consider a proposal to establish a Sewer Service Enterprise Fund in the City of San Marino.
Friday, June 27, 2025 | 8:30 a.m.
San Marino City Hall, Council Chambers
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
www.SanMarinoCa.gov
City’s Written Responses to Timely Written Objections
Exhibit B
The City received 8 Timely Written Objections from the properties: (1) 1351 San Marino Avenue; (2) 2270 Lombardy Road; (3) 1340 Blackstone Road; (4) 1570 Rose Avenue; (5) 1341 Oxford Road; (6) 1730 S. Los Robles Avenue; (7) 1891 Windsor Road; and (8) 1832 Saint Albans Road. Those objections are attached as Exhibit “C.” This Exhibit “B” provides the City’s written responses to those 8 Timely Written Objections:
1.Objection: The proposed sewer charges do not comply with Proposition 218 because they are not proportional to the benefit received by property owners.
Response:
The proposed sewer charges are proportional to the cost to serve each customer because the City’s costs are proportionally allocated to each customer based on the number of sewer units generated by each parcel. As described in Rate Study Section 3.1, a “sewer unit” (or “SU”) is an estimate of the relative impact that customers have on a sewer system based on strength of wastewater and amount of flow. Since the City’s sewer system collects wastewater to be conveyed to and treated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD), the City has relied on LACSD’s estimated SUs for various types of property uses, as documented in LACSD’s “Wastewater Revenue Program” dated January 2021. While strength of wastewater is relevant to the cost of operating a wastewater treatment system, since the City’s sewer system is limited to collection and conveyance, the City has relied on only the amount of flow for each SU.
The concept of a sewer unit estimates sewer discharge in relation to a single family home. The number of sewer units for a single-family home is defined as one, based on an estimated average flow of wastewater of 260 gallons per day, and other property uses are assigned the corresponding number of SU’s in direct proportion to the estimated amount of flow from the other property as compared to 260 gallons per day. It should be noted that if a parcel has more than one residential unit (such as an accessory dwelling unit), it increases the number of sewer units. An apartment complex will have a greater number of sewer units. This is a very common way to charge for sewer service especially where a City or District is a collection only agency – meaning that the city collects sewage and sends it to a nearby regional treatment facility. As noted above, the City of San Marino is a collection only agency and sends its sewage to the LACSD.
2. Objection: The proposed charges are a flat fee of $522 per residential property, which does not account for variations in water usage or the number of residents at each property. Properties with higher water usage generate more sewage and impose a greater burden on the sewer system, yet they would pay the same fee as properties with lower usage.
Response:
City’s Written Responses to Timely Written Objections
The City has reasonably estimated the amount of the flat fee for each singlefamily home based on the estimated average impact on the City’s costs of providing the sewer service.
1) Most of the City’s sewer maintenance costs are fixed and do not vary with sewer discharge. The City’s cost to operate and maintain the system and the cost of capital projects are the same whether a home discharges 4 hundred cubic feet of water of 7 hundred cubic feet of water (see item # 2 below). There is a minimum size of sewer main on residential streets (8 inches) and the cost of maintaining it does not change with each home’s sewer discharge. The volume of discharge, and its effect on costs, is more pertinent for cities or agencies that treat the sewage because their expenses (power, chemicals, oxygenation of wastewater, sludge processing) are proportional to the volume of sewage. For this main reason, it is reasonable to charge all homes the same charge. 2) The sewer discharge for single family homes falls within a narrow range compared to commercial customers. Most homes will discharge anywhere from a few to up to 10 hundred cubic feet of sewage per month.
Water use beyond 10 hundred cubic feet (hcf) usually is for irrigation, which means that the water does not enter the City’s sewer system. Due to the narrow range of discharge, it is reasonable to charge a flat fee. 3) Wastewater is not metered. Water use is metered and therefore wastewater discharge must be estimated from water use. In a city like San Marino, up to approximately 50% of water use can be for irrigation and not discharged to the sewer. Therefore, either winter water use or another estimate of the water that returns to the sewer must be made introducing more estimates/error.
3. Objection: Other cities charge based on water usage instead of a flat fee.
Response:
While it is possible to charge based on estimated sewer use, many cities and sewer districts charge a flat fee for single family homes. The LACSD, the Orange County Sanitation District and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency serve approximately 9 million people and charge based on a sewer unit basis where one sewer unit is defined as a single-family home. In addition, many cities and water or sewer districts charge a flat rate for single-family homes. The table below shows a partial listing of cities or sewer districts that we know of that charge a flat rate for a singlefamily home.
Camarillo Summerland Sanitary District Santa Cruz Gilroy Camarosa Water District Big Bear City Community Services District
Seal Beach Colton
Thousand Oaks Hayward El Monte Turlock
City’s Written Responses to Timely Written Objections
Channel Islands
Community
Los Angeles County Sanitation
District (5 million people)
Corte Madera Plymouth
Goleta Sanitary District Mammoth Community Water
District
Livermore Rio Vista
Groveland Community
Sanitation District
Rincon Del Diablo Water District Chino
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
Slema- Kingsburg
Fowler County Sanitation District
Huntington Beach Services District
Solana Beach Olivenhain Municipal Water
District
Monterey Park Lincoln
Arcadia Orange County Sanitation District
(2.6 million people)
Independence San Gabriel
Inland Empire Utilities
Agency (nearly 1 million
people)
Goleta West Sanitary District Carpinteria Sanitary
District
Simi Valley
4. Objection: There is insufficient justification to demonstrate that the flat fee complies with the proportional requirement of Proposition 218.
Response:
As explained in the information presented to City Council as a part of the public hearing to consider the proposed sewer rates, the Rate Study adequately and appropriately documents the rationale for setting flat rates for residential customers based on the estimated average impact of a single family home on the City’s costs of providing sewer services. The City relied on analysis from the local agency (LACSD) that receives and treats wastewater from the City as the basis for an estimated average flow of 260 gallons per day of wastewater from a single family residence. This approach of establishing flat amounts as a reasonable estimate of impacts to be allocated to payers of property related fees is supported by Moore v. City of Lemon Grove (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 363.
For the above reasons, many cities and sewage districts, especially those that are collection only, choose to charge a flat rate for a single-family home.
Exhibit D
From:
To: City Clerk"s Office;
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sewer Service Charge - WRITTEN OBJECTION Date: Thursday, May 1, 2025 11:32:18 AM
Sewer Service Charge - WRITTEN OBJECTION
FROM:
500 Plymouth Rd, San Marino, CA 91108
Date: May 1 2025
TO:
San Marino City Clerk’s Office
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Sewer Service Charges
Dear City Clerk,
I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed establishment of sewer service charges in San Marino. While I recognize the importance of maintaining and upgrading our city's 50-mile sewer collection system, I am deeply concerned about the financial burden this new fee will impose on residents during this already tumultuous time in our economy.
Historically, the City has successfully funded sewer system maintenance through General Fund revenues. The shift to a separate, self-funding sewer enterprise, as proposed in the recent Sewer Rate Study, creates a significant new expense for property owners, amounting to a maximum of $522 per year per residence, with annual increases of 3%. Such a policy disproportionately impacts homeowners and raises questions regarding fiscal management and the necessity of diverting sewer funding away from the General Fund. By 2030, this fee will be close to $600/year annually! Moreover, the projected costs outlined in the Wastewater Collection System Condition Assessment (WCSCA) from 2019 should be carefully reevaluated to ensure that repairs and capital improvements are prioritized appropriately. Before imposing a new fee structure, the City should explore alternative funding mechanisms, such as state or federal infrastructure grants, reassessment of existing revenue streams, or more efficient financial planning within the current budget.
I urge the City Council to reconsider this proposal and seek input from residents on equitable solutions including restructuring without our current framework. The upcoming public hearing on June 27, 2025, provides an opportunity for meaningful discourse, and I strongly encourage the Council to pursue alternative approaches that do not unduly burden homeowners during already difficult financial times.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully request that my opposition to this proposed charge be recorded.
Sincerely, 500 Plymouth Road
San Marino CA 91108
--- Please confirm receipt of this letter of opposition at your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
From:
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Timely Written Protest to Proposed Sewer Service Charges Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 10:44:42 AM
Below please find the “timely written protest” I wish to submit. The notice is unclear as to how this protest must be submitted. It states “must be submitted in paper form, signed by the property owner..” at the submittal location. BUT the submittal location gives a “Via Email” address. The instructions should have therefore stated not “paper” but “written form”, since most wouldn’t consider an email “paper form”. Also, the signature requirement suggests that email might not be satisfactory. Nevertheless, I am emailing this protest as well as submitting a hard copy to the City by US mail.
1750 Rose Ave
San Marino CA 91108
City of San Marino Clerk's Office
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino CA 91108
As the over 50 year resident and homeowner of the above parcel, I am opposed to removing the sewer service charges from the general fund. As an owner who has benefitted from the relatively low property tax valuations due to residing in my residence for a long time under Prop 13, the proposed fee would be effectively a 16% increase in my property tax this year. It is not clear what this increase would provide. However, it is clear that government is determined to put further strain on retirees with fixed incomes.
In the Notice of Public Hearing sent, there was much said as to why the Enterprise Fund is a better solution. I presume that the proposed $522 charge is in addition to the general fund taxes collected, and not merely a reallocation of currently collected funds. If I am wrong, then this should have been more clearly stated. As an addition, this means that the City will have new funds formerly spent on sewers to provide other services. Once again, the notice neglects to highlight this new tax, but "hides" it by describing it as a reallocation...What are the actual costs of "aging sewer system requires critical repairs and dedicated funding”? What services will be improved because there are now funds freed from sewer use?
Also, a built in 3% inflation and cost increase per year is excessive. This is beyond the allowable 2% per year increase under Prop 13.
There is no reason to assume that in 2030 the city will eliminate the yearly increase.
If the sewer system required updates, a specific bond measure upon which to vote would have been a better solution.
As it is, this just seems to be a sneaky way to give the city more general funds. The city needs to work harder at managing the funds currently collected. The recent debacle with our long-time garbage pickup with Athens shows that this is what is really needed.
From:
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Formal objection to proposed sewer service rate Date: Thursday, May 8, 2025 11:46:45 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing as a resident in the City of San Marino, at 1722 Hilliard Dr, to formally object to the proposed implementation of the annual sewer service charge as outlined in the notice regarding the Proposed Establishment of Sewer Rates.
1. While recognizing the need to invest in repairs, maintenance, and expansion of sewage services, I do not agree with the funding model proposed.
2. Carving out an Enterprise Fund represents a new tax upon property owners as previous funding already exists and there is no corresponding reduction in tax burden.
a. For illustrative purposes, the $522 charge per SU represents approximately 3% property tax increase upon our family.
b. If this were to be taken to a public vote, I do not believe residents would approve funds.
3. There was no information in the document about the corresponding administrative or servicing costs included about the Enterprise Fund, including who would administer the funds, how excess funds would be invested, and oversight bodies. Additionally, there was no information shared about oversight for the prioritization of related projects. Duplication of overhead reduces the efficiency in how funds are managed.
Please consider this letter as my formal protest of the proposed sewer service charge under Proposition 218 and confirmed the receipt of this written protest.
Best,
1722 Hilliard Dr, San Marino, CA 91108