FEi12' 9
Barry Ross
January 26, 2026
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
PO Box 1988, M30
Santa Ana, CA 92701
To Whom it May Concern:
I am submitting this protest to the proposed increase in Santa Ana water and sewer rates.
In reviewing the Cost Study on the City website, there is a significant difference in the percentage rate increase each year between the study and the published rates. Please see below:
Rate Study Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Water Fixed 7% 7% 6. 5% 2% 2%
Commodity 7% 8. 2% 6. 4% 2% 2%
Sewer 3% 5% 9% 9% 9%
Proposed Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Rates
Water Fixed 9. 9% 8. 98% 9% 9% 9%
Commodity 1 21. 5% 8. 8% 1 9% 9% 8%
These increases are significantly higher than the annual increases proposed in the rate study. While the study was completed five years ago, the inflation rate does not justify this increase.
My water bill based on average usage is projected to increase 77% from the current use in Year 1. In order to be transparent, each customer should be provided detail on what their projected increase will be based on average usage.
also request that the City re-evaluate the required reserve requirements and capital improvements to reduce the cost of the increases.
I
Sincerely,
l
is
Fit
LAJ
22 rnD
UD
to
9D
Legal Objection Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Changes
January 31, 2026
VIA HAND DELIVERY 1 U. S. MAIL
City of SantaAna
Attention: City Clerk
P. O. Box 1988, M- 30
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Legal Objection to Proposed Water, Recycled Water, and Sewer Rate Changes Pursuant to California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6 (Proposition 218) and Government Code Section 53759. 1 ( AB 2257)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I am a property owner andratepayerwithin the City of SantaAna. This letter constitutes a formal legal objection to the proposedwater, recycled water, and sewer rate changesasdescribedin the City' s Proposition 218 Notice of Public Hearing datedfor March 17, 2026, and as detailed in the 2026 Water and Sewer Rate Study (" Rate Study") prepared by Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. (" RDN"), datedJanuary7, 2026.
This objection is submitted in accordance with the requirements of California Constitution Article X111D, Section6, andtheadministrativeexhaustionproceduresestablishedby AB 2257 Government Code Section 53759. 1), asreferencedin theCity's publichearingnotice. I am submittingthis objectionprior to theMarch 10, 2026deadlineto preserveall rightsto challenge theproposedrates.
While thisobjectionaddressesmultiple aspectsof theproposedratechanges, thecentralconcern is theconsolidationof all customerclassesinto asinglerateclassandtheresultingfailureto demonstrateproportionalcost-of-servicecomplianceasrequiredby Proposition218.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
CaliforniaConstitutionArticleXIII D, Section6(b) imposessubstantivelimitationsonproperty- related fees and charges. Subdivision ( b)( 3) provides that"[ t] he amount of a fee or charge imposeduponanyparcelor personasanincidentof propertyownershipshall not exceedthe proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel." ( Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 6, subd. b)( 3), emphasis added.)
As theCaliforniaCourtof Appealrecentlyreaffirmedin Coziahrv. OtayWaterDistrict( 2024) 103Cal.App.5th785, thisproportionalityrequirementisstrictanddemandsmorethanashowing of" reasonableness." Theburdenfalls onthelocal agencyto "demonstratecompliance" with Section 6( b)( 3) by " substantial evidence that withstands independent review." ( Id.) The Court heldthatit is "notenoughfor a wateragencyto showit usesareasonableallocationmethod"; rather, " an agency must show that the method produces rates that are proportional to costs." ( 1d.) TheCoziahrcourtfurtherfoundthatOtayWaterDistrict"discriminatedagainstsingle-family residentialcustomersby chargingthemmorefor waterthanothercustomerclasseswithout a
Legal Objection— Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Changes
cogent reason." Thisholdingis directlyrelevantto theproposedconsolidationof customer classes in Santa Ana' s Rate Study.
Theseprinciples were subsequentlyreinforced in Patz v. City of SanDiego (4th Dist, 2025), where the Fourth District Court of Appeal again struck down tiered water rates that failed to meetthestrictproportionalitystandard, andspecificallyheldthatrelianceonindustry-standard methodologiesis insufficient absentagency-specific, verified cost data.
II. CONSOLIDATION OF CUSTOMER CLASSES VIOLATES SECTION 6( b)( 3)
A. The Proposed Single-Class Structure Eliminates Proportionality Analysis The Rate Study proposes " combining all customers into a single customer class" for both water and sewer services. ( Rate Study, Executive Summary.) The City' s prior rate structure maintained distinctionsbetweenSingleFamily Residential, Non-Residential, andMulti-Family customer classes, eachwith differentiatedtier widthsreflectingdistinctusagepatternsandcost-of-service characteristics.
TheProposition218Noticeitselfdocumentsthesepriordistinctions. Thecurrentbi-monthly water rate structure setsdifferent Tier 1 widths by customerclass: for a 5/8" x 3/4" meter, Single Family customersreceive 21 CCF, Non-Residential customersreceive 62 CCF, and Multi- Family customersreceive 17 CCF per dwelling unit. Thesedifferentiated widths reflect the recognizedrealitythatthesecustomertypeshavemateriallydifferentwaterusepatterns, infrastructure demands, and cost-of-service profiles.
Theproposedstructureeliminatesall of thesedistinctions, replacingthemwith a uniform 21 CCF Tier 1 allocation for a 5/8" x 3/4" meter applied to " all customers, regardless of customer class." ( Prop 218 Notice, p. 4.) This consolidation is not merely an administrative simplification.
It is afundamentalchangein costallocationmethodologythattheRateStudyfailstojustify under Section 6(b)(3)' s strict proportionality standard.
D. Different Customer Types Impose Materially Different Costs on the System It is well- establishedin water utility economics that different customer classesimpose different costs on a water and sewer system. ' These differences include, but are not limited to:
a. Peakingfactors. Single-family residentialcustomerswith irrigatedlots generate significantseasonaldemandpeaks, particularlyduringsummermonths. Thesepeaks drivecapacityrequirementsfor transmission, distribution, pumping, andstorage infrastructure. Commercial and multi- family customerstypically exhibit flatter demandprofiles. Thecostof infrastructuresizedto meetpeakdemandis areal, allocable cost that differs by customer type.
b. Return-flow ratios for sewer. Theproportionof waterconsumedthatreturnsto the sewer systemvaries significantly by customer type. Residential outdoor irrigation generatesno sewerreturnflow. Restaurants, laundries, andfood-processingfacilities generatehigh-volume, bigh-strengthwastewaterwithgreaseandorganicloadingthat
Legal Objection— Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Changes
imposesdisproportionatetreatmentcosts. Theproposedsingle-classsewerrate structure cannot reflect these differences.
c. Infrastructure utilization patterns. Commercial customersconcentratedin particular corridors place different demandson distribution mains, service connections, andfire- flow capacity than residential customersdistributed across neighborhoods. Multi-family customersshareserviceconnectionsandgenerate higher per-connection throughput. Thesedifferences in infrastructure utilization translatedirectly to differences in costof service.
d. Customerserviceand meter-readingcosts.Per-accountadministrativecostsvary by customer type, asdo meter sizes, service connection characteristics, and the complexityof billing arrangements.Aggregatingtheseinto asingleclassobscures real cast differences that Section 5( b)( 3) requires be reflected in rates.
C. The Rate Study Fails to Demonstrate That Consolidation Preserves Proportionality
TheRateStudydoesnotincludea comparativeanalysisdemonstratingthata singlecustomer classproducesratesproportionalto thecostof serviceattributableto eachparcel. Specifically, the Rate Study doesnot:
a. Presentthecost-of-servicebreakdownby prior customerclass (SingleFamily, Non- Residential, Multi- Family) that existedunder the current rate structure; b. Quantifythemagnitudeof cross-subsidizationinherentin theproposedsingle-class structure. That is, the degree to which one former customer class subsidizes or is subsidizedby anotherunder the uniform rates;
c. Provide verified, SantaAna-specific dataon peaking factors, return-flow ratios, or infrastructuredemandby customertypetojustify treatingall customersidentically; d. Explain why the prior differentiated classstructure was inadequateor inconsistent with Proposition218, or why collapsingit into a singleclassbetterachieves proportional cost recovery.
UnderCoziahr, theburdenis ontheCity to demonstratecomplianceby substantialevidence. The absenceof thisanalysisis not atechnicality; it is thevery gapin evidentiarysupportthatthe Court of Appeal found fatal in both Coziahr and Patz.
III. THE PROPOSITION 218 NOTICE UNDERSTATES THE RATE
IMPACT
The Proposition 218 Notice states that the monthly impact to a" typical customer" is "$ 4. 18" for water and "$ 2.94" for sewer, Thesefiguresrepresentonly theYear 1. adjustment. TheNotice failstocommunicatethecumulativefive-yearimpactin termsthatwouldenableaproperty owner to understandthe full scopeof the proposedrate changes.
The proposed adjustments compound as follows:
Legal Objection-- Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Changes a. Water: 9. 0% ( May 2026), 9. 0% ( July 2027), 9. 0% ( July 2028), 9. 0% ( July 2029), and 8. 0% ( July 2030). Thecompoundcumulativeincreaseoverthefive-yearperiodis approximately 53%, not a simple sum of 44%.
b. Sewer: 13. 5%( May 2026), 13. 5%( July 2027), 10. 0% ( July 2028), 10. 0% ( July 2029), and 10. 0% ( July 2030). Thecompoundcumulativeincreaseoverthefive-year period is approximately 71%.
Thepurposeof Proposition218'snoticerequirementis to provideaffectedpropertyownerswith sufficient information to evaluatethe proposedrate changesand determinewhether to file a protest. Presentingonly thefirst-yeardollarimpactof afive-yearcompoundingrateschedule, without statingthetotalcumulativeincreasein eitherdollaror percentageterms, underminesthe informedparticipationthatArticle XIII D is designedto protect.
Additionally, thepass-throughadjustmentpolicy describedin theRateStudypermitsadditional annual increases of up to 15% on topof thescheduledadjustments, furthercompoundingthe actual rate impact beyond what the notice communicates.
IV. THE TRANSITION TO MONTHLY BILLING OBSCURES YEAR-
OVER.- YEAR COMPARISON
Thesimultaneoustransitionfrombi-monthlyto monthlybilling introducesastructuralbreakin ratepayers' ability to comparetheirbills overtime.A ratepayerwho hashistoricallytrackedbi- monthlychargeswill find it difficult to evaluatewhethertheirpost-adjustmentmonthlybill reflects only the stated rate increase or also reflects changes in tier allocation, fixed- charge restructuring, or other rate- design modifications embedded in the new structure.
While monthlybilling mayoffer operationalbenefits, implementingit simultaneouslywith a majorraterestructuringandclassconsolidationhasthepracticaleffectof makingit substantially moredifficultforratepayersto detectdisproportionatecostallocationwhichistheveryoutcome.
Proposition 218 exists to prevent.
V. SPECIFIC RELIEF REQUESTED
In light of theforegoing, I respectfullyrequestthattheCity Council:
a. Declineto adopttheproposedratesascurrentlystructureduntil theCity can demonstrate, by substantial evidence, that the single-customer-classstructure producesratesproportionalto thecostof serviceattributabletoeachparcel, as required by Article XI1I D, Section 6(b)(3);
b. Direct RDN or anotherqualifiedconsultantto prepareandmakepublicly availablea supplementalanalysisthatquantifiesthecost-of-serviceby customerclassunderboth thepriordifferentiatedstructureandtheproposedconsolidatedstructure, including verifieddataonpeakingfactors, return-flowratios, andinfrastructuredemandby customer type specific to Santa Ana' s system;
Legal Objection— Proposed Water and Sewer Mate Changes
c.
AmendtheProposition218Noticetoclearlystatethecumulativefive-yearrate increasein bothdollar andpercentagetermsfor atypicalcustomer, includingthe potential impact of pass-through adjustments;
d. Provideawrittenresponseto thisobjection, asrequiredby GovernmentCodeSection 53759. 1 ( AB 2257), explaining the City' s substantivebasisfor concluding that the proposedsingle-classratestructurecomplieswith theproportionalityrequirementsof Section 6( b)( 3).
VI. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Thisobjectionis submittedto exhaustadministrativeremediespursuantto GovernmentCode Section53759.1 andto preserveall rightsto challengetheproposedrateadjustmentsthrough judicial proceedingsunder California Constitution Article X111D and Government Code Section 53759, Thesubmissionof this objectiondoesnot constituteawaiverof anyrightsor claims, includingbutnotlimitedtoanyclaimsarisingunderProposition218, Proposition26, orany other applicable provision of law.
1reservetherighttosupplementthisobjectionwithadditionalevidenceandargumentpriorto the close of the public hearing on arch17, 2026, andtopresentoraltestimonyatthehearing.
Swithin Lindb k
service address)
cc:ArmandoFernandez,ActingDeputyPublic WorksDirector
City of SantaAna Public WorksAgency
N' A qRNACITY CLERK
IFlrB 9' 2 6 ° m3: 14
FORMAL LEGAL OBJECTION AND NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE
Proposition 218— California Constitution, Article XIII D February 6, 2026
To:
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
P. O. Box 1988, M- 30
Santa Ana, CA 92701
LEGAL OBJECTION TO PROPOSED WATER, SEWER, AND RECYCLED WATER
RATE ADJUSTMENTS
I, Barbara Orozco, amtheownerof recordandcustomerof recordof thepropertyidentified below. I herebysubmitthis formalwritten legalobjectionandnoticeof noncomplianceto the Cityof SantaAna'sproposedadjustmentstowater, sewer, andrecycledwaterratesandcharges, asnoticed for consideration at the Public Hearing scheduledfor March 17, 2026.
Thisobjectionis submittedpursuantto Article XIII D of theCaliforniaConstitution(Proposition 218) and is intended to fully exhaustall administrative remedies.
PROPERTY 1CUSTOMER INFORMATION
Name: Barbara Orozco
Service Address:
Parcel Number( APN):
RATES AND POLICIES OBJECTED TO
Thisobjectionappliestoallproposedrateadjustments, includingbutnotlimitedto waterfixed charges; water commodity rates ( Tier 1 and Tier 2); sewer fixed charges; recycled water rates; thePass-ThroughAdjustmentPolicy; andfire line fixed charges.
LEGAL GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION
1. Failure to Demonstrate Proportional Cost of Service. The City hasfailed to demonstratethat theproposedratesandchargesareproportionaltothecostof serviceattributableto ParcelNo. 001- 284- 01, as required by Article XIII D, Section 6( b)( 3). The materials rely on generalized system-wide assumptionsrather than parcel-specific cost allocation.
2. Unlawful Expansionof FixedCharges. Theproposedincreasessubstantiallyexpandfixed monthlychargesthatapplyregardlessof actualwaterusage, improperlyshiftingvariablesystem costs onto ratepayers.
3. Unsupported Multi- Year RateEscalation. The proposed five-year scheduleof escalatingrate increases are speculative and unsupported by a demonstrated necessity for each future increase.
4. Improper Pass-Through Adjustment Mechanism. The proposedpolicy authorizes additional future increasesbeyond the statedrate schedule, creating risk of chargesexceeding lawful cost- of- service limits.
5. Failure to Consider Less BurdensomeAlternatives. The City hasnot adequately evaluatedor disclosedless burdensomealternatives, including reductions in fixed chargesand greater reliance on usage-basedpricing.
6. Procedural Deficiencies. The notice and supporting materials do not provide sufficient transparencyfor meaningful evaluation under Proposition 218.
FORMAL DEMAND
I demandthattheCity rejecttheproposedrateadjustmentsin their currentform; revisetherate structure to ensurestrict proportionality to parcel-specific cost of service, eliminate or substantially
reducefixed chargesnot directlytied to serviceprovided; removeor materiallylimit the Pass-ThroughAdjustmentPolicy; andprovidefull parcel-level cost-of-servicedocumentation prior to any adoption.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Nothing in this objectionshallbedeemedawaiverof anyrights. I expresslyreservetheright to pursuejudicialrelief, includingdeclaratoryandinjunctiverelief, shouldtheCityadoptratesor charges that violate Proposition 218 or other applicable law.
DECLARATION
and correct.
I dec der penalty of erjury un the laws of the Stateof California that the foregoing is tru .
Printed Name:. Barbara Orozco
Date: o w l W
i
t
r
r
r
CO
f%5
124
4dF
S cp
pq
pr
r,-
r:
February 3, 2026
Carole Reeves
City of Santa Ana
Attention: City Clerk
P. O. Box 1988, M30
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Reference: Rate increase protest
Dear Sirs:
I strongly protest any rate increases and changes to my water service and sewer service. I live on Social Security alone and have no other income. I cannot afford any increases to my bills.
I live at
Thank you
Carole Reeves
en
ID
fQ
r; .
N,...
Nelida Mendoza
March 6, 2026
City of SantaAna
ATTNP: City Clerk.
PO Box 1988, M- 80
Santa Ana, CA 92701
SUBJECT Notice of Legal Objection to Proposed Increase
Consumption Chargers ( Water I Sewer I Recycled)
Service Address
Dear City of SantaAna:
I am filing this legal objection to your proposedincreasedue to the fact that the City of SantaAna fails to provide residentswith evidencethat increasing the ratesnow would" help to prevent higher costs in the future. Residents are not provided with verifiable evidence that supports such increases. How does the City of SantaAna calculate what the rate of inflation would be for the next five years?
Maintaining infrastructure is important. However, our extremely high property tax and outrageousretail tax are monies are alreadypaying for such.
Thankyou in advancefor your understandingandconsideration. Pleasefeel freeto contactme if additional information is requested.
Nelida Mendoza
New Horizons Neighborhood