Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

  • HOME
  • ABOUT PIERLUIGI
  • WE KNOW PIERLUIGI
  • COMMUNITY LEADERS
  • ISSUES
  • CONTACT
    • CONTACT
    • MAP OF SUPERVISOR DISTRICT 4

Deja Vu: Back to 2002

May 17, 2010 By Pierluigi Oliverio

In 1993, city staff began looking at selling the Municipal Water system, which the City of San Jose currently owns. Municipal Water covers approximately 10 percent of the city serving portions of Council districts 2, 4 and 8. The main service provider, San Jose Water Company, a private company, provides approximately 80 percent of San Jose residents with water. The remaining 10 percent of water is provided to residents in District 2 by another private company, Great Oaks Water.

The staff report that started in 1993 was completed in 2001 and finally made its way to Council in 2002. (Hope we can move faster than this when it comes to selling the Hayes Mansion, Old City Hall and one of three golf courses.) So on May 21, 2002, by a 6-5 vote, the council directed staff to move forward with negotiating a 30-year lease of the San Jose Municipal water system to the San Jose Water Company. The ayes were Dave Cortese, Pat Dando, John Diquisto, Ron Gonzales, Chuck Reed and George Shirakawa. The nays were Nora Campos, Cindy Chavez, Forrest Williams, Ken Yeager and Linda LeZotte.

I think the basic question is, “Should San Jose provide water to 10 percent of the residents when 90 percent is being done today by the private sector?” There are some advantages for the City to own a public utility, like lower rates then those of who get water from private water retailers since the city does not charge those residents a franchise fee and there are no shareholders to pay. Yet those same property owners have an assessment on their property taxes to pay for bonds for Municipal Water. Another positive is being able to get water from Hetch Hetchy for North San Jose since Hetch Hetchy will not sell water to private utilities. However even with a public utility water from Hetch Hetchy is not guaranteed and must be negotiated from time to time.

The cost to run Municipal Water is $22 million annually and employs 30 full time employees whose costs are covered by the ratepayers, not the general fund. Municipal Water transfers $815K a year to the general fund to pay overhead for a portion of salaries for people who support Municipal Water in other departments like HR, attorneys, payroll, etc.

Prior to passage of Prop 218 in November 1996, San Jose and other cities could charge more for services and make a profit to pay for other city services. Prop 218 was given as the main reason our negotiations that started in 2002 fizzled. However, if we had sold or leased Municipal Water prior to the passage of Prop 218 it would have been a different story. We discussed this item during our budget hearings this week. This is where the Council does a deep dive into specific department budgets. The structural deficit has renewed our interest in looking at selling or leasing the Municipal Water system.

San Jose Water Company would like to buy the Municipal water system and has offered the city an upfront payment of $54 million and allowing a franchise fee on the San Jose Water company which would bring in approximately $4 million to the general fund each year. Or a lease arrangement where they would pay $25-40 million upfront depending on the terms and length of the lease. The upfront payment could be used to pay off outstanding bonds and the balance into capital improvements like street paving. Another issue is what would happen with the current 30 employees? Would they transfer over to San Jose Water company and retain all of their seniority, compensation and benefits?

Personally I think there is an advantage in San Jose controlling recycled water as this allows the city to control its destiny on growing jobs for the long term. But I am not sure we get the same advantage by being a water retailer where we are not allowed to make a profit to fund core city services and be on the hook for all the future maintenance of that system.

Click this link to participate in the 2010 San Jose Budget Trade-Offs Survey, which is is still open.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Vicious Attack of Pierluigi Oliverio Unwarranted

Ones’ good name and reputation is a most prized possession. It is unconscionable for any person or entity to maliciously endeavor to destroy another persons reputation The lack of integrity the public special interest groups showed recently when they maliciously sought to destroy the reputation of Pierluigi Oliverio, candidate for Santa Clara County Supervisor, is […]

Op-Ed: How to make Santa Clara County government more effective

Residents should hold supervisors accountable for how efficiently core services are deployed to meet stated goals Federal, state, county, city, school and special districts all have distinct and important roles to play in community governance, and each body has a primary set of responsibilities. Elected officials, and especially candidates, will often urge action on hot […]

Op-Ed: Helping the mentally ill is good for public safety

After every mass shooting, we have a public discussion about mental illness, but what about the rest of the time? 25 to 40% of police calls nationwide are related to the behavior of someone who is mentally ill, and such instances include a higher risk of injury and death to those involved. This is a constant […]

Op-Ed: Tired of trash along roads? Get Santa Clara County inmate crews to clean it up

Our streets are filthy. I cannot recall a time when there has been so much trash on our roads. Traveling extensively for work I am amazed how other thoroughfares in the state and country are so clean, in contrast to Santa Clara County. This blight is highly visible, and seems worse than ever with no […]

Letter to the Editor: Labor bill would hurt Santa Clara County

State legislation AB1250 would negatively impact Santa Clara County.  It would not only increase the cost of county government unnecessarily, but would also inflict harm on our most vulnerable residents. Fortunately for taxpayers and recipients of county services, the bill stalled ​this month , but will likely be reconsidered in January. Passage would remove the flexibility of […]

Merc News condemns Unions

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Councilmember Davis Supports Pierluigi

audio

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Mayor Reed Supports Pierluigi

audio
http://fromhereforus.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Oliverio-for-Supervisor-Chuck-Reed-043018.mp3

Like Me On Facebook

Facebook Pagelike Widget

Copyright © 2025 Paid for by Oliverio for Supervisor 2018 ----------- FPPC# 1394828-- Phil Rolla, Treasurer · Log in