By John Flood

In an increasingly acrimonious sewer dispute with the city of Los Altos, more than 700 residents of the San Antonio Hills area are balking at a 70 percent sewer rate surcharge levied on them by the city for sewer maintenance, repair and upkeep.

San Antonio Hills residents have filed claims with the city to recover tax refunds for the surcharges.

“Residents never agreed to the increase,” said Gerry Madea, a Los Altos resident who has challenged the city for years over sewer funding.

“I’ve been at this since 1992,” said Madea, a retired computer industry executive. “I got them (the city) to reduce the surcharge from 100 percent to 70 percent. … The residents don’t want to pay any surcharge whatsoever.”

The city has rejected the claims.

“The rejection is based on our position that the county rates reflect the city’s costs to maintain its sewer system that the county residents use,” said Mayor Ron Packard.

The surcharge for 2006 and 2007 for single-family homes in San Antonio Hills, an unincorporated area, would amount to an additional $16.65 per month in sewer fees, according to a letter written to homeowners by the San Antonio Hills Homeowners (SAH) Association.

“The Sewer Fairness Project Committee, chaired by Dr. Tom Burns, a resident of San Antonio Hills, is dedicated to putting an end to these unfair and discriminatory surcharges, to assist property owners in recovering tax refunds and to compel the city of Los Altos to cease financial abuse of the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund,” said Tom Burns and Dick Blanchard in the Aug. 23 letter. Blanchard is a representative of the committee.

Anticipating litigation with the city, the Sewer Fairness Committee of the San Antonio Homeowners Association consulted with an attorney who represents the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The attorney confirmed that the surcharge is illegal under state proposition 218, according to the letter mailed.

Packard has a different point of view.

In the 1950s or 1960s, “San Antonio Hills residents begged the city of Los Altos to allow them to connect to our sewer system and agreed to a surcharge of 100 percent,” he said. “Around that time the city determined that only a 70 percent surcharge was necessary to cover the increased costs.”

Madea, a dues-paying member of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, alleges that the city council is committing “financial abuse” with the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is a California citizen’s group dedicated to protecting Proposition 13. It acts as a watchdog group against higher taxes using litigation, legislative efforts and ballot initiatives to enforce its beliefs.

“$400,000 is being transferred out of the fund for administration,” Madea said. “Where’s it going? They’re totally corrupt.”

“He is wrong,” Packard said. “For anyone to say that there has been a $400,000 misallocation to the city is pure speculation. I believe that it is the exact opposite, that the city has been subsidizing the fund.”

Madea’s complaints include improper notification of rate increases.

The Santa Clara District Attorney’s office reviewed the complaint and found that the notification “legally sufficient.”

“The notice fully comports with Proposition 218,” said Packard. “This is not the first time Madea, while sincere and passionate about his causes, has attempted to raise the alarm that the city is violating all sorts of laws. Only to hear from the district attorney’s office that what the city has done is in full compliance with the law. He has sounded the ‘wolf! wolf!’ alarm far too many times for me to get too concerned.”

The city council will hold a second public hearing Nov. 14 to establish sewer rates.

“The city is holding this meeting as a ‘cure and correct’ measure because of their inadequate notification of the public meeting held earlier this year,” Madea said.

“He is incorrect,” Packard said. “The previous hearing complied with the law … since then, the California Supreme Court ruled … that sewer services should now be considered as property-related fees. We, along with many other cities in California, are going the extra mile by re-noticing the rate hearing in compliance with the new law.”