tool name

Wednesday, Dec. 30, 2009

Roiling city politics keeps Livingston interesting

Water fee increase still has residents up in arms.

A new City Council, a grand jury investigation, several lawsuits and a water and sewer rate hike kept the Livingston tradition of bickering and tomfoolery alive and well in 2009.

The year's most important stories are as follows:

New council

The year opened with optimism. A new mayor and two new City Council members took their seats fresh from their election victories in the fall.

The three new council members -- Mayor Daniel Varela, and council members Margarita Aguilar and Martha Nateras -- seemed poised to end the verbal jousting that had plagued the last council. They voiced a commitment to openness and to working together. However, at the Dec. 1 meeting, almost all of the body's eight agenda items were postponed or voted to a draw because of one absence.

Grand jury

Despite the new council, problems from the former council were kept alive with an ongoing investigation.

The investigation into a former mayor and current City Council member was opened in response to the postscript of a 2008 Merced County civil grand jury investigation. That investigation found that Mayor Gurpal Samra and Councilman Rodrigo Espinoza pressured city staff for the personal gain of Espinoza. While both men denied the allegations, the city's hired investigator generally concurred with the grand jury's findings.

Water rate hikes

The year's most important story, and one that is still front and center, was the city's controversial water and sewer rate hikes -- passed in July -- that will raise rates over the next several years more than 100 percent.

Earlier in the year, after conducting a proposition 218 protest vote, the City Council gained the power to raise rates. But instead of proceeding, the City Council deadlocked on the issue. There just weren't enough votes for the needed super-majority.

The rate hikes, the first since 1995, were finally passed with a simple majority resolution July 7. Varela, Nateras and Frank Vierra all voted for the hikes.

The vote was preceded by the firing of the city's lawyer for her legal opinion on the matter. Malathy Subramanian said that utility rate hikes require a super-majority to pass. In disagreement, the city's new lawyer, Jonathan Hobbs, said the council could pass a water rate hike resolution with only three votes.

When people started getting their first new bills in the mail, momentum began to build against the rate hikes. Ever since, City Council meetings have been raucous affairs, filled with angry citizens.

Two lawsuits against the city added to the mix. Foster Farms and a group of citizens separately filed lawsuits against the city because it raised the rates.

What will come of those lawsuits will have to wait until next year.

General Plan

Finally, the city's controversial 2025 general plan update, which predicted exponential growth for Livingston, took a blow when the city lost a lawsuit over the issue in Merced County Superior Court at the end of the year. The ruling on the suit, filed by the Merced County Farm Bureau, found that the city had broken state law. According to court documents, presiding Judge Carol Ash concluded that the city's approval of the general plan update and certification of the environmental impact report violated the California Environmental Quality Act and the Open Space Plans Act. The city contends no such laws were broken.

Reporter Jonah Owen Lamb can be reached at (209) 385-2484 or jlamb@mercedsun-star.com.