Closed meetings are the exception and permitted only if they meet defined purposes . . . All actions taken and all votes in closed session must be publicly reported orally or in writing and copies of any contracts or settlements approved must be made available promptly. (Download The Ralph M. Brown Act Pamphlet from the State of California Here)
Many matters are discussed and decided behind closed doors at “Closed Meetings”, by the Board and the General Manager. There are 5 categories (1) Personnel, (2) Pending Litigation and (3) Labor Negotiations and (4) Property Negotiations, (5) Others, which may be the topics discussed at closed meetings, but all actions taken and all votes in closed session must be publicly reported. . . promptly.”
I have scanned several documents (agendas and minutes) that show a pattern and practice of Brown Act violations with respect to closed meetings.
May 2007 Board Meeting – Adjourn to closed session – 5 matters
June 2007 District Counsel Reported no reportable items from closed session.
June2007 Board Meeting – Adjourn to closed session – 3 matters
July 2007 District Counsel reported no reportable items from closed session.
July 2007 Board Meeting – Adjourn to closed session -1 matter
August 2007 – District Counsel unable to report on closed session because it was about him. General Manager reported no reportable items from closed session.
August 2007 – Board Meeting – Adjourn to closed session -2 matters
September 2007 – Tammy Rudock reported no actionable items from last month’s closed session since it dealt with contract for district counsel/legal services.
September 2007 – Board Meeting – Adjourn to closed session 1 matter
October 2007 – District Counsel reported no actionable item reportable at today’s meeting.
As you can see, the actions taken and votes are never publicly reported, as required by the Brown Act. Further, there are conflicts of interests in having the General Manager act as the negotiator in labor contracts when most of management salaries and benefits are pegged to those in the bargaining unit. As a five year contract for the service employees and for the general manager have already been approved, and these are all pegged together, the district should appoint its own negotiator, who would have the employer’s interests at heart, rather than the employees. A closed meeting may be held so that the board may instruct its own negotiator, without the knowledge of the other side. The employee group have their own negotiators. Final action on compensation for an individual employee must be in open session.
I am requesting that the Board comply immediately with the requirement, that at each board meeting, any closed meeting agenda items from a previously held closed meeting, be disclosed with respect to all actions taken, and all votes reported, and copies of any contracts or settlement approved be made promptly. Additionally, the board, should request that a report be made of all matters that were reportable (for the prior 12 months) be disclosed within a reasonable time.
Charlotte Darehshori

(Download a full explanation of the Ralph M. Brown Act Here)

Tuesday’s CCSD Rates and Budget workshop served as a preview of what’s to come on the May 22 meeting when the Board will take up the issue of rates and the proposed two year budget. General Manager Tammy Rudock walked the group and the Board through a power point on her budget and the proposed rates. There were numerous mentions of how much time and energy she and Allan and the rest of the budget team had put into pulling the information together. What was missing, was the “work” of the Board and the community – in the form of changes and suggestions made. For the most part, that kind of “help” was not welcome. She said all the information she presented would be posted on the CCSD website in the next couple of days. I encourage you to keep an eye on that site for the details.

Although there are still sticking points and differences of opinion, the District is showing a certain degree of change. Transparency and accountability aren’t likely to happen overnight or easily. Open government is frustrating and difficult – especially for staff. But transparency is crucial to having an effective democracy where community input is the norm, rather than the exception. The CCSD is a government entity, not a private business. It is still required to be responsible and accountable to those who benefit from its activities.

On the positive side, change is happening. At a snails pace – but we’re talking government here…snail is rather quick. This was the first time since this General Manager has been in charge that the budget process has been so open and available to everyday Cambrians. Although we are far from a true participatory budget process, more is available than ever before. Tammy indicated that the CIPs were not usually broken down as they are now. And the methods of allocating the overhead are now more in line with how each staff member or particular equipment is used. I applaud Ms. Rudock for working to make it easier to understand where the money comes from and what she plans to spend it on.

Another positive: The CCSD is addressing the lack of policy governing personal use of CCSD vehicles.  As mentioned a few months back on AboutCambria.com, the CCSD fleet seems to be used for more than just CCSD business, with some trucks going “home” to Templeton or Paso Robles each night and not having mileage logs on the trucks. According to the Board and Tammy, they are currently working on a policy. Director Funke-Bilu encouraged staff to take into account that Cambrians would rather on-call staff arrive to address an emergency a few minutes later than that they take their vehicle home with them.

In my humble opinion, it isn’t just the vehicle use policy that needs review, but the emergency response and on-call staff policies. Having the CCSD vehicle, equipped with everything that might be needed for a system repair, at their home to reduce response time is really only valid if the vehicle is in town. A 30-40 minute commute to the yard where the vehicle is stored would add, at most, 5 minutes to the response time. If the emergency repair is so urgent that 5 minutes tacked on to the commute makes a difference, perhaps that emergency should be addressed by staff who live in town. Jim Adams explained that this town has gotten used to the immediate response time of the utilities staff. And we do appreciate it. Certainly, if a fire hydrant is hemorrhaging or a sewer line has failed, no one would want to delay response by even five minutes. I can’t imagine that the 30 minute commute to town would be acceptable. In a serious emergency, the response should be to send someone who is in town to address the problem for the first 40 minutes – which gives the commuter time to drive into town, pick up their vehicle and relieve the local.

It’s not just response time that is at issue with the vehicles. Any staff member using a CCSD vehicle with CCSD gas (or diesel) to commute is essentially being compensated for living outside the community. As the price of gas (and diesel) creeps up, the cost to the district is even greater. Staff who live in Cambria aren’t seeing as much compensation, simply because they live in town. I think CCSD staff can live in whatever community they choose. But they must shoulder the cost of their commute, not Cambrians. Please note: I don’t think anyone would demand that life-saving emergency vehicles (ambulance or fire) be garaged here in town and “picked up” in emergency situations. One would hope these vehicles are closer by than over the hill when something happens. But if they aren’t, response time should not suffer a quick vehicle change on the way to a rescue.

I applaud the staff and board for recognizing and addressing the issue. It definitely won’t solve all the budget or management issues, but it is a step in the right direction.

Next time: More reactions from Cambrians on the Rates/Budget workshop.

Ok, Cambrians. Cell Phone coverage is spotty in much of town. A few Cambrians have put in their 2¢ on where the “new” cell tower should NOT be, namely, on the Fiscalini Ranch. Though at least three companies have “been in charge”, the current applicant is taking citizens’ concerns seriously and has reduced the scale of the project. The issue is on the agenda for the next North Coast Advisory Council meeting (May 21, 7pm, Rabobank). The NCAC acts as the eyes and ears. It’s mission is to make sure our supervisor, Mr. Gibson, has a good idea about what the community’s opinions and comments are for this part of District 2. In light of this, I wanted to provide for more community input. I appeal to you, as Cambrians, to set aside the emotional, gut reaction to the project. Take a step back, breath a little deeper and consider the pros and cons of the potential sites. No matter the location of the project, there are impacts – most of which well are mitigated or absent. The FCC will NOT allow a cell tower project to get derailed if the only reason given in opposition is possible negative health effects. Instead of continuing to say NO, try saying yes to one of these alternate sites.

I will bring the survey results to the NCAC meeting to be included in the response we send to the County.

Tell you friends! The more votes we get, the better.

[survey_fly]

I won’t be able to be at the Workshop on Tuesday. Here are some of my questions. I hope I get answers.
Questions for CCSD Board Regarding Budget and Rates
Thank you for the opportunity to ask the following questions. I will be looking for the answers on your FQAs.
Charlotte Darehshori

1. Lobbyists: Did you cancel the contract with the lobbyist, D. B. Neish? If so when? You said at an earlier board meeting that you would continue using lobbyist. Are any fees for lobbyist included in the current proposed budget?
2. Build out Reduction. RBF Consulting’s Study for Part III, was estimated at $106,420. What did parts I and II cost and how much of Part III’s $106,420 has been funded. Is any of the $106,410 included in the proposed budget?
3. The proposed budget shows $48,000 for BRP for FY 2008/2009. So is the land conservancy still purchasing lots for the build out reduction whose final cost is proposed to be $39,000,000? As this is the mitigation for the desal and the tests are budgeted on the CIP, aren’t you going forward with a water source which Mr. Sanders calls the 800 pound gorilla?
4. The 2007/2008 Project Priority List for State Revolving Fund Loan Program shows Project Number 4744-110 for Cambria Community Service District Project Description Biosolids & Nitrate Removal Project of estimated funding of $1,256,000 for 2009. Is this in addition to the amount shown on the WW capital improvement program and proposed note?
5. Proposed Note for Water and WW Do you have a commitment letter for the proposed note? What are the terms of the note? Did you pay any funds to any person or parties to obtain this loan? Why did you choose to go with a note rather than a bond? What is the payback period? The Capital Improvement Program states, “Prior year expenditures, $3,200,000.00. Isn’t it misleading to include project description of CIP projects which for the most part have already been completed? The Financing plan does not clearly set forth what reserves are required, nor what fees are to be paid out of the proceeds. Or is the note for more and you are netting out the gross proceeds.
6. Capital Expenditures Geotech Investigation for the Desal Have you updated the costs associated with the Desal project? In reviewing the Conditions of Approval, Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, covering the installation of the wells, geophysical exploration, temporary equipment access, ramps, Costs of the environmental monitor, Permitting, Signage, Cable laying Divers, Support Vessels, Survey vessels, marine mammal monitor and marine wildlife, a meter archaeological control unit and archaeological excavations and qualified archaeologist etc. etc. What is the age of the bids given of $720,000 and $600,000, and does it cover all the items as set forth on the document of Approval?
7. Chevron Settlement for Water Contamination: Isn’t it inappropriate to transfer funds from the enterprise funds to the governmental funds? The Chevron settlement was negotiated as follows: $1,520,710.00 for note charged to Water for SR4 well construction. Reimburse Water Dept for direct expense related to contamination 1,231,319.00. Weren’t all the funds put in the General Fund and when the note was paid back it was paid by the water fund and that is why there are no enterprise reserves?
8. Projects: SCADA – The budget calls for further expenditures of $253,000 for water and $168,000 for WW. Described as Repair and Rehab. As of your 2-27-08 Agenda, V.A.1, ““All of the SCADA equipment is now at CyberNet. CyberNet has completed all the installation and testing. We have not received shipment of our equipment and will be picking it up ourselves to save on shipping and made sure it arrives not damaged like so much of the sensitive equipment we receive these days.” How much money has been spent on this project? What was the original bid? Why is there a need for rehab and repair when it is supposedly still at CyberNet? Will it too, be antiquated by the time it is up and running?
9. The new Board agenda program. What was the cost? Is it up and running? If not when will it be operational?
10. Proposed funds for financial software? Are there any funds proposed to get the districts financial reporting needs under control and up and running? When will you be able to issue current financial statements (not budgets) but real and current statements which most entities can issue and do issue monthly?
11. Personnel Costs. Union Contract upcoming as of 6-30-08? Will this contract be pegged to the service union’s contract? What will be the budget impact? Will it have the 4% COLA, +longevity and +merit increases as the service contract? Will it continue to pay benefits into retirement for medical, dental, life for retired employees and families? What are the current costs for retired employees’ medical and retirement benefits?
12. New Reporting Requirement. What will be the budget impact of the new regulation requiring the setting forth of the liability for non-retirement related benefits, such as medical benefits? Isn’t this a new unfunded liability added to the district’s balance sheet, along with compensated balances and retirement?
13. New Interest Income: On the Water Fund YE/09 proposed and YE09/10 you show interest income on note of $79,500 and $91,500, respectively. Please describe the note and its terms and for what purpose did we make a loan and to whom?
14. Allocated Costs: Shouldn’t the governmental funds be charged a portion of the storage tanks since the larger tanks, as well as large capacity fire pumps are for firefighting? Why should water and WW be charged the full costs of these safety expenditures?

On November 12, 2007 AboutCambria.com posted it’s first and second articles: “Why did You Protest the Rate Hike?” and “Who Should Be on the Citizen’s Rates Committee?”. Now, six months later, the CCSD has invited the town to attend a rates/budget workshop so they can move forward and increase the water and wastewater rates. Along the way, the number of people visiting and contributing to the conversation continues to grow.

As the site’s administrator, I’d like to thank a few of the people whose input and support have made this site more useful and easy to use. For writing, loaning documents, suggesting navigation and visual changes, adding comments and information and spreading the word about the site to Cambrians all over town. And so, without further ado, and in no particular order, thanks go to: Leslie, Charlotte, Anne, Frank, John M., Jerry M., Muril, Lauren, Karla, Peter C, Janice, Elizabeth, Doug B., Steve F., Valerie, Deborah, Jim K., Raul, and Gordon.

In the very early days of the site, Ken and Rick did more to help develop the site’s privacy and participation guidelines than any experience or education I possessed. Although I didn’t think of it as helpful at the time, talking about the site with them (and Mickie and Greg) helped me understand the importance of passion and commitment, no matter what the endeavor. And nearly everyone else keeps me balanced by reminding me the critical role a good sense of humor plays in the larger scheme of things.

Since the Budget & Rates Workshop is tomorrow, here are most of the pages that are about rates that have been posted since Novermber 2007:

• CCSD 2006-2007 Operating Budget

• 2008 CCSD Objectives

• Rates, Rates everywhere, but ne’er a drop to drink

• Rate-Setting Resource from EPA

• See how rates COULD be expressed

• CFRC Rates Proposal Received by CCSD

• CCSD Budget and Rates Meeting Schedules

• Rates and Budget Workshop “Study Guide”

• Draft of Proposed Budget with Rate Increase Available Today

• Setting water rates isn’t easy – but it isn’t rocket science either.

Thanks go to each and every person who visits, reads and contributes to making AboutCambria.com and the “real world” Cambria a better place for everyone.

Keep your eyes on AboutCambria.com for more background and more news of what’s to come for our community.

There is more to life than this….The headline in the Cambrian reads: “Three elephant seals shot to death.” I am stunned by this brutal attack on these animals, but then to suggest this slaughter could be done as a form of entertainment is incomprehensible.

Northern elephant seals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Merely disturbing one is a federal offense; injuring or killing one can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. A violation of the law can result in civil penalties of up to $12,000 and criminal fines of up to $20,000 and imprisonment.

Three elephant seals were found shot to death Saturday at the Piedras Blancas rookery between the ocean and Highway 1 about 12 miles north of Cambria.

Wildlife officials are offering a reward of up to $5,000 for information leading to the arrest of the shooter or shooters.

The website of the Fair Political Practices Commission lists AB 1234 Ethics Training for Local Officials, a California Law that was passed in Oct. 2005. You can click that item in the left column of the home page and actually take the ethics training yourself.

It deals with issues of public trust, open meetings, accountability, fairness, and much more. Taking the test yourself is a good way to learn the most basic state requirements for responsible action by public officials. Keeping them in our “ready access files” (e.g., mind, heart, computer, conversations) helps democracy flourish.

So go to the site and have fun!

This post was submitted by Elizabeth Bettenhausen.

An article in the Los Angeles Times gets my blood angered up – while reminding me of the wisdom of patience and the importance of playing well with others. Water Districts all over California are about to see the fruits of law labors on their behalf to clean up MTBE contamination. Sound familiar? Sort of. Read on:

Chevron, BP and other major oil companies have agreed to pay $423 million to settle more than 500 lawsuits brought by water suppliers and users in California and 19 other states over groundwater contaminated with the gasoline additive MTBE.

In California, 11 plaintiffs would receive more than $78 million plus possible reimbursement for future treatment of nearly 1,100 wells, attorneys said.

The suits alleged that the oil companies were responsible for contamination in underground aquifers in the city of Riverside, portions of San Diego and Sacramento counties and elsewhere across the nation by adding methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, to gasoline as a way to reduce air pollution.

The proposed settlement was filed Wednesday with U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in New York, who will review it.

The six oil companies that didn’t agree to settle…..Read the rest of this article here at the LA Times website.

Almost everyone agrees that Cambria is a unique and beautiful place. Because of its remoteness and resource constraints, people understand that it costs more to live here than it would cost to have an identical lifestyle elsewhere. The trouble starts when we start asking “How much more?” Finding the sweet spot on fair and reasonable rates is a task for only the most determined of explorers. Heck, it could be tilting at windmills. So I took a bit of time to find out what other people pay for water and wastewater service. I also found a few sites and documents that focus on water rate design and water utility better management practices, and conservation and efficiency.

Knowledge is Power. What follows here should help Cambrians bring some power to the CCSD’s budget and rates workshop on May 13. It is not specific to Cambria. Instead it presents information we can use as comparison or contrast to the CCSD’s choices and actions. As the old saying goes, “If you’ve never HAD a good time, how would you know one when you saw it?” Cambria is unique, but that doesn’t mean everything we do is the first time anyone’s done it. We can learn from other communities processes and successes. No need to be in the dark….

The US EPA on Water Pricing:

The Environmental Protection Agency Cares about clean water. They also provide a good deal of support to water utilities – including workshops and publications on water and wastewater rates. From their FAQ page:

• Where do my rates go?

The EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water periodically collects information on the financial and operating characteristics of the water supply industry. Their 2000 Community Water System Survey shows how water systems are spending their money. Employee expenses comprise over 30% of total spending. Another 59% goes to routine operating expenses and 8% goes to debt service (used for replacement, repair, and capital improvements needed for water quality).

• If utilities set water and wastewater rates to provide an incentive to conserve, won’t low-income households have an unfair burden?

Low-income households, especially those served by high-cost systems, may face affordability problems if prices are raised. To alleviate these hardships, communities may offer pricing structures that mitigate impacts on low-income households. The most common example is “lifeline rates,” whereby low-income households are charged lower rates on that portion of water consumption considered non-discretionary (the minimum sanitary requirement, e.g., 6,000 gallons a month) but then higher charges are levied on water consumption beyond that amount. The most complete work to date offering five different pricing models to help low-income households with their water/sewer bills is the American Water Works Association Research Foundation’s (AwwaRF) report entitled Water Affordability Programs (1998)

The US EPA has quite a bit of information about water and wastewater. Visit their site for more.

Rate Setting Tool for Utilities

Powerful, easy-to-use rate-setting and financial planning software for water utilities. The program automatically generates rate schedules, and prepares a three-year budget and financial forecast. Developing user rates has never been easier! Rate Checkup™ will:

• Lead you through the input of your customer, facility, and budget data
• Lead you through the rate design process
• Develop a three-year budget forecast
• Develop a Base Charge and a Volume Rate for each customer group
• Provide design options, including:

• Multiple customer groups
• Optional Seasonal rate
• Optional Lifeline rate

This is a free program from Boise State University for checking and setting utility rates. The Environmental Finance Center at Boise State University also has a number of other tools available, including:

A Guidebook of Financial Tools – A reference work that provides an overview of a wide range of ways and means that are useful in paying for sustainable environmental systems. It is divided into ten sections, presenting outline information on approximately 340 financial tools.

CAPFinance™ – An integrated capital asset inventory and reinvestment analysis software program for drinking water systems.

Ratio8™ – A guidebook and spreadsheet program to help local decision-makers evaluate their water utility’s financial condition.

Rate Checkup™- Powerful, easy-to-use rate-setting and financial planning software for water utilities.

Utility Budgeting Workbook - Worksheets that assist operators, managers and board members in determining whether key criteria of financial viability are being met by a utility system and help determine if that system will have the financial capabilities necessary for the sustained provision of services for its customers.

System Development Charge Calculator

This calculator predicts the unit cost of adding new development to an existing water system. Built in Microsoft Excel, the SDC calculator can generate system development charges on an equivalent residential unit (ERU) basis or based on service meter size. Water system officials have the option of using the Growth Method or Equity Buy-In Method (or both) to determine how much new development should pay to connect to the existing water system.

But wait! There’s More…

The AboutCambria.com library also has so Rates Gems – Select the Rates and Fiscal Responsibility category from the drop down at the top of the page to download the CPUC’s Rate Worksheets for Ratesetting, The Guide to Asset Management, the Black and Veatch Long Term Financial Plan Report, the CFRC’s rate proposals, CCSD budget and expenditure reports, the rates letter sent in September 2007 and others.