From an Interesting article in June 7, 2008 New York Times:

Water-Starved California Slows Development

“PERRIS, Calif. — As California faces one of its worst droughts in two decades, building projects are being curtailed for the first time under state law by the inability of developers to find long-term water supplies.

Water authorities …, have begun denying, delaying or challenging authorization for dozens of housing tracts and other developments under a state law that requires a 20-year water supply as a condition for building”

-JENNIFER STEINHAUER

It seems this law was passed in 2001, but hasn’t really been enforced until now. Our own board, with Mr. Sanders’ knowledge from his law firm which specializes in getting projects through the “raft of legal, environmental and political obstacles that stand in the way of development… and has a national reputation for the successful defense of large infrastructure and development projects.” (According to the Santa Lucian article of October 2005), seems determined to get that 20 year water supply so building can continue here in Cambria.

In the June 5, 2008 Cambrian, Mr. Sanders with his brutal and personal assault on Ms Cynthia Hawley, a former CCSD board Director, has come out swinging with innuendo, half truths and character assassination which demonstrate in action the tactics he will use to “get projects through the raft of legal, environmental and political obstacles that stand in the way of development.” This article would have you believe that Ms. Hawley and her “cohorts” have mismanaged and obstructed “every project proposed by the district,…including a desalination plant.” There is no mention of the larger environment and the state wide curtailments because of a whole host of issues preventing building further housing here in Cambria.

Mr. Sanders, may I suggest you read the article from the New York Times as well as an article quoted earlier from the Los Angeles Times which all differ from your conclusion that Ms Cynthia Hawley almost single handedly is responsible for the failure “of correcting decades of accumulated problems”, in Cambria, CA.

Charlotte Darehshori

Last 5 posts by charlotte

This post was submitted by charlotte.

Link to Webcast of May 22 Budget Hearing

The union contract for the safety workers now being negotiated by the CCSD. And starting this year, public agencies must disclose on their balance sheet the amount of debt owed to employees for all those post retirement benefits.

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)

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?

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.

Hello CFFR,

A meeting is scheduled for Wed. May 7, at Rabobank, 1070 Main St., 6-8 pm

AGENDA

1. Treasurer’s Report

2. CFFR Oversight Committee reports from Cynthia Hawley and Gary Talley with discussion to follow

3. CCSD Budget/Rate Proposal–initial discussion

I have offered to moderate this meeting–you can reach me at above e-mail address or 924-1404

Let’s have a good turn out! See you there!

Tina Dickason