From the IMOC (Inquisitive Old Man’s Club) charter member Jerry McKinnon:
Browsing Posts published by A Contributor
April 20, 2009
Proposition 218 is geared to making sure that the fee increases calculate out to being no more than is required to provide water or sewer service to each parcel, and calculate out to show that the amount charged per parcel is no more than the proportional cost of the service attributed to that parcel. The CCSD is required to calculate the amount of the fee for each parcel based on these rules. No calculation has been provided so there is no way of knowing whether these rules have been adhered to.
What is the exact number of parcels so that we can divide up the costs per parcel accurately? Calculating the proportional cost of water service to a residential parcel with a ¾ inch pipe has got to be less than the proportional cost of service to big commercial users with larger pipes. None of this data has been disclosed. The CCSD has not provided data or calculations to show that the rates are “proportional [to the] cost of the service attributable to the parcel.”
Proposition 218 also requires that we hear the reasons for the rate increase. A reason to increase rates is not a list of projects and their costs, or to pay for future water projects not described in materials. All projects, including future water projects should be detailed for public review and approval, clearly stating the methodology that is being used to pay for those projects, including rate increases if necessary.
At a meeting held April 10 at the Moonstone Beach Bar & Grill, director Clift stated that the actual additional monies needed were 9.5% – 10% increase in the water fund, and a 14% increase in sewer. If this is true then why did the CCSD round the numbers up and set arbitrary flat, across-the-board 15% percent increases for both water and sewer? Government agencies are prohibited from making arbitrary and capricious decisions. Clift’s position was that the ‘extra’ would be used to build reserves or fund needed improvements and maintenance. I believe we already have ‘extra’ in the water and wastewater budgets and the ‘extra’ include the expenses for desalination costs, lobbying for desalination, and allocated overhead for employees all working on desalination. Cut the expenses for unapproved projects and suddenly you have a lot more money in the water and wastewater funds.
An argument is being made that because prior boards have somehow concluded that desal is the best solution for Cambria’s water storage problem and we have spent so much money on it we should just continue to do so. In answer to that I would argue that some of those directors didn’t do their homework and read the very reports they are relying on. There are many conclusions and scenarios that can be drawn from the Water Master Plan EIR – desalination is one possibility out of about five possibilities. And desal is the only solution that produces more water than Cambria needs, fueling exploding, out of control growth that can only be controlled by growth ordinances enacted and enforced by San Luis Obispo county. The CCSD does not have the authority to control growth in Cambria, even though they continually argue that they will enforce a build-out reduction plan. They do not have that authority therefore a chain of events is being put into place to force the community into a plan that raises rates, adds unlimited water, increases growth, raises costs because of growth…then what? The cycle starts over again. Not all growth is good – remember, cancer is a growth.
Are we supposed to just agree to lavish more and more money on a plan that is not a “project” that has never been defined as a project and has never come under full environmental review, break the bank of the water and wastewater departments while declaring ‘emergency’ and ‘fire’, ignore the CA coastal act, disenfranchise voters who disagree with the plan, raise monthly water and wastewater rates to pay for out of control salaries and benefits for the plan? Paid consultants and lobbyists, come with a point of view and a financial incentive to strategize how to implement projects which are totally in-congruent with the communities’ wishes and vision of Cambria. If the CCSD is confident in its conclusions regarding desalination, above and beyond every other method listed in the Water Master Plan EIR for water supply, then the desalination project should come before the voters and let us vote on it.
All desal lobbying fees (currently $80,000 per year), legal fees defending against desal lawsuits, engineering salary for the engineer working on desalination, and allocated overhead for staff working on desalination, should be surgically removed from our water and wastewater budgets and moved to the General Fund budgets. Desalination should be accounted for separately so that all Cambrians can easily be made aware of the past, present and future costs associated with desalination, declare it a Capital Improvement Project with all the detail that requires, and only proceed with this plan thru a vote.
As a rate payer, property owner, tax payer and very concerned Cambria citizen, I am asking you to answer my questions to alleviate my concerns and bring about clarity to the nebulous process by which the officials of the CCSD have proceeded AND at the same time I am asking you to do your duty and provide any other pertaining information you have in your possession which have not been distributed to me and the general public.
1. Why did the CCSD not publicly identify the parcel numbers subject to water and sewer rate increases as required by Proposition 218?
2. Why has the CCSD not disclosed the total number of protests received?
3. Why has the CCSD not disclosed the number of protests disqualified? How many protests have not been accepted?
4. Why has the CCSD not disclosed the reasons for rejecting protests? It is my understanding that copies of the rejected protests were to be disclosed by Friday, August 15 but as of today have not.
5. Why has the CCSD never defined the process for counting the protests?
6. Why has the CCSD attempted to verify signatures without an adequate signature database? The Cambrian reported that 50 protests were disqualified due to signature invalidation, but no numbers have been confirmed by the CCSD.
7. Why do the citizens of Cambria have to rely on information from a newspaper, rather than our Community Administration for accurate numbers of invalidated signatures?
8. Why am I and the Citizens of Cambria are “kept in the dark” about the process for such a long time?
Comment:
Election results are known almost instantaneously and this is not an election, not even a vote, it is a protest and despite repeated, numerous inquiries I still am in the dark as to what the applied criteria was for validating and/or invalidating the protest letters.
Sincerely,
Jutta Jacobs
Re-invigorating the Cambria American Legion
Karina Tiwana, the newly installed commander of the American Legion Post 432 is kicking off a new marketing effort to focus attention on the great work being done by members of the group and to solicit even greater support and participation by the community. While the events put on in Cambria are most often successful, most of the work is done by a small group of dedicated members who put in a significant number of hours each week.
Cambria has over four hundred and thirty five dues paying American Legion members who support the group’s activities. Post 432 has been serving the community for seventy five years. It is hoped that with greater visibility through the local newspaper, TV and radio coverage, we can stimulate greater participation by members and the general public at large.
There is much good work being done in support of our military men and women both active and retired, but the need is great. Much more can be done with the generous support of the American Legion members and the local community.
Please think about how you could contribute to supporting the men and women who defend our country and the freedom we all enjoy.
Regards,
Richard Brownhill
This post was submitted by Richard Brownhill.
