Archive for the ‘Fiscal Responsibility’ Category
Appeal from AboutCambria.com for Your Support
I originally started AboutCambria.com as a place for Cambrians to share information about the issues surrounding the rate increase that was rejected last fall. As I continued to learn about the District, it became clear that an additional source of information - one that could augment what could be found on the CCSD’s website and what is printed in the Cambrian. Although it isn’t yet everything I hope it can become, it has come a long way.
We recently had to change to a new web host because there have been so many visitors we brought down the server on the old host (more than once). Since the move we’ve averaged about 250 visitors per day. There are now 62 people subscribed to the feedblitz newsletter that sends out an email when new articles are posted. (See right column to sign up.)
I want to keep this resource growing and thriving and have come up against the limits of what I can do by myself financially. A few readers have already donated generously to AboutCambria.com and to them I say thank you. They have helped keep the hosting and some of the software tools paid for. With the new host and the amount of time involved, I need to get some more financial support to keep this project alive and continue to pay my mortgage, so I can remain a Cambrian.
You can donate to the cause (not tax-deductible, but definitely a few points toward good karma) using paypal by clicking the little gold guy at the end of almost every article. Any amount will help cover the costs. I’d like to stop digging a deeper hole, so every dollar counts. If you prefer to avoid paypal, I will be at the CCSD meeting this Thursday or you are welcome to send check by mail (2220 Ardath) or call me (4191) to arrange a transfer from your offshore account. Any and all donors will receive my deepest gratitude and a thank you (with a link to a site of your choice) on a new Supporters page - though if you prefer to remain anonymous, that will be respected.
Thanks to everyone who writes for AboutCambria.com and everyone who reads it. I hope it will continue to improve and be a resource for our community in the years to come.
I believe that the best way to have a good community is to make sure there is information and conversation easily available accompanied by citizens paying attention to what their representatives are doing in the name of the community. We don’t have to all agree, but we do have to communicate.
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.Tags: 93428, aboutcambria, appeal, donation
Candidacy for CCSD Director - Rich Davega
I supervised a staff of 75 to 100 IRS employees, including 7 managers, responsible for auditing tax returns and collecting delinquent taxes. I balanced the IRS’ goals with the public’s rights, ensuring that the interests of all were protected. I used interest-based negotiations and mediation on a daily basis to resolve internal and external conflicts. I was also an IRS community outreach official, working regularly with professional organizations, such as the California Bar and the California Society of CPAs. For two years I was IRS’ National Hiring Coordinator, responsible for the hiring of thousands of professional employees per year.
I am committed to ensuring that CCSD operates in a transparent, fiscally responsible manner through controlling expenses, eliminating waste, and spending ratepayers’ dollars on essential services that serve the community. I will be accessible to the community and responsive to inquiries by citizens. As CCSD Director, I will serve Cambrians in a manner that instills in the citizens confidence in my ability to properly represent them by ensuring that I am attentive to the community’s needs.
Tags: Cambria, candidate, CCSD, election
Cutting Expenses at the CCSD
CFRCCSD and CFR both supported the goal of getting the CCSD to trim expenses. Here’s just one example of how easy it would be to do:
I just submitted a letter to CCSD Director Muril Clift bringing to his attention significant immediate savings that can be realized in postage expenses. The CCSD mails ratepayer correspondence, such as the bi-monthly bills, at full first class rates (42 cents) from the Paso Robles PO. In addition, the mailings are contracted out to Accurate Mailing Service of Paso Robles. I’ve researched the issue with the Cambria PO and discovered that the CCSD qualifies for a reduced mailing rate of 29.3 cents per letter, or a savings of approx. $500 per bi-monthly billing cycle ($3000 per year). The costs involved in getting this rate are an initial $180 permit fee and an annual $180 permit renewal fee. Well worth the cost! Shouldn’t the CCSD staff, which has grown significantly during recent years, be able to mail the bills? If the workload crunch every two months is too much, why not split the mailing so that 1/2 of the ratepayers get a bi-monthly bill each month? Additional postage savings can be realized on all other CCSD mailings, such as the annual fire clearance notices and the CCSD newsletter.
Muril has agreed to look into the matter and get back to me. If he follows through, as I believe he will, I’ll let you all know the outcome. Hopefully asking the questions regarding cost containment will yield results. I must, however, ask the following question. Isn’t this the job of the CCSD Manager?
Tags: CCSD, expenses, Fiscal Responsibility
Collaborative Public Involvement - No Boogie Man
Whether or not the current protest is successful, the CCSD must read the writing on the wall: A significant number in this community take do not approve of how CCSD has been doing business. Over and over through the last nine months, Cambrians have suggested a working group to participate in developing the budget and rates or a watchdog council to keep an eye on the CCSD and keep Cambrians informed. The Board has chosen to maintain their distance.
Announcing the First Protest Count
There were a few dozen minutes during the November 2, 2007 meeting where it looked like the Board was going to involve more Cambrians in the rates process. Director Cobin and Director Chaldecott had been discussing a citizen’s committee, as suggested by constituents, should be put together. Director Cobin said,
“We’ve heard very clearly that members of the community would like a chance to review the workings of the CSD. So we’re suggesting that those of you who are interested in forming some kind of a group and being part of that to come forth and let us know and we’ll arrange for that to happen.” (Applause)
Director Sanders made it clear he thought taking a step back would be the best way forward.
It’s too early to figure out what the process should be and that when they come back in December they could thoroughly discuss how they go forward.
Director Cobin stuck to her idea of getting the group together right away and the volley of argument was on. A few back and forth volleys, and then Director Cobin said,
“with the purpose of of keeping this Board as undivided as possible, I withdraw my suggestion.”
Does Director Cobin value the unity of the Board over what the community has asked for? Surely not.
Director Chaldecott made his pitch for the idea, saying “I’m concerned. After the December meeting we’re into the holidays and the New Year… that’s almost a three month period where nothing happens and I’m not sure if that’s productive.”
Director Sanders responded, “My sense is it will take a minimum of 6 months before we’re ready to talk about the rate increase again. Let’s take our time.” He then made a motion that the ad-hoc committee of Directors Cobin and Chaldecott come back to the board at the December meeting after having talked to the community and come up with a mission. That motion was never seconded and was withdrawn.
President Funke-Bilu then put in his five cents.
“I’ve witnessed an incredible process in my communty which I admire and respect and I want to stand back and give the folks the opportunity to do what they told us they think they can do. They’re organized, they seem united, I see successful business people, I see citizens I see residents, I see retired people with expertise. I don’t think we have to absorb them into the process…I think they have educated themselves. I think they want more time. Let them come to us with the recommendations that they feel they are in a position now to demonstrate. (Applause) “My suggestion is, instead of kind of adopting these folks I would welcome any and all suggestions as to the following, because this is what I attempted to do. I would love input from my community as to what kind of rates are necessary to ‘pay the operating expenses of the agency’ I want numbers from the protesters. I’m a 60’s kid, and I love protesters. I think it’s great. But this is what I would like: how to pay the operating expences of the agency, how to provide for repair and depreciateion of works, provide reasonable surplus for improvements, extensions and enlargements, pay the interest on the bonded debt and provide a sinking or other fund to provide for the paying of the principle of such debt that may become due.”
CCSD Math: 4 in favor, one opposed = no action.
Although four of the five members of the board seemed in favor of getting starting right away, in the end Director Sanders stymied any efforts to initiate a genuinely collaborative effort. He said the board should wait in order to “Find a way to get at the true financial condition of the district so at least everybody understands what the rules of the game are before we launch into this collaborative, cooperative arrangement with the community.”
Director Sanders then made an interesting statement…once it was clear there would be no immediate citizen’s committee formation. He said,
“The question is what is the true burden of the water and wastewater enterprises and how much overhead should be allocated to those two funds. My view at this particular point in time is that we’re overburdening the funds and that has a direct bearing on what the rates are going to be. And it’s quite possible that if we allocate costs to the general fund…we’re going to have to make some very tough decisions about what the general fund is going to carry and what its not. And a part of this process has to be the expense side of the equation…I think the community deserves the opportunity to be thoroughly engaged in the budget process that has us going through priorities and taking a hard look at our expenses in terms of what our priorities are. We haven’t done that in terms of the rate issues and I think we need to do that.”
Director Cobin, realizing she had the support of at least 3 of the directors and thinking Director Sanders now also agreed, tried one last time to get the motion passed. Director Sanders immediately launched into an explanation of how very technical and complex the issues are and that we must agree on the “rules of the game” should be.
I find this very interesting. Here’s what I take away after watching this meeting again: Director Sanders eliminated the possibility of a citizen’s committee getting started before the beginning of 2008, but made sure to position himself as a champion of community collaboration, leaving the words “deserve to be thoroughly engaged in the process” ringing in our ears.
It Takes Two to Tango
There was no substantive discussion of the citizen’s committee at the November regular meeting and the December meeting was cancelled. Meanwhile, the CFRC continued to meet at least 2 hours every week for two and a half more months with the idea that we should be bringing our suggestions about forming a group that would be recognized by the CCSD and be offering President Funke-Bilu the answers to his questions. We were under the impression we were going to be collaborative partners with CCSD.
We planned, debated, voted, prepared and requested a place on the January agenda. At the start of the January meeting, Director Cobin was installed as the board President and the mandate we’d been given seemed to be forgotten. We introduced ourselves and explained how we were organized and what we were working on and how we thought we might collaborate with the CCSD. No action was taken on the part of the Board. So we requested a spot on the agenda of the next meeting (March 6) and were prepared with a resolution for the Board to adopt.
Resolution Regarding CCSD Water and Wastewater Rates Increase.
Whereas,
the Cambrians for Fiscally Responsible CCSD agree that the current shortfalls in
operating costs need to be funded; and
Whereas,
the Cambrians for Fiscally Responsible CCSD agrees there are certain Capital
Improvements Projects needed to ensure health, public safety, and compliance with
state and federal regulations and the appropriate funding mechanism is through
bonds; and
Whereas,
the Cambrians for Fiscally Responsible CCSD believe the community will accept
increased rates to fund the operating shortfall and bond issuance if the CCSD agrees to
a reduction of 10% in the expenditures of the water and wastewater enterprise funds,
as is being proposed at both the state and county levels; and
Whereas,
the Cambrians for Fiscally Responsible CCSD have developed an interim rate proposal
to address these issues based on community input and the facts and figures as
provided by the CCSD;
Therefore,
Be it resolved that this board shall direct CCSD staff to work with CFRC in reviewing
our proposal and yours to come up with rates acceptable to the community to be
presented at an upcoming CCSD meeting.
They accepted our report and listened politely, but declined to take action. The following meeting we were notified that we wouldn’t have a place on the agenda.
Perhaps the Board will try again to support a collaborative process. I doubt the community is willing to change its mind about wanting to be more involved in the process. In fact, many who have been involved since the first protest believe in follow through: You shouldn’t oppose one way of going forward without offering an alternative. The Board’s actions seemed to say they weren’t interested in our alternative, but I can’t be sure, since we’ve not gotten feedback so have to rely on assumptions.
What is the difference between collaborative public involvement and traditional public participation?
All agencies must obey laws that prescribe certain public participation procedures. These requirements give the public the opportunity to get their comments into a written record of decision-making. However, members of the public are often not satisfied with that more formal aspect of public participation. They are not sure what the agency does with their input. They often wonder if agencies are “going through the motions” and not actually considering any ideas that differ from what they already had planned to do.
Some traditional public comment methods—like hearings—are not designed to allow for discussion or explore new ideas. Their purpose is to build a record, and they do that well. The communication they provide is generally one-way, formal, and static (agency to public, then public back to agency) rather than networked, informal, and dynamic (which can lead to creative joint problem-solving). On challenging issues, limiting communication with the public to these formal techniques can deepen misunderstanding and polarize opinion. The public often believes they are most effective when they apply advocacy tactics, such as packing public meetings with members of one interest group, or organizing mass letter writing campaigns. While these tactics may get attention, they do not translate into better decision-making.
A collaborative approach can help to avoid these problems by encouraging strong, creative, high-quality, and responsive lines of communication between agencies and the public.
What are the potential benefits of a collaborative approach to public involvement?
- Improved decision-making resulting from better knowledge of the whole system to be affected by agency actions;
- Better, more durable outcomes that enjoy more support from community members, leading to easier implementation;
- More efficient and effective use of limited public resources due to better match of agency efforts with public priorities;
- Improved relationships between agencies and members of the public;
- Early warning of potentially costly agency missteps or errors; and
- Ending or averting gridlock or litigation on controversial issues.
Often skepticism or antagonism stems from a fear that an agency will seek only to manipulate community opinions, concerns and judgment into a form of support for predetermined plans and policies. At the same time, public agencies often fear that an involvement process will be subverted by the limited agendas of narrow interest groups and will not reflect the diverse opinions of the general public the agency serves.To deal with past misunderstanding, agencies can build trust through responsiveness to community concern about how and under what conditions information is exchanged. This involvement must be done with sensitivity to the time and resource constraints of both the agency and members of the public.
“The irony of democratic participation over the past 40 years is that while both the public (government) and private (professional/specialists) capacity to assist with and attempt to solve the ills of urban and rural communities has risen, the capacity of the actual community to help itself has declined. Local democratic participation has decreased. Individuals no longer see themselves as part of a community of shared values and norms. Individuals have lost “…the conviction that they can influence the events and circumstances of their lives or the world around them” (Gardner, 1995). Sources of this ironic twist of fate are numerous and complex. Some researchers point to the rising complexity of problems facing urban and rural communities, the increase in specialized knowledge necessary to deal with complex problems, and the inability of redistributive policies to deal with inequality (Sirianni & Friedland, 1995). As Keith, citing Boyte, points out, “…the core norms of the broader American culture conspire to make us into a nation of clients seeking benefits. No longer are we a nation of citizens who see ourselves as doing politics” (Keith, 1996).” Strengthening Community Networks:The Basis for Sustainable Community Renewal Prepared by Brett Lane and Diane Dorfman June 30, 1997
Where can I find additional resources on community collaboration and civic participation ?
- Choose “Public Participation” from the category drop-down in the AboutCambria.com Library.
- Community Consensus Building Practical information for building collaboration and partnerships, locating assets and resources, identifying and engaging stakeholders, developing and completing goals and objectives and achieving success.
- CCP Publications — Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century
Innes, Judith and Booher, David. Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 5, No. 4, 419–436, December 2004
http://www.csus.edu/ccp/publications.stm - CCP’s Core Services — Collaborative Public Involvement
http://www.csus.edu/ccp/about/core_services.stm - International Association for Public Participation
http://www.iap2.org/ - US Environmental Protection Agency’s gateway website of manuals and tools for public involvement
http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/involvework.htm
More resources to come. It seems like our community and its government have a lot to learn about collaboration and cooperation.
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.Tags: 93428, Cambria, civic engagement, collaboration, democracy, public participation
A Cambrian Asked Me “Should I Protest the Rates?” - I Answered
Recently, I found this in my AboutCambria.com email inbox:
I need some input if you can re: the proposed rate increases. I’m a bit unsure of how I should vote. I’ve been told that the Cambrians for a Fiscally Responsible CCSD is a radical group that is misrepresenting the information that’s in the ads. I know we need a rate increase & I think I’m fine with the rate increase as long as there are no penalties added to that. I’m unsure about the $8 million loan though. I know the original group has split & I really don’t want to be part of any radical group. How are most of the people from the original group voting? Thanks for the help.
My answer was this:
The long and the short of it is this: I believe that everyone should strive to be informed and empowered by that information make their own decision. For me, it’s not just dollars and cents. It’s politics and sense. This new proposal is more difficult to understand and the issues more subtle. What everyone should remember is that Cambrians do not exist to fund the CCSD, the CCSD exists to serve Cambrians. The new budget and rates show the Board and staff have little or no respect for the Community. And I protest. There is a better way.
“It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.” Charles A Beard
The CFRC is not a radical group - and has not been misrepresenting anything, since we haven’t taken any action, really, since the letter on the rate increase went out. Some members of the CFRC started a second group to work on the protest - after the CFRC voted to NOT protest as a group. In a move that is still causing confusion, the new group decided to call themselves the Cambrians for Fiscal Responsibility (CFR). Many of the more vocal members of CFRC have been active in CFR. That group could easily be considered more “radical” by the powers that be, since they are threatening the status quo. These days, anyone who isn’t complaisant or complicit is labeled “radical”. In a real democracy, whether direct or representative, the “radicals” are as necessary as the “conservatives”.
As for how most of the people in the original group will vote, I can only speak for myself. My letter is a protest letter. I have gotten the impression that most, perhaps all of the people in both groups have written to protest. I also have heard through the grapevine that most of the businesses AREN’T protesting because the new rates actually continue to pass some of the costs of providing to commercial accounts onto the residents. All of that is, of course, just hearsay and gossip and may be wrong.
When you refer to “added penalties”, do you mean surcharges? If so, with surcharges you’re darned if you do and darned if you don’t. Surcharges are very likely this year, since we have had almost no rain. The surcharges are on top of the increase and, until the water problem is solved, we will probably have them whenever we have a dry year.
In making my own decision about whether to protest the rates, I considered several things:
1. Has the CCSD proved their case for an increase to my satisfaction?
Director Funke-Bilu said at the last CCSD meeting that he wanted to see the documentation and to hear the reason the fire benefit assessment should be increased again this year. To just say a cost of living increase was needed was insufficient for him. Director Clift agreed, reading from the recently approved budget that the Fire Department expected a surplus, so no increase seemed needed. Like the two directors, I am looking for the documentation and explanation for the rates to increase. The most clear answer I got was that the district was running in the red and hadn’t wanted to burden us with an increase for nearly 15 years. Ok. So you have to raise the rates because of poor management and an inattentive Board. The district also says it’s deferred maintenance on the system (while spending $50,000/month on lobbyists for a couple years and pouring funds into desal and consulting firms with nothing to show for it yet). So they need more money. The budget that the General Manager presented was about as clear as mud. I don’t think they’ve shown they need the extra $350,000 this fiscal year and $950,000 in fiscal year 09/10 to my satisfaction. And that’s a shame, especially if they really need that much more money to run the water and sewer system.
2. What happens to CCSD services if the rates are again refused?
The CCSD’s money flow will not dwindle to nothing…they will continue to collect money for the bills they send out. The difference between what they currently charge and the new rates is about $34,000 per month. It took the district staff six months to re-work and re-present the rates. The CFRC had presented a revision in February and one with greater detail in March. Both were dismissed - even though the CCSD really needs an increase and they didn’t have theirs ready. $34,000 a month is some good incentive to get a new proposal together fast - and to collaborate with the people in the community who want to work with them to get an increase that will work.
If the rates are again refused, no one will lose their job. The water will continue to flow. Maintenance will continue. And money will continue to be transferred out of the General Fund account (which is mostly Chevron money) to cover the costs of running the water and wastewater.
The capital projects may have to be delayed, but the staff could still work on doing everything to get ready for the moment they can get a loan to fund them (or pay for them the same way they did Pine Knolls tanks and the BioSolids Dewatering - from the Chevron money and Water and wastewater reserve funds.
Not exactly a catastrophe of fire and brimstone predicted by Director Sanders and Ms. Rudock, is it?
3. What difference will it make if I protest these rates? What message do I have other than “I don’t want to pay more” or “I can’t afford to pay more”?
The last Prop 218 process brought together a group of people who were very interested in finding out whether or not an increase was really needed. They came to the conclusion that, yes, and increase was appropriate. They also found places where the budget seemed bloated and policies that were unnecessarily costly and not in the best interest of Cambrians. As a member of the group, I have always felt strongly that the best approach after the first rates protest was a collaborative one. Dozens of people volunteered hundreds of hours to educating ourselves and others and working toward a vote or consensus about the best way forward. We offered our help to the Board, met with staff, met with each other, with an attitude of cooperation and hope. The Board insulted, attacked, derided and dismissed us. Whether they heard us is hard to say.President Cobin told our group many times that she was elected by a majority of the town and she represents the will of the majority. Director Sanders used each and every opportunity to pepper us with questions meant to imply we don’t represent the majority of Cambrians. They haven’t changed their M.O. yet, but I still have hope that is Board can change it’s policies, if enough Cambrians really want them to. So I am protesting this time to give my official notice to the Board that this is their last chance before November to be responsive to Cambrians. A successful protest would say loudly and clearly that the CCSD Board must start doing things differently or they will find themselves voted out in November. If they don’t hear this message because they are too busy being defensive or issuing personal attacks, all the more reason they need to be ousted in November.
I actually see a protest vote as a gift to the Board - if they want to stay on the Board, they had better start listening to the community. If our CCSD is to change, either this Board must change or we need a new Board.
A bit more information:
At Monday’s hearing, after the CFR presents all the protest votes they have received (I hear they are about to go over the top) the Rates Committee of CFRC will be presenting their proposed rates (again) and offer to serve on a working group to put together a proposal that will be supported by everyone in town.
About the loan:
In the current economy, getting a loan is probably not a horrible idea. The interest rates aren’t likely to be lower for a long time and the rate of return is still fairly reasonable. This town is in need of many repairs and improvements, so the money will definitely be used. The District claims that getting money with a lease certificate is less expensive (lower fees, etc.) than a bond. My main problems with the loan are these:
- Where is the cost analysis to prove their choice of financing tool actually IS less expensive?
- There are quite a number of restrictions on CSDs methods of financing and debt they can incur. The kind of financing they are pursuing is a loophole in the laws. The District is prohibited from borrowing more than 20% of its annual revenue (with bonds) and virtually every other way to put the district in a position of owing money requires a vote of the people. The financing method they intend to use IS currently legal, but in my opinion, it violates the spirit of the California Constitution and the Government Code that gives them their authority and I object to their use of it, even if it saves us $100,000 or more. Cambrians have the right to vote on whether our local government is going to be burdened with more loan payments - since we are the ones who will ultimately pay for it.
Thought for today: “Every time an American decides that it is too dangerous to exercise a freedom, that freedom is diminished. Thus the first rule of staying free is to act free. The second rule for staying free is know your rights.” - Sam Smith
Tags: 93428, Cambria, CCSD, cfrc, water rates
CCSD Vehicle/Transportation Allowance Policy Change
As one of the first people to publicly expose the CCSD’s policy of allowing certain employees to take vehicles home, I’m glad to see that the policy has changed. What I didn’t know at the time, but was disclosed in the Cambrian, is that other employees, in addition to the General Manager, had vehicle allowances. Apparently that policy has been curtailed. Hopefully it is clear to everyone that the CCSD’s change of the Vehicle/Transportation Allowance policy had nothing to do with budget issues. It came about because of the public outrage once the then currect policies surfaced. The absurdity of having vehicles go home with “emergency response” personnel that would be responding to Cambria emergencies from 30+ miles away failed the public’s sanity check. The new policy will undoubtedly save the ratepayers a substantial amount, as well as curb the liability nightmare created by personal use of those vehicles by employees and at times with family members as passengers.
I, and hopefully others, will continue to delve into the CCSD’s operation to identify abuses and cost savings opportunities. I am mindful of the need to continue, and improve the utility services, and the way to do that is to ensure that as much of the CCSD’s revenue as possible is dedicated to delivering services to the community. That is not currently the case. Revenue needs to be diverted from excessive overhead and personnel costs and re-directed to facilities improvement and equipment for the field workers to ensure that those that actually deliver services to us have what they need to do the job.
Clive Offers His Two Cents
It is clear that the CCSD is out of touch with our community. The board members have lost the confidence of we Cambrians due to this rash decision to raise our water rates.
Since the board members are for the most part independently wealthy due to their law practices or living on generous public sector retirement programs or have become wealthy due to inheritance, they have distances themselves from many who are living on social security payments or who are barely getting by their investments.
They want to raise the rates to cover the costs of various needs they claim the community needs. But do these projects need to be done immediately or can they wait and be phased in over a number of years? By phasing them in over a longer period of time rate payers wouldn’t be burdened by these proposed cost increases all at once.
These proposed rate increases are coming at a time when our nation is facing the worst economic crisis since the great depression when there was little or no employment, the stock market had crashed, and like today, hundreds of thousands of Americans were losing their homes.
Finally our local newspaper, The Cambrian, has endorsed these rate increases after years of not endorsing candidates for public office. I do not see the distinction between not endorsing candidates and yet endorsing these rate increases.
Tags: CCSD 93428, Water Rates
A Few Facts about Reserve Funds
The group of Cambrians organized to protest the new rates for water and wastewater have been spreading word around town that the CCSD intends to take out a loan for at least $8.1 million, an amount confirmed in the CCSD’s budget. About $5 million will be put into reserves for Capital Improvements and Capital Outlay.
What’s the big deal with having a couple extra million in the CCSD’s reserve funds? We’re probably going to need it to do other projects that need to be done, so why not borrow more than we need at the moment? Interest rates are likely to go up, so let’s get while the getting is good.
Here’s the deal:
Here’s a look (from the Municipal Services Review) of the CCSD’s reserve fund over the last several years:
Here’s what the Little Hoover Commission (a California oversight commission) had to say in 2000:
The Little Hoover Commission, the common name for the Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, is an independent state oversight agency that was created in 1962. It investigates state government and local operations and to promote efficiency, economy and improved service. By statute, the Commission is a balanced bipartisan board composed of five citizen members appointed by the Governor, four citizen members.
Special districts’ financial reserves have become controversial. In 2000, a report by the Little Hoover Commission revealed that special districts reported more than $19.4 billion in reserves to the State Controller in 1996-97. Enterprise special districts, which charge fees, hold most of the reserves.
This large dollar figure raised a red flag for policymakers and the public. Why were the districts setting aside so much money? And how were they planning to spend it?
In response, special district leaders argued that there are legitimate reasons for these reserves. Nearly all of the money in reserves was allocated into specific funds for given purposes. Large reserves are needed to accumulate the capital to pay for large public works projects. Reserves also provide a safety cushion in lean years, stabilizing consumers’ rates.
It became clear to taxpayers and legislators that special districts should improve the way they report their fiscal activities. Specifically, they need to explain the purpose of the reserves. Out of this controversy came a new law that now requires the largest special districts to report their reserves and fiscal information more descriptively to the State Controller’s Office, which will post the information on its web site.
Here’s what the California State Auditor has to say:
In 2003, the California State Auditor published a report entitled: “California’s Independent Water Districts:
Reserve Amounts Are Not Always Sufficiently Justified, and Some Expenses and Contract Decisions Are Questionable” (Auditors are apparently not good at concise titling, but precise is right up their alley.) The document is available for download in the AboutCambria.com Library. The 123 page report examines Special District reserves and makes some recommendations.
To demonstrate that they are using their accumulated public funds to cover reasonable and necessary expenses, water districts should ensure that they have comprehensive reserve policies in place that, at a minimum, do the following:
• Distinguish between restricted and unrestricted net assets.
• Establish distinct purposes for all reserves.
• Set target levels, such as minimums and maximums, for the accumulation of reserves.
• Identify the events or conditions that prompt the use of reserves.
• Conform with plans to acquire or build capital assets.
• Receive board approval and be in writing.
• Require periodic review of reserve balances and the rationale for maintaining them.
What do you think?
You and me and our neighbors are ultimately responsible for any debt incurred by the CCSD, whether Bonds or Taxes or other financing mechanisms. And the California State Constitution was amended to ensure that whenever a local agency enters into an agreement for debt financing, the voters have a say in it. While the CCSD could probably find a place to spend each and every penny of that “loan”, the method they are using violates the spirit, if not the letter of the California Constitution and Government Codes that limit the amount of debt an agency can incur. This is a loophole in the law that must be fixed. Unfortunately for Cambrians, there is zero chance of it being closed before they intend to bank the new funds. Also unfortunate: the message implicit in not asking the community to vote for funding through a bond: they don’t trust their neighbors and friends to approve whatever projects the money would be used for. A bond would restrict the money to whatever project it was said to be for on the ballot. There is no such restriction with this particular kind of funding.
In tight times, we should expect the General Manager, Engineers and Board of Directors to take a longer, harder look at the priorities of the District and at least give a nod of recognition to the fact that the CCSD has decided that there will not be growing number of people among which the cost can be spread. Not many of the working people will be able to afford to have such a slick and high-end District.
I’d like to see more effort to include everyone in the planning and direction-setting conversations. Not everyone has the inclination to attend Bored Board Meetings. There are a multitude of alternative ways to engage the community - most of which have never been considered here. I think it’s about time we tried some of them.
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.Tags: 93428, CCSD, debt, financing, reserves
California Constitution Refresher
In the CCSD’s agenda for June 26 are two items that may seem familiar: A increase on our trash collection rates and an increase in the fire suppression benefit assessment (linked to the consumer price index). I’d like to offer the actual text of the California Constitution regarding rates, fees and assessments. To download a printable version of this post Click Here. For a more thorough discussion of Prop 218 and our rights as taxpayers, download this Prop 218 Implementation Guide put together by the League of California Cities.
Two things to take note of:
- the “Discussion” of the fire suppression adjustment states: CCSD Resolution 27-2003 confirmed the special benefit assessment for fire suppression. On or before July 1st of each subsequent fiscal year, and pursuant to Government Code §§ 50078 et seq., the assessment may be increased for the ensuing year based upon the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles/Anaheim/Riverside area not to exceed 5.4%. The State of California Division of Labor Statistics & Research recorded a 2.9% increase for the designated area for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007. If I were a lawyer….
- Mission County has provided ample documentation in their request to the CCSD for a rate increase. The Board Agenda Packet includes their request letter, an audited financial statement, a budget and a few other relevant items. They have done their part, in my humble opinion, but the CCSD has not followed through with their obligation to notify us so we could exercise our rights under 218.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13C (VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL TAX LEVIES) SECTION 1. Definitions. As used in this article: (a) “General tax” means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. (b) “Local government” means any county, city, city and county,including a charter
city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity. (c) “Special district” means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies. (d) “Special tax” means any tax imposed for specific purposes,including a tax imposed for
specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13C (VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL TAX LEVIES)
SEC. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution:
(a) All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes.
(b) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body.
(c) Any general tax imposed, extended, or increased, without voter approval, by any local government on or after January 1, 1995, and prior to the effective date of this article, shall continue to be imposed only if approved by a majority vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue of the imposition, which election shall be held within two years of the effective date of this article and in compliance with subdivision (b).
(d) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13C (VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL TAX LEVIES)
SEC. 3. Initiative Power for Local Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, including, but not limited to, Sections 8 and 9 of Article II, the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge. The power of initiative to affect local taxes, assessments, fees and charges shall be applicable to all local governments and neither the Legislature nor any local government charter shall impose a signature requirement higher than that applicable to statewide statutory initiatives.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13D (ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY-RELATED FEE REFORM)
SECTION 1. Application. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this article shall apply to all assessments, fees and charges, whether imposed pursuant to state statute or local government charter authority. Nothing in this article or Article XIIIC shall be construed to:
(a) Provide any new authority to any agency to impose a tax, assessment, fee, or charge.
(b) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development.
(c) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of timber yield taxes.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13D (ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY-RELATED FEE REFORM)
SEC. 2. Definitions. As used in this article:
(a) “Agency” means any local government as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIIIC.
(b) “Assessment” means any levy or charge upon real property by an agency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property. “Assessment” includes, but is not limited to, “special assessment,” “benefit assessment,” “maintenance assessment” and “special assessment tax.”
(c) “Capital cost” means the cost of acquisition, installation, construction, reconstruction, or replacement of a permanent public improvement by an agency.
(d) “District” means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related service.
(e) “Fee” or “charge” means any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment, imposed by an agency upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property related service.
(f) “Maintenance and operation expenses” means the cost of rent, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, fuel, power, electrical current, care, and supervision necessary to properly operate and maintain a permanent public improvement.
(g) “Property ownership” shall be deemed to include tenancies of real property where tenants are directly liable to pay the assessment, fee, or charge in question.
(h) “Property-related service” means a public service having a direct relationship to property ownership.
(i) “Special benefit” means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute “special benefit.”
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13D (ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY-RELATED FEE REFORM)
SEC. 4. Procedures and Requirements for All Assessments.
(a) An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit.
(b) All assessments shall be supported by a detailed engineer’s report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California.
(c) The amount of the proposed assessment for each identified parcel shall be calculated and the record owner of each parcel shall be given written notice by mail of the proposed assessment, the total amount thereof chargeable to the entire district, the amount chargeable to the owner’s particular parcel, the duration of the payments, the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed assessment. Each notice shall also include, in a conspicuous place thereon, a summary of the procedures applicable to the completion, return, and tabulation of the ballots required pursuant to subdivision (d), including a disclosure statement that the existence of a majority protest, as defined in subdivision (e), will result in the assessment not being imposed.
(d) Each notice mailed to owners of identified parcels within the district pursuant to subdivision (c) shall contain a ballot which includes the agency’s address for receipt of the ballot once completed by any owner receiving the notice whereby the owner may indicate his or her name, reasonable identification of the parcel, and his or her support or opposition to the proposed assessment.
(e) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed assessment to record owners of each identified parcel. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed assessment and tabulate the ballots. The agency shall not impose an assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property.
(f) In any legal action contesting the validity of any assessment, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate that the property or properties in question receive a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred on the public at large and that the amount of any contested assessment is proportional to, and no greater than, the benefits conferred on the property or properties in question.
(g) Because only special benefits are assessable, electors residing within the district who do not own property within the district shall not be deemed under this Constitution to have been deprived of the right to vote for any assessment. If a court determines that the Constitution of the United States or other federal law requires otherwise, the assessment shall not be imposed unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate in the district in addition to being approved by the property owners as required by subdivision (e).
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13D (ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY-RELATED FEE REFORM)
SEC. 5. Effective Date. Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10 of Article II, the provisions of this article shall become effective the day after the election unless otherwise provided. Beginning July 1, 1997, all existing, new, or increased assessments shall comply with this article. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following assessments existing on the effective date of this article shall be exempt from the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4:
(a) Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems or vector control. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4.
(b) Any assessment imposed pursuant to a petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment at the time the assessment is initially imposed. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4.
(c) Any assessment the proceeds of which are exclusively used to repay bonded indebtedness of which the failure to pay would violate the Contract Impairment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
(d) Any assessment which previously received majority voter approval from the voters voting in an election on the issue of the assessment. Subsequent increases in those assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13D (ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY-RELATED FEE REFORM)
SEC. 6. Property Related Fees and Charges.
(a) Procedures for New or Increased Fees and Charges. An agency shall follow the procedures pursuant to this section in imposing or increasing any fee or charge as defined pursuant to this article, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) The parcels upon which a fee or charge is proposed for imposition shall be identified. The amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each parcel shall be calculated. The agency shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the record owner of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition, the amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each, the basis upon which the amount of the proposed fee or charge was calculated, the reason for the fee or charge, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed fee or charge.
(2) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed fee or charge not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed fee or charge to the record owners of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed fee or charge. If written protests against the proposed fee or charge are presented by a majority of owners of the identified parcels, the agency shall not impose the fee or charge.
(b) Requirements for Existing, New or Increased Fees and Charges. A fee or charge shall not be extended, imposed, or increased by any agency unless it meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the s required to provide the property related service.
(2) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.
(3) The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.
(4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with Section 4.
(5) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners. Reliance by an agency on any parcel map, including, but not limited to, an assessor’s parcel map, may be considered a significant factor in determining whether a fee or charge is imposed as an incident of property ownership for purposes of this article. In any legal action contesting the validity of a fee or charge, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate compliance with this article.
(c) Voter Approval for New or Increased Fees and Charges. Except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services, no property related fee or charge shall be imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the option of the agency, by a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in the affected area. The election shall be conducted not less than 45 days after the public hearing. An agency may adopt procedures similar to those for increases in assessments in the conduct of elections under this subdivision. (Note: The recent ruling of Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Beringson held that water and sewer rates are “property related” and as such are subject to this law.)
(d) Beginning July 1, 1997, all fees or charges shall comply with this section.
The Government Code cited by CCSD as the authority for the consumer price increase adjustment to the fire suppression assessment. It primarily applies to that assessment. In my humble opinion, the procedures described here were not followed by the CCSD.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53750-53755
53750. For purposes of Article XIIIC and Article XIIID of the California Constitution and this article:
(a) “Agency” means any local government as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIIIC of the California Constitution.
(b) “Assessment” means any levy or charge by an agency upon real property that is based upon the special benefit conferred upon the real property by a public improvement or service, that is imposed to pay the capital cost of the public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of the public improvement, or the cost of the service being provided. “Assessment” includes, but is not limited to, “special assessment,” “benefit assessment,” “maintenance assessment,” and “special assessment tax.”
(c) “District” means an area that is determined by an agency to contain all of the parcels that will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or service.
(d) “Drainage system” means any system of public improvements that is intended to provide for erosion control, landslide abatement, or for other types of water drainage.
(e) “Extended,” when applied to an existing tax or fee or charge, means a decision by an agency to extend the stated effective period for the tax or fee or charge, including, but not limited to, amendment or removal of a sunset provision or expiration date.
(f) “Flood control” means any system of public improvements that is intended to protect property from overflow by water.
(g) “Identified parcel” means a parcel of real property that an agency has identified as having a special benefit conferred upon it and upon which a proposed assessment is to be imposed, or a parcel of real property upon which a proposed property-related fee or charge is proposed to be imposed.
(h) (1) “Increased,” when applied to a tax, assessment, or property-related fee or charge, means a decision by an agency that does either of the following:
(A) Increases any applicable rate used to calculate the tax, assessment, fee or charge.
(B) Revises the methodology by which the tax, assessment, fee or charge is calculated, if that revision results in an increased amount being levied on any person or parcel.
(2) A tax, fee, or charge is not deemed to be “increased” by an agency action that does either or both of the following:
(A) Adjusts the amount of a tax or fee or charge in accordance with a schedule of adjustments, including a clearly defined formula for inflation adjustment that was adopted by the agency prior to November 6, 1996.
(B) Implements or collects a previously approved tax, or fee or charge, so long as the rate is not increased beyond the level previously approved by the agency, and the methodology previously approved by the agency is not revised so as to result in an increase in the amount being levied on any person or parcel.
(3) A tax, assessment, fee or charge is not deemed to be “increased” in the case in which the actual payments from a person or property are higher than would have resulted when the agency approved the tax, assessment, or fee or charge, if those higher payments are attributable to events other than an increased rate or revised methodology, such as a change in the density, intensity, or nature of the use of land.
(i) “Notice by mail” means any notice required by Article XIIIC or XIIID of the California Constitution that is accomplished through a mailing, postage prepaid, deposited in the United States Postal Service and is deemed given when so deposited. Notice by mail may be included in any other mailing to the record owner that otherwise complies with Article XIIIC or XIIID of the California Constitution and this article, including, but not limited to, the mailing of a bill for the collection of an assessment or a property-related fee or charge.
(j) “Record owner” means the owner of a parcel whose name and address appears on the last equalized secured property tax assessment roll, or in the case of any public entity, the State of California, or the United States, means the representative of that public entity at the address of that entity known to the agency.
(k) “Registered professional engineer” means an engineer registered pursuant to the Professional Engineers Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code).
(l) “Vector control” means any system of public improvements or services that is intended to provide for the surveillance,prevention, abatement, and control of vectors as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 2002 of the Health and Safety Code and a pest as defined in Section 5006 of the Food and Agricultural Code.
(m) “Water” means any system of public improvements intended to provide for the production, storage, supply, treatment, or distribution of water.
53752. The Department of General Services shall develop compliance standards in the State Administrative Manual (SAM) to inform owners of state property of their duties and responsibilities pursuant to this article and Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution.
53753. (a) The notice, protest, and hearing requirements imposed by this section supersede any statutory provisions applicable to the levy of a new or increased assessment that is in existence on the effective date of this section, whether or not that provision is in conflict with this article. Any agency that complies with the notice, protest, and hearing requirements of this section shall not be required to comply with any other statutory notice, protest, and hearing requirements that would otherwise be applicable to the levy of a new or increased assessment, with the exception of Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100) of the Streets and Highways Code. If the requirements of that division apply to the levy of a new or increased assessment, the levying agency shall comply with the notice, protest, and hearing requirements imposed by this section as well as with the requirements of that division.
(b) Prior to levying a new or increased assessment, or an existing assessment that is subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution, an agency shall give notice by mail to the record owner of each identified parcel. Each notice shall include the total amount of the proposed assessment chargeable to the entire district, the amount chargeable to the record owner’s parcel, the duration of the payments, the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated, and the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed assessment. Each notice shall also include, in a conspicuous place thereon, a summary of the procedures for the completion, return, and tabulation of the assessment ballots required pursuant to subdivision (c), including a statement that the assessment shall not be imposed if the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment, with ballots weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. An agency shall give notice by mail at least 45 days prior to the date of the public hearing upon the proposed assessment.
(c) Each notice given pursuant to subdivision (b) shall contain an assessment ballot that includes the agency’s address for receipt of the form and a place where the person returning the assessment ballot may indicate his or her name, a reasonable identification of the parcel, and his or her support or opposition to the proposed assessment. Each assessment ballot shall be in a form that conceals its contents once it is sealed by the person submitting the assessment ballot. Each assessment ballot shall be signed and either mailed or otherwise delivered to the address indicated on the assessment ballot. Regardless of the method of delivery, all assessment ballots shall be received at the address indicated, or the site of the public testimony, in order to be included in the tabulation of a majority protest pursuant to subdivision (e). Assessment ballots shall remain sealed until the tabulation of ballots pursuant to subdivision (e) commences, provided that an assessment ballot may be submitted, or changed, or withdrawn by the person who submitted the ballot prior to the conclusion of the public testimony on the proposed assessment at the hearing required pursuant to subdivision (d). An agency may provide an envelope for the return of the assessment ballot, provided that if the return envelope is opened by the agency prior to the tabulation of ballots pursuant to subdivision (e), the enclosed assessment ballot shall remain sealed as provided in this section.
(d) At the time, date, and place stated in the notice mailed pursuant to subdivision (b), the agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all objections or protests, if any, to the proposed assessment. At the public hearing, any person shall be permitted to present written or oral testimony. The public hearing may be continued from time to time.
(e) (1) At the conclusion of the public hearing conducted pursuant to subdivision (d), an impartial person designated by the agency who does not have a vested interest in the outcome of the proposed assessment shall tabulate the assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in support of or opposition to the proposed assessment. In a city, the impartial person may include, but is not limited to, the clerk of the agency. The impartial person may use technological methods of tabulating the assessment ballots, including, but not limited to, punchcard or optically readable (bar-coded) assessment ballots. During and after the tabulation, the assessment ballots shall be treated as disclosable public records, as defined in Section 6252, and equally available for inspection by the proponents and the opponents of the proposed assessment. In the event that more than one of the record owners of an identified parcel submits an assessment ballot, the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon the identified parcel shall be allocated to each ballot submitted in proportion to the respective record ownership interests or, if the ownership interests are not shown on the record, as established to the satisfaction of the agency by documentation provided by those record owners.
(2) A majority protest exists if the assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in opposition to the proposed assessment exceed the assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in its favor, weighting those assessment ballots by the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon the identified parcel for which each assessment ballot was submitted.
(3) If there is a majority protest against the imposition of a new assessment, or the extension of an existing assessment, or an increase in an existing assessment, the agency shall not impose, extend, or increase the assessment.
(4) The majority protest proceedings described in this subdivision shall not constitute an election or voting for purposes of Article II of the California Constitution or of the California Elections Code.
53753.5. (a) If an agency has complied with the notice, protest, and hearing requirements of Section 53753, or if an agency is not required to comply with those requirements because the assessment is exempt from the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution, then those requirements shall not apply in subsequent fiscal years unless the assessment methodology is changed to increase the assessment, or the amount of that assessment is proposed to exceed an assessment formula or range of assessments adopted by an agency in accordance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution or Section 53753. (Note: This is the exception they are likely relying upon.)
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the following assessments existing on the effective date of Article XIIID of the California Constitution shall be exempt from the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4 of that article:
(1) Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems, or vector control.
(2) Any assessment imposed pursuant to a petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment at the time the assessment is initially imposed.
(3) Any assessment the proceeds of which are exclusively used to repay bonded indebtedness of which the failure to pay would violate the Contract Impairment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
(4) Any assessment that previously received majority voter approval from the voters voting in an election on the issue of the assessment.
Any subsequent increases in an assessment listed in paragraph (1), (2), or (4) shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution.
(c) For purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:
(1) “Assessments existing on the effective date of Article XIIID of the California Constitution” means assessments levied by the legislative body of the agency on or before November 6, 1996.
(2) “Procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4 of Article XIIID” means all of the requirements set forth in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution, including, but not limited to, the requirement to separate general and special benefits and the requirement to assess parcels that are owned or used by an agency, the State of California, or the United States of America.
53754. (a) The legislative body collecting assessment installments to secure bonds issued pursuant to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500) of the Streets and Highways Code) shall designate an office, department, or bureau of the local agency that shall be responsible for annually preparing then current tax roll of assessment installment obligations by assessor’s parcel number on property within the assessment district. The designated office, department, or bureau shall be the same office, department, or bureau that prepares the “NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX” required by Section 53340.2. If notice is required under both this section and Section 53340.2, the notices shall, to the extent feasible, be combined into a single notice document. The designated office, department, or bureau shall establish procedures to promptly respond to inquiries concerning installments on the current tax roll. Neither the designated office, department, or bureau, nor the legislative body, shall be liable if any estimate of assessment installments on the current tax roll is inaccurate, nor for any failure of any seller to request a Notice of Special Assessment or to provide the notice to a buyer.
(b) For purposes of enabling sellers of real property subject to the levy of assessments to satisfy the notice requirements of subdivision (b) of Section 1102.6 of the Civil Code, the designated office, department, or bureau shall furnish a Notice of Assessment to any individual requesting the notice or any owner of property subject to an assessment levied by the local agency within five working days of receiving a request for such notice. The local agency may charge a reasonable fee for this service not to exceed ten dollars ($10).
(c) The notice shall contain the heading “NOTICE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT” in type no smaller than 8-point type, and shall be in substantially the following form. The form may be modified as needed to clearly and accurately present the required information or to consolidate information about two or more assessment districts that collect installments of assessments with respect to the lot, parcel, or unit. The notice shall be completed by the designated office, department, or bureau except for the signatures and date of signing:
NOTICE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. ______ OF
(CITY) (COUNTY) (SPECIAL DISTRICT), CALIFORNIA
TO: THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER OF THE REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS:
Assessor’s Parcel Number: _______
Street Address: _________________
_________________________________.
THIS IS A NOTIFICATION TO YOU PRIOR TO YOUR PURCHASING THIS PROPERTY.
This property is within the above-named assessment district. The
assessment district has issued bonds to finance the acquisition or
construction of certain public improvements that are of direct and
special benefit to property within the assessment district. The
bonds will be repaid from annual assessment installments on property
within the assessment district.
This property is subject to annual assessment installments of the
assessment district that will appear on your property tax bills, but
which are in addition to the regular property taxes and any other
charges and levies that will be listed on the property tax bill. If
you fail to pay assessment installments when due each year, the
property may be foreclosed upon and sold.
The annual assessment installment against this property as shown on
the most recent tax bill for the ____-____ tax year is ____ dollars
($____). Assessment installments will be collected each year until
the assessment bonds are repaid.
The public facilities that are being paid for by the money received
from the sale of bonds that are being repaid by the assessments, are:
(LIST)
These facilities may not yet have all been constructed or acquired
and it is possible that some may never be constructed or acquired.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS ASSESSMENT AND THE BENEFITS FROM THE PUBLIC
FACILITIES FOR WHICH IT PAYS INTO ACCOUNT IN DECIDING WHETHER TO BUY
THIS PROPERTY.
YOU MAY OBTAIN A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS THAT
SPECIFIES MORE PRECISELY HOW THE ASSESSMENTS ARE APPORTIONED AMONG
PROPERTIES IN THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FROM THE ____ (name of
jurisdiction) BY CALLING ____ (telephone number). THERE MAY BE A
CHARGE FOR THIS DOCUMENT NOT TO EXCEED THE ESTIMATED REASONABLE COST
OF PROVIDING THE DOCUMENT.
I (WE) ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I (WE) HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS
NOTICE. I (WE) UNDERSTAND THAT I (WE) MAY TERMINATE THE CONTRACT TO
PURCHASE OR DEPOSIT RECEIPT AFTER RECEIVING THIS NOTICE FROM THE
OWNER OR AGENT SELLING THE PROPERTY. THE CONTRACT MAY BE TERMINATED
WITHIN THREE DAYS IF THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED IN PERSON OR WITHIN FIVE
DAYS AFTER IT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE MAIL BY GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE OF
THAT TERMINATION TO THE OWNER OR AGENT SELLING THE PROPERTY.
DATE:_______________________
____________________________
Buyer
____________________________
Buyer
53755. (a) (1) The notice required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 6 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution of a proposed increase of an existing fee or charge for a property-related service being provided to a parcel may be given by including it in the agency’s regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing by the agency to the address to which the agency customarily mails the billing statement for the fee or charge.
(2) The notice required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 6 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution of a proposed new fee or charge may be given in the manner authorized for notice of an increase of a fee or charge if the agency is currently providing an existing property-related service to the address.
(3) If the agency desires to preserve any authority it may have to record or enforce a lien on the parcel to which service is provided, the agency shall also mail notice to the recordowner’s address shown on the last equalized assessment roll if that address is different than the billing or service address.
(b) One written protest per parcel, filed by an owner or tenant of the parcel, shall be counted in calculating a majority protest to a proposed new or increased fee or charge subject to the requirements of Section 6 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution.
(c) Any agency that bills, collects, and remits a fee or charge on behalf of another agency may provide the notice required by Section 6 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution on behalf of the other agency. (Note: I believe this could apply to the trash rate increase…)
Another item to watch for at this month’s meeting: The agenda indicates they will adjourn to closed session - but doesn’t specify the matters in any way.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - INITIATION OF LITIGATION
Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 (2 matters)
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivison (c) of Section
54956.9 (3 matters)
Tags: california, Cambria, csd, Links - taxes
An Ad is not a Tool for Building Community Trust or Confidence
Once again, Cambrians are being asked to accept increased rates for water and wastewater services. The letter proposing the increase and explaining why it’s needed went out about 3 weeks ago. Today, many Cambrians found a letter in their mailboxes with an alternate explanation of the rates proposal and what it might be used for along with a form letter that a ratepayer could use to register their objections with the CCSD.
In case you haven’t seen this week’s Cambrian yet, pick one up - you’re in for a real treat. The CCSD has paid for a full page ad (on page 2). The design is slick and it begins by thanking Cambrians, saying “together we built a better rate proposal.” and goes on to list the various changes they made when they designed the rates currently under consideration.
Contrast this ad with one just five pages later, you will see a simple text ad (labeled as a “Paid Political Advertisement”) paid for by a group called Cambrians for Fiscal Responsibility describing why Cambrians should reject the “better rate proposal”. (More on this 2nd ad tomorrow.)
Of course, most Cambrians should (and will) take both of these ads with a grain of salt. There is a bias to each of them. Cambrians are, on average, better educated than the general state population. I’m sure the incongruity (and possible irony) of the CCSD paying for a full page ad, including a professional design complete with subtle and psychologically suggestive content. How much did we Cambrians pay for the CCSD’s public relations? And, as a friend asked me: “Why is the CCSD spending my money to place ads? ” Why indeed?
Every ratepayer has a right (courtesy of the California Constitution) to protest rate increases of a public utility (like CCSD). When a government agency wants to raise taxes, they must get approval of 2/3 of the people who go to the polls and vote. The registered voters of Cambria tend to turn out in larger numbers than in other communities, and getting them to vote in the affirmative is no easy task. The Healthcare District had to get their request for money for a new ambulance on the ballot twice before it passed.
The Prop 218 process for rate increases ( as outlined in the California Constitution) is different. It assumes everyone is in favor of the increase unless they state their objection in writing during the formal hearing period (at least 45 days). Cambria is the only town of any significant size (more than 200) that has ever successfully stopped a proposed increase. Last fall, 2,266 ratepayers wrote in to protest the increase. As my friend Steve Figler once told me: “If you ask 3 Cambrians their opinion on something, you’re likely to get four answers.” An amazing 57% of the ratepayers agreed that the proposed rates were too high.
But back to the question at hand: Why does the CCSD need an ad? In times when money should be tight, the CCSD is spending money to convince ratepayers to …. well, to do nothing and accept the increase. Remember, if the CCSD doesn’t hear from you, they get to count you as SUPPORTING the increase. The burden of action is on the ratepayer who objects to the increase. Which means if you support this new increase, you don’t have to do a gosh darn thing.
In my opinion, a full page ad in the local paper isn’t a very effective way to build support for yourself when those who oppose you are sensitive about every penny you want to spend. Although The Cambrian is certainly in need of the advertising dollars, that money would have been better spent building on trust and understanding through a genuinely collaborative, professionally facilitated budget development process. In study after real-life study, communities that engage in a participatory budgeting process have discovered that citizens with opt to raise their own fees, rates and taxes rather than cutting services. The Cambrians for a Fiscally Responsible CCSD worked for several months on a budget and rates increase proposal. Even without immediate interaction or a facilitator, they determined that a rate increase of roughly 12% would be appropriate. Perhaps if the CCSD has responded more positively and invited the direct participation of the CFRC volunteers in their budgeting process, a full page ad asking for support for the new rates wouldn’t be needed.
The CCSD’s ad does point out some important changes it has made since last fall: a less drastic increase in rates, no BRP funding from rates, no payback to the general fund from rates, greater prioritizing of capital projects and more information available online. These are all important and significant changes that would not have taken place if the community hadn’t protested the rates. The CCSD claims it listened to the community. What did it hear us say? Only the Board and management staff can answer for certain, but here’s what I think they heard: 1. stop trying to use our rates to pay for things other than water or wastewater services and 2. stop trying to perfect our system overnight. The ad actually says “The CCSDs new rate proposal will be used solely for essential water and sewer projects…” Bully for us! What that statement essentially says is “We will follow the state laws that restrict our use of rates revenues to water and sewer services they are collected for.”
We should give the CCSD a pat on the back for telling us they plan to comply with the laws governing their actions, and shake their hands when they have followed through on their plans to act legally. Stay tuned. AboutCambria.com will be watching as the CCSD moves forward (hopefully alongside us and not dragging us kicking and screaming)
Read more about Public Engagement in budgeting and other democracy ideas at these sites:
A “Community Conversation” on the Future of Morgan Hill
SF Listens Engages San Franciscans on City’s Priorities
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.