Archive for the ‘Similar Realities’ Category
The 3 R’s of Proposition 218 - Rules, Responsibilities and Rights
If you haven’t kept up with all the scuttlebutt on Cambria’s rates saga and our stormy relationship with Proposition 218 - you don’t know what you’re missing. Of course, some of us who have been keeping up on every little thing have been missing out on pretty much everything else…but that is a discussion for another day (ironic, like rain on your wedding day, dontcha think?)
I believe information is the currency of democracy and in order to protect your rights, you have to know them. I also strongly believe that along with rights come responsibilities - and responsibility number one: Educate yourself and participate. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand the law - but there is a lot of it, with more being added every day the legislature is in session.
I’ve done a lot of digging and reading and offer here some of the documents, resources and opinions I’ve gathered. Think of it as a kind of CliffsNotes for Cambrians on Prop 218 and what other communities have done.
The multiple and sundry laws that apply in our current situation include:
- Proposition 218 (aka Article XIII C and D of the State Constitution),
- Government Code §61000 (the CSD laws),
- the Brown Act (Open Meetings),
- CPRA (California Public Records Act)
- various other laws that govern how the CCSD does what it does, whether as individual employees, elected officials or collectively as “The District”.
Some governments have enacted procedures and policies for ensuring Prop 218 compliance and fairness whether or not they are facing a potential Prop 218 situation. In other communities, citizens have been pressuring districts to set such policies. The issue seems to be making sure local governments act within the spirit of the law. To apply every possible technical rule - even ones that don’t apply to the process - can give the impression that there is no respect for the spirit of the law and could be perceived as trying to rig the vote. There is also a danger in applying too few rules to the process, which can also invite fraud.
So what standards did the CCSD apply? What tests were used to determine validity of a protest? It seems President Cobin believes there should be no remedy for addressing possible mistakes. The district counsel has canceled the meeting at which the invalidated protests could be reviewed and the most recent information seems to indicate that even the individual whose protest was invalidated will not be able to know that it wasn’t counted or why.
Ever played Battleship with someone you don’t completely trust and who is determined to win? Not being able to review the invalidated votes is kind of like playing Battleship with someone you don’t quite trust. You want to believe them when they tell “It’s a miss”, but there was some suspicious movements when you called the location. The other issue is rules. in playing a new game, I like to be able to read the box top, but usually end up relying on the friend who’s played before. She explains how the game it played to those of us new to the game. I always prefer to read the box top from start to finish - but am either overruled by the friends who just want to get to playing. About midway through the game, a situation comes up that wasn’t covered by the rules explained earlier, so out comes “Oh, yeah. I forgot about that rule.” It doesn’t matter whose turn it is or whether the rule is real, but if the “new” rule wasn’t in your favor, you were probably suspicious. It’s frustrating to have rules changed or added midstream. Even if the rule in question is actually valid, it can cause resentment and kill the desire to continue to play with that opponent - in any kind of game.
The CCSD barely explained the very basics and refused to let the community “read the box top” for ourselves so we could play fairly. Even if everything the district did was appropriate and legal, their behavior makes it look like all they cared about was winning…not finding out what the community wants or doing what is fair.
Here’s what the U.N. Human Rights Commission published a Compendium of International Standard for Voting. It has this to say about democracy and protecting the integrity of voting:
[t]here should be independent scrutiny of the voting and counting process
and access to judicial review or other equivalent process so that electors have con -
fidence in the security of the ballot and the counting of the votes”. The ultimate
remedy should be the disqualification of the elections, with the practical outcome
of new elections, either in the whole country or in the constituency that has been
affected by misconduct.
Of course, that is the UN, not Federal, State or Local standards. The state of California recently published the second edition of Democracy by Initiative which includes some specifics on standard for signature validation as it relates to petitions for getting an initiative on the ballot. That document advocates specific procedures to conduct a random sample verification of signatures:
If 500 or fewer signatures are submitted, counties must verify all of them; if more than 500 signatures are submitted, counties must verify 3% or 1,500 of them, whichever is less (currently set at 3% or 500, whichever is more), provided that a minimum of 500 are verified.
Signature Verification. Random sample signature verification procedures by the counties
should be simplified. Initiatives should qualify if the random sample verification
of signatures indicates that proponents have gathered at least 105% (currently
110%) of the valid signatures needed for qualification. No county should be
required to verify more than 1,500 signatures. This sample size is more than adequate
to provide accuracy and will ease the financial burden on counties and speed
up the verification process.
Los Angeles County has estimated it costs them about 60¢ per verified signature. How much did we pay the Clerk-Recorder?
In the same report, there is a discussion of validity rates.
Not surprisingly, direct mail has the highest signature validity rate. Signing a direct mail petition is an entirely voluntary act, with no pressure being applied by a solicitor. A respondent can take time to deliberate over the initiative proposal and study the instructions for properly signing the petition. Persons who respond to a direct mail appeal want to be
sure that their effort counts.
There are no known cases in California of volunteer signature gatherers submitting fraudulent signatures.
Perhaps looking at how other communities have dealt with the Prop 218 process.
Here’s the story from the City of Jackson city council minutes from November 2007:
Consideration of Water and Sewer Rate Increases.
City Manager Daly reported at the November 13, 2007, the City Council conducted the protest hearing for proposed water and sewer rate increase as required by Proposition 218. Due to the number of written protests received during the public hearing, a vote on the proposed increases was suspended pending completion of a verification of the protests received. Following the public hearing, the City Clerk and utility billing staff reviewed each protest submitted to ascertain the validity of each one submitted. Judy Jebian, a citizen representative, was present during the verification process and was provided with information on the protests deemed invalid. The results of the protest are as follows:
Customer Accounts Valid Protests Percentage
Water 2,088 879 42.10%
Sewer 1,406 701 49.86%
With less than 50% protest for each utility service, the City Council may adopt the proposed increases. In response to comments and public input during the public hearing, staff is carefully reviewing each budgetary item within the water and sewer budgets to ensure that budgets adopted in July 2006 continue to reflect the operational needs of both funds. Due to the short holiday week, this analysis was not completed for the agenda packet, but will be presented at the City Council meeting. This information may be used by the City Council to confirm the proposed rate increase levels or adopt a lower rate increase if justified.
Mayor Stidger opened the public discussion.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the water and sewer rate increases: BillVukovich, Shirley Dajnowski, Laura Mattley, Pat Holland, Bud Lewis, Kathy duBois, and Jack Georgette.
Judy Jebian, Jackson, provided a color-coded spreadsheet of those votes they felt were wrongfully disqualified for the record. She felt the information provided in their spreadsheet could be useful for the recount.
Marilyn Lewis, Jackson, representing Opponents of Water/Sewer Increase, submitted for the record, a letter requesting a recount for the proposed Sewer Rate Increase. The letter stated City staff wrongfully disqualified hundreds of owners and spouses, new owners and tenants responsible for payment to defeat the protest by 13 votes of over 1,000 protests. Mayor Stidger felt staff performed the vote validation in accordance of Proposition 218 interpretation.
City Clerk Cangelosi explained based on the staff’s understanding of the protest procedure associated with Proposition 218, the following procedures was used to verify the owners of record for a parcel or parcels or a tenant directly responsible for payment of the fees.
1. Staff attempted to verify the name on the protest letter was the name on record in the City of Jackson Water and Sewer Billing System as the owner of record or a tenant directly responsible for payment of the fees.
2. If the name on the protest letters did not correspond, staff checked all questionable protests by using Amador County July 2007 Parcel Quest – APN Property Detail program.
3. If the names still did not correspond, staff may have had personal knowledge of the individual(s) and/or called individual(s) if a phone number was provided.
4. If the owners of record or a tenant directly responsible for payment of the fees could not be verified the vote was rejected.
Hearing no further comments from the public, Mayor Stidger closed the public discussion.
City Manager Daly stated due to considerable questions regarding the vote validation, he felt a recount would be ambiguous and the unknowns related to who and how protests were reviewed and counted would relate to both water and sewer protests. He recommended the City Council postpone adoption the water and sewer proposed increases. Regardless, the vote validation would still be subject to the referenda process.
City Attorney Gibson stated staff performed the tally validation in accordance with the case law on Proposition 218. Proposition 218 refers to the owner of record for a parcel based on the last equalized roll. If needed staff could research the California League of Cities’ implementation guidelines and possibly send out inquiries to other cities in the State to determine how they implemented the tally validation.
Councilmember Escamilla stated there were four options:
1. Approve the water and sewer rate increases by adopting the Resolution 2007-48 Setting Sanitary Sewer Service Charges and Resolution 2007-49 Setting Treated Water Rates.
2. Deny approval the water and sewer rate increases and start the whole process over.
3. Perform a recount of the water and sewer written protests.
4. Abandon everything done to date, request staff investigate Proposition 218 tally validation procedures for City Council approval, publish a new public notice for consideration of water and sewer rate increases which would start a new 45 days period, schedule the public hearing and tally new written protests.
Moved by Councilmember Nunes to only approve Resolution 2007-49 Resolution 2007-49 Setting Treated Water Rates and postpone the approval of Resolution 2007- 48 Setting Sanitary Sewer Service Charges pending a recount. The motion died due to the lack of a second.
Moved by Councilmember Escamilla, seconded by Mayor Stidger, and unanimously carried to abandon everything done to date, request staff investigate Proposition 218 tally validation procedures for City Council approval, publish a new public notice for consideration of water and sewer rate increases which would start a new 45 days period, schedule the public hearing and tally new written protests.
In the coming days, I will post more stories from other communities. Until then, you might find this site by a group of Rio Vista citizens interesting and informative.
Please join your neighbors at the CCSD meeting this coming Thursday at 12:30pm at the Vets Hall.
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.California Coastal Commission Approves Desal for San Diego
From the Associated Press:
The California Coastal Commission approved a plan to build the Western Hemisphere’s largest desalination plant north of San Diego — a move aimed at relieving water shortages in the nation’s most populated state.
Wednesday’s decision came after a daylong debate over the merits of the $300 million Carlsbad project, which is expected to eventually produce 10 percent of San Diego County’s water supply from ocean water.
Read the rest of the article here.
Tags: Desalination
The Daily Kos and the New Republic on Desalination
Desalination is apparently hot topic of the week. The New Republic’s website has posted “A New Day for Desalination” which says the time for desalination may be now and if not now, then soon.
Indeed, one of the main reasons why it’s been successful in the Persian Gulf (in addition to there being very little freshwater there) is that Gulf States have a huge energy-generating capacity, particularly in the winter, when air conditioners aren’t running and excess electricity can be used for desalination. It’s cost-effective to do this in Dubai, but California, while dry, isn’t quite dry enough for large-scale desalination to be worthwhile–yet. A half-century of a warming climte might change that.
Progressive Blog, 
recently posted this article about the energy costs related to desalination. It includes a link to the California Coastal Commission’s Primer on desalination and a brief discussion of how much energy we would use if everyone was using desal.
In May, Business Week published an article focusing on the investment and financial elements of desalination. Read that article and get in on almost the ground floor of a maturing industry.
And Yuba.Net has an interesting article “Researchers Race to Make Desalination Eco-Friendly While There’s Still Time”
And Water and Wastewater News (an industry journal) published this interesting article yesterday: “Researchers Try to Mitigate Desalination Effects”, and in May “Salt Removal May Make Desalination More Viable”
Recent advances in technology have made removing salt from seawater and groundwater a realistic option for increasing water supplies in some parts of the United States, and desalination will likely have a niche in meeting the nation’s future water needs, says a report from the National Research Council.
However, a coordinated research effort with steady funding is required to better understand and minimize desalination’s environmental impacts — and find ways to further lower its costs and energy use.
And there are always new developments in the technology used. A Bay Area company, Energy Recovery, Inc. has developed an ingenious pump that greatly reduces the energy needed to extract salt from seawater, a small but vital innovation that could help transform ocean water into something fit to drink. Read more about it here.
Credit to 
for the heads up about the DailyKos post.
Tags: dailykos, Desalination, energy, leftyblogs
Prop 218 In Other California Towns
The League of Women Voters and several staff members have spent dozens of hours counting, sorting and validating the protest letters. The number one question people ask me is this: Why is it taking so long to count the protest letters? While the process seemed unclear and time consuming, it is consistency that is most important. I commend Kathy, Pam and Monique for the tedious yet essential jobs they did between July 15 and the 21st (and presumably will continue to do). Watching the process last week and listening to the discussions, I was curious about what other communities have done. Included here are links to documents and/or websites of communities who have recently dealt with the Prop 218 rules. If you know of a resource or link that should be included here, please login to add it, add it as a comment to this post or send me an email.
The California Secretary of State’s website says the following:
Proposition 218 related assessments. The passage of Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act in 1996 established new balloting procedures that allowed all property owners who would have to pay a proposed assessment to decide if it should be imposed. Examples are benefit or special assessments that fund street lights, sewers, sidewalks, levees and other improvements that benefit an assessed property. Ballots are weighted according to the amount each property owner will pay. Only those owning property in the district to be assessed are eligible to receive and cast ballots (instead of registered voters, many of whom do not own property and would not have to pay the assessment). Unlike ballots in registered voter elections, assessment ballots are public record and are subject to disclosure. For more information on the rules governing assessments, see Article XIIID of the California constitution and Government Code section 53753. Complaints about assessment proceedings can be made to the entity conducting ballot processing or to the superior court.
The Citizens’ Committee on Water & Wastewater is a group of volunteers working to: develop a full, complete and balanced statement of the City of Rio Vista’s funding needs; analyze the City’s Operating and Financial documents; prepare rational explanations of funding needs and of the consequences of a defeat of the proposed fee increases; and, to inform the Citizens of Rio Vista about the appropriateness of the proposed fee increases and of “voting” procedures under Proposition 218. A quick glance and I saw many parallels. Anyone feel like making a phone call?
- The Bellflower Municipal Water System rate increase notice.
- City of San Juan Bautista Resolution on 218 Procedures
In an act of foresight rarely seen in government, the city council of San Juan Bautista passed a resolution in Februarydetailing the procedures to be used in the event of a 218 protest.
Prop 218 Rates Increase Notice with detailed descriptions
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.
Tags: Cambria, proposition 218, protest, water rates
Another 2 Cents on Water Pricing and Shortages
Thank you to our friend over at WaterWired.com for this nugget of information:
David Zetland, the ‘James Dean of Resource Economists’, who runs Aguanomics, has made quite a splash with his solution to California’s water shortage (and those of other areas): increase prices!
His plan, in a nutshell, is that the first 75 gallons per day is free, every 75 gallons per day after that is $5.60.
Read more about this economists’ suggestion at WaterWired.com or at Forbes.com
Tags: drought, water rates, water shortage
Bay Area Water Rates to Rise 10% to Encourage Conservation
East Bay MUD (Municipal Utilities District) customers will see an increase in their water bill and are subject to new surcharges for using “too much”. An article by Chronicle Staff Writer Demian Bulwa, on July 9, reports:
Starting Aug. 1, most of the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s 1.3 million customers will pay 10 percent more for water. They will, in addition, face surcharges if they drink, pour or otherwise use more than a personal allocation.
The rate hike, which the EBMUD board approved by a 7-0 vote, is an effort to shave 15 percent off water use in the aftermath of a second consecutive year of below-average rainfall. It will also raise $21 million, which, coupled with $31 million pulled from a drought reserve fund, will offset a projected $52 million budget deficit.
The district plan charges customers $2 for each unit - 748 gallons - used beyond a bimonthly allocation. The allocation, in turn, is based on a customer’s average use from July 2004 to June 2007.
Read the rest of the article here.
This article made me curious. So I visited the EBMUD website and did a little other digging. EBMUD uses a tiered structure similar to the Gas Company: for the first 172 gpd (gallons per day) use, customers pay $2.00 per unit; for 173-393 gpd, $2.49 per unit and over 393 gpd, $3.02 per unit. This kind of structure is called “increasing block” by industry folks.
In terms that make it easier to compare to Cambria’s situation: the first 14 units per billing cycle (or 7 per month) are at the lowest rate, 15-32 units subject to the 2nd rate and over 33 subject to the highest rate. EBMUD also recognizes those who already conserve: any household that uses less than 8 units per 2 month period doesn’t pay these rates: they pay $1.82 per unit and do not face the drought surcharge other customers will face.
The Drought surcharge isn’t the same for everyone: excess water use for each account is based on the average use over the last three years. This element of the new pricing system is the one causing the most complaint, it seems. Some say it goes too easy on those with a history of water waste and penalizes those who have recently started conserving. The EBMUD website has an individual calculator for customers to figure when the surcharge will kick in for them. They simply enter their billing account number and the site reports how many units they can use before the $2.00 per unit surcharge is added on. And customers can use this form to apply for an increase in their allocation.
Like all rates schedules, this one has its flaws, but it could be a useful model for the CCSD when considering the long-term rates revisions they’ve talked about. (This increase was presented as interim). Of course, like EBMUD, there would have to be allowances for an increase in allocation for legitimate cause. But when the number of customers is 4,000 - not 1.3 million over 325 square miles in two counties - making individual account adjustments should be a piece of cake.
Read the EBMUD Drought Increase and Surcharge Document here. And download the Standard Rates and Charges Publication from EBMUD here.
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.Tags: Cambria, CCSD, ebmud, increase, surcharge, water rates
Monday July 14 was a Good Day for the Power of Prop 218
The same day that Cambria citizens presented nearly 2500 letters of protest as part of our Constitutional right to approve taxes and fees and assessments under Proposition 218, another community is feeling the effects of the law approved by voters in 1996. According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, the California Supreme Court “unanimously struck down a fee that Santa Clara County property owners had imposed on themselves in a 2001 vote to fund open-space acquisition and preservation. Because open-space acquisition benefits the general public and not just the assessed properties, the court said, it can’t be funded by a benefit assessment approved only by property owners. Instead, it must be submitted as a tax measure to local voters - either as a real estate assessment, which requires two-thirds voter approval, or as a sales tax increase, which needs a majority vote.”
The ruling is likely to affect Cambria’s plan to raise funds for the Build-out Reduction Plan, though just how is will all sort out is unclear at the moment. The ruling is available at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S136468.PDF
Tags: 93428, CCSD, financing, open space, proposition 218, Santa Clara
CSDA’s 2007-08 Administrative Salary and Benefits Survey
With all the talk of salaries and benefits and the lack of comparisons easily at hand, I ran across an interesting resource someone might want to fork over the cash to get: The Community Services District Association’s 2007-08 Administrative Salary and Benefits Survey Order Form.
I’ve copied the text of the order form to make it easily accessible. If you are serious about ordering the study, I recommend you download the PDF form here (and maybe leave a comment that you’ve done so, so we don’t duplicate the effort and pay more than once.)
AboutCambria.com would love to provide this information to the community and would order the study, but cannot afford to bear the cost. If you do order it, please consider showing your appreciation for AboutCambria.com’s work by loaning the study for scanning or providing an electronic version for posting.
FROM THE ORDER FORM:
Recruiting and retaining qualified employees is critical to the operational success of special districts. The California Special Districts Association (CSDA) believes that it is important to understand and take into consideration the competitive nature of salaries and benefits when putting together a comprehensive package that will attract and retain a good team.
CSDA’s 2007-08 Administrative Salary & Benefits Survey is a publication designed to provide special districts with the data and information necessary to evaluate the salary and benefits offered by a variety of special districts.
Additionally, districts can compare data results from similar districts in order to get information that better fits their operating environment.
Data is segmented and reported in the following ways to help you better match information with districts that are similar to yours:
- County/region
- Number of employees
- Population served/customer base
- Operating budget
- Service(s) provided
This valuable study will bring you a powerful management tool for evaluating your district’s salary and benefits structure for administrative positions. Some examples of data collected and reported in this publication include:
- Average salaries & salary ranges for: General Manager, Assistant General Manager, Fire/Police Chief, Administrative Secretary, Controller, Human Resource Director, Engineering Director, MIS Director, PR/Communications Director, Safety Director, Public Works Director, Accountant/Bookkeeper, Receptionist, and Clerk
- Employee Benefits Offered
- Health Insurance Practices
- Retirement Plans
- Vacations & Holidays
- Sick and Other Paid Leave
Don’t miss out on critical salary and benefits information that your district should know!
Order your copies of CSDA’s 2007-08 Administrative Salary & Benefits Survey today!
Districts that returned a completed survey form to CSDA receive a discount on this publication!
— ORDER FORM ————————————————–CSDA’s 2007-08 Administrative Salary & Benefits Survey
? CSDA member (returned a completed survey form) - $ 99 each
? CSDA member - $ 129 each
? Nonmember (returned a completed survey form) - $ 139 each
? Nonmember - $ 229 each
Questions? Contact CSDA at 916.442.7887 or toll-free at 877.924.CSDA.
Complete the form and mail or fax with payment to:
CSDA * 1112 I Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
(fax) 916.442.7889
Tags: Cambria, CCSD, csda, salaries
Felton California’s Water Issues
The town of Felton (near Santa Cruz) has spent the last six years fighting to buy their water system from the Multi-National Corporation that owned it. Their campaign to regain local control of their water system began when the corporation tried to raise the rates over 74%. The initiating factor is one of the few similarities between the water realities of Felton and Cambria, since our water is publicly owned and managed. Felton is a good positive example of importance and effectiveness of what a grassroots group determined to make a change can accomplish. Read more about this story on Alternet.com. (Thank you to Steve Figler for the heads up on this story!)
Salaries and Benefits and Public Safety
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.