Note: Links to other documents from this page are underlined and in blue.

Wendi and Bill Haskell's Response to Curt Parkin's "Of Broom and Battlefields" - May 3

As long time residents we have made it a priority to keep the broom on our 1.6 acres removed for many years.  When we moved here in 1970, most of our parcel was covered with 12" high broom and greasewood. We work every year to pull the new seedlngs which take root from neighbor's mature broom seed pods. We just don't let the plants mature. We would like to belatedly applaud those who took the time and energy to remove large amounts of mature broom from the water property land this spring. They timed the removal while the ground was still soft from the rains and before the plants went to seed. Sorry we weren't around to help! One of us drove by one afternoon after the clearing and Charlie Krenz was there with the shredder operator, superivsion the shredding of large piles of broom. Thank you!  The land is temporarily a bit  barren, but the visibility around that corner is wonderful and far safer! Thank you all so much for removing this highly flammable broom and and allowing the land a chance to develop a more natural ground cover!

Mary Ann Furda's Response to Curt Parkin's "Of Broom and Battlefields" - May 2

As one of those who volunteered my time to help eradicate the broom, perhaps an explanation is in order. Please pardon me if I have missed a previous discussion of this. The timing of broom removal is of paramount importance to prevent its spread. As we can all see by the barren apprearance of the spot currently, once it takes hold of an area, it does so quickly and aggressively.  Look on either side of  Los Trancos Road as you approach the Woods and see if you can see anything other than those voracious yellow exotics along long stretches of the road.

We carefully left all the native plants who survived the onslaught of the broom. What we did was to allow for Nature (and, depending upon your responses to the survey, the Water Board) to have a chance  to replace the broom with the California natives that belong here. That will take time. It will take time for the Water Board to respond to our priorities. I trust that, given some assistance, the land will support new growth. I trust that, given our input and co-operation, the Water Board will support what we as a community want.

What I would like to see is for all of us to respond from the best place in ourselves, for what is best for our community and its common ground, not for our individual financial reserves.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Ruth Thor Nelson: Meetings for the Community? - May 1

Under its water board section, the Vista Verde web site states the water board meets the first Thursday, which makes for a meeting this week, Thursday,  May 4, at 7:30p.m. at the Blackmon residence, 25 Joaquin.   Will the Survey Committee also be meeting this week?  Both the Vista Verde (www.vistaverdeca.org) and Los Trancos Woods (www.lostrancoswoods.org) community web sites announce dates of past subcommittee and other meetings only, through April.

Where can the community find the agenda(s) for this week’s meeting(s)?   Where can  community members get copies of minutes of previous meetings?  Are the water board’s meeting minutes available on line?

My experience with governmental panels indicates a formal, rather tightly scripted delivery is in order from the Water Board and community to the Board of Supervisors.  Will copies of the Water Board’s power-point presentation be provided to the Supervisors prior to or at the May 17th meeting?  Please also consider a run through or rehearsal of the presentation, a normal practice for these type of situations, at least in academic research encounters with governmental panels.   Let the community know when and where so we can come and see to learn first hand how the presentation will be conducted.   Who on the Water Board should the community contact for copies of the presentation?  Could it be placed on-line too?

Thanks for doing your best by the community!!

Mary Kiely: Re: Water Conservation - April 30

With regard to rebates - we have some residents within "VV-LTW" living on less than 1/2 acre of land and others who have one to three acres of land.

Everyone should conserve to the extent they are able to do so, but not all residents own the same amount of land.  It is obviously much easier to use less water on a smaller property.

Tim Bailey: Water District Service Questionnaire - Water Conservation - April 30

I just received my Water District Service Questionnaire yesterday. The questionnaire bought up a question I been asking myself since attending several water board meeting and reading the flurry of emails on receiving “cost reduction rebates”.

It seems that we have a very broad range of water usage if some residence are receiving a $13 “cost reduction rebates” and some others are receiving as much as $110.

Long term the issue is conservation.Obviously, some residences are using a lot more water then others.Generally, large consumers have the largest ability to conserve water.

My question is:

Do we have 80% of the residences conserving water and receiving a relatively small rebate and the vocal 20% using a lot of water and receiving a much larger rebate (the largest rebate is almost 9 times the smallest)? I am sure the water board could break it down for us.

Maybe the best solution for long-term conservation is a prioritized four-point program:

   1. Give each residence a fixed “cost reduction rebate” , say $20-$25,
   2. Finance a water conservation program,
   3. Help finance the emergency preparedness program, and
   4. With the remaining funds, we can finance some level of land
      management.

This type of proposal might not be popular with those receiving large rebates but the other 80% might be interested in a program similar to this.

Curt Parkin - Re: Checks and Balances - April 29

I appreciate your taking the time to comment in such detail on current activities of the new Water Board.

It's reassuring to see that you grasp so many of the complex issues involved in the current process and are able to make your own way past much of the rhetoric that's been flying around. I certainly agree with your "checks and balances" and "follow the money" philosophies.

Thanks also for attaching the Water Board attorney's legal analysis (see below) concluding that any water cost offset (aka "rebate") granted by the Water Board is fully legitimate (regardless of what members of LAFCo and the County may opine, presumably even up to 100% of tax revenues, as has been the case for decades) because "...the purpose of the Offset is to reduce the cost of water, and setting rates for the cost of water is a public purpose within the District’s jurisdiction per California Water Code...."

I hope you'll continue to stay fully engaged in the process and you'll keep encouraging our neighbors to do so as well.

In my opinion, the more concerned citizens watching carefully (and skeptically) as the process unfolds, the better.

Ruth and Gerry Nelson: Checks and Balances, Legal Opinion on Rebates - April 29

Please submit your Water District survey, so that your point of view is included in our community’s input “on the record” for clarification to both the Water Board and to the County Board of Supervisors.   If you are not totally comfortable with the response options which are listed, the comment box is especially useful and intended for formally conveying and expanding your own point of view.

A core concern of the community and included in the LAFCO Report is addressed in the memo of April 13, 2006 (added on to the end of this message), from the water district’s legal counsel addressing the “Offset of Water Rates.”  Through legal citations and court precedents it would appear to demonstrate that we are entitled to continue the water board’s function for this purpose.   Section 31025 states “[T]he district shall fix and through the general manager collect the water rates…”  The district board has fixed the rate and the general manager function has now moved from Tom Hubbard and his Webb Ranch personnel to CWS Utility Services, an affiliate of Cal Water.

Because we as constituents of the district may dissolve the water board through an election, our strongest message to the County in its review of the LAFCO Report will be your Yes or No response asking “Should the Water Board Continue?”   Please consider this question very carefully.

I attended the LAFCO review on March 15, and note that one of the supervisors stated that the Board of Supervisors has a poor record of redirecting funds back to specific county constituent purposes or groups.  If we were to dissolve the water district, the County’s general fund would be the beneficiary of our tax revenue and we would have no direct control, influence or benefit  from our generosity to the county but rather would display our disinterest in managing our own local issues.

The water board’s meeting last Thursday, April 20, revealed the depth of detail that we are confronting and our role as constituents in focusing the board’s attention and consideration on understanding the history, context, and impact of management decisions to be addressed, investigated, and communicated  back to us.

Based on last Thursday’s meeting I learned that:  Previously 100% of available water board tax revenue was applied to offset water costs, and that our rebate program is patterned after that of San Francisco.

As one  astute neighbor pointed out, if the water board is not rebating the entire amount available at this time: WHAT IS THE AMOUNT AND INTENDED PURPOSE OF THOSE FUNDS  WHICH ARE BEING RETAINED?  We need to learn more about this situation.

The assembled citizenry and water board members acknowledged that any changes to the offset or rebate structure needed detailed study -- many factors and considerations were enumerated and raw data on water usage was presented.  Now is the time to express your position, -- for the record -- and the timing is appropriate to get your issues on the agendas and to attend future meetings, be they water board meetings or citizen review committees.

A telling and amazing indication of the importance of citizen input and the need for checks and balances occurred during a discussion of the initial survey.   The survey committee met on Tuesday evening, April 18; two days later at the water board meeting on Thursday evening, April 20, the text -- as distributed by one of the newly elected board members -- had been unilaterally modified to include an inaccurate reference to the LAFCO report.  The change was noted by committee members and because a community member had brought along a copy of the LAFCO report, the text was corrected.   The survey you received reflects the correction re the LAFCO reference.

Because of citizen involvement with this initial petition -- and others that will follow, and the development of a mission statement by another citizen committee, we are well launched toward defining a process that will move us through and beyond the LAFCO review and toward understanding the community’s consensus for the management of our water district assets.

Please submit a completed survey, attend and contribute to district and board meetings, including filling out the speaker’s form at the County’s LAFCO review meeting on May 17, so we can provide ourselves with a say for time and to develop the options needed to work through our issues and concerns.  Unfortunately, the confluence of the election of new water  board members and the legislatively mandated LAFCO Review process  brings pressures.

Re questions 4, 5, and 6, I suggest they are premature except to demonstrate to the County that we are an involved and thoughtful community.  Before dedicating any financial resources to secondary or so called dormant services, I need to know what dollar amount has already accrued from the less than 100% of available funds given over to the “rebate” program.  These three questions are very hypothetical.  I need detailed information from other government agencies such as the fire district, the State Office of Emergency Preparedness, disaster preparedness planning by the school districts., etc. to make sure resources/efforts are not duplicated, or inappropriately overlapping into other purpose-driven districts.  I view our water district’s as just that:  existing for the purpose of managing our water service.   And, once again, the adage to "follow the money" applies.

Attendance at the LAFCO meeting at the Little Red School house was outstanding.  Attendance at the Board of Supervisors hearing on the LAFCO Review was meager – only about a half dozen residents other than water board members.   Attendance at the recent water board meeting was less than expected considering recent email traffic; participating citizens numbered less than 20.

My thanks to the water board and citizen advisory committee members who are contributing to our understanding of the issues.   To the community at large, your thoughtful and considered responses to the survey are appreciated.


The Legal Opinion:

To: Los Trancos County Water District Board
Fr: Sandy Sloan; Camas Steinmetz
Date: April 13, 2006
RE: Offset of Water Rates

BACKGROUND
Before the sale to California Water Service Company (“Cal Water”) of the Los Trancos County Water District (“District”)’s water distribution facilities in April, 2005, District taxpayers were paying some of the highest rates in the State, in part to deliver water to this small hilly District, and in part to pay for the costly upgrade to the District’s water distribution system in preparation for its sale to Cal Water.  In addition, although the Blue Oaks area was annexed to the District in the late 1990’s, the District
received no additional revenue to assist in its delivery of services to this annexed area.  To compensate its taxpayers for years of paying these high rates and, in anticipation of increasing water costs as a result of the Hetch Hetchy upgrade, the District Board decided that a partial offset of water rates was appropriate and this concept was included in its contract with Cal Water.

The District sold its water distribution services to Cal Water in April, 2005 pursuant to the Asset and Real Property Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Sale Agreement”) dated December 18, 2003 which references the District’s intention to enter into agreement  with CWS Utility Services (“CWS”), an affiliate of Cal Water, to administer offsets of water rates.  On April 21, 2005, the District passed Resolution No. 190 authorizing the distribution of a portion of the District’s revenues to the District’s constituents in order “to offset the increasing cost of water” (“Offset”).  On September 16, 2005 the District entered into an agreement with CWS whereby CWS agreed to provide its billing services to administer the Offset and the District agreed to pay CWS, as consideration for its services, a monthly fee in the amount of 2% of the total monthly Offset administered.

QUESTION PRESENTED
Is the issuance of the Offset a gift of public funds?

SHORT ANSWER
No, because 1) the purpose of the Offset is to reduce the cost of water, and setting rates for the cost of water is a public purpose within the District’s jurisdiction per California Water Code Sections 31007, 31025, 71614-16; and 2) the District has the power generally to perform all acts necessary to carry out its powers per California Water Code Section 31001.

GOVERNING LAW
The California Constitution (Article XVI § 6) prohibits any public agency from making “any gift of any public money or thing of value to any individual, municipal or other corporation whatever.”  The determining factor in whether there has been an illegal gift of public funds is whether the expenditure was for a “public purpose.”  Schettler v. County of  Santa Clara (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 990, 10003. If the expenditure is for a public purpose within the jurisdiction of the appropriating board or body, it is
not regarded as a gift even though there may be incidental benefits to private persons.  Id; Atlantic Richfield Company v. County of Los Angeles (1982) 129 Cal. App. 3d 287, 297.  In Schettler, the court stated that “[i]t is .. settled that if a public purpose is served by the expenditure of public funds, the constitutional prohibition is not violated even though there may be incidental benefits to private persons [citations].”  Schettler, 74 Cal.App.3d 1004. The Schettler court further held that “[e]ven more importantly, under an unbroken line of cases the determination of what constitutes a public purpose is primarily a matter for the [governing body], and its discretion will not be disturbed by the courts so long as that determination has a reasonable basis.”  Id.  In Atlantic, the court specifically held that a refund of taxes to the taxpayers was not an illegal gift of public funds because the purpose of the refund was to relieve taxpayer hardship and relief of hardship to a taxpayer is a valid public purpose.  Atlantic, supra 129 Cal. App. 3d 287.


ANALYSIS
Although the Offset does provide incidental benefits to private persons, the Offset is for a public purpose within the District’s jurisdiction and therefore not an illegal gift of public funds.  Resolution No. 190 authorizing the Offset states that the purpose of the Offset is “to offset the increasing cost of water.”  Offsetting the increasing cost of water is a legitimate public purpose for two reasons:  1) offsetting the increasing cost of water relieves hardship and relief of taxpayer hardship is specifically recognized by California courts to be a legitimate public purpose (Atlantic Richfield Company v. County of Los Angeles (1982) 129 Cal. App. 3d 287, 297) and 2) the District has wide discretion in determining what is a public purpose (Schettler v. County of  Santa Clara (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 990).  The public purpose of offsetting the increasing cost of
water is within the District’s jurisdiction because the District is authorized to fix and collect water rates under Sections 31007, 31025, 71614-16  of the California Water Code and the District has the power “to perform all acts necessary to carry out fully” this Section under Section 31001.  The Offset effectively sets the District taxpayer’s water rates by offsetting them.  Therefore, although there is incidental benefit to private persons, the Offset is for a legitimate public purpose and is not an illegal gift of public funds.

cc: Thomas F. Casey
Carol L. Woodward

Curt Parkin: Of Broom and Battlefields - April 29

The new Water Board has been assuring our community that they can be trusted to take good care of our beautiful District properties.

 

Yet the new Board's very first community act (last January, I believe?) was to sponsor a "broom pull," allegedly to clear that nasty old non-native Scotch broom off the District property along lower Lake Road. I still don't know quite what the Board is trying to accomplish, but the result so far is that the Board has created a replica of a World War One battlefield on that District property.

 

So here we have clear evidence of another consequence of hasty action by the Board to "improve" District lands. Regardless of what's intended by the Board, those of us who walk or drive by that property have been stuck with having to look at that sorry sight every single day, for months on end so far. Sure, broom can be a nuisance, but I prefer broom plants any day to the pitifully scarred landscape that's been left in its place. Shame on you, Water Board.

 

If you haven't yet seen their handiwork, please drive by the intersection of lower Lake Road at Los Trancos Circle and take a look.

Curt Parkin: Of Deer and Surveys - April 29

As some of you know, I have lived for more than 23 years near the Water Board lake on upper Lake Road. For all of those 23 years, I have noticed one place in the fence around the lake where there is a small crawl space under the fence. What you may not know is that there is apparently a deer corridor that passes through my property, since most weekends I've noticed a number of deer passing through my yard and using that crawl space to get a drink from the lake. Over those 23 years I've never noticed any problem with the situation, and I've certainly enjoyed watching deer passing by, especially during times of the year when fawns are in abundance.

 

Today when I arrived home I noticed that someone had seen fit to block that crawl space under the fence with a metal fence post plus a large tree trunk, so no longer can deer use that passageway to drink from the lake. I don't know who authorized this action that affects Water Board property, but I certainly see it as just more evidence that there are those in our community who will forge ahead to make changes in the decades-long status quo without thinking about the consequences of their actions--and certainly not caring about near-lake residents who have to put up with those consequences day after day.

 

I keep hearing all kinds of talk in our community about loving nature and wanting not to spoil our beautiful environment, then I see an act that cuts off wildlife from a primary water supply and deprives us living near the lake of the pleasure of watching beautiful deer going about their lives. I've heard many complaints about the battered fence around the lake, but I do believe it's served important purposes--it's protected hundreds if not thousands of migrating ducks over the years while preventing children from drowning and vehicles from plunging into the lake, yet at the same time it's allowed deer and other wildlife access to a year-around water supply. (Yes, the fence along upper Lake Road looks battered--that's at least partly because many cars and trucks have run into it over the years rather than plunging into the lake!) 

 

If the Water Board is responsible for plugging the deer's passageway without consulting us who have to live with the consequences of this action, then shame on the Water Board. Regardless of who's responsible, I can't help but see this as handwriting on the wall that this is just the beginning of the meddling that the new Board intends to impose on District lands, with little regard for impacts on us who live near those lands.

 

Surely everyone has seen the survey being passed around to find out the "will of the community" about what to do with Water Board lands that include the lake. I predict that whatever the results of the survey, those results will be "spun"  to justify taking money out of our pockets to fund substantial invasive changes in the status quo regarding District properties. Despite denials that I hear all the time, I am convinced that the majority of our community who don't live near the lake have little regard for the minority of their neighbors who will have to live with the consequences of the Board's decisions. I doubt VERY seriously that we'd be hearing ANY of the recent rhetoric advocating new "land management services" if the lake were located at JOAQUIN Road or FOXWOOD Road rather than at upper Lake Road and lower Old Spanish Trail.

Thoughts from Michael Ward - April 27

I've been following, and participating in the water board saga since the election, and have learned a lot.  The ((sometimes) heated dialogue and voluminous writings have generated many new ideas, confirmed the impressiveness of past accomplishments, and pointed out a pretty clear picture for the useful future that the Water Board can deliver to us, their constituents.  This has been put together in a draft Mission Statement which, after the benefit of this survey input, will be finalized, and, I'm sure, shared with all.

I'm very pleased that we are now striving to get `the voice of the customer' as input to the Board's direction.  So please do fill out your survey with your best thoughts and guidance.

Here's what I've learned.

The water district was formed over 50 years ago to provide adequate, safe, affordable water to our community.  It has done so over the years, and can continue in that role in the foreseeable future.  That future will bring much increased water costs as the Hetch Hetchy project comes on line.

We've outsourced the delivery of water to Cal Water, yet there is still much value that needs to be delivered by our local elected board, so it should continue in its elected role.

To me, the community's biggest need is to learn how to get efficient use of our water and still enjoy a reasonable lifestyle.  There are many ways to do this, and most of us have done some of these - I expect the water board to help me learn about the best and most effective tools, how to access them, and then encourage me to do this.

Even as we progress in our water use efficiency, costs will rise, so using our tax dollars to defray a percentage of these costs and set the effective water rate, as we've been with all of these tax dollars for the last 50 years, will continue to benefit the community.

Also, we're blessed with seven acres of land and one of the lakes that was part of the original water system.  It is up to the community to recommend to the Board as to what to do with this, (within legal parameters). 

I personally like the open space aspect, would appreciate a little access to it, and certainly wish to clean it up a bit, perhaps change out the fence to something safe but much more attractive.  I'd like to see the land preserved in this state over the long term, so working with Open Space districts as possible long term custodians is a good approach.

The process to decide what to do to the land, and achieve community agreement will likely take several years, at which time our revenue can be directed and proportioned to where the community wishes the money to go.

However, until there is consensus on what to do with the land, (if anything other than general cleanup and safety issues), and all parities agree on a plan and a budget, I believe all the Water District revenue (after overhead, reserves and approved project expenses) should go into conservation and water cost reduction. Unfortunately, we can't save our money up for future high water costs, so must expend it wisely each year.

We are an active community, and will put our diverse minds to these issues, and I'm sure will come up with something that works.

Karen Tate Perspectives - April 26

I believe our Water District can provide valuable services that benefit our broader community and therefore I am supportive of its ongoing existence.

The services I value are emergency preparedness, water conservation, land maintenance, the potential addition of low-impact amenities to the District Lands, watershed management, and storm-water run-off management. These are not services that the County (or any other agency) currently supports in any meaningful way within our community. If we dissolve the District and return the tax revenue to the County, I doubt we’ll be seeing any investment in those areas.

Both emergency preparedness and water conservation are well described in the survey, but below are some of my thoughts regarding the other potential areas of service.

Land Maintenance: I believe investment in basic open space land management could greatly increase the inherent value of the District’s lands to our community. It’s readily apparent the lands have been left derelict for years. With smart investment, we could bring those lands up to the standards of the surrounding open space. This will be an absolute requirement if we hope to entice someone such as Portola Valley to manage the lands in the future. 

Addition of Low-Impact Amenities to Lands: At a minimum, I want to be able to walk around the Lake and have the occasion to encounter a “surprise” or two along the way, e.g., a hammock, a bench, a rope swing or something similar to what is found along the adjacent Portola Valley trails. In addition, I would like to see the Board and our community explore ways in which the lands could be used to help build more community in our neighborhood and to do so as to minimize any downsides, e.g, community garden, informal community gathering spot, small children’s play area etc. Clearly a good deal more discussion and analysis is required, but I would love to see what might be workable.

Watershed Management: Under the Water Code, the Water District could also undertake initiatives to reduce our collective community impact on our input into the upper Los Trancos Creek/San Francisquito Creek watershed. These could include attention to reducing septic input into local creeks, reducing erosion from improperly managed storm water run-off, reducing invasive seed input into surrounding property and open space (e.g., scotch broom and thistle), and providing incentives for planting natives.

Storm-Water Runoff Management: The District could accumulate information on storm-water run-off “hot spots” and other issues related to managing storm water. The District could then serve as the principal point of contact to the County working toward resolving these issues. A dramatic example of this is the recent slide near Ramona Road.    

Rebates or Water Cost Reduction: The one service on the survey I do not value is the rebate. We already receive an inherent discount in our water fees with Cal Water. Without figuring in any rebates from the Water District, we pay the same fees that residents in Portola Valley do and yet the cost to service our area is much greater due to the fact that water has to be pumped uphill and stored in tanks prior to delivery. Anyone on the past Water Boards can tell you how expensive that is – often an additional 50%. In addition, I do not philosophically support the existence of a tax-supported, government agency that channels its funds directly back into the pockets of its constituents. If this was being done by some other district in the county, would you be supportive? I believe agencies exist to “invest” those dollars into services of benefit to the community that otherwise would not be funded.

Assuming the community wants to maintain a rebate, I would encourage each of us to think about how they would ideally structure it. Currently the structure differentially rewards those in our neighborhood who choose to consume the most water. An alternative is to structure a rebate that equally distributes the benefits across all households. I personally would support the latter approach.

I encourage everyone to take time to complete the survey and to provide lots of comments. I know there are a broad range of opinions, but I hope starting the dialog will be the first step to a transformed and reinvented Water District.

Gordon Harper Updated Remarks - April 26

About ten days ago I wrote in reply to an email from Curt Parkin whose subject was "The NEW WATER BOARD WANTS to TAKE YOUR CASH!" I must say with emphasis that even after talking with Stan Gage, for whom I have a lot of respect, there were two aspects of the Water Board future that I just could not  understand. The exchange of emails in the past week have also given me some information that I did not have earlier. And, I have had several calls from individual water district subscribers asking me for further advice and some "fresh" ideas. I would like the opportunity to clarify a couple of points and freshen up my own thoughts.

 

1.  At first glance it certainly does look like we were being "taken to the cleaners". Here we are, A) Paying for water to Cal Water; B) Paying through taxes to a Water Board that, strictly speaking, has no further function; C) And, if the Water Board decides on projects to insure its longevity it will find new ways to spend the money collected in taxes (albeit partially refunded to subscribers).

 

I could not understand why the Water Board could not dissolve and the taxes would simply go away. My understanding now is that the reason that  it is not this simplistic is that  under Proposition 13 (passed, I believe in 1972) the current tax rate will be 1% of the assessed value of one's property irrespective of whether there is a Water Board or not The Water Board  is only one of twenty-nine (or more) agencies or bonds that are serviced by the property tax. "They" are not "taking are money" in any event. I feel better about that.

 

If the Water Board were to choose to dissolve, which I happen to favor, these monies would be made available for the use of other agencies: e.g. Woodside Fire, MidPeninsula Regional Open Space, Mosquito Abatement; Bay Area Air Quality, schools, school bonds and so on. It is also my understanding that in the Articles of Dissolution the present board could make recommendations as to the specific recipient successor agencies.

 

2.  I was also concerned about the apparent "taking" of property. This may have more to do with my own naivete, but I had carried around in my head all these years that Beth and I somehow owned (and thereby controlled) some fractional interest in the lands of the Water District. I have inquired about this and learned that we individual subscribers have no rights of ownership. In the event of dissolution of the District the disposition of the assets would pass to the next higher governmental agency - presumably San Mateo County. The model which I had had in mind is of a Mutual Water District form of organization in which one would "join" by buying into (think thousands of dollars) the district. In this case the lands of the Water District are simply owned by a government organization.

 

3. In the exchange of emails I learned for the first time that the district was in debt to Blue Oaks for (I believe it was ) $650,000 payable over 70 years at zero percent interest. While this appears to be quite a gift, and it was on the part of Blue Oaks, I see no need to retain the services of a Water Board to meet monthly for the next seventy-years to service this debt. Assuming dollar depreciation of 3-4% continues, the Net Present Value of the $650,000 is worth just under $60,000 today from this factor alone. This debt could be easily extinguished in negotiations with Blue Oaks at the time the district lands were sold.

 

4. Lands? Sold? Oh my, I am a businessman and a conservationist. As a businessman, yes I would like to see the lands sold for their "highest use" consistent with the area, which I believe would be single family dwellings on small lots zoned for homes on the scale of what we know as Los Trancos Woods (definitely not like those in Vista Verde; as one acquaintance said "oh, you mean no Tuscan Villas!" (aka: Blue Oaks). What a wonderful thing to be able to offer 6-12 more families the opportunity to live in the beautiful setting of Los Trancos Woods. And, the advantage to us would be both immediate and continuing income to the county to further broaden our tax base in support of Fire Protection, Emergency Preparedness, Open Space District and the like.

 

But what about conservation of the land!!? Well, I think that God may be on our side here (and this is admittedly pure speculation since I have not walked the land for a number of years) but I believe that when it comes right down to it there will be significant areas of District lands that are simply unbuildable and for that reason we will continue to enjoy some islands of undisturbed vegetation. From a more general point of view in terms of conservation, I am more interested in seeing larger tracts of land which are seen by entire communities than preserving smaller in-fill sites that are already part of existing communities.

 

5. And what about the conserved land? I would like to see it developed in no way since that would detract from it's natural beauty, create an attractive nuisance which would require insurance coverage and active management in perpetuity, thereby further increasing our actual expenses.

 

*******

I hope some of this writing has been helpful in understanding the taxing and taking of lands. I also have tried to clearly identify what I believe are the facts, and that you can clearly see what are my opinions. I am much more comfortable knowing that no one is "taking" our lands or our taxes, given a better understanding of the processes.

 

Whether the Los Trancos County Water Board dissolves itself, is dissolved by an outside agency or subscriber group, or continues local control of its lands and tax base it faces some very difficult/complex decisions. The Board has given us a very well thought out questionnaire for each district subscriber to indicate their desires concerning future services. I don't think any of us lack an opinion - so one should respond to Richard Swan "Survey Collection" (aha! The Independent Auditor!) as soon as practical.

 

I look forward to seeing how things unfold over the next  6-18 months. The district has certainly been handled well in the past 50 or so years. I think I will go get a drink of water! We've never run out!

John Walsh Response to Stan Gage - April 20

This, to me, strikes at the heart of the issue.

 

Whether the LafCo people are "angry" or we have "raised their ire" is an interesting idea, but if we have control, it would seem to me that ruling out some valid approaches to satisfy an annoyed county official is totally unnecessary.

 

If we have a solid plan that includes a rebate, let them dissipate their anger with some other vehicle-- a walk in a county park for example.

 

Stan Gage Response to John Walsh - April 20

 

The April 13, 2006 memo from the District's legal counsel clearly articulates the basis of the legal guidance that the former Board members relied upon in establishing the program of discounts for your water purchases. I have a great deal of confidence in Sandy Sloan and her assistant Camas Steinmetz. They are very thorough, and competent attorneys - not given to shooting from the hip or telling their clients only what the client wants to hear.

Regarding dissolution of the District, I can't find right now the written opinion from Sandy; however, at a meeting on March 29th between Sandy, Camas, David Smernoff and me, Sandy and Camas made it very clear that the only way the District could be dissolved would be through a vote of the constituency within the District. There are a number of ways that a vote could be initiated. But in the end, 50% plus one person would need to say they are dissatisfied enough with what has been transpiring in the District that they believe it should be dissolved. In theory, the State Legislature could also act to dissolve the District but this has not yet happened in the history of California.

The "dissolution" argument and the "thumbing our nose" phraseology are red herrings tossed out to raise  unfounded concerns. Clearly the District should not ignore LAFCo. However, the District has a very good record from the past and an entirely legal plan to move forward into the future. We should be rightfully proud of what we are doing, go in and tell LAFCo what we plan and why and then go do it. The negativism we are encountering now from LAFCo is almost entirely the product of a couple of people who have lobbied LAFCo members and the LAFCo Executive Director to try to shift the focus of the District to one of Parks and Recreation. It is not up to LAFCo to be telling the community that we need to be investing our money in a park. Its up to the community!! LAFCo can tell us we shouldn't or LAFCo could refuse to activate latent powers under the State Water Code that would allow us to invest in a park (as was clearly suggested by Ms.Payotos when she came to a District meeting last August). But, LAFCo cannot force the District to create a park.

 

Stan Gage Response to Charlie Krenz - April 20

The letter from Richard Gordon was certainly a surprise to me when he included a denial of his past support for the program of discounting future water costs to the residents of our community. The issue was discussed for about 10 minutes at the end of an approximately 1 hour meeting on the morning of January 9, 2003. He has apparently overlooked or has forgotten that I discussed this issue with him by telephone in mid-2005 as well. The latter discussion was to reaffirm his support for the program of discounts. The program was specifically discussed in the context of the then problem created for almost all local agencies due to the state taking a part of the property tax revenues. Supervisor Gordon reaffirmed in that conversation his support for the plan which was explicitly described. I wanted to be certain that he still supported the program in light of the economic situation at that time.

Both of these interchanges with Supervisor Gordon were documented and discussed at the next subsequent Board meeting.

It should also be noted that the discount program was prominently represented in the presentation to the community about the proposed sale to CAL Water on March 10, 2003. Martha Payotos attended and participated in this meeting. She did not, in my recollection, make any comment one way or the other about the discount program. Between early 2003 and mid 2004, I discussed the discount program with Ms. Payotos on at least 2 occasions. In one of these discussions the conversation revolved around why the program that our District planned was different than what the Sequoia Hospital District was doing. In the opinion of Ms.Payotos at that time, the plan set forth by the LTCWD was appropriate because it used the District revenues to support issues within the District, whereas Sequoia, at that time, was spending a significant fraction of their revenue outside of their district (her words paraphrased as best I can recall).

I tend to be a person who believes an individual will stand behind their words so I don't document conservations such as these and then send people a copy of my impressions and ask them to commit on paper to having made certain statements. My bad for trusting politicians, I guess. I can't prove that any of the above conversations took place any more than any of the others involved can prove that they didn't take place. There are at least 20 people who were at the March 10, 2003 meeting. Probably not all of them knew who Ms.Payotos was.

Our community should also be asking Charlie Krenz and Karen Tate to document ALL of the conversations that they have held with Supervisor Gordon and Ms. Payotos and their respective staffs concerning issues related to the LTCWD.

Up until the time Charlie and Karen launched their personal campaign for the conversion of our water District into a Park & Recreation District (remember their campaign fliers that they now disavow), I believe we had established a very good situation for the District. We did have support from the County Supervisor for our area, we did have support from LAFCo, we did have a program in place that would reduce the cost of our water service, and we did have ample funding to establish a long term secure status as open space for the District's real estate. This just shows what good Beltway-style lobbyists can do to sell politicians on support of any plausible or implausible scheme.

John Walsh in Response to Charlie Krenz - April 20

I, like you have read all of the correspondence on this topic, with some confusion.

 

This one, however, raises my "ire"

 

That we should need to "calm" the "ire" of a county body is itself an anger generating concept. It's not at all obvious from the attached correspondence that there is "anger with us" by this body. And if there is, where is their right to such a position?

 

If it is, in fact, true that a rebate program is legal (and had been tested) and that the Water District cannot be dissolved except by the vote of the residents, I think we have the ability to make this body calm its own "anger" (if there is any), and do its job according to its legal authority, not any personal emotion.

 

I have yet to read anyone refute the two concepts of the legality of a rebate plan and the necessity of resident votes to dissolve the district. Are these true or not? If so, our problem is likely not the county, but the different positions of the residents themselves.

 

I would like to hear a definitive answer on these two issues to be able to judge whether the county is being used appropriately as a concern or a bogeyman to push a position.

Charlie Krenz - April 20

I want to thank Richard Swan for his work coaxing a proposed Mission Statement out of our small subgroup tasked to work on the matter.  I think we are headed in the right direction and not as far apart as it may seem.

The one area we still need to nail down is the rebate – both the structure and the total dollar amount.  Despite what we were told when the Cal Water sale was presented to the community back in 2003, the County was not and never has been supportive of the rebate program, either the per unit consumed component or the fixed subsidy of the $12 connection fee. 

Please see the correspondence with our County Supervisor, Rich Gordon.  These are public documents received from the County yesterday afternoon. Their anger with us over the rebate program and claims of being focused on conservation is readily apparent.

I believe we need to find common ground that works for our community and is “acceptable” to the County so that they are working with us as we move forward.

Their two big issues appear to be: 

1)     The overall existence of the rebate – here’s where I think the total amount rebated to the community comes into play. If we can keep it to a “reasonable” amount, I think we can defuse their anger. Somehow the figure of $50K or less seems right to me but is by no means scientific. I think the rebate portion of our expenditures needs to be under 1/3 of our annual discretionary budget to have any hope of calming their ire. For additional political benefit, any rebate should be tied to conservation measures. Cutting this amount from $85k to $75k as Richard has proposed seems insincere to me, like we’re thumbing our nose at the County. 

2)     The variable portion of the rebate – they particularly don’t like that it disproportionately rewards large water consumers. We have a couple of options in this regard. We could focus on a fixed rebate that would reward all residents evenly. Alternatively, we could set a lower cap; this way more residents would share in the benefit.  While targeting 250 units per year as a cap sounds reasonable, there are still over 70% of the residents in our community who use less than that amount.  Why not use a cap like 100 units – that way, there are only about 1/3^rd of the residents below that threshold.  That seems to me to be far more equitable and politically “defensible”.

      Anyway, food for thought!

Stan Gage Reply to Charlie Krenz - April 19

The reply from the author below is the epitome of the efforts to pit one group of users against another. There is a significant range in usage of water within our community. Some people even use no water for periods of several months in both the winter and summer. Most likely the properties are unoccupied or the owner is out of town and has no landscaping or the meter is malfunctioning. Others have significant landscaping which is often enjoyed by both the individual owners and by much of the community. What is argued in the reply by author below is that there should be different water rates for different groups of people with the author arguing that he knows best how to choose where the class dividing lines should be. It is really a rather interesting argument that a system wherein everyone pays the same rate for water is unfair. As for the prior rate structure of the District it was created to try to reduce demand for water, not to create extra income. It really didn't work to achieve water use reduction objectives until the highest rate was 10X the lowest rate.

When it comes to things like water usage and demand for other basic commodities, each person tends to assume that their own personal usage pattern is correct and that others who deviate substantially from this pattern are out of line with what is perceived as "RIGHT". Its hard to shake this pattern of belief formation and it often leads to the believer vilifying others as getting an unfair advantage, or using too much of a scarce resource, or polluting too much. For the really egregious users on far ends  of the distribution there may be some truth to this. More often than not, however, after you correct for bad data (say non-functioning meters for people using little or no water and possible leaks for some exceptionally high users there are generally very few of these "off the chart" cases to deal with. In the case of our district, if you take from the low end the people whose usage represents less than normal full time occupancy by one person and take out the 5 or 6 largest users the range of the total  benefit from the smallest users to the largest users falls to about 4 to 1, not the 10 to 1 as hyped in some peoples' analysis. The really large users that are in the data set that has been used for much of the analysis could be influenced by other means to bring their usage pattern down to what is reasonably necessary for irrigation in yards of their type. There are a number of mechanisms for doing this. Primarily they are described in what is known in the water industry as AB325.

As for the County despising the water rate discount program the main reason that there is a problem with this now is the ceaseless lobbying carried out with Rich Gordon and Martha Payotos by the author of the reply below and his spouse. The ONLY thing that Rich Gordon really expressed a dissatisfaction with at the LAFCo meeting was the feeling that the lowered water rate encouraged higher consumption. This is something that has been pretty well disproved. If lowering our cost of water is something that the community desires then it is perfectly legal and is clearly a case of spending the money on ourselves. And incidentally, it is exactly what the District has been doing with property tax revenue for the past 50+ years. Part of the current plan for the discounts that will be discussed is to tie eligibility for the discounted water rate to the use of water conservation devices in each home.

None of this is a case of thumbing our noses at the County. It is following a perfectly legal approach that has been reviewed and accepted by the Appellate Courts of the State of California and is done in some other districts.

There are two things that will imperil the continued existence of the District.

The first is if the District Board continues to thumb its nose at the prior promise to find out what the community wants in the way of services and benefits before changing things and increasing your current cost of water. Then someone in the District could ask LAFCo to dissolve the District and there might just be enough votes for that to carry. In any case, the only way the District can be dissolved is through a vote of the majority of the residents in the District. The author of the reply below knows this full well and is simply engaging in fear mongering.

The second way to imperil the District is to begin spending a majority of the District revenues on projects that are not directly related to water. Reducing the cost of water and water conservation programs meets this condition. Parks and Recreation projects  by themselves, even though they are allowed for under the water code, do not. If the District isn't spending its money on water related endeavors, it is not a water district, and it could be subject to serious and costly legal challenges.

The "unfairness" and assorted other arguments that have been raised are really just a smoke screen to try to increase even further the $300,000+ already available to the District Board to invest in endeavors other than the discounting of your cost of water.

 It sounds more like greed.

Don Lee and Richard Swan Response - April 19

Don Lee: Perhaps I've missed it somewhere, but could someone explain why the district has income from taxes?  Which taxes? 

Richard Swan: The LTCWD gets about $160,000 per year (projected)  from the property tax of each of our homes – Vista Verde + Los Trancos.

This tax revenue got frozen in by Prop 13.  It is some defined fraction of all the property tax within the District.

Those who were fortunate enough to buy long time ago, probably pay a relatively small amount of tax. New arrivals pay a lot more.

The key thing to understand is that if the Water District dissolved, our taxes would not change. The money would end up in County coffers.

Not necessarily bad, but unlikely to have a visible impact here.

Post prop 13, Water Districts and the like that can charge fees are intended to be entirely self sufficient based on usage fees. Our  water board was created at a different time when Property tax was used to subsidize the cost of water. Hence the district has subsidized our water cost with property tax revenue for 50 years.

The debate comes about when the District no longer delivers water. Should the funds continue to be used to subsidize our water, or should all the funds be spent on providing other community services, or should they be spent on both?

Don Lee: Also, what long term debt?  Was the district not sold with an assumption of long term debt by Cal Water?  Are residents somehow liable for some long term debt?

Richard Swan: As I understand, when the District sold the water pipes and equipment, they covered all the regular bonds and long term debt.

However there is an “obscure debt” which was not covered because it is rather hard to account for.

During  the building of Blue Oaks, the Board very cleverly figured out that they could retrofit the entire system with the money available from the Blue Oaks developers.

This is how the Board was able to get the system up to a level that it could be passed to an agency like Cal Water. The Board did a great job.

The “obscure debt”, which is detailed in the document I sent out earlier, is for $617,0000  over about 70 years at 0% interest. However, the loan is not due until certain build out levels are reached at Blue Oaks. Hence it is very hard to put a real value on this obligation. In the worst case it would be about 6% of revenue if it was due today, but it is very much smarter to pay it off as late as possible since there is no interest rate and the dollar depreciates.

Richard Swan - April 19

There is a lot of email and emotions flying around about the water board and rebates.While the Board Members go hammer and tong, I think there is a middle ground.

A small public committee formed by the Board has developed a DRAFT mission and response plan to LAFCo. Both Charlie and Stan have contributed a lot to this document and broadly agree to it. It outlines a mission :

The Los Trancos County Water District provides services to our communities under the California State Water Code in the following areas:

•          Promoting efficient water usage

•          Lowering the effective water rates

•          Maintaining and upgrading District land as open space

•          Based on community input provision of additional low impact amenities.

•          Subsidization of Emergency preparedness activities

In fulfilling these services, the District:

•          Seeks cooperation with other agencies

•          Responsibly manages long term debt

I believe that everybody in the district can benefit from a broad approach without going to extremes in either direction. Here are some facts on the water cost reduction program (also found in the Mission document):

The above table talks about both the existing scheme and a proposed capped scheme. The existing scheme can be justified from many points of view, but it does tend to give more to those who use more. The proposed capped scheme, is exactly the same as the current scheme up to an annual cap set approximately to the mean usage in the community. So everybody gets a reasonable cost offset – the lowest water user gets a cost offset of about $156 which amounts to a 90% discount on their water bill.

The average (mean) user gets cost offset of $393  which is 50% discount on their water bill. The highest users, under the capped scheme, get a cost reduction of $393 which is is discount of 15% of their bill.

The capped scheme, as proposed, would be only be available to houses that utilized water efficiency measures, like low flow toilets. It also reduces the total cost to the district, leaving  more than 50% of the District revenue for  other water related activities and upgrading the District lands to be of an amenity for us all.

The other lurking issue is the legal question of how far the District can go towards spending money on non-water related issues while still qualifying as a water district. Please see my memo on this subject. Some members of the Board to do not accept this understanding. I am not a lawyer, but I am quoting the public record from the Board' own meetings.

Please remember that this water rebate issues does not need to divide the community. There is a middle ground where we can make progress to beautify our community, introduce trails, provide benches and still give people some significant relief on their water bills.

Stan Gage to Peri Nielsen - April 19

There are a lot of questions imbedded here but I'll try to keep is short.

First off in answer to you initial question:
Without the discount, the annual water bill for the average user of 16 units per month would be $614. Under the old LTCWD water rates that person would have been paying $719. With the discount in effect, the average water user now pays $278 annually. So very simply, eliminate the discount and the average user goes back to paying  $614.

To translate this to an 11 unit per month average usage the un discounted rate on an annual basis is $467. With the discount the annual rate is $191. So the discount is worth $276 per year to a family using an average of 11 units per month.

If your bill was $7 for the month, it probably means you used about 5 units. Without the discount in place your monthly bill for 5 units would have been $24.25. So you save $17 or 70% for the month.

The total annual range from raw data is essentially zero to about 1200 units. So the range mathematically is infinite. On a more realistic basis, if you take out data where the meter may have been malfunctioning or the residence unoccupied for some time as well as the 4 or 5 very, very high users the variable component of usage ranges over about 50 to 800 units per year. When combined with the fixed $12.00 per month portion of the discount, this produces a total range of discounts of about 4:1.

Regarding the pool of money that we are drawing from to finance the disconts, the aggregate property tax revenues to the District, keep in mind that the range of contribution to this pool is about 20 to 1. Meaning that the person paying the highest property tax paid $20 into that pool for every $1 that the person paying the lowest property tax contributed. There is some correlation to water usage in this data. The lowest 10% of users paid ~3% of the property tax. The highest 10% of users paid ~10% of the property tax. Again, the "sports" that fall way outside of the normal distribution have been removed. 

Peri Nielsen to Stan Gage - April 19

Are you contending that, without the discount/rebate, the average water consumer's bill would go back up to old Water District rates?  I'm sure nobody wants that to happen, but it is hard to calculate the impact of what is being suggested based on the limited data provided in your email.  Please provide information about how much an 11-unit per month consumer's bill (assuming that 11 units is the "average") is going to increase now without the rebate/discount.  Use real life examples.  I can be the guinea pig.  My bill was $7 last month. What am I saving by virtue of the rebate/discount?
 
Also, I think the community would benefit from knowing the range of units used (lowest to highest) and what the median point is on that range.  My understanding of the issue is that the discount/rebate comes from property revenue, which "belongs" to the entire community (i.e., it is not "owned" proportionately based on the size of individuals' properties or water demand).  Yet, the discount/rebate from the property revenue is being distributed to property owners based on how many units of water they use.  So, while the "average" water consumer gets a fairly modest discount/rebate, the higher water consumers get a windfall, and the discount/rebate ends up incentivizing high water use (or de-incentivizing water conservation).   Putting aside special circumstances, this argument has some intuitive/philosophical appeal, yet your email does not suggest any way to address this unintended consequence.

Stan Gage Reply to Walter Greenleaf - April 19

The range of things that are entering the market is pretty large. Most technologies that fall into the category of "increased water use efficiency" devices are now gong into their second or third generation. Each generation builds of the learning from the prior generations and provides improved performance.

To name a few:
1.5gpm shower heads that many say feel as good as a 3.5 - 5 gpm shower head. The current standard that all manufacturers must adhere too is 2.5 gpm. The secret is air injection.

1.6 gal per flush toilets. The older models had varying degrees of performance. Sometimes requiring multiple flushes to clear the bowl. The latest models from most manufactures with a wider throat diameter  have overcome this problem. The old issue about insufficient water volume to clear the drain line has been proven to never have been a real issue.

High efficiency clothes washing machines. Some of these machines go as low as about 5 gal for an entire load (modest size, not 20 bath wraps)

But the biggest saver on the horizon is:                 
Smart irrigation technology. (Go where the demand is to get the most savings. In our District about 65% of water goes into irrigation) This is also know as ET (no not Extra- Terrestrial) but Evapo-Transpiration. These irrigation controllers sense weather conditions and can calculate how much water your landscaping needs. Yes they're pretty ---- smart. Estimated savings in total household water use ranges from 10% to 60%. I'd put my money on 20% as being a good number. But that's a lot of water. And a lot of bucks.

Charlie Krenz to Stan Gage - April 19

In a typical warm weather month there will be bunch of houses in the District that consume around 100 units of water (75,000 gallons) and a comparable number that use around 3 units.  Under the current system, the 100 unit customers would receive a rebate of $112 while the 3 unit customers will receive $15.

Back when we were a functioning water district we had in place a sliding scale rate structure that partially compensated for this disparity.  With the sale to CalWater, it’s gone.

The real bottom line: The system is unfair.

Our supervisor Rich Gordon and LAFCo, our county government’s watchdog over special districts such as ours is very clear:  They despise our rebate program and are demanding that we find a way spend the money on ourselves in programs that the community desires.   This is why the board is soon to distribute a survey on the matter. 

We can't thumb our noses at the county. To do so will imperil local control if not the very existence of our district. We must change. That's what Perry Blackmon's proposal to eliminate the "dollar per unit" portion of th subsidy was all about. The intent was to explore compromise that would leave in place the monthly $12 subsidy of the standard connection fee and, hopefully, get the county off our backs.

I suspect this will come up again at tomorrow night's meeting and look forward to discussing it with you.

Walter Greenleaf, PhD to Stan Gage - April 19

 

Thanks for your message(s).

Could you expand on one of your earlier statements:

 

"the District Board can anticipate more than $333,000 to invest in improving the lands, or more appropriately perhaps, helping our community acquire technology that will assist in conserving  water and further lowering our water bills."

It would be great to understand more about the technology that we could acquire for conserving water.

I like the idea -  are you proposing "gray water" systems, or better leak detection and repair, or some other way to conserve water?  In my mind, investing in conservation makes a lot of sense.

 

Stan Gage Response to Peri Neilsen - April 18

 

Before the sale to Cal Water, if your average monthly usage was about 11 units per month your annual bill would have been $600. Check your water bills from the past if you have saved them. It's a pretty good bet that you came pretty close in some years.

Since the sale to Cal Water you have only received 11 bills.from Cal Water. On 8 of these bills you have already benefited from the discount so it is unlikely that your annual bill would amount to anywhere near $600. Keep in mind, prior to the sale to Cal Water if our cost of water had not been offset by property tax your annual water bill for an average of about 11 units per month would have been over $1000. The discounts set a lower price point for everybody in the District.

Each family has differing needs for water. It could be a larger family, medical conditions, a larger lot with a larger landscaped area, living on a hotter, dryer ridge line instead of in a cooler shadier area wind protected area, etc. Simply because one family has a larger demand and another family has a smaller demand doesn't mean that they should pay differing prices for the same basic commodity. (There is another whole area of unnecessary wastage such as not fixing obvious leaks or highly excessive watering with excessive runoff. This problem is addressed by law under other penalty mechanisms)

Peri Nielsen - April 18

I, for one, would like to understand who the "average" water consumer is and what he/she has at stake. I doubt my water billed ever reached $600 a year (or close), so I'm not sure who this "average" is capturing or if it is even a relevant metric for this community/analysis. Along those lines, I understood Dave Smernoff's prior email to say that the rebates benefit primarily big water consumers, not the average water consumer. Can someone on the Water Board please address this (latest emails were silent)?  Also, while I certainly appreciate the overall goal of saving $$ on our water bills, I don't think it's unconscionable to believe this $$ could be better spent if aggregated and invested in developing resources to benefit the whole community. I am certainly open to considering this option and hope that the rest of the Woods isn't as "penny-wise, pound foolish" as these latest Water Board emails appear to assume we are. 

Gordon Harper - April 18

 

I do not know how you feel about the proportionality of tax refund, yourself. However, it seems to me only equitable that any refund of taxes monies would be in proportion to taxes paid. That is to say that the larger taxpayer would get a larger refund. It may not be practical to rebate on that basis, although I would think the tax rolls are readily available and could be programmed into the Cal Water billing software.

 

In an ideal situation each subscriber, including properties with connections to the district that use no water would receive a refund of taxes paid; rather than being a rebate based on cubic feet of usage.

 

The next best thing would be a larger rebate to larger water users (which is a slightly simpler calculation) based on an assumption that the taxpayer with more land/house (and thereby a larger tax payer) would also be a larger user of water.

 

I do not look upon the refund of tax money collected as "rewarding" anyone. It is simply a refund of tax monies that were not needed. 

Walter Greenleaf, PhD - April 18 

To me, the most important part of David Smernoff's message is this sentence:

 

I believe we can restructure the cost offset (e.g., rebate) to make it politically defensible and achieve the goal of retaining some control over our water costs.

 

The most important part of that sentence is the word "defensible".

 

Am I wrong in my understanding that unless a defensible proposal is developed, that we may lose the cost offset entirely, yet still be paying the taxes?  That part of David's message seems to have been ignored in some of the follow-on messages.

 

It is good to see a healthy debate occurring regarding community issues.

 

Bob Jones - April 17

The point, I think, that David Smernoff is making, is that any refund of our tax money should be equal for all of us, and not reward the top tier of water users.  In other words any refund should be equitable for all.