To: All of the Residents of the Los Trancos County Water District
From: Stan Gage – President of the Board
Subject: Moving Forward 

Now that the election for the members of the District Board is complete we need to return to the task of deciding the future of the Los Trancos County Water District. I'd like to begin with a little background history of how we have arrived at the current juncture and then offer some thoughts on how we might proceed as a community to move ahead on defining the future of the Los Trancos County Water District. Please note that to the extent opinions are expressed, these are my personal opinions as the President of the Board and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the balance of the current or future Board members.
 
A little background

The recent efforts to create a more secure and less costly supply of water for our community actually date back to the pre-1989 time frame. The Board recognized that the District faced an economic crunch when it came to the issue of rehabilitating an aging system. Contacts with Cal Water at that time produced some interest but eventually faltered based on the relatively poor state of the District’s infrastructure and some damage that occurred as a result of the Loma Prieta earthquake.
A bit more than a decade later, partly with an infusion of money from the Blue Oaks subdivision, the District’s aging pipes, tanks, pumps, and control systems had all been updated to reflect the most modern of water system designs. Beginning in 2000 – 2001, however, the need to increase the supply of water available to the District, as well as the urgent need for a part time District manager began to become evident. The estimated costs related to meeting these needs, in combination with the already high cost of the water supplied by the District, and the expected surge in wholesale water costs related to the reconstruction of the Hetch Hetchy System prompted the District Board to once again approach Cal Water to explore options that would address these issues.
Contact with Cal Water was formally initiated on July 27, 2001 and culminated with the close of the sale of the District’s water distribution system on April 29, 2005. During the nearly 4 intervening years, a great deal of ground work was laid to insure that the community would receive that greatest possible long term benefit from the sale. For example:

v     A meeting was held on January 9, 2003 with County Supervisor Rich Gordon, LAFCO Director Martha Payotos, and County Public Works Representative Walt Callahan to explore various issues related to the proposed sale to Cal Water. At this meeting:

o       Both Rich and Martha affirmed their support of the idea of the District remaining intact after the sale and rebating property tax revenues as an offset to the increasing cost of water.

o       Possible options for the disposition of the District’s real estate that could be facilitated by the County were discussed. It was clear that if the District were to go out of business that the County would then be responsible for the disposition the property. While the possibility of some agreements to hold the properties as open space for some period of time were discussed, nothing appeared very certain.

v     During the early phase of this period, virtually everyone we talked to outside of the District strongly counseled (prophetically perhaps) that the Board separate the consideration of the sale of the water distribution system from the consideration of the disposition of the property. The Board formally agreed to this separation in January of 2003 and reaffirmed the agreement to abstain from working on the real estate issues in January of 2004. 

v     The Board held a special public meeting on March 10, 2003 to elicit community input on the proposed sale. At that meeting a great deal of discussion revolved around projections of the future cost of water and costs to customers if a program of rebates were to be instituted if the District remained in business after the sale. At that time, based on the expected property tax revenue to the District, the Board inferred a commitment to a rebate of $10.00 per month plus $0.90 per unit of water purchased from Cal Water.

v     A contractual agreement for the sale to Cal Water was signed in December of 2003. In the ensuing 17 months, considerable effort was invested in meeting all of the contractual obligations and securing the necessary approvals of the several different agencies that oversee such transactions.

v     Per the prior agreement to begin consideration of the disposition of the District real estate after the completion of the sale of the water distribution system, the Board began to address this issue at the regular meeting on June 16, 2005. Two notable outcomes of that meeting were:

o       The discussion of whether to do anything at this time. The option of simply letting the status of the land remain “as is” was attractive but deemed to have risks that might, eventually be undesirable to the community. If, for whatever reason the District should cease to exist, the real estate would become the responsibility of the county to determine the disposition. The board believed that the most prudent course of action was to take steps now that would insure that our community had made the determination of how these properties would be held and managed in the future no matter which way the political winds in Redwood City or Sacramento might blow. To this end, it was generally felt that the District should not remain as the owners and managers of the property. Rather the Board agreed to look at options wherein the community goals were written into contracts with others that would eventually own and manage the property.

o       To understand our options and create an environment for meaningful community input regarding the properties, the Board unanimously agreed at the June meeting to a 3 step process. First, to explore the legal and political landscape to determine what was allowable and plausible in the current environment. Second, to explore some of the obvious possibilities like MPROSD, POST, and others as conservators of the real estate. And Third, with the knowledge of steps one and two in hand, take this information to the community in a series of community meetings to elicit inputs on the ideas that had been put forth and considered and to elicit other suggestions for exploration. To date, steps one and two are reasonably complete as of the October meeting of the Board. 

v     The commitment of supervisor Rich Gordon to the concept of the District remaining in business and providing rebates was discussed with him in July of 2005 and he still supports this objective.

v     At the August meeting of the Board, the advice of the District’s legal counsel as to possible options was discussed. Also, LAFCO Director Martha Payotos attended the meeting and offered some observations on what government approvals would be necessary if the District were to pursue various options. It seems pretty clear from both of these inputs that LAFCO approval would be required for the District to entertain any activities that transcend the current responsibilities that were set forth in the District’s formative, circa 1955 Ordinance #4. This Ordinance specifically names only activities related to the acquisition and disposal of water. Ms. Payotos also spelled out the ramifications of such a request in terms of the necessary documentation via consultant studies and an EIR. She also noted explicitly that a formal change of the District’s objectives from a focus on water issues to a focus on recreational issues would result, in effect, in the dissolution of the current District in the course of formation of a new district with a new focus. This would result in the loss of the current property tax revenues and the need to establish some new form of revenue to support the newly created district.

The above is a very short and quite abbreviated history of some of the salient events that have led us to where we are today. I would submit that all of the events detailed above are drawn from documented District records and meeting minutes.

Moving Ahead – an opinion

I hold the opinion that a representative democracy can only truly reflect the expectations of its electorate to the extent that those expectations are clearly expressed.  We’re not there yet! It appears that fewer than half of the 536 registered voters in the District participated in the most recent election. The outcome of the election in itself hinged on the vote, one way or the other, of just 4 or 5 voters.  More significantly, the public input regarding a future direction for the District at the three most recent board meetings have revolved around the comments of perhaps fewer than 10  individuals  - just 2%  or less of the total population. These inputs reflected a very wide diversity of opinion
As we move ahead, if the Board is to reach a decision on the future of the District that truly represents the expectations of the community, all of the Board members must clearly know the sentiments of a true cross-section of the community. I will endeavor to insure that the process for determining the future of the District permits ample opportunities for public input. However, the community must seize these opportunities. At the special meeting the District held in 2003 on the sale of the water distribution assets to Cal Water, fewer than 20 people attended. The near term future holds important decisions on the issue of sustaining the rebate program and, if so, at what level, whether the District should be in the land management business, how much brush clearing should be undertaken on the District lands, how much should be invested in improving these lands, and to what level any recreation facilities should be developed on these lands.
PLEASE PLAN TO PARTICIPATE!

Stan Gage