Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Coastsider endorses Jim Marsh for CCWD
Coastside County Water District (CCWD) could use a little fresh air. It is supporting the sale of connections to its water system by speculators for $30,000; it’s stockpiling large amounts of cash; it’s raising its employees’ pay and betterment benefits generously; and its infrastructure strategy is arguably designed to encourage development. (For one view of these issues, read the analysis of CCWD’s budget at Voice of the Coast.)
Finally, with the Coastside seriously examining water recycling, we are about to enter into a huge debate whether the water we save should be used for growth or restoration.
There should be more conversation and debate about these policies, but the current board seems to have a consensus. There’s not a lot of public debate going on.
I sat in on the CCWD meeting where the board voted unanimously to charge close to nearly $30,000 for water connections. The board’s big concern seemed to be whether it was going to take away the profits of speculators whom the board members acknowledged were hoarding connections. The consensus was, “That’s what markets are for.” But it’s not what water boards are for. Because it was a daytime meeting, I was the only member of the public in the audience. An independent board member would assure that more than one voice is represented at these crucial meetings.
Jim Marsh is knowledgeable and experienced about the district. While he can’t change the culture of the CCWD board by himself, adding an independent voice to the board would improve the quality of the conversation at a crucial moment in the Coastside’s history.
Comments
The 30% salary increase takes place over 4 years (2002 to 2006), which translates to a simple average of 7.5% (=30/4) per year, not 6% per year. The 7.5% figure is about three times the average annual inflation rate over the period.
The parabolic increase in retirement plan payments is presumably driven by the need to address the district’s significantly underfunded but very generous retirement plan.
This would not be so bad if it had all been properly disclosed by CCWD in the weeks leading up to the public hearing on the recent 15% rate increase. CCWD’s mailed notice made no mention of any large increases in salaries or retirement plan payments. Moreover, the proposed budget was never posted on the water district’s website.
Another troubling issue is Ascher/Mickelsen’s claim in an Oct. 21 article in the San Mateo County Times
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_3138302
where they seem to state that the 15% rate hike is needed to simply compensate for the state’s budget action.
CCWD will have more cash coming in from higher rates and more cash going out for (1) increased operating expenses (higher salaries and retirement plan payments), (2) increased capital expenditures (pipeline expansion projects), and (3) the state’s budget action.
The additional cash coming in from higher water rates is fungible so Ascher/Mickelsen cannot truthfully say that it is only being used to compensate for the state’s budget action—-it also helps pay for the other things.
Over the last 4 years CCWD has been spending down a huge horde of cash reserves for the purpose of funding new pipeline expansion projects. This practice places the fiscal burden of installing new/bigger pipelines on current residents. In other words, CCWD is forcing current residents to subsidize the delivery of water via these new/bigger pipes to future development.
The current Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program (LCP) requires water supply facilities to be developed “so as to minimize the financial burden on existing residents…” In contrast, CCWD’s practice seems designed to maximize the financial burden on existing residents.
At the Oct. 25 candidate debate, Mickelsen stated that over the past 4 years, about $6 million in cash reserves had been spent down “happily putting pipe into the ground.” This is nothing to be too happy about if you are someone whose past excess bill payments were used to build up the huge horde of cash reserves.
Finally, Mickelsen stated something like “the City of HMB should not be telling CCWD how big our pipes should be.” This is not true, of course, because the City is required by its LCP (the law) to make sure that pipes are properly sized “to avoid growth-inducing impacts.”
Mickelsen’s way of thinking is exactly what got CCWD into trouble with the California Coastal Commission from 1999 to 2003. It appears that he has not learned anything from that experience.
Barry, Thanks for providing the link to my “Voice of the Coast” article. Since that was published, I have been able to compile the following data from CCWD’s financial statements. The data shows that over a time period of 4 years, the average employee salary shows an increase of 30 percent while retirement plan payments show an increase of 385 percent. Kevin J. Lansing
FY 2001/2002 17 FY 2002/2003 16 FY 2003/2004 16 FY 2004/2005 17 FY 2005/2006 17
FY 2001/2002 $965,344 FY 2002/2003 $947,121 FY 2003/2004 $1,020,755
FY 2004/2005* $990,964 FY 2005/2006** $1,253,700
FY 2001/2002 $65,789 FY 2002/2003 $91,712 FY 2003/2004 $144,581 FY 2004/2005* $245,562 FY 2005/2006** $319,000