BOML Home 960 HomeElections CCWD Candidate Questions from CCTA Story Comments ShareShare Print Create a hardcopy of this page Font Size: Default font size Larger font size Posted: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 11:51 am Calaveras County Taxpayers Association Seven of the eight candidates running for seats on the Calaveras County Water District board of directors responded to questions posed by the Calaveras County Taxpayers Association. Those responding were Scott Ratterman, Michael Dell’Orto, Paul Stein, Don Stump, Bertha Underhill, Dennis Mills and Russ Thomas. Candidate Terry Strange, who was travelling out of the area, did not respond, according to the CCTA. Below are the questions and the responses from the candidates: 911 In Story 300x300 1. Do you support designating the Mokelumne River as wild and scenic under state law? District 1 Ratterman: I have always supported protection of natural resources. We must all be careful of avoiding incomprehensible legislation that too often includes hidden agendas unrelated to resource management. With some minor amendments to the most recently proposed Wild & Scenic legislation (SB1199) that would protect the people of Calaveras County, I would support it. Dell’Orto: I am opposed to any contrivance that would limit our ability to access our water rights. District 2 Stein: I will always support protecting the unique and valuable beauty of the Mokelumne River environment, but I do not support a wild and scenic designation on the Mokelumne because this designation has the potential to eliminate future water rights for Calaveras County. District 3 Stump: I could support a balanced Wild and Scenic designation. Underhill: I support the general concept; however, the future water supply needs of Calaveras County must be protected. District 4 Mills: In its current form, I do not support the designation. Who stands to benefit as the single largest user of water flow on the Moke? Rafting. Additionally, Native Americans object to those using the river in such ways that trample on their sacred lands. There is nothing “wild” about the Moke. Scenic, yes it is beautiful, but we need to not close the door to our future water needs for this county and be locked out of the process. We had the same effort of wild and scenic on the Stanislaus back in the early ‘80s, trying to stop New Melones from being filled. The effort lost and as a result we now have options in the future on the Stanislaus despite it being over allocated. Thomas: No, I do not support the law in its current form. Without being modified, the current version is too restrictive with regards to the availability of water for Calaveras and Amador Counties. Not surprisingly, the law was written by a legislator who does not reside locally. 2. Should CCWD wait until after the election to find a new General Manager? District 1 Ratterman: The search for a new GM has started. I do not believe that we should intentionally wait for the new board to be seated to make the final selection as we could lose the best candidates. But, because of the timing of the process the new board might indeed be making the final selection. Dell’Orto: Yes. District 2 Stein: Larry Diamond is the acting General Manager of CCWD and has adequately held this position many times in the past. There is no rush to hire a new GM. I would prefer that after the 2014 election the newly constituted board of Directors interview the final applicants and make the selection of the next CCWD General Manager. District 3 Stump: My personality does not really fit with the idea that tough decisions should be “kicked down the road” for someone else to make. That being said, I don’t think it matters if we make a choice in two months or six months. What matters is that we find an outstanding General Manager. Underhill: Stability is most important at the General Manager position and can be clearly be achieved by allowing the new Board to select their choice for a new General Manager. District 4 Mills: Yes, please wait with the decision and I told the current board that last month. However, I do not think they will hold off even though four of the five Director seats are being contested in the November elections. Considering the track record of the board and the recruiters they have hired, I would consider any decision to hire, by this board, to be a complete waste of our money. With the success rate of CCWD directors over the past ten years and the costs associated with hiring those eight managers now gone, this board has not shown good judgment as reflected in our current rates. We also find when supervisors do not have middle level manager skills, the process will quickly go awry. Or, the natural tendency to “do it yourself” takes over or MMH (micro mangers from hell) takes over and the employee is thrust into a no-win situation. I believe great managers are not made; they are born with leadership tendencies. They are not tentative in decision making skills. I could often walk into a business in trouble and by watching the interactions among employees, I could be very close at knowing the personality of the manager before we ever met. Employees take on the personality of the manager and mirror the managers’ style. And they take on Directors personalities, as well. This will be the ninth manager selected in almost as many years. I really do question the judgment of those directors having paid our cash to head hunters, hired someone, and then micro-managed them out the door as several past Grand Juries have stated. I often coached managers with high turnover rates to help them understand how their relationships with subordinates affected the ultimate decisions employees made to stay or to leave. Right now the staff is in “protective” mode. Thomas: Yes, the current board has a reputation for making costly mistakes in hiring and firing General Managers. With at least two new members coming to the board in December, a postponement of the hiring would (in my opinion) be a significant step in restoring the publics faith in the decision-making capability of the CCWD Board. 3. Shall CCWD seek to change to a 401K type retirement plan to avoid unfunded liability created by CalPERS? District 1 Ratterman: Unfunded liabilities at CCWD are decreasing each year as a result of actions taken by the current board. Retirement plans for employees are negotiated with the union every five years. CCWD could negotiate a competitive 401k type savings plan with the union when the contract comes up for renewal in a few years. Dell’Orto: CCWD needs to honor the commitments that it has, then change to a retirement plan that would not cause an unfunded liability. District 2 Stein: I dont believe CalPERS allows member agencies to opt out current or future employees. There is also an existing contract with CCWD employees that can’t be unilaterally changed by the Board. However, I see nothing wrong with expanding the retirement plan for employees to include a personal retirement account such as a 401K. District 3 Stump: This is a negotiated benefit. I would need to see actual numbers to decide which direction would be best for both the employees and the ratepayers. Underhill: While much dialogue can be raised to address “unfunded liability” nothing can be implemented until the current contract expires on June 30, 2017. Getting out of CalPERS would cost an estimated $28 million which the District doesn’t have. District 4 Mills: Yes, private sector companies moved quickly away from contributions to pension funds after the 2008 market downturn. Most offered 401k plans that all employees could contribute to as they are portable and move with the person as they change careers in their lives. Recently, CCWD had to borrow nearly $2 million to cover unfunded liability in their pension plan with CalPERS. This type of obligation was agreed to in the union contract and as such should have been prorated every month as a payment to CalPERS. We should not be offering anything better or different than what is industry standard in the private business world. To think we can support these pension promises in an economic downturn leaves the ratepayers in the future at potential risk. Thomas: The most important consideration is that the unfunded liabilities associated with the CalPERS plan would not be magically erased by changing over to a defined contribution retirement plan. In my opinion, the best strategy would be to continue to make realistic modifications to the retirement formulas for CCWD new-hires. 4. Should the structure of CCWD be changed to allow only ratepayers to vote for future Directors? District 1 Ratterman: All people of Calaveras County are affected by Board decisions. CCWD’s involvement with water rights, power generation, and infrastructure improvement (fire flow) impact almost all areas of the county. CCWD’s responsibilities extend beyond its ratepayers. Therefore, I believe this would not be in the best interest of our county. Dell’Orto: No. District 2 Stein: The voting structure is governed by the 1946 charter creating CCWD and stipulates that the boundary is contiguous with the Countys borders and further stipulates that only property owners registered to vote in the County can vote for Directors. This can’t be unilaterally changed by any CCWD board without first changing the Special District charter. District 3 Stump: This is a State law we must follow. CCWD has neither the staff nor funds to introduce legislation that “might” have any chance to pass. Underhill: No. The District receives over $2 million a year in property taxes from all over the county. This would disenfranchise those voters who are stakeholders in the operation of CCWD. District 4 Mills: This issue has been raised by those living in Angels Camp and Murphys during the campaign. Many voters did not know they were part of the district for the election because they did not know part of their property taxes went to CCWD. Many areas do not receive direct service from the district but pay taxes to it. Because the district is an overlay of the county under Section 31110 of the water code, the water code would need to be changed to allow only those served by the district to pay a portion of their property taxes to the district. Thomas: The current system is proper. Decisions made by the directors of CCWD have a profound influence on the future growth and economic potential of Calaveras County. In addition, since CCWDs is given 1.235% of all property taxes, I believe all property owners are entitled to vote for the Directors. 5. Is the continuing implementation of UN Agenda 21 affecting water supply in California and Calaveras County? District 1 Ratterman: Hopefully not and not that I’m aware of. That agenda is contrary to much of the underlying premise this country was founded on: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and property rights. Implementation of that agenda should be up to the electorate with a clear and simple explanation of its near and far-reaching impacts. Dell’Orto: I believe the social engineering and re allocation of resources that those in control of our government have been doing is having a negative impact on our life. District 2 Stein: I will never believe that individual rights should give way to the needs of the community or that community needs should be determined by a governing body. Property rights should be upheld without compromise. I do however see environmentalism creeping into every aspect of land use planning, which is eroding private property rights and affecting the available water supply in California. This must not be tolerated. District 3 Stump: I have no idea how this might apply to CCWD. Underhill: Not at all. I would review water and wastewater projects, as an elected official, and would take a position without any bearing by Agenda 21. District 4 Mills: I was back in the Midwest this summer and Agenda 21 is a very hot topic in Nebraska, eastern Colorado, Kansas, etc. The attempt by the EPA to use this as a weapon against senior water rights was heavily discussed. If a rancher is not using a senior water right the way the EPA wants it used, then a junior water right can usurp the use. In North Dakota, for example, the EPA is revising maps to state any spot that holds water once per year is part of a “wetland” and as such is not to be disturbed. Ranchers are now being refused approval to dig post holes for fences in dry ground on their land because the EPA says it is part of an identified wetlands. Will this affect us here? Yes, and again EPA will use the power of the Federal Government to force all water users to comply with Agenda 21. The ultimate goal is to force people off their private land and relocate them to high density population areas. Thomas: No, I dont believe Agenda 21 is affecting the water supply. Quite honestly, my recent experiences in Somalia, working with and for the United Nations, makes me absolutely certain that the UN is not capable of plotting against the citizens of Calaveras County. 6. When CCWD seeks to charge standby fees, should the affected ratepayers be notified in advance? District 1 Ratterman: Yes, all rate payers and owners of affected properties should be alerted to all fee changes. Good communication is prudent and an admirable goal. CCWD has and will continue to accomplish this through direct mailings and news releases. Dell’Orto: Yes. District 2 Stein: This is a property rights issue. Only property owners are statutorily required to be notified about potential rate increases or other fees. However, when fees are proposed to be changed everyone who could potentially be affected by the charge should be notified and their concerns taken into consideration before any decisions are made. District 3 Stump: They are. We have a public meeting that is properly posted each year to continue to charge these fees. Everyone is welcome to attend. Underhill: Yes, the District should go beyond the minimum requirements of the law and send written notice to the ratepayer. District 4 Mills: I know the board votes on standby fees every year due to the way the Water Code is written. I see this as a Prop 218 issue and I do not agree with the way districts are using Prop 218 in its current form. To state only those submitting protest letters are considered a NO vote and anyone else that does not respond is a YES vote, is unjust. Yes, affected parties should be notified and the Prop 218 process followed, but I would rather see an actual vote of the people when the district sets to encumber a property with any fee. Thomas: To me, this is a non-issue for ratepayers, and only affects approved parcels that are being held for future development. All six of the CCWD resolutions that collect a $10.00 per parcel standby fee are decades old. The resolutions are periodically (and routinely) noticed and re-approved. 7. Do you favor government or CCWD control of private wells? District 1 Ratterman: Legislation recently signed into law does not provide government “control” of wells but rather the requirement to create a local management plan to monitor groundwater quality and address over drafting. Government or CCWD control of private wells would not be in the best interest of our county residents. Dell’Orto: Not in Calaveras or other mountain counties; in the California Valley, maybe. District 2 Stein: I’m not in favor of any government, including CCWD, having control over private wells. This is a private property right and should not be limited or controlled by tax, fiat, or fee. District 3 Stump: The Governor just signed legislation to place the control of groundwater with the Counties. I think it might help Calaveras County better understand the nexus between groundwater and land use. Underhill: At this point, N/A District 4 Mills: I oppose any government agency intrusion on private property. The state’s push for the monitoring of private wells has property rights issues tied to it and the next logical step would be to meter private wells. Who would the state mandate handle this effort? The county water districts. What the state is really trying to deal with is water subsidence within the San Joaquin basin and includes some of the west county but they want to lump everyone into their decision. Groundwater is different here in the foothills as we are in fractured geologic formations and water flow or depth can vary greatly over just a few hundred feet. In downtown Vallecito, for instance, we have artesian water flowing right now in the middle of the drought. I know of several wells north of Angels Camp that produce in excess of 300 gallons per minute as of this month. Is the government willing to pay for the wells and the work that went into placing those wells? Thomas: No, I dont favor the government controlling private wells. Im certain that the recently signed legislation will be legally challenged. 8. Should a study be done to compare CCWD expenses with other similar districts? District 1 Ratterman: CCWD regularly compares its operational costs and expenses with other districts and I support this process. The district should always be looking for new efficiencies to keep expenses to a minimum. Dell’Orto: Yes. District 2 Stein: I believe in full transparency and accountability with any government agency. I would support compiling a comparative study from districts of similar size to see how CCWD’s expenses compare. District 3 Stump: This would be a difficult, if not impossible, exercise. I believe that almost all Districts are unique. Size, elevations, infrastructure, staff, processes, agreements, revenues, and debt, tend to make direct comparisons tough to do. Underhill: No, there are really no similar districts against which to compare CCWD. Rather, a comprehensive review of District personnel and services should be implemented to maximize efficiency. In addition, capital expenditures and financing needs should be scrutinized to reduce costs. District 4 Mills: To compare our expenses with other similar districts completely misses the point about operational efficiency. Let’s start with operations for this question. Inventory control, centralized purchasing, asset identification, random process verification, GPS tracking; minimize windshield time, efficiency reviews, and more. There is very little of the current daily operations model that makes sense to me and I was in control of a much larger budget and operation that had to make money, not just spend it. All I have been hearing is excuses as to why things are being handled the way they are. How quickly everyone rallies to defend the current methods within the district but has little experience in how to operate more efficiently. Let me start with an explanation about studies. I feel it should be a requirement for every director to have some formal training in problem solving skills and analytical analysis. Without these skills we will continue to spend too much money hiring others to do studies, where those that are hired have no vested interest in the results, rather than directors do it themselves. And, without these skills, directors will accept information from outside sources as fact, rather than take the time to do their own investigation and verify the information presented is accurate. At some point we need to possibly look at consolidation in the tighter service areas of the county. This will reduce overlap and improve efficiency. Should CCWD take the lead role? Probably not, as they have a history of not playing well with others. Thomas: Yes, I have already asked for this comparison. All expenses directly relate to fees for service, and I believe that CCWDs fees for service are driving away potential customers and directly holding back economic development in Calaveras County. 9. Should tenants be allowed to contract for CCWD services as they do for other utilities? District 1 Ratterman: CCWD contracts only with property owners to ensure the bill is paid. If the utility bill isn’t paid timely it can be attached to the property tax bill. No tenants are denied services. Because most of the district’s income comes from rates, it is important to collect on these bills to remain viable. Dell’Orto: No. District 2 Stein: I do not believe this is a practical concept. A property owner’s landscaping is often dependent on proper irrigation and should a tenant vacate before the owner is notified, they could potentially lose thousands of dollars’ worth of landscape improvement. Only property owners can reasonably guard against this possibility. District 3 Stump: No, Water is a finite resource. When a home is built, the owner enters into a contract with CCWD and pays a connection fee that is directly tied to that home. It is an asset, not a service. This contract is a guarantee to provide water. We have distinct limits to our water supplies and take very seriously our agreements with our ratepayers. Underhill: Yes, the District needs to return to the previous practice of billing tenants. District 4 Mills: Under the current rules, the final obligation for services belongs to the property owner or landlord. There would need to be a change in the Water Code to allow tenants to secure service independently and the issue of who bears the risk for those that skip on payments would need to be addressed. Currently, Angels Camp does some write offs on bad debt. CCWD does not have any policy to permit write offs currently and they simply turn the bill over to the county tax collector. Don’t pay those and the state will own your land. Thomas: Yes, tenants should be allowed to contract for services. CCWDs recently changed rules are based more on the convenience to CCWD than any consideration of the inconveniences inflicted upon landlords and tenants. CCWD should follow the same practices as other utilities. 10. How would you improve CCWD? District 1 Ratterman: Some of my ideas to improve CCWD have already been implemented. I proposed the creation of a Capitol Improvement Fund for the replacement of aging and deteriorating infrastructure. Additionally, I have been a proponent of community outreach and better public relations so we have a more educated and informed ratepayer. Dell’Orto: Work at it. District 2 Stein: I am keenly interested in the NCPA/CCWD North Fork Project. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates this hydroelectric project, and the operating license will be up for renewal in the near future. This is potentially worth tens of millions of dollars to the District over the upcoming twenty year relicensing period. I will provide strong leadership in this negotiation in order to secure that more revenue from this resource is returned to the District, and back to ratepayers. District 3 Stump: I would continue to push for more grant funds and find more revenue sources to subsidize our rates. I would continue to look how our existing staff can be utilized to streamline our processes. Underhill: Improvement of CCWD is, indeed, a very long and involved process and I would work, first of all, to undo the ill-conceived Rate Increase of September, 2013. District 4 Mills: Looking at the accounts payables for the past six months, you begin to see a pattern and a management style or personality. I cannot justify the lack of inventory control, asset protection, or the current daily spending policies. All I have been hearing is defensive responses and reasons for not wanting to be accountable. Considering what employees of the district are paid, accountability should be at the highest level. Every decision has to pass the test against the mission statement. One part of that statement, “while maintaining cost-conscious, reliable service” doesn’t seem to be followed. If you don’t like the mission statement, then change the mission. To put up a 180 page $17 million budget in a format that looks at most parts of the business from different perspectives is confusing. I can work Excel programs with much larger budgets in the $40 million range with line item accountability and I have never seen so much paperwork to explain how money is spent. Yet, CCWD throws a large amount of data into the “other’ category, rather than be transparent with the details. It almost feels like we aren’t supposed to know the specifics. I reorganized businesses in trouble over the years; we had to decide if the organization would be willing to change or resist all effort to improve. Currently, this organization has minimal checks/balances in its current operational model. So, we should review the whole package. Right now CCWD doesn’t need a General Manager, they need a crisis coordinator. Over the past twenty years, how many missteps has CCWD taken costing the rate payers millions? This includes building a new office, defaulting on bonds, losing lawsuits, risky investments, revolving door managers, losing water rights, accepting substandard systems, etc. As a result those decisions have caused our rates to skyrocket because the directors decided to not address normal maintenance/repair issues over the years. (This response has been edited and shortened at the request of CCTA) Thomas: Decisions that will be made by the directors of CCWD will have a profound influence on the future growth and development potential of Calaveras County. Current drought conditions and demands for water in other areas of California have drawn attention to the threat of Calaveras Countys water rights (reservations) being taken away by the State. Therefore, if elected, I will use my experience as a former Calaveras County Supervisor to join forces with the other CCWD Directors, Directors of other water districts, and current county officials, in order to make sure that the interests of the citizens of our county are adequately protected. Equally important, I also pledge to keep my attention focused on the efficient management of CCWD!
Posted on: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 22:38:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015