Letter: Concerned about Lompico water system
Nov 01, 2012 | 2305 views | 10 10 comments | 23 23 recommendations | email to a friend | print

EDITOR,

As a resident of Lompico, I have been attending water board meetings and citizen advisory committee meetings in an effort to educate myself about our water system and possible merger with the San Lorenzo Valley Water District.

I am very concerned about the condition of our finances and water system. Lompico County Water District’s income barely covers the district’s current expenses, with no funds available for capital reserves for major projects. Our well pumps often run 24/7 to provide adequate water to the residents. A number of items in the system need maintenance or replacement, such as tanks, a water treatment plant, pressure-reducing valve rebuilds, laterals and water meters.

To continue receiving safe water, we appear to have two choices: continue along as usual, constantly in financial crisis and with a chronically short source of water supply, or merge with SLVWD, which has a staff of 24 people and millions in capital reserves. 

To continue local control without a bond, we will need to raise our ready-to-serve charge to fund a manager and provide a capital reserve for major projects, such as new tanks, and so on.  These two items would require a minimum of $50 added to each bimonthly water bill, resulting in an additional cost per water hook-up per year of $300.

The current bimonthly cost for 22 units of LCWD water is $138.18 versus the current cost of $71.41 with SLVWD — a yearly savings of about $400. The estimated average yearly payment for a bond with SLVWD would be about $400 added to our taxes. This would keep our overall water costs about the same as they are now.

If you would like to have a choice to consider a formal merger with SLVWD, please re-elect Lois Henry, Rick Harrington and Bill Smallman.

Brad Smith, Lompico

Comments
(10)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Lompican
|
November 04, 2012
One minor issue with all the calculation i see here.

None covers the cost of any future projects executed by SLVWD.

SLVWD had been talking for years about building a new treatment plant to the tune of $50,000,000. That could add up to $600/ year via a separate bond measure (30 years)

Presenting SLVWD as a cheaper option for Lompicans is pure BS.

Creekan
|
November 03, 2012
$71.41 buys exactly 8 units of SLVWD water: Basic charge $49.73 8 units @ $2.71.

22 units of SLVWD water costs $119.31 bimonthly: Basic charge $49.73 10 units @ $2.71 12 units @ $3.54.

Now what are those annual savings?

And SLVWD's budget currently isn't balanced so rates will go up next year.
Pete Norton
|
November 04, 2012
22 LCWD units = 7 SLVDWD units, although Brad used 8 in his calculation.
lompico resident
|
November 03, 2012
remember our motto:

Lompico, part of SLV, the way we like it!
LOMPICIAN
|
November 03, 2012
Less than half the canyon responded to the joke of a survey in favor of the merger. LESS THAN HALF. and of that less than half, only 87% were in favor.
Pete Norton
|
November 04, 2012
Duane,

Of the 494 surveys sent out, 216 were returned. 187 (87%) were for pursuing the merger, 17 (8%) against and 12 (6%) undecided.

That's 187 actual Lompico citizens. These are of course, only the water bill payers who cared enough to answer.
Duane Davis
|
November 04, 2012
Pete,

That post wasn't from me.
Pete Norton
|
November 04, 2012
Sorry Duane, the "joke of a survey" is a direct quote from your campaign. It really could be anyone who posts under a pseudo name.
Lompican
|
November 04, 2012
Pete

This survey was a joke

The only thing this survey shows is that about 37% of all home owners in Lompico support the merger (that's provided that no renter answered) In short, this survey was a joke. You conclusions of the said survey make no sense what so ever.
canyon resident
|
November 05, 2012
I agree, the survey was a joke and I did not answer it. It should have been made up and counted by a third outside party that had no interest in the merger but instead it was written and counted by the incumbents/pro merger people. To me it was worded that no matter how you answered you were for the merger. I will be happy when the elections are over with and hopefully the incumbents are booted out as I'm tired of having the merger shoved down my throat. If the pro merger people are so concerned about rates and lack of water in the canyon then maybe they should move out and go somewhere else where rates are lower.


We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at pbeditor@pressbanner.com.