Fairer solution for Scotts Valley lies in housing, not higher taxes
In response to Scotts Valley Fire District Board Director Daron Pisciotta (“Ensuring Fairness for All Homeowners with Measure S,” Oct. 4), I appreciate your thoughtful response to my concerns regarding Measure S, but I must clarify some key points about the financial landscape in Scotts Valley that your letter overlooks.
The state of California has mandated that our community add 803 new housing units by 2023. This would have been a significant step toward generating the property tax revenue needed to support local services, including emergency response. The failure of our city officials (who are supporting Measure S) to build these units is a crucial factor in our current funding challenges.
While you emphasize the necessity of Measure S for public safety, it’s important to recognize that if Scotts Valley had complied with the state mandate and added the required housing, we would have seen a substantial influx of property tax revenue. This revenue could have alleviated the need for a tax increase and lessened the burden on current residents, particularly newer homeowners like my wife and me, who are already grappling with high costs.
Moreover, your assertion that Measure S applies equally to all homeowners does not fully account for the disparities in tax burdens created by Proposition 13. Long-term residents, who have owned their homes for decades, benefit from significantly lower property tax rates compared to newer buyers. While this system aims to protect vulnerable populations, it inadvertently shifts a larger share of the financial burden onto those who are just entering the housing market.
As someone who has owned a home in Scotts Valley for a long time, you (and Mayor Johnson) may experience only a marginal increase in your property taxes. In contrast, newer residents—many of whom have worked hard to afford their homes—are being asked to shoulder the majority of the cost of a new fire station that serves the entire community.
While public safety is undeniably important, we must also address the underlying issues of funding and equity in our taxation system. Had the necessary housing units been built, we would not be in a position where an increase in property taxes seems necessary.
Instead of relying on bond measures that disproportionately affect newer residents, let’s advocate for a broader strategy that includes the development of housing to generate the revenue our community needs. By doing so, we can ensure a fair distribution of costs and responsibilities, ultimately benefiting all residents of Scotts Valley.
Patrick Johnston
Scotts Valley
Measure U jeopardizes SLVWD’s financial stability
Measure U poses a serious threat to the future of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD). It would reduce revenue by at least $1 million by eliminating the CZU Fire Surcharge and the Capital Charge, fees that are critically needed to address the $50 million cost of replacing critical infrastructure damaged in the fire and upgrading aging infrastructure that cannot support fire-fighting.
SLVWD is already facing a serious financial crisis. This is why it enacted the new rate structure following the required, complicated process that included guidance from an expert consulting firm and multiple opportunities for community engagement. It includes a tiered rate structure, which puts the primary financial burden on heavy water users and encourages conservation.
The Board expanded the Low-Income Ratepayer Program to help those with limited incomes.
Measure U would place a 2% cap on future fixed rate increases for the next 25 years, an ill-conceived restriction that would create financial instability for a generation. Water use fluctuates dramatically, particularly with anticipated droughts and wet winters. Measure U would result in unpredictable revenue, making effective planning and management impossible.
Don’t be fooled by the misleading arguments being used to promote Measure U, which was drafted in a back room with no community input and no consultation or review by staff, board or experts in the field. We need to work together with respect for the process and our staff and avoid misleading and ill-informed proposals that threaten our district’s future.
Vote no on Measure U.
Jim Mosher
Felton
Measure U could lead to costly consequences
Both sides agree that if Measure U passes, the SLV Water District will have to again increase rates, but proponents act like Measure U will just give us a chance to “do over” the last rate change. That position ignores the imposition of a 25-year 2% cap on fixed infrastructure fees, which will almost certainly lead to a less fair rate structure that shifts costs onto our school district, parks, businesses and the seniors living at the Spring Lakes Mobile Home Park.
Proponents also fail to acknowledge that another Prop. 218 process will likely take the better part of a year, will cost at least $100,000 for the required independent rate study, and will take hundreds of hours of staff time. In the meantime, the Water District—which is already understaffed and burdened with the task of addressing some $50 million of damaged and aging infrastructure—will have to operate with approximately 20% less income and a reduced borrowing capacity. Maintenance will be deferred further, resulting in ever more expensive emergency repairs.
Proponents of Measure U accuse the other side of fear-mongering and alarmism, but the concerns this proposal poses to the long-term affordability and reliability of our water service are reasonable and warranted. To anyone who thinks this is an alarmist position: well, alarm bells exist for a reason.
I hope voters understand what is really at stake if Measure U passes. There’s a reason it is opposed by our elected officials, seniors, teachers, environmentalists and emergency volunteers. Vote no.
Rae Spencer-Hill
Boulder Creek
Measure U threatens community-owned water in SLV
San Lorenzo Valley has an ethos of neighbors helping neighbors; we also have the gift of community-owned water.
Right now three locally owned water systems in Boulder Creek are in crisis, one in state receivership. Their customers have unreliable, at times unsafe water and hope a solution might be to join the San Lorenzo Valley Water District.
Measure U would make it unlikely that our district could move forward swiftly and responsibly to help such neighbors. The financial model proposed by Measure U would move us backward in a direction of underfunding and could send us down the same road as the other small systems, threatening the very existence of community-owned water here.
That’s one reason nearly all our elected leaders at the local, county and state level oppose Measure U. That includes: two County Supervisors, our current State Assemblymember and State Senator, our former County Supervisor and Assemblymember, four out of five members of the water district’s Board of Directors (the exception is the one member behind Measure U), our current and past presidents of the SLVWD Board of Directors, Forest Springs water district members, both major political parties in the county, the Santa Cruz Sentinel editorial board, and a long list of active, informed SLV community members and water district customers.
With community-owned water, we are all in the same boat. Do we want that boat leaking with a faulty navigation system, or watertight and ready for whatever lies ahead?
Joni Martin
Felton
Measure U is fiscally irresponsible
The San Lorenzo Valley Water District is facing a myriad of challenges, beginning with how to make critical repairs to our system and fund necessary ongoing maintenance costs. I am fiscally conservative by nature but also a fiscal realist. The daunting costs facing the district to repair water tanks, rebuild infrastructure that was damaged in the CZU fire and keep our water flowing are very real.
By removing fixed fees that were approved after a lengthy study determined they were necessary, and capping the service charge increases to 2% per year for 25 years, Measure U will negatively impact the water district’s ability to keep our system reliable and build in resilience over time.
If we pass Measure U, and go backward toward a financial model that wasn’t working, we risk a failing water system in the future that will cost us even more to salvage if we can.
If you don’t keep your car maintained, you’ll end up with emergency breakdowns and costly repairs. It’s common sense that the same goes for our water system but with much higher stakes.
Mark Hansen
San Lorenzo Valley
