Just before the holiday season, there was an opinion piece in the Press Banner about San Lorenzo Valley Water District (“Measure U’s Decisive Defeat: What It Means for SLVWD,” Dec. 13, 2024). The author, Jim Mosher, is a citizen who represents a special interest group.
As an elected water board member well into my second term, I can acknowledge that discussions about operating costs, finances, infrastructure investment and budgets—all involving millions of dollars of our community’s money—can be flashpoints for both the board and public, including special interest groups pursuing their platform.
It is important for good government and good citizen advocacy to hear all sides, whether we are discussing the impact of water rates, or how we will allocate funds. As engaged adults in our system of government, I believe we can do so without stooping to destructive personal politics.
I’m speaking only for myself in response to Jim’s commentary, but while anyone elected to serve the public accepts criticism as part of the job, at some point it crosses the line of propriety and must be addressed. Without belaboring and to put this to rest, the accusations and false rumors repeated in Jim’s commentary regarding causation for several staff resignations show, I believe, a reckless disregard for the truth and actual malice.
A board investigation, which I welcomed, was considered and dropped as baseless. My interactions with staff were almost exclusively done during Board and committee meetings, all of which are taped and available for public review.
The use of rumor in our District is an unfortunate ongoing political tactic that keeps us in the news, but does little to help our community resolve the real issues we face in the District. In this case, I believe its purpose is an attempt to oppose my efforts to bring responsible financial and infrastructure stewardship and long-range planning to the District, plans that do not always align with special interest platforms.
I know that our community overall is fair-minded, seeing through the rumors for the political stunts they are, and would rather hear about progress and facts.
These six facts are clear and have never been challenged by public special interests, the Board or staff: (1) the costs to operate the District doubled between 2013 and 2022; (2) while your bills more than doubled; (3) while inflation was about 27%; (4) the marketing material for the 2013 and 2017 rate increases promised that the increases would go toward infrastructure; (5) only 1/3 of the incremental revenue did so (6) during which the District has not produced any evidence—reports, statistics, nothing—indicating what the community is getting for this rapid run-up in cost.
As an example of where we fall behind in stewardship, the District has about 30 steel tanks that urgently need maintenance—for which the Board has no plan. This could cost as much as $10 million, which, combined with the District’s current pension shortfall, is more than the District receives in annual revenue.
I opposed the last rate increase because it was not accompanied by a Board-approved budget and capital spending plan. In the past, this lack of framework and zero commitment by boards resulted in significant increases in operating costs well beyond forecasts, with shortfalls to infrastructure.
And yet again, if trends hold, our District will spend up to $1.5 million more in operating expenses than projected in the rate consultant’s report. Each $1 million in revenue added to operating expenses removes about $15 million in borrowing capacity, which is desperately needed to improve the District’s infrastructure, such as properly maintaining deteriorating steel tanks.
Accordingly, when I talk about these financial conditions and shortfalls during Board meetings, it should be no surprise that I infuriate those comfortable with the status quo, or have other plans for District funds. It is up to our community to collectively decide that disagreement will not result in political bloodsport, where the objective is to destroy the messenger and suppress differing viewpoints.
More importantly, attempts to discredit viewpoints are also intended to be a deterrent to anyone who doesn’t support the “narrative” from publicly speaking out—which I feel is more destructive to our community than anything done to me personally.
There is some good news. After years of my advocating for long-term cash flow planning—five years should be a minimum; 10 years is a best practice—which is the foundation for proper and prudent financial stewardship, our current interim management, unfettered by history, are working to produce just that.
My hope is that this effort will result in a financial document that will help our community understand the real scope of our District’s finances. It won’t be pretty, but is the first important step toward understanding the financial challenges our District faces.
Thank you for your continued support of solutions.
Bob Fultz is a Director of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District.
