Ratepayers in the San Lorenzo Valley Water District late last month received a letter – in many cases a stack of letters – about the five years of water rates increases set to go into effect in November.
The letters provided information about the new water rates, and included “protest forms” that can be sent to the district about the new rates.
If more than 50 percent of ratepayers file individual protests of the rate increases by Sept. 21, the rates will not go into effect. That is a requirement of Proposition 218, the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act” approved by California voters in 1996.
This will be the ratepayers’ only opportunity to influence SLV water rates until 2023.
Social media sites roiled with confusion and questions after the district decided in late July to mail 23,000 letters to the 7,900 SLV ratepayers. Many property owners who received multiple letters were confused about what to do if they wanted to protest the water rates.
“I have one hookup, two parcels and I got four letters, wrote Felton resident Dana Weigand on Facebook.
Antoinette Barker of Boulder Creek told the Press Banner she has two parcels, two meters, and got three letters. “How many protest letters can I send in,” she said. “If I send in the wrong number, will they all be thrown out?”
Many other owners of multiple parcels expressed similar concerns.
The latest explanation by the district late Wednesday of how to determine who is eligible to file a protest letter? “One vote per parcel that is receiving water from the district.”
Repeated attempts to further clarify the issue with the water district were unsuccessful.
The district’s initial explanation of how eligibility to file protest letters would be determined – “one vote per parcel that is receiving water service from the district” – did not address issues of multiple parcels served by a single meter, a common occurrence in the mountains.
Then Holly Morrison, board secretary said the policy would be “one vote per meter,” in an email sent at 11:38 a.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 9.
At 2:13 p.m., Morrison sent an email stating that her earlier response had been in error: “It should be one vote per parcel.”
When the district was told by the Press Banner that this “one vote per parcel” policy would be very confusing for multiple-parcel owners, general manager Brian Lee, through his public relations spokesman, Bill Maxfield, decided to return to his original explanation: “one vote per parcel that is receiving water from the district.”
Despite repeated requests for clarification for people who have multiple parcels, Maxfield, speaking for Lee, would only say: “The district would request that you publish the statement as is and allow customers to contact the district with questions. Since each of these scenarios is apparently unique, district customer service staff is available to work with each customer to clarify questions.”
Questions about specific problems of district homeowners in deciphering the district’s policy were not answered and dismissed as “hypotheticals.”
Customers earlier in the week told the Press Banner they had received conflicting and contradictory information from district staff.
“To ensure the least likelihood that we would miss any property owners and protect the district’s legal right to lien properties for nonpayment, we sourced the distribution list from the county tax roll rather than our customer service database,” said Lee on Tuesday, in explaining why the district didn’t simply mail the rate-increase letters and accompanying protest forms to its smaller mailing of ratepayers.
The protest forms sent by the SLV water district, addressed to “owner and/or tenant,” said valid protests must be signed, and told property owners they could identify their parcel, their address or the water district account number.
Lee said this week that if people in a household complete and return each protest form they received from the district, the district will match them against its customer list.
Protest letters stating opposition to the propose rate increase do not have to be on the protest form supplied by the district, he said, but they must include an address, date, printed name and signature. He said the district this year will allow scanned or photographed versions of signed letters to be emailed to the district.
“The addition of email receipt of protest letters is an improvement over SLVWD’s 2013 rate increase process, which did not allow for email receipt,” said Lee. He said written protests are received and stored by district staff at the office, and will be opened and tabulated in public view following the public hearing to be held Sept. 21, at Highlands Park Senior Center in Ben Lomond.
Proposition 218 requires that districts give notice 45 days prior to the final public hearing. Lee said SLV mailed its notices approximately 55 days prior to the scheduled public hearing
The protest procedure will exclude participation by many apartment dwellers and residents of mobile home parks that use a single meter for all residents. For example the 200 residences of the Vista del Lago mobile home park on Whispering Pines Drive in Scotts Valley will not be able to register valid protests of the water rates because a single bill for a single meter goes to the park management, which bills residents for water on a pro-rated basis. The manager will get one vote.
SLV water rates will increase 29 percent for a typical family in November, and a total of 61.5 percent over five years, If fewer than 50 percent of the ratepayers send in protest letters.
The Scotts Valley Water District chose a different approach when it went through the Prop 218 process for its water rate increase last year.
Piret Harmon, general manager of the Scotts Valley district, said “We sent the Prop 218 Notices to the 3200 account holders – the individual identified as the responsible party (either owner or tenant) for the account.”
“We eliminated multiples if we were able to identify them,” she said.
She said the Scotts Valley letters were addressed to the account holder,” not to “owner/tenant.”
Scotts Valley did not include a sample protest letter.
The district received 181 protest letters, she said.
“The district’s operating principle for the Proposition 218 process for the proposed rate restructuring is to provide our customers with as much or more opportunity to engage, and protest if desired, than is required by law,” Lee wrote the Press Banner.
“The most important step in that process is notification of the public.”
