Letters & Shout-outs

Editor’s Note: As a reminder, letters should not exceed 300 words and must be submitted no later than 5 p.m. on Tuesdays. To be considered for publication, letters must include the author’s real name and town of residence.
Letter: Merger and bond are only practical solutions for Lompico Water
Editor,
All water districts throughout the county are dealing with the drought. In Lompico, this is yet one more weight added to an already full load: Chronically low water supply, upgrades to meet state regulations, and a backlog of unfunded infrastructure replacements and repairs.
Proposed solutions, besides the merger, presented at the candidate forum include praying for rain, deferring or downgrading work, and getting free money from grants.
According to the latest NOAA report, significant rain is not expected. Logic says construction costs increase with time, and continued inefficiency has a cost.
It is true that major component replacement in Lompico has primarily been done via FEMA disaster money.
I joined Lompico Water District’s Grant Committee in 2013, after attending workshops on funding, to see if Lompico could find help — rather than waiting for another earthquake.
Grant funding is highly competitive, and favors disadvantaged communities with water quality health violations. Lompico currently has two active grant applications on the DWSRF list.
The state ranks replacement projects, such as ours, very low. While we feel stretched for money, census data on Lompico’s median income shows we do not qualify as disadvantaged.
SLVWD has, on Lompico’s behalf, worked with the state on possible grants, including consolidation (2013) and the permanent intertie.
The Grant Committee found few leads among dozens of programs at a 2013 grants workshop.
Eyes are now turning to a new source of grant money via the State Water Bond. Assemblyman Mark Stone spoke about this at the VWC water workshop in Felton last week. He explained that the bond is primarily for state projects elsewhere, with only a small allocation for the entire Central Coast, directed to conservancies.
The message is clear: We all dream about grants, but in reality Lompico isn’t likely to get free money to bail us out of infrastructure repair costs.
I urge my Lompico neighbors to please support the merger and bond as a down-to-earth, practical way to successfully fix, manage, and secure our water supply.
Debra Loewen, Lompico
Letter: Hammer, Prather, Ratcliffe will maintain SLVWD eco-leadership
Editor,
At the Sept. 30 candidates’ forum, all water board candidates agreed that SLV Water District has been doing a great job protecting the environment. That’s no doubt why the San Lorenzo Valley enjoys the best water in the county.
But candidate Bob Fultz said he wants to shift the district’s focus AWAY from environmental protection.
All the candidates agreed that SLV Water District staff is doing a great job delivering water 24/7 … but Karen Brown said she wants to cut staff salaries and benefits.
All the candidates supported SLV Water District’s Education Grant program … but Chuck Baughman has repeatedly insulted the staff person who is charged with implementing that program.
I support Eric Hammer, Larry Prather, and Gene Ratcliffe, who are running for SLV Water District Board. They have the experience, the temperament and the commitment to ensure that the San Lorenzo Valley continues to enjoy the best water in the county.
Betsy Herbert, Ph.D., Retired environmental analyst, SLV Water District
Letter: Residents can’t afford to subsidize SLVWD mismanagement
Editor,
San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD) mission calls for providing high-quality water at an equitable price; maintaining outstanding customer service; protecting water sources, and ensuring the district’s fiscal vitality.
The Grand Jury’s findings shared my observations; the current SLVWD Board does not practice what it preaches.
Last year, following the unexpected death of my wonderful but slightly eccentric husband, Andrew John Farkas, I was shocked to discover the SLVWD was demanding nearly $1,000 in fees for providing no water at all.
Until then, I thought my husband — who was relying upon bottled drinking water and rain water to function — had turned off water while he was taking way too long to fix leaking pipes.
I learned SLVWD had turned off his water and put a lien on his residence and his friends told me he was disputing the fees.
When I attempted to get this matter fairly resolved, SLVWD staff actually laughed at me and told me my husband was funny. They also told me to bring my concerns to the SLVWD Board.
When I went to the current board to explain why I was frustrated, the Board accused me of wanting SLVWD to subsidize my husband. They never informed me about this problem and I was sickened that SLVWD was charging such high rates — for no water usage at all — to limited-income, senior citizen veterans.
Ironically, SLVWD’s current board is expecting ratepayers to subsidize the costs of their mismanagement by charging inequitable basic rates to limited-income persons who use little or no water.
SLVWD has a great mission. Hopefully, instead of an insider slate of more the same, voters will honor my late husband and others like him and elect Baughman, Brown, and Fultz — who will stop things that should have never happened.
Colette Marie Farkas-McLaughlin, Gilroy
Letter: Baughman, Fultz are what the doctor ordered for SLVWD
Editor,
I support electing Charles Baughman and Bob Fultz to the board of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District.
Chuck has a PhD in physics and Bachelor of Science degrees in chemistry and math. Bob has an MBA from Harvard, and Bachelor of Science degrees in computer science and electrical engineering.
In addition to these admirable achievements, they both have the insights and temperament to bring the SLV Water District back into healthy condition.
This year, the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury report detailed mismanagement of our water district.
This mismanagement led to infrastructure being ignored with leaking tanks being the norm, irresponsible financial management, and disdain towards customers.
It is clear that it is time to change the makeup of the board. We need intelligent new board members who will focus on honest, transparent operations and planning and open communications.
Please elect Charles Baughman and Bob Fultz on Nov. 4. 
Robin Samuels, Felton
Letter: Campaign sign thefts discourage an informed electorate
Editor,
I’ve noticed that several of the campaign signs for Bob Fultz, Chuck Baughman, and Karen Brown have been removed from Mt. Hermon Road, Graham Hill Road, and specifically from in front of a supporter’s home on Highway 9.
Please, do not stoop to such low tactics; it’s important that everyone be able to support their candidates as well as encourage the public to be informed when they vote!
Be informed SLV, I would think that when you open your monthly water bill this would give you cause to consider Bob, Chuck, and Karen.
Karen Hill, Ben Lomond
Letter: Stolen campaign signs reflect negative, ‘bully’ attitudes
Editor,
To the people who think they are helping the slate by removing signs, you are breaking the law, and showing what bullies do when you are caught.
This is stealing and a fine of $250 for each one.
Do you want to help? Look at the issues, talk to your neighbors, do positive actions — not negative.
We all want what is best for our neighbors, do you part and return the signs. No questions asked.
Karen Brown, Boulder Creek
Letter: Tabor Drive is long overdue for a major facelift
Editor,
I have lived on Tabor Drive 34 years. I have voiced my opinion about the hazardous street parking conditions, which are ongoing.
I am grateful the city has put in sidewalks and curbs at the intersection of Tabor Drive and Vine Hill School Road by the elementary school.
However, why did the repaving stop where it is on Tabor Drive?
The street is in great need of repaving all the way up Tabor Drive. There are pot holes which have been there for a very long time.
I would like to know what the city plans to do about this.
Joy Bertrand, Scotts Valley
Letter: Lompicans are fed up with a ‘business as usual’ water district
Editor,
I am very familiar with the costs associated with Lompico Water District merging with SLVWD through my work on the Citizen’s Advisory Committee.
I would like to clear up some of the misrepresentations of merger cost that the anti-merger water board candidates have been espousing.
They say that our water rates will go up if we merge. However, we will pay SLVWD rates that are less than half of Lompico’s rates and historically have been even lower. There will be a net decrease in our water rates, even when the surcharge is included. The surcharge is only for the first five years and reduces annually.
They have inflated merger bond costs by using the maximum amount instead of the expected costs as set forth in the agreement.
Starting with the second year of the merger, the total cost for Lompico customers will be higher than we are paying today because of the bond payments, however the continued rate savings will more than pay for the cost of the bond over the years.
They have included a $106,000 CALPERS loan repayment to SLVWD as a cost of the merger when obviously the loan must be repaid either way.
We actually now owe less than half that amount. This is just one example of the inaccurate and sloppy accounting these candidates are using.
Lompicans are fed up with a “business as usual” water district and want to see a permanent fix to this water situation which threatens our community’s welfare, safety and property values.
We encourage everyone to check the facts themselves and vote for the two pro-merger water board candidates, Schneider and Schaller.
Above all, we need to vote for the bond when that election comes up early next year.
Pete Norton, Lompico
Letter: SLVWD board needs to focus on its customers, not its public image
Editor,
The SLV Water District has raised rates annually for the 15 years I’ve lived here and repeatedly claims shortage of funds when asked why repairs go unattended.
Not even going into things I’ve heard in recent years about where the money’s gone, what’s this I hear now about $37,500 going to the election campaign of Prather, Hammer, and Ratcliffe?
Why is $12,000-plus put aside for each board member’s re-election campaign, when that money should be spent fixing our water system?
Anyone else choosing to run for a seat on the board has to fund their own campaign, but incumbents get to use ratepayer funds, apparently.
Two board members are not seeking re-election this year, but I hear the funds earmarked to cover their seats are going to the campaign of their hand-picked successors. How is this legal?
It appears to be just one more in a long list of things that need to be changed. The Grand Jury report on the SLVWD this past June was an eye opener!
The water company doesn’t need a PR firm to improve their public image — money also better spent on repairs — they just need new board members willing to act in the interests of the rate-paying public.
I’ve heard good things about Karen Brown and Chuck Baughman, not much about Bob Fultz, but we need a change and I think these three can give it to us.
Tone’ Branchaud, Boulder Creek
Letter: Water district merger will save money, reduce redundancy
Editor,
Lompico residents will save money by merging with San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD).
Please don’t be fooled by the deceitful “plan” candidate Sherwin Gott claims will save us over $7 million in 30 years by staying independent.
He entirely misses the point that the average water bill, based on current rates, will be reduced from $183 to $90. (This amount is before the surcharge which he has already counted in his calculation.) If you calculate that savings out over 30 years, you’ve just saved $8.4 million.
No one can project what water rates will be over the next 30 years, but it is logical that the savings in water bills will only increase as Lompico is faced with raising rates to add a manager and make additional infrastructure repairs and replacements over this period. Lompico has no reserves for these repairs, unlike SLVWD, which had $6.9 million per the June 30, 2013 audit.
We will be paying for a bond to bring our infrastructure up to date now. After this one-time updating project, SLVWD will be providing repairs, replacements and improvements.
And it’s a safe bet that there will be some over 30 years, none of which is factored into Gott’s plan. Economy of scales will save everyone money in the long run.
There are many costs that are duplicated by having multiple water districts; a manager, accounting, billing, audit, facilities, etc.
Let’s do what is right for all in the valley. Let’s rise to the occasion of trust and goodwill to our fellow neighbors.
It’s time to grow up and heal those feelings of separation, aversion, and rebellion against an imagined enemy authority.
No organization is perfect. Together we can do more for all. Please check the LAFCO website (santacruzlafco.org) and look at their estimates of savings for the merger.
They have studied this matter and make an educated projection of what the water bills will be over the next five years. Every year is a savings, including the cost of the bond.
I urge you to vote for the two qualified candidates in support of the merger on Nov. 4 — John Schneider and Merrie Schaller.
Find out more about them and the merger at yessforlompico.com.
Mary Champagne, Lompico
Letter: Trustworthiness is now needed for SLVWD board
Editor,
You know, I have been living here most of my life and, for the last 20 years; I have been appalled at the lack of credibility of our current SLVWD Board of Directors.
They have lacked the proper judgment and care, allowing our precious water system to fail and not repairing our facilities all these years.
Whenever the directors wanted after wasting valuable assets in the budget, they would come back with their hand out and demanding increased water rates from us ratepayers all these years.
The running of SLVWD has been an embarrassment and many of the problems were disclosed by the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury, yet the Board is still in denial.
Now, we need new and intelligent leaderships who brings with them operational, technical and environmental expertise.
This is why I am voting and recommending to all my neighbors in San Lorenzo Valley that they vote for Bob Fultz, Karen Brown, and Chuck Baughman as their next SLVWD Board of Directors.
Many refer to them as the “reform candidates.” The time for that reform is in this election taking place.
Do not waste your three votes on the Slate candidates, unless you want more of the same, old ways SLVWD has operated in the past.
Join me and vote for the “reform candidates” by mail and certainly in person at your voting centers on Nov. 4.
New intelligence and operational integrity to SLVWD; repair the infrastructure and live within our means, spend our water fees on the most important capital facilities and environmentally sustainable projects to maintain pure potable drinking water for us and the salmon living in our San Lorenzo River network.
Russell Kurtz, Ben Lomond
Letter: Get the politics out of our water system
Editor,
The San Lorenzo Valley Water District should be one of the best water systems in the world.
We get our water from rain. We do not need to import water from anywhere else. In normal years, we get 65 to 120 inches of rain.
If we store water, we can survive drought for years with no restrictions.
The San Lorenzo Valley has been ruled by the politics of the Sierra Club and the Valley Women’s Club for some years. We have a chance to change that in this election.
Vote for Karen Brown, Charles Baughman, and Bob Fultz. These three candidates want to serve the people of the water district, not control them.
They want to fix the system, store water, and provide you with the best water delivered at reasonable rates.
Let’s get real. Let’s protect our precious water system from the political control inflicted on us in past years. Let’s put our attention and money on developing the best system we can.
Get the politics out!
Janet Laidlaw, Boulder Creek