Bruce Holloway
|
September 21, 2014
Bill, I've seen all three of you at SLVWD board meetings -- Julie, Mark, and yourself. I live one street over from Julie & Larry so I'm pretty sure we're billed on the same day. Last year, before the rate increase hearing, SLVWD projected bills for an average connection using 14 units bimonthly. SLVWD is billing monthly now and the last billing period in our neighborhood was 28 days. Julie & Larry's bill for 10,472 gallons is 14 units -- about double the average -- or 125 gallons per person per day, which is quite high for Santa Cruz County. Their bill must've been the basic service charge of $27.60 4 units Tier 1 @ $3.09 10 units Tier 2 @ $4.04 = $80.36. Palo Alto has a lower monthly service charge and higher charges for Tier 1 and Tier 2: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8097 In Palo Alto, Julie & Larry would've paid a monthly service charge of $14.67 6 units Tier 1 @ $4.99 8 units Tier 2 @ $7.58 = $105.25, about a penny a gallon. SLVWD should adopt a rate structure more like Palo Alto's -- easier on seniors and low-income ratepayers who strive to conserve and harder on high users like Julie & Larry. SLVWD's three-year increase approved last year was actually 41% and rates increased 96% during Larry's last two terms as a Director. (I sure hope those will be his last!) Also during those eight years, SLVWD never managed to break even and all of the Waterman Gap windfall was spent.
Colette Marie Farkas
|
September 21, 2014
Unfortunately it's a sick joke! Just the same is fortunate the VWC's "slate" of three insiders are letting voters know which three candidates will support the status quo and continue to subsidize their friends instead of fixing the many problems the Grand Jury exposed.
Bill Smallman
|
September 21, 2014
Maybe SLVWD is making some mistakes on where your money is being spent. But it is a public forum and allows you to participate; either run for the Board, or attend meetings. Take a look at the water rates for people who live on the Peninsula, and you will see that we are not paying that much. Water rates need to be adjusted so that the base charge pays for running the system. Over use has to be curtailed, so that money needs to be paid for consumers to install conservation improvements.
Mark Messimer
|
September 21, 2014
Julie Hendriks, You’re correct. Our little corner of the world is a great place to live. And because it is, many of us want to keep it safe, financially secure and infrastructure strong. So yes, there are issues we're unhappy with when it comes to the actions of some members of the SVLWD Board of Directors and their leadership behaviors. * Rate increases after wasting $3M on incumbent Larry Prather’s Water Palace (i.e. The Campus Project) * Crumbling infrastructure that was identified over 4 years ago, but not acted upon *Information withheld from the rate-payers or unnecessarily delayed * An in-depth Grand Jury investigation that delivered a highly critical report, and the board’s denial-laden response But, do you want to know what really amazes me? You left your married name, Julie Hendriks-Prather, off your letter. Let's discuss the issues, not the fluff.
MartyF
|
September 19, 2014
They are determined to keep building until Scotts Valley becomes a crowded place with high traffic. Why do we have to keep growing? The City Council seems to believe in growth as an end in itself.


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.