Colette Marie Farkas
|
September 23, 2014
It's fabulous how facts expose fiction. Mark Messimer's letter says is all! Yes, exposing Incumbent Prather's wife's repetition of misleading campaign claims reveals how those who self-identified as a stale "slate" are not to be trusted. Fortunately for SLVWD ratepayers, this team of group-think candidates are letting voters know which candidates want ratepayers to keep subsidizing the problems Incumbent Prather caused by his votes that diverted funds needed for infrastructure improvements in back room deals that harmed the environment and wasted millions of dollars. It's time to clean house. Rate payers need individuals who are not part of a self-serving machine that profits by funding insider candidates. Vote for the individuals who will provide the kind of leadership needed to fix messes those funding the "slate" think the public doesn't notice.
DryTown Dave
|
September 22, 2014
So, they just built the Woodside Homes on Scotts Valley Drive, and we really don't have the water for that, but now we are putting in a 128 room Hotel with Pool and landscaping ?! Just where is the water coming from? Oh, I know, the San Lorenzo Valley Water District "Emergency Intertie" system. See, you thought it was just for emergency, once the lines are hooked up, there is no stopping these water boards from diverting OUR water to everyone else. Next stop Lompico for the SLVWD water...
Bill_Smallman
|
September 22, 2014
Bruce, To be honest, I have not studied SLVWD rates - thanks for the info, since I may run for the Board someday since Lompico will be part of SLVWD, hopefully. I have done work for Palo Alto and know they must have lower operating costs. They get most of their water directly from Hetch Hetchy- no well cost are much more densely populated flat land- this generates much more $. There must be other communities in CA like SLVWD to compare to.
Kim Quinoa
|
September 22, 2014
Finally! Smart people coming out of the woodwork to fight off the entrenched, cronyistic incumbents. Please Sentinel and PB, don't endorse the Hammer slate just because the SCCDCC forgot their brains and lost their courage.
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.


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.