Why would Glendale Water Officials want the public to comment
on its intended plan to increase water rates of 3.8% when so many users are
barely able to pay the current fees? It
wouldn’t be to their advantage. So they
orchestrated a series of “no show” events, one in the North, one in the South
and one in the Central portions of the city just to make it look like they made
the effort. There were numerous staff
members of the Water Department present at each evening event but to no one’s
surprise, the public was not present. Actually
that is not quite accurate. One member
of the public was reported to have appeared per meeting. This is not the first time a no show public
event happened. It happens every time
the city decides it is going to increase utility rates. The fact that the city conducted these open
public meetings gives the impression that it has made proper notice of its
intensions to raise utility rates. It also
satisfies certain legal requirements before they can go ahead and approve the
increase. The city, of course, doesn’t
want the public to show up and it has learned the best way to achieve zero
public participation is to continue the way they have been achieving zero
attendance in the past. By getting the
desired results – no public participation – they continue to use the same
technique.
The staff
report to the city council requesting the water rate increase (on the 10-12-2010
Agenda) gives the impression that three community meetings were held and public
input was received. This is a contrived
method to produce a desired outcome and violates the concept of open
government. They don’t want the public
to know that compared to
What is not included in the staff report is a document
prepared a few months ago by Fitch, a Wall Street Bond Rating Company. It rated Glendale Water Department bonds as
“Negative”. The
Fitch report also stated that
The need for another $50 million dollar loan seems to be a
trend that started eight years ago. Desperation is starting to set in. The city’s Water Reserves have dwindled from a
desired $11.3 million in 2006 to $6.7 million at the end of this fiscal year. A good question taxpayers should be asking is
where did the $4.6 million go?
These questions need to be answered:
1. What is the current
gross amount of Water Bond Debt?
2. What is the current amount paid annually to service the
debt on this borrowed money?
3. What were these figures in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005?
4. What are the other long term bonds by specific title and
what is it costing to service those debts annually?
5. What are the yearly increases in the Water Department operating
budget over the past ten years.
6. What are the annual gross compensation packages, including
pension costs, for Water Department employees over the past ten years?
7. How much water revenue has been transferred yearly to the
general fund in the last ten years?
8. Are the transfers a violation of Proposition 218?
There is much cause for concern. The Glendale News Press article quotes General
Manager Glenn Steiger: “the utility is already falling behind on important
infrastructure maintenance due to lack of revenue”. The article says that progress has stalled on
water infrastructure projects as a result of reduced revenues. This is in direct contradiction to the Water
Department’s five year strategic plan that has a goal of reducing water rates. Is that goal just another public relations sham
like the community meetings?
The Water Department has spent $4.6 million of its strategic
reserves yet it is getting further behind in infrastructure maintenance and
repair.
Before the taxpayers – both residential and business
communities – accept a new water rate increase, the public should be given the
information contained in the eight questions posed earlier.
The GNP
article reports that some council members have been skeptical of the hike. Let me guess, could members Drayman and Weaver
be included. It wouldn’t be surprising
since they are the only two running for reelection.
There could be one sound rationale for this rate increase and
many more to come. The city has been
transferring millions of water revenue dollars into the city’s general fund for
many years. This
kind of transfer has been prohibited by Proposition 218 for over a decade. The city failed to comply with 218 and it may
feel vulnerable to a huge refund to rate payers who have been billed
excessively. In contesting a violation
of Proposition of 218, the
When city employees are paid twice the average income of
Bruce Philpott