|
County Service Area 70 Zone W-1:
A Community's Assessment
County Service Area 70 Zone W-1 is a Board-governed water district within the Special Districts Department, Water and Sanitation Division. It encompasses approximately 1,500 properties serving 650 metered customers in the eastern part of Landers, an unincorporated, economically disadvantaged area characterized by a high number of residents who rely on subsistence-level or below subsistence-level fixed incomes.
The following assessment aims to:
1. Document how Special Districts Department’s mission to “promote safe, healthy, enjoyable and dynamic communities by providing essential programs and municipal services” has been replaced by a culture of secrecy, exploitation and incompetence that has created a downward drag on property values, economic stability and the general welfare of our community, and
2. Make the case for the Special Districts Department to cooperate in the lawful annexation of Service Area 70 Zone W-1 by the Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency.
Communications Failure
In assessing the efforts of Special Districts to communicate with ratepayers in Service Area 70 Zone W-1, we find numerous examples of a Department that fosters the impression there is regular, open communication when the reality is more accurately characterized by a system where property owners are ignored, belittled and intentionally mislead or misinformed.
Each year, in the County’s Recommended Budget, the section on this service area states:
| “The District does not utilize an Advisory Commission or Municipal Advisory Council. Meetings are held with residents as needed in the Belfield Hall.” |
These meetings are referenced sporadically in the Department’s literature, and Interim Operations Manager Steve Samaras recently gave this writer a friendly slap on the back and suggested I attend “one of the community meetings out here.” The suggestion was met with a guffaw considering we have documented only three such meetings in the last twelve years: June 2002, May 2003 and March 2012. In addition, my own calls to Mr. Samaras routinely go unanswered.
It is an insult when ratepayers in CSA70W-1 read claims that “Special Districts Department depends quite heavily on input from the community,” and “successful operation of a District, CSA and Improvement Zone is a team effort between County staff and property owners.” We can describe responses to our written inquiries as routinely lethargic, patronizing, and/or misrepresentative and we are prepared to document the same as in the responses to the issue with the chlorinators, budget spreadsheets, and benchmark meter reads as well as other examples. Most recently, Mr. Rigney informed a member of our delegation that the Department intends to charge property owners for responding to inquiries – hardly the “team effort” trumpeted in their propaganda.
Each ratepayer can count on exactly eight communications annually from the Department -- six invoices, a required water quality report, and a rate increase notice. Aside from these, it is exceedingly difficult to get prompt, honest answers from Special Districts. The ratepayers in Service Area 70 Zone W-1 have no choice but to give the Department a failing grade in the area of communication.
Failure to Operate in an Atmosphere of Transparency
In assessing the efforts of Special Districts to operate in an open and transparent atmosphere, the ratepayers in CSA70W1 find instead a Department that offers: no “open” meetings; no attempts to inform property owners of changes to policy, personnel or planning; large expenditures; and what appears to be the deliberate publication of financial reports that lack the basics that would permit anyone with reasonable accounting experience to follow the streams of funds in and out of the W-1 Zone. An addendum to this Assessment reviews in detail these shortfalls in financial reporting.
Further, the Department's website doesn't contain historical budgets. Audits are not there. Many rate increase notice links don't work. The Consumer Confidence Report Addendum isn't there on the Landers page (other zones have no 2012 report) and historical CCR's aren't there.
In consideration of the above, the property owners within CSA70W1 have no choice but to give the Department a failing grade in the area of transparent operations.
Failure to Demonstrate Competent Operations
It is the many examples of oversights, mishaps and snafus that make Special District’s annual rate hikes especially hard for property owners to swallow. The following is a list of known problems; we shudder to think of all the wasteful oversights we’ve no knowledge of:
| |
 Ratepayers were recently surprised to discover the Department instituted the newest rate increases on July 1, rather than July 18 as approved. We were equally as surprised to learn no one at Special Districts had discovered the mistake until ratepayers complained when statements went out on Sept. 1.
Adding insult to injury, we were extremely disappointed to learn that it had not occurred to anyone at Special Districts to read the meters on July 18. Doing so would have allowed a fair and equitable way to resolve the overcharges. Plus, it seems obvious they needed new readings on the date the new rates were to go into effect. The solution should have been to institute the new rates on Sept.1, but instead, they’ve decided to create complicated formulas so as to guestimate usage. This method doesn’t take into account ratepayers whose usage primarily occurred before July 18, such as could have been the case for anyone with a leak, or who left town in August.
A most egregious example of the Department’s routine incompetence can be found in the Consumer Confidence Report, published annually. Each year the Department gives themselves a big pat on the back with a list of completed projects. For 2008 it was site Security Upgrades; for 2009 it was installation of a security system at District sites; for 2010 no mention of any completed projects; for 2011 it was completion of the Landers Security System and installation of a generator at the Landers yard. The 2011 Report also includes a section on “Projects Planned for 2012/2013.” Projects listed are: “Rehabilitate Pressure Reduction Stations, Repair Water Hauling Driveway, Water Meter Change-out Project, Inspect and Recoat Reservoir 2A, and Water Service Line Replacement Project.” The list is ambitious; however, the 2012 Confidence Report was published with no mention of any completed projects. What happened? And if the District’s infrastructure is in such dire condition as is the present claim, why was it not being addressed in prior years instead of security systems?
Then, there is the relatively recent December 19, 2012 inspection of the CSA70W-1 water system by the California Department of Public Health (View full PDF file of inspection report). In particular, that inspection stated: Overall, the water system facilities were found adequately maintained but several deficiencies were found in monitoring and operations. Again, if the District’s infrastructure is in such dire condition as is the present claim, it would stand to reason that this state inspection would find that and so state. But, this state inspection didn't find anything of the sort. What this state inspection did find was that the County Special Districts Department wasn't doing what was required day to day to properly run the CSA70W-1 water system. Stated in other words, this means: the property owners and ratepayers in CSA70W-1 are not getting what they are paying for and haven't been for quite some time. Further, if the property owners and ratepayers are not getting what they are paying for, then where is that revenue going and why?
Another most egregious example of the Department’s routine incompetence and contempt for customers is how its staff handles customer payments and account balances. The following is a specific example:
| |
 On Oct 2013, customer received the water bills for the 2 properties that the customer owns. Both bills stated that there was a past due balance. Customer was told by the Department that the past due balances needed to be paid on or before Oct 15, 2013. On Oct 11, 2013, customer mailed a check to pay both water bills in full.
On Oct 15, 2013, customer received a red final shutoff notice and on Oct 16, 2013, the Department shut off the customer's water service. Customer called the Department to ask what had happened to the check that customer had sent in as payment on Oct 11, 2013.
The Department advised customer that they had never received customer's check, would not be able to find customer's check and that customer should put a stop payment on that check and use the Department's pay by phone service to make the necessary payments so that customer could have their water service turned back on.
As the Department recommended, on Oct 17, 2013, customer made the pay by phone payments and put a stop payment on the check that customer had mailed on Oct 11, 2013.
On Oct 21, 2013, the Department received customer's check, that the Department had asked customer to put a stop payment on, and applied it to customer's account. This is after customer had made the pay by phone payments and brought customer's account current.
On Oct 31, 2013, the Department received the check back unpaid from customer's bank due to the stop payment order, that the Department had recommended that customer put on the check. The Department then added a returned check fee to customer's account and sent out a notice to that effect to customer on Nov 4, 2013. Apparently, the Department's staff representative who had spoken to customer and who had recommended that customer put a stop payment on their check and replace that check with pay by phone payments should have, but did not, put any notes in customer's account to not cash customer's check and instead notify and return customer's check to customer. Instead, as another example of the Department's incompetence, the Department tried to cash customer's check and now is charging customer a returned check fee for the Department's incompetence.
There is reason to believe that this incompetence and contempt towards customers is routine rather than the exception because, in 2003, a completely different customer had also paid their water bill by mailing a check, which had gotten lost in the mail and the first thing that customer knew about it was when they had received their red shutoff notice. That other customer had to personally drive to Victorville, thus wasting time and gas, and pay their water bill in person in order to avoid having their water service shut off.
|
We are also left to wonder how so much recent vandalism was done at the Landers yard when the Department seems to have devoted 2009 to 2011 to installing security systems.
Back to the Consumer Confidence Report content. Following the distribution of the official CCR in 2013, a mysterious supplement arrived in the mail. Apparently, the Department does not know how to properly prepare the reports as one of our ratepayers alerted them about irregularities in their report for three years in a row. Only after the customer elevated the complaint within the Department was the issue resolved. If it were not for the expertise of our constituents, we would not really know the contents of our drinking water, disclosure that is required by law.
That Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency is able to deliver the same water to their customers (our neighbors) at significantly less cost than Special Districts is also cause for concern that the Department operates under a culture of wasteful and unnecessary spending within a huge bureaucracy encompassing the entire County.
Then there’s the property owner whose bill showed zero consumption for the two months which he knew to be incorrect and so reported to the Department the error. Surprisingly, following the next two months the bill again showed zero consumption and so another call was placed. It was not until the third bill showing zero consumption did Special Districts manage to get someone out to check the meter which they found to be frozen and so was replaced. This incident happened to me, the writer, and my only regret is that I reported it three times because the six months of free water certainly was a budget booster.
|
As for demonstrated basic competence in the field and at administrative offices, this community has seen evidence of neither; Special Districts Department fails.
Failure to Operate in Good Faith
Of all the areas covered by this Community Assessment, the need to operate in good faith is the most important. For any entity, demonstrating an honesty of intention is paramount to developing trust and loyalty. In this area, County Special Districts has failed miserably. Our reasonable attempts to access information on the Department, and about Departmental Finances in particular, have been consistently met with stonewalling, evasion, and outright false statements. Some examples follow:
| |
 When Mr. Rigney told a news reporter that CSA70W1 meters were read on July 18, it was a false statement. Believing the statement to be false, Mr. Rigney was asked the question five times and each time he provided the same answer. When the head of accounting, Michael Wildes, was asked the same question he also initially said the meters were read on July 18, but on further questioning he admitted they were not. The Department was attempting to hide the fact that refunds due ratepayers for the early rate hikes were estimates.
Then there is the question of the Department’s purchase of chlorinator machines which seem to appear on the budget every two years and at an enormously inflated cost. These machines last many years. After persistent inquires we received some explanation, but the issue is far from resolved. We have yet to receive an adequate explanation of these expenses, but what has become clear is that something is amiss.
The Department has attempted to justify the latest 20% rate hike by claiming the District’s infrastructure is in dire need of major repairs. We are left to question this for the following reasons:
| |
A decade of annual Consumer Confidence Reports list not a single improvement to infrastructure among the completed projects. Why is the need suddenly dire?
As we understand it, signs of failing infrastructure would include periodic shut offs while the Department makes repairs to broken water lines, discolored water indicating either work on nearby water lines or broken water lines that allow contaminants into the water system, boil orders, water running down the road indicating broken water lines, and at minimum the occasional sighting of a Department vehicle somewhere other than parked in the equipment yard.
Why is the Department’s infrastructure so fragile and at risk when that of Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency is not, while generally speaking, both are about the same age and similar construction?
How can we believe that the infrastructure is failing, yet there are no real signs of such failure being a real priority for the Department?
|
Requests for the unaudited financial statements for FY2012/13 from Special Districts, that we made around August 2013, remain unfulfilled. While the Department has provided some information, it has been woefully lacking, irrelevant, and/or incomplete. On April 15, 2014, we finally did get the audited financial statements for FY2012/13, but not from Special Districts. We find the lack of relevant responses to be pathetic and a violation of the public trust.
|
It is for these reasons that this community must assess the Special Districts Department’s resistance to good faith interactions as a failure to foster any honest, open and meaningful relationships with the ratepayers in the District.
Community Assessment Summary
The ratepayers in CSA70W1 judge the Department to have lost sight of its mission, the Department having received failing assessments in the areas of communication, transparency, competence, and honesty of intention. Although ours is an economically disadvantaged community, we are given no breaks from County Special Districts, and as such we demand honest, responsive and complete dealings with our water provider. We have no confidence that the Special Districts Department is capable of providing same. Under their jurisdiction, we have seen rates climb to levels disproportionately higher than surrounding communities. We have seen the gradual reduction of availability and communication. We have been treated with contempt, talked down to, and been given false information. We have found that their meetings are not public, their finances are not accessible, and their operations are kept safely away from public scrutiny.
Many in our community live on less than $500 monthly; they are suffering under the burden of Special Districts Department’s soaring rates in Zone W-1. Some here have had to choose between bathing and providing water for their animals. Their situations are desperate. Additionally, it has recently come to our attention that local realtors are aware of the substandard service and higher charges in Zone W-1 as compared to Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency. It is reasonable to conclude that properties within this zone are beginning to see a negative drag on value.
There Is An Alternative Service Provider
We have seen no attempts by County Special Districts to work with us; as such we have passed a vote of no confidence on the County Special Districts Department. Fortunately, however, Area 70 Zone W-1 falls within the recently expanded sphere of influence of the Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency. That designation clears the way for a first step toward the annexation of CSA70W1 by Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency.
Why do the property owners of east Landers want their water services annexed by Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency? In brief, Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency is governed by a locally elected board that conducts its business in open, accessible meetings. All members of the board must reside within the boundaries of the Agency. Their finances are understandable and available. Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency is responsive to community concerns and takes an active role in community events. The Agency has local offices staffed by folks we know, many of whom live in the local community. The Agency does not charge for water usage by the tier, nor does it charge more for a 1 inch meter than for a 3/4 inch meter. Further, the water rates charged by Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency are significantly lower than those of Special Districts even though they both draw from the same aquifer. Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency offers same day, courtesy leak detection service and courtesy calls when they see higher than average consumption to alert property owners of possible leaks. County Special Districts offers none of these.
Because it is the desire of the ratepayers within CSA70W1 to receive water service from Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency, we believe it is incumbent on County Special Districts to facilitate the move and to turn over to Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency all of the assets that belong to the property owners within CSA70W1 without reservation. To act otherwise would be viewed as yet another violation of the public trust.
The approved method for establishing Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency as our community’s water service provider is via a petition initiative organized by the affected ratepayers. The alternative is via a directive from the Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency Board of Directors.
The first option requires that citizen organizers gather signatures from a majority of the registered voters in the District after paying LAFCO filing fees of approximately $15,000. Gathering sufficient signatures is no barrier. However, given local economic realities, and barring any assistance from the County Board of Supervisors or other outside funding sources, it is not possible for this community to come up with LAFCO’s required $15,000 in filing fees.
The second option would be initiated by Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency in the form of an adopted resolution. LAFCO filing fees would still apply, and Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency would have to come up with those filing fees.
The possibility that County Special Districts could be removed for cause does exist and would likely be transacted through the court system. We are exploring that possibility.
|