Comments on: YORBA LINDA SEWER RATES

By: Steven Dorsey

Steven Dorsey — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:01:16 +0000

All General Services provided in a city (e.g. this sewer system) should be managed/operated by private sector companies, not city governments. An private sector company would make sure that the two sides of the city were paying the same rates (e.g. the higher rate of the two) and that is the most equitable solution. My brother has been a civil servant for the City of LA for over 30 years and I’ve worked for two large, private companies for the same amount of time and in every similar circumstance, the private sector has been more efficient and cost effective than the municipality. This type of “divestiture” would be cost-saving for the city and free up the “calendar” of city councilmembers/managers so they could focus on “real” government issues such as quality healthcare and education. Finally, another thing to think about when the next election comes around…..ending the terms of the 3 council members who voted like they did.

By: Jan Horton

Jan Horton — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:00:39 +0000

I understand the water district is running at a deficit and they had to raise rates. What concerns me? Three Council members voted to overturn the community 218 vote indicating their desire to raise the sewer maintenance rates and maintain the health and safety of our community. This rate would have allowed the City to remain solvent while providing the service they are mandated by the state. The three Council members stated we could go back out for another 218 vote for a lower rate increase. This does not make sense. If the cost to provide the maintenance needed has been established, why would we ask the residents to approve a lower rate that does not cover the costs? We will continue to use the reserve fund to back-fill the cost.
As far as giving the asset to anyone, Water District or other entity, makes no sense. The sewer system is not in bad shape and is an asset the City owns. The City may not want to stay in the sewer business but we should be good stewards with the community’s assets.

By: P Rutledge

P Rutledge — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:49:35 +0000

This situation honestly baffles me. The new State regulation that caused this new SSMP development requires that the SSMP be complete and certified by August 2, 2009. Which means that these are new costs that had not before occured and for someone to look at the increase as a percentage shows negligence of the issues at hand. I have trouble understanding how the decision to make the change can simply be overturned and waste everyone’s time here. What assurance could there be if we did go through the $3,000 plus staff time to try to raise the rates that this wouldn’t be overturned again. And if those who had overturned it WERE convinced it seems silly that it would still be mandatory to go through the whole Prop 218 vote all over again when indifference if not direct support of the change was clearly seen.
On a side note… I am not terribly familiar with the system on a city level. How many votes (out of #?) are needed to overturn a Prop 218 decision and why is it able to be overturned in the first place? Shouldn’t a decision that the people make be stronger than a few (while I do understand that a 1/2% response is probably not a hugely reliable)?

By: L Baker

L Baker — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:54:23 +0000

Presently, YLWD performs maintenance and repairs to the city owned sewer system, for a fee. It is my understanding that because the sewer system operates at a loss (paid from the general fund) the city has been limiting the repairs allowed, and the system is deteriorating. This must not continue or the city (that means the taxpayers) are going to get stuck with a huge financial liability, and maybe health liability too. Imagine a fire truck falling into a sink hole, only this time it’s not full of drinking water. It may already be the case that the city owned sewer system on the east side of the city has a negative net worth due to years of compounded deferred maintenance. The city lacks the staff, equipment, and expertise to operate and maintain the system. The present fee structure does not fund proper maintenance, so the system, a public asset, deteriorates. Allowing the asset to deteriorate is not acceptable — we need it to remain operating properly and safely for many decades into the future. The rates need to go up to properly maintain the system, no matter if the city continues to own the sewer system, or it is transferred to another qualified and willing owner.

By: A.Alexander

A.Alexander — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:02:35 +0000

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We live on Via Marisa and I honestly don’t know if we are in the east or wes but I do know that is unfair for one side of the city to pay for the other. I think the rates should be increased. I the YL water district should take over operation it should be done as a managent company @ not as an owner.