As water rates remain the same for the third year in a row, the
Santa Clara Valley Water District’s budget includes an increase of
$9.9 million over the next year.
As water rates remain the same for the third year in a row, the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s budget includes an increase of $9.9 million over the next year.
Last week, it approved a $315 million budget that includes a reduction of 25 more positions – most of which are vacant this year and the addition of 23 projects that will create as many as 2,000 jobs in the county.
Water district CEO Beau Goldie has also reduced 82 positions at the district, including the 25 that will be eliminated this year – amounting to $115 million savings over 10 years. It’s a figure that includes both salaries and benefits.
What the district does not advertise, though, is that just two of those 25 positions are currently filled. Two senior managers, who earn six-figure salaries, were let go recently by Goldie.
“What I’ve done is went through a reorganization,” said Goldie, who took the helm as CEO in 2009. He said he is working to align the organization to focus on its mission and to develop a leaner and more efficient district.
“The first step is, I give direction to all unit managers: What do they really need to deliver the project and services, here’s what I need and the outcomes – the dollar amount – so we had to reduce (what they projected) by $11.4 million,” Goldie said.
Each department manager determined its budget that was gone over line-by-line by a budget committee. He said the district is working to get as lean as possible so every dollar they spend is going toward its goals of providing clean and reliable water, flood protection and stream stewardship.
The water district’s municipal and industrial water rates are one of the lowest in the state at $275 per acre foot of in South County and $520 per acre foot in North County. An acre foot can provide enough water for a family of five for a year.
The district’s loud support for its no-rate increase has been compared to other water districts in the state that are increasing monthly rates by 10 percent or more.
However, what has concerned rate-payers is the projections over the next 10 years that show the groundwater charges increasing by about $10 per acre foot in the south zone every year until 2020. In the south zone, the charge is expected to reach $365 in 10 years and in the north zone it would more than double to $1,070 per acre foot from the $520 rate now.
“The real challenge is there is no additional compensation,” for employees who must take on more work, Goldie said. In order to invest more in capital projects and other necessities, Goldie said he is working to streamline jobs and consolidate where possible.
“You can’t change an organization over night. It takes a little bit of time. I’m quite pleased that this is the third straight year that water rates are flat,” he said. Just one other agency in California he knew of has done the same. The district has kept rates the lowest in the state. “It’s actually quite pleasing,” he said.
The explanation for the increase is “driven by the size of the capital improvement program to address aging infrastructure,” according to the district.
In South County, residents will see the water district actively working on two of the improvement projects. In the budget is $10 million to fund planning and design on the Lower Llagas Creek and Upper Llagas Creek paid for by both the district and the city of Morgan Hill.
On Tuesday a public meeting addressing the flood control in the county drew just one resident, Bob Cerruti. He said the low turnout should encourage the district to change its strategy on reaching the public.
His suggestion was to send out a survey countywide and ask residents about their concerns with a simple yes or no answer.
“You got to be proactive not reactive,” he said. “Everybody should have the opportunity to respond on the subject of flood control.”
At a community meeting in 2009, residents did voice their concerns for the slow process in controlling the flooding each year in Morgan Hill that continues to threaten about 1,100 homes, 500 businesses and 1,300 acres of agriculture land.
The earliest expected completion date for the Llagas Creek Flood Protection project, if all the necessary funding can be acquired, is 2015, according to water district staff members in 2009.
Twenty-one other job-producing projects will continue this year and next and will capture much of the district’s budget with $103 million, including $26.4 million from local, state and federal funds and $16 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as part of the federal stimulus funding this year.
The district provides water supply and flood protection to the county’s 1.8 million people and employs about 750 people. The budget was formally approved June 8.
BOARD SAYS CONSERVE
For the second year, the board of directors passed a resolution to make it mandatory for county residents to reduce their water use this summer. District staff recommended a voluntary conservation effort due to the positive response last year when a 15 percent reduction was requested during the three-year drought and almost $1 million was spent on advertising and outreach.
But board members voted 5-2 Tuesday that it made more sense to not relax the mandatory rule to voluntary status and ask residents to conserve 10 percent of their water use. Directors Joe Judge and Larry Wilson cast the no votes.
Residents responded last year by conserving about 9.7 percent – a loss of about $9.5 million in revenue to the water district, according to the district.
The city of Morgan Hill announced June 2 that it would lift the mandatory conservation for water users after the Bay Area saw the rainiest spring since 2006 and reservoirs were measures at more than 100 percent of their average capacity in May.
The directive by the water district is only a recommendation and water retailers such as the city have the final say of what it requires its customers to do.
Conserving 10 percent of the water it sells wholesale to retailers in the county will result in a loss of about $5.8 million in revenue for SCVWD.
So, why conserve?
“Because we want people to use less water,” Goldie said.
At the end of the summer, the board of directors will review its three-month conservation effort.
