DEAR EDITOR:
Robert Cerruti’s recent letter to the editor stated that the
Santa Clara Valley Water District does not need a rate increase of
25 percent. He’s absolutely right.
DEAR EDITOR:
Robert Cerruti’s recent letter to the editor stated that the Santa Clara Valley Water District does not need a rate increase of 25 percent. He’s absolutely right. The SCVWD plan over the next 10 years is to increase South County municipal and industrial ground water rates by a factor of 2.5 times over the current rate of $160 per acre foot. This will be paid by every non-agricultural ratepayer in South County.
It does not include any recovery of the district’s perchlorate program. The 25 percent is only one of many installments on the march to 2.5 times the current rate.
Mr. Cerruti also is correct when he says employees of the water district received a 52 percent increase in total compensation over the last two years. I reviewed the budget and verified that it’s truth. In that review, I found the employee projected total benefit package will be 73 percent over three years if the proposed budget for the coming year is adopted.
This 73 percent translates to $119,000 per employee on average.
This is the tip of an iceberg. While many private companies in Silicon Valley suffered layoffs in the recession, the SCVWD added 82 positions (10 percent) to 889 positions in the last two budget years. These positions were added at a time when the unemployment rate was 8 percent in the Valley.
Additionally, the budget shows, in the past two years, the office of the CEO and general counsel increased by 152 percent. It went from $7 million to $18 million. For what is this money being spent? Are ratepayers aware there exists an arm of the SCVWD called the Office of Public Affairs that was created in 2001 and is budgeted about $6 million per year? Further, Mr.
Cerruti has a valid observation that $4.6 million spent on the solar project at SCVWD headquarters should not come from the well pump tax.
An editor’s note at the end of Cerruti’s letter stated that “Representatives of the SCVWD say employees will receive 3 percent raises as they have in recent years and that benefit costs have risen by 190 percent in recent years and health insurance is up 35 percent. I don’t understand where these number come from.
Comparing the 01/02 budget to the 02/03 the average raise (not benefits) was 23.3 percent. From the 02/03 budget to the 03/04 the average raise was 6.5 percent. Regarding the 190 percent increase in benefit cost, this is not normal and should not be accepted. What’s this for? All of this called for a detailed explanation.
Sadly, it appears there’s something seriously amiss in the way the SCVWD is currently managed. It’s my view this represents a mess and has occurred in only the last two years. Up to that point it seems the board of directors and CEO did a good job. However things have changed and the rate-paying public needs to take note. Now.
It’s time to change the current board of directors through a recall. As an aside, it’s interesting to note that all of the five elected positions ran unopposed. Of the seven positions, two are appointed by the county Board of Supervisors.
B. Terry Mahurin, Morgan Hill
Submitted Thursday, June 10
