Finding # 18: Moving the sewer bill back to the water bill will decrease sewer fund revenues.
I really am getting tired of trying to explain these idiotic moves! Having read all of the previous sections, I am sure the whole picture is beginning to come into focus.
Remember, the big concern (as we have discussed) is the reason for placing sewer fees on the property tax bill was to recover lost revenue that was inadvertently not considered when the water and sewer rates were set as a result of the 2009 Water and Sewer Rate Study (see Finding # 14).
Internalized Questions # 6:
In responding to the Grand Jury Final Report, Finding # 14; the official response from RCSD Board members agreed with this finding. It only makes sense to ask, “If they agree with Finding # 14 and the previous board took action to remedy that problem, then why would you vote to rescind that action and go back to the way sewer fees were collected on the water bill?
Internalized Questions # 7:
Why would the RCSD CHOOSE to revisit losing $150,000 per year?
Internalized Questions # 8:
Why would they take the action they took without a plan to recover the lost revenue that they just created with their latest action?
Let’s cut to the chase… in 2009 when the rates were set at the current level; the plan was to have ALL connections paying every month. When a rate study is done a services district cannot just pick a number out of the air and say this is what we are going to charge. Under California state law; as an Enterprise agency, the RCSD is not allowed to make a profit. They are required to establish criteria that lead to accurate rate establishment. They must look at costs related to: service delivery, infrastructure loans, bonds, operating and maintenance requirements, chemicals, current population, future growth, and infrastructure expansion. After they finish doing all of the calculations, let’s say the amount comes to $39.70 a month; then RCSD must charge $39.70 a month. They are prohibited by California business operating rules from charging a single penny more or less. The base-rate must be established using a fact-based approach, common to many corporate board rooms involving charts, graphs, spreadsheets, facts and figures.
So which brings us back to the fact (as stated in the Finding) that the previous board voted to close a loophole in the 2009 rate study that allowed landlords to enjoy not being responsible for their sewer bills on their property. The current RCSD, led by Ed MacKay, Olaf Landsgaard, and Dennis Shingledecker aligned themselves with a special interest (their own wallets) as by reestablishing the very loophole that drained RCSD funding levels dry at the tune of $150,000 per year (is this even legal?). It must be, they have a $400,000 per year lawyer at their beck and call. In the end, it is the average RCSD rate payer who get stuck with subsidizing RCSD board members personal special interests.
Internalized Questions # 9:
As discussed in Finding # 14, “The Landsgaard Family, trusts, friends, and business associates are listed on the Kern County tax rolls associated with more than 75 properties accounting for more than 221 acres of land within the Rosamond Community Services District boundaries.” If birds of a feather flock together, I wonder; just how many properties are actually owned or controlled by the entire RCSD Board?
Internalized Questions # 10:
How long can the RCSD continue to lose $150,000 a year in lost revenue before the sewer rates go up to $45, $50 or $60 a month? My friend, that question just might be answered very soon as we will discuss it as Finding # 19.
Internalized Questions # 11:
Ed MacKay, Olaf Landsgaard, and Dennis Shingledecker claim they are the “Voice of the Community”. Are they really the “Voice of Special Interests”?
====================== Finding # 18 states: “Moving the sewer bill back to the water bill will decrease sewer fund revenues.”
The RCSD’s official response to Finding # 18: “The Board is without sufficient information by which to ascertain whether moving the sewer bill back to the water bill will decrease sewer fund revenues, on that basis, disagrees with this finding. The Board asserts that this finding is speculation.”
To read the next section click here: The Midnight Writings: Finding 19 – “Pointing out the Obvious, Sometimes you have to do that.”