HomeMy WebLinkAbout00. (Handout) Written Public Comments_Scott Rafferty regarding Agenda Items 4, 8, 9 and 16a (Handout)
00. Public Comments
From: Scott Rafferty
To: Katie Youna
Cc: Roger Bailey;Secretary of the District
Subject: Re:CENTRAL SAN-April 20,2022 meeting:Comments on Agenda Items 4,8,9 and 16a
Date: April 19,2023 09:35:38 PM
Attachments: imaae004.ona
imaae003.pnna
imaae002.Dna
Thank you. I have corrected two typographical errors- changing"to"to "the" at the end of the
third paragraph and adding the word"decide"to the last sentence.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 8:44 PM Katie Young<KYounggcentralsan.org>wrote:
Mr. Rafferty,
We have received your public comment. I will read your comments in the respective
agendized areas.
Regards,
Katie Young, Secretary
Dear Board Members:
I have always had a high regard for the staff of Central San and for the Board
members whom I have known(although I had not met the two elected in 2020 until earlier this
month). I assisted the district, on a volunteer basis, when another attorney demanded that it
adopt districts. I trusted the district staff and its board members. The lack of candor and
transparency regarding the rate increase has betrayed that confidence. Therefore, I write to
suggest that you adjourn the hearing on the rate increase (item 4), vote to reconsider the
appointment(item 8), and call an all-mail vacancy election (item 9). Given the irregular
conduct of the rate increase set for hearing today, it is important that you do not deprive the
voters of District 3 of their first ever opportunity to elect to an open seat. Before adopting an
ordinance, it is appropriate to mail a revised notice with links to a completed cost-of-service
study and to conduct at least one hearing in the evening, when the public is more able to
participate.
Item 4
The calculation of a rate increase prior to the preparation of a publishable cost-of-
service study is a failure of governance. Your constituents rely on you to set rates based on
costs, not to create costs based on rates that you have already set. I have testified in dozens of
rate cases, and this is unprecedented. It is an abdication of your duty of financial
responsibility and electoral accountability. Raising rates without a publishable basis is
analogous to the Red Queen determining the sentence before reaching a verdict.
The protest process provides very limited opportunity for the public to overrule a
determination by the Board. Furthermore, the rates you set are almost invisible to many
ratepayers, especially renters, since they are collected in tax bills. I relied, as did all your
constituents,upon the integrity of the Board to be diligent and proactively transparent in
calculating and justifying this increase. This is especially true because it includes a substantial
policy issue—the creation of a new class for ADUs. On April 6, I requested the cost-of-
service study, which is normally the first step in a ratemaking process. I assumed the need for
a rate increase but wanted to understand the allocation of costs and design of rates. I did not
anticipate any irregularities , but there are issues that I expected the study to explain—
including, for example, whether the study confirmed that usage by schools and certain
industries (such as restaurants and office work)will return to pre-pandemic levels. The
District has a duty proactively to disclose the basis for the increase and the expectation for
further increases, since the rates extend for only two years.
To my astonishment, Monday morning, I was advised that the cost-of-service study did
not yet exist and that Central San was working "to update the cost-of-service calculations that
form the basis for the rates shown in the Prop. 218 notice."See message below. If the basis
for rates is still being "updated,"the increase should not yet be noticed, let alone subject to
adoption. It is an abuse of your authority to represent to the public that these rates are just and
reasonable when you have yet to calculate the basis for their justification.
This morning, staff indicated that an annual financial planning presentation made to
the Board at a workshop on January 12, 2023 was essential, in the absence of a publishable
study, to understand the (tentative)basis for the rate increase. It has been distributed to a
majority of the Board. If it is critical support for the increase, the Brown Act required it to be
included in the agenda packet for the April 20, 2023 meeting. Pages 58-68 refer to
"calculations" and"findings." There had not been a cost-of-service study since 2014. But
page 35 states that the basis for the model is the "January 2022 cost of service study." None
of the information in this presentation was referred to in the Prop. 218 notice. Now we learn
that the study has yet to be completed and the "calculations" are still being"updated."
Item 8
There were many qualified candidates who would have brought diversity in life
experience, academic qualifications, and vision to the Board. I was unable to attend the
interviews in person and was neither physically well nor able to "read the room." Still, I did
not feel that the Board appreciated the skills of any of the finalists who were not selected. I
was also surprised by the negativity of your public comments. In light of the absence of a
cost-of-service study, it is ironic that the Board disapproved of Ms. Odne's methodical
explanation of the duties of board members, which was based on many years of experience. I
was also impressed by Ms. Wedington and offended, on several levels, by the challenge that
she would be serving two "masters." I am passionate about the integrity of public processes,
including setting rates, and now realize that the members who stated that I would"drive the
Board crazy"were undoubtedly correct. None of us was considered fairly and with respect,
which is an additional reason the people should be allowed to elect.
Item 9
It would have been a legacy for the late member Williams to allow the voters of
District 3 to elect his successor last November. Given his choice, it is important accurately to
present the cost and timing of the option of a special election. Districting reduced the cost of
an election to fill a vacancy by 80%. Contrary to the presentation at the March 9, 2023
meeting, an all-mail vacancy election could have been scheduled as early as July 11, 2023 and
conducted by mail. Elections Code, §4004(c)(2). Based on experience in other counties, it
would disappoint me if our registrar were not able to conduct such an election for $5 per
registered voter, not $8 to $12. This cost of approximately $266,000 may seem substantial.
However, it has to be offset against the cost of holding an additional election for a short term
in 2022, which will be necessary if you appoint. Critically, an all-mail election, dedicated to
Central San, has the prospect for higher voter participation than a down-ticket race on the off-
year ballot.
Electoral accountability is always desirable. District 3 deserves its first opportunity
to elect a member to an open seat. A campaign will allow the voters to consider whether it is
important to elect a candidate committed to transparency and integrity in rate-setting. In the
case of a taxing authority, this is one of the most invisible of administrative procedures.
Item 16a
As an attorney who has devoted pro bono efforts to cleaning RAP sheets even before
the enactment of Penal Code 851.91, I am sympathetic to Member Lauritzen's desire to
respect the ability of former felons to participate fully in public life. Once again, however, the
Board is acting on incomplete advice about California elections law.
In general, prior conviction of a felony is not a disqualification from elective or
appointed office, but there are important exceptions.
The Fourteenth Amendment permanently disqualifies anyone who engages in an
insurrection after having sworn an official or military oath from ever holding office in any
state government. The California Constitution, Article VII, Section 9 extends a broader
disqualification from office based on insurrection or support of a foreign adversary to all
citizens. A number of California residents have already been indicted in connection with
disrupting the 2020 electoral count.
The state constitution also disqualifies anyone convicted of offering a bribe to secure
election or appointment, and authorizes further statutory disqualifications. Art VII, §8(a).
There are a number of disqualifications involving bribery or extortion under color of law (in
addition to Elections Code, §20. e.g., Government Code, §1021.5; Penal Code, §§67, 68, 74,
88, 98, 424.
The Elections Code (§18501) also permanently disqualifies any official who
commits an offense against the elective franchise or corruption of the voting process, which
includes bribery, fraud, and other misconduct relating to an election.
CONCLUSION
Accountability for the monopoly rates that you impose is one of the Board's highest
duties. The failure to publish, or even to prepare, a cost-of-service study before agendizing
approval of a rate increase and substantial change in rate classes is not consistent with the
Board's responsibility to be accountable to the public. A benefit of district elections is that
board members are more accountable to the communities that they serve. The failure to
publish a justification of the rate increase—and the improper"updating" of costs on(or after)
the day of the hearing - demonstrates the need to have the voters of District 3 decide who is
best to represent them.
Sincerely,
Scott J. Rafferty
Request 23-15 2 • - 0
Dates Request
Received Please provide the cast-of-service study and any analysis of the basis for the rate design of the proposed increase.
April 6,2023 via email
Timeline Documents
Staff Assigned Request Reopened Nbk
Departments ®Request Published Nbk
Planning and Development Services
Point ofcontact 0 Request Closed ^ Nbk
Eileen Hansen The record you asked for does not exist.Please feel free to contact Senior Engineer Thomas Brightbill by e-
mail(thrightbill@centralsan.org)or telephone(925 229-7338.)
Record request #23-15 has been closed.
The closure reason supplied was:
The record you asked for does not exist. Please feel free to
contact Senior Engineer Thomas Brightbill by e-mail
(tbrightbill@centralsan.org) or telephone (925 229-7338,)
message was seat to fru regarding
record request # -1 :
Central San has not yet received a copy of the 2023 Cost of
Service study report which is being written by an outside
consultant, F aftel i .
Central San and F aftelis have been working together to update
the cost of service calculations which serge as the basis for the
rates shown in the Proposition 218 notice and the position
paper and draft ordinance for the public hearing scheduled for
April 20, 2023,
We are happy to provide a copy of the report once we receive
it. We are also happy to spear with you to answer any questions
you may have or determine if there are any other documents
which may address your concerns.
Please feel free to contact Senior Engineer Thomas Brightbill b
e-mail (!;�Uciht:ffic centralsan.org) or telephone (925 220-7338,)
Scott Rafferty
1913 Whitecliff Ct
Walnut Creek CA 94596
mobile 202-380-5525
Sent from My iPhone 1913 Whitecliff Ct Walnut Creek CA 94596 202-380-5525