by Bob Fultz

I’m responding to recent commentary by Mark Dolson regarding Measure U.  I’m a member of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District Board of Directors but am speaking only for myself—in favor of Measure U.

Measure U will enshrine two policy goals:  (1) people who conserved and who use less than 4 units of water, which include lower- and fixed-income households, are not punished by bills doubling over the next 5 years; and (2) people that use the most water pay the most.   Bottom line, Measure U is about Fairness, which is a strongly held value most of us share. 

Measure U opponents are using an old political strategy: Instill Fear, by claiming the world will end when Measure U passes.   Nothing could be further from the truth.

FACT:  when Measure U passes, I am ready to restore the previous rate balance between fixed and variable charges, to fulfill the District’s stated goal:  Those using more water pay more.  It is a rate structure that also honors and rewards water conservation—helping our environment, another shared value.

Mr. Dolson claims that the District “…would be forced to go through another lengthy revision…” upon passage of Measure U.  That is not true. 

FACT:  The earlier process developed a financial model, which our rate consultant can use to restore the previous balance between fixed and variable charges, then followed by a regular Proposition 218 process.  At most, this is a short 90 – 120-day process.  

Mr. Dolson claims that Measure U limits our ability to borrow money for infrastructure.  Again, not true.

FACT:  With a couple of exceptions, the District does not have any projects ready for construction, meaning borrowed money is not immediately required.  Most projects are in the design phase.  In addition, the District hasn’t spent all of the previous $30 million borrowed, so there is no need to borrow now—and smart to avoid more  interest costs on money that will sit unused for months. Combining industry forecasts that interest rates will fall in 2025 and the fact that we can restore revenue in 90 – 120 days after the election means that by March 2025, at the latest, we could borrow the $19 million—if needed.  Coincidentally, at the time that more projects will be ready to go to bid.  Therefore, the passage of Measure U will have ZERO impact on our borrowing ability or forward progress.

FACT:  Contrary to Mr. Dolson’s concerns, the $19 million loan projected in the rate increase included an option to take it in multiple smaller amounts, over time and as needed. That is written into the consultant’s study found here:  https://www.slvwd.com/sites/g/files/vyhlif1176/f/uploads/2024_rate_study_-_prepared_by_raftelis.pdf, page 2 last sentence in the first paragraph.

Mr. Dolson tries to scare us into believing that the passage of Measure U “…would escalate the District’s losses into the vicinity of a million dollars” and that the system will fall apart (“…disrupt preventive maintenance…”) if Measure U passes.  This is again fear over substance.

FACT:  According to our head of finance, the District has sufficient funds to meet its operating obligations, which means we can fix leaks. Please go to our recent financial report:  https://www.slvwd.com/sites/g/files/vyhlif1176/f/agendas/bod_meeting_agenda_9.5.24_with_backup_1.pdf, page 135.  Our operating expenses are below forecast.  Mr. Dolson is offering an opinion, not a financial analysis.

Mr. Dolson claims that “…interventions like Measure U are fundamentally antithetical to good local governance.  They invite the public to provide a relatively uninformed endorsement of an arbitrary and capricious proposal simply on the basis of some superficially appealing word of mouth.”  As an elected representative I find that statement offensive, as dismissive of both our community and our system of governance.

Mr. Dolson’s statement distills the essence of his opposition pressure group:  that our community is not smart enough to understand District policies and challenges and should butt out; that only those in his group possess the acuity to make important decisions.  Our Founders would be horrified at this since our constitutional republic is based on “consent of the governed”.  I’ve lived in the SLVWD community for decades.  Our community is engaged and more than intelligent enough to intervene when the District and Board go off track.  Our community was intelligent enough in 2013 and 2014 to stop that Board from building a $10 million “Taj Mahal” headquarters.  Our community was intelligent enough in 2018 to elect a new Board to stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a blatant conflict of interest lawsuit involving a Board member, which resulted in substantive District policy changes.  Our community was intelligent enough in 2019 to bring concerns about glyphosate to that Board, asking for a ban on its use on District property and to develop an Integrated Pest Management policy to protect our employees and the environment. Clearly periodic community interventions work.

I am confident that our community will see through the misinformation being propagated by the Measure U opponents and intelligently intervene once again.

Mr. Dolson’s other points are specious. Clearly the District should spend money on the democratic process of voting, though Mr. Dolson’s group consistently opposes that concept.  And once the District has a permanent General Manager, I’m confident that open positions, with their pay and benefits, including a guaranteed pension plan, will be filled quickly.

Thank you all for reading.  Vote YES on Measure U for Fairness!

Bob Fultz

Director, SLVWD