Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceThe Goleta Water District’s 85,000 customers are confronting a serious case of spigot shock as district administrators push for rate increases they say are desperately needed to keep the $700-million enterprise solvent in the coming years. On the table are four rate proposals that would raise roughly $6 million a year for the next five years; the only difference is the extent to which the burden is imposed on existing customers or new development. Either way, it appears the average water bill for single family homes will be increasing from $60 a month to $72, while brand-new water-main hookups could possibly jump from $26,000 to $45,000. For the Goleta Water District, good news and bad news have been one and the same. With heavy winter rains the past few years, water consumption has hit historic lows, with an attendant plunge in sales revenues.
District executive John McInnes discovered shortly upon taking the helm last year that the district had absolutely no money in reserves and about $16 million in capital needs that he said could no longer be put off. Rate increases are never popular, and agricultural interests have complained that the new rates could prove fatal. Likewise, many commercial customers have argued that a recession is not the time to pass along such increases. McInnes acknowledged there will be economic pain, but said, even with the increases, the Goleta ag and commercial rates would be among the lowest on the South Coast. McInnes acknowledged the district’s financial pinch has been exacerbated by the $7 million it has to pay every year for its entitlement to water from the State Water Project — water, he admitted, the district rarely uses. Still, he added, those entitlements comprise a major insurance policy for the district. Were it not for State Water, he said, all the district’s existing water supplies would already be spoken for.
Previous Month
Comments
The GWD raised rates dramatically within the last five years, and one wonders how all those increased revenues were dispersed. Hundreds of customers showed up at a meeting to contest those increases and were completely ignored by the insular board.
Perhaps we've reached a time in a tough economy when we should explore the district's current rate structure wherein homeowners pay 10 times or more the agricultural or commercial rates. Why do we continue giving water welfare to those interests?
Let's place such rate increases on the ballot with a full accounting of expenditures (including salaries), so the district's customers can fairly decide the issue.
dslproductions (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2011 at 12:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There's more to this story, then whats posted. There's a 'City of Bell" scandal brewing at the GWD and every customer needs top be outraged.
General Manager John McInnes makes $196,789 a year,former County Long Range Planning employee
Assistant General Manager George Eowan makes $171,125 a year.
Administration Manager/CFO Matthew Anderson makes $130,798 a year.
Chris Rich - estimated at $140,000 per year former County Long Range Planning employee
David Matson - about $150,000 year former County Long Range Planning employee
Why did McInnes hire another administrator at $150,000 when the district is struggling pay its bills?
Why does a small district require 5 administrators each making $150,000 or more per year?
Matson, McInnes, and Rich all together at County Planning and now all together at the Goleta Water District with huge salaries, this does not smell right.
Why should we pay $800,000 a year for "management", that's more than many small Cities and Counties.
Rumor has it that Matson's girlfriend, with no planning experience, has taken over Matson's interim position at County Housing development, how did this get under the radar?
It's time to expose this fraud ,as dslproductions states, and get a full accounting.
CManSB (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2011 at 2:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CManSB, whoever you are, you got it spot on.
GregMohr (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2011 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
More empty houses = Less water costs!
dou4now (anonymous profile)
April 10, 2011 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, our water system management smells like rotten eggs, just like the water we get. Time to cut salaries, 20% for the top 10, and 10% for the rest of the employees. Probably the recently boosted retirement formulas have eaten into the budget and they just decided to use the reserves for the last three years. Let these secure employees feel some of the pain that laid off employees are suffering with. The water board is not doing its job if they let the reserves disappear. The City of Santa Barbara Water management is not that large and well paid, and that is a major water system.
sbindyreader (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2011 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Might make a lot of sense to contract out to the City for management of the GWD. Management cost might very well drop by half.
OldDawg (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2011 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)