LAFCO
Southern Marin Sewer Agencies Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Comments - October 2011
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
SOUTHERN MARIN SEWER AGENCIES
SERVICE REVIEW AND
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE
Comments on Staff Report and Recommendations
October 2011
Comments of Affected Agencies
1. Letter of Bonner Beuhler, Manager, Almonte Sanitary District, October 10
2. Letter of Kevin Reilly, Chair, Almonte Sanitary District, October 10
3. Letter of Lew Kious, Secretary-Treasurer, Almonte Sanitary District, October 10
4. Letter of Tom Roberts, Manager, Alto Sanitary District, October 5
5. Letter of Einar Asbo, President, Homestead Valley Sanitary District, July 10
6. Letter of Einar Asbo, Catherine Howe, Scott Noble, Burnett Tregoning, Robert
Westbrook, Board Members, Homestead Valley Sanitary District, October 5
7. Letter of Bruce Abbott, President, Richardson Bay Sanitary District, August 7
8. Letter of Roy Benvenuti, Director, Richardson Bay Sanitary District, August 22
9. Letter of James McCann, City Manager, City of Mill Valley, October 10
Correspondence from Private Citizens
In Support
1. Letter of Scott Drotman, October 7
2. Myra Drotman, October 4
3. Ramona Flood, October 4
4. Letter of Joseph Neufeld, September 19
5. Letter of Steven Vanni & Richard Holland, Committee FOR Sanitary Consolidation,
September 7
6. Letter of Paul Davis, June 4
In Opposition
1. e-mail comment of Michael Hancock, September 17
2. e-mail comment of Robert Crowder, September 16
3. e-mail comment of Diane Lowenstein, September 16
4. e-mail comment of Spencer Bloch, September 15
5. e-mail comment of Paul Kochis, September 15
6. e-mail comment of Richard Upjohn, September 15
7. e-mail comment of Tracy Van Hooser, September 14
8. e-mail comment of John & Deborah Greenspan, September 14
ALMONTE SANITARY DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 698, MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94942-0689 (415) 388-8775
DIRECTORS DISTRICT MANAGER
Kevin Reilly, Chair Bonner Beuhler
Lew Kious, Secretary-Treasurer
Loretta Figueroa
Frank Shirado
Emily Landin
October 10, 2011
Marin Local Area Formation Commission
555 Northgate Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Re: Comments on LAFCO Report ―Southern Marin Sewer Agencies Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Update‖ (July 2011)
Honorable Commissioners:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the current LAFCO staff report and a number of our
district directors and staff have submitted responses. I have a few brief comments about the process
that resulted in the above named report.
At the January 28, 2011 Strategic Planning Session I expressed optimism that the five year service
review and sphere of influence update required by Cortese-Knox would provide a forum for an
objective and comprehensive review and discussion of the issues surrounding the proposed
consolidation of our districts, especially given the magnitude of the changes that have occurred over
the past five years. However, after reading the subject report it appears that my optimism was
premature.
During the preparation of the report, our agencies promptly responded to LAFCO’s requests for
information and district staff volunteered to meet with LAFCO staff and consultant to provide help in
clarifying questions, deciphering budget details, etc. to make sure that the information contained in the
subject report was complete and accurate. The offer was declined.
In addition, in early April I sent LAFCO staff historical information that demonstrated a long history of
inter-agency collaboration dating back to the mid-1960s, engineering reports prepared for Homestead
Valley and Richardson Bay from 1970 and 1971 respectively, dealing with Inflow and Infiltration
(I&I), actions taken to monitor and measure wet weather flows, concerns with wet-weather bypassing,
strategies for reducing I&I, discussion of new regulatory requirements and how to deal with them and
documenting actions taken to plan for smoke testing and pipe repair (HVSD) and listing actual repair
and replacement of problem pipes (RBSD).
I also provided additional historical documentation that described the development of the sewerage
system in southern Marin, formation of the Southern Marin Sanitation District (precursor agency to the
current southern Marin sanitary districts), failure of the district-sponsored November 1946 bond issue
1
for construction of treatment and collection facilities and failure of a subsequent plan for ocean
treatment and discharge - circumstances that led to the dissolution of that district and the ultimately the
formation the current group of southern Marin agencies.
Additional documentation chronicled the formation of various joint-powers agencies by the southern
Marin sewer agencies to:
a) respond to changing EPA and Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards in the 1970s (including the prohibition of waste discharge into Richardson Bay)
b) commission multiple engineering and environmental studies to determine the best course
forward
c) oversee the design and financing of the facilities constructed in the 1980s.
None of this material was incorporated into the report. Failure to include readily available information
supportive of our agencies’ actions while at the same time denigrating the same agencies for
supposedly failing to collaborate, address I&I, repair and replace infrastructure or proactively respond
to regulatory requirement does not foster confidence in the fairness of the process. (see emails and
documents in Appendix A)
Finally, district staff - after review of the released report and out of concern about the number of factual
inaccuracies, misleading or factually incorrect statements, misleading organization charts and
difficulty in understanding where numbers came from or how projected staff requirements or budget
savings were determined, sought to meet with LAFCO staff and consultant. All three managers of the
four agencies met at the LAFCO office on August 16, 2011 to discuss their concerns. Although the
meeting provided an opportunity to provided input, there has been no action to incorporate the
information, clarify tables or correct obvious errors.
The report has been posted on LAFCO’s website and widely distributed. Our concern is that, once
published, it is often difficult to “un-ring the bell”.
We have had this experience before, after the spills of 2008, the EPA posted inspection reports without
opportunity for review or comment and then issued an administrative order covering SASM and its
member agencies based on limited evidence, inquiry or input/discussion from our agencies. These
reports have been widely quoted even though many of the assertions have been discounted or proven
untrue by subsequent investigation (see Appendix B, AB 1232 – How We Got Here and Where We Go
From Here, pp. 5-11).
Slogging through a report once (even for those whose job it is) is a substantial commitment of time and
energy. Attempting to assure that comments identify and address our substantial concerns requires even
more. Discussion with LAFCO’s executive director about the comment process indicated uncertainty
about how comments would be integrated or even if the report would be modified.
To facilitate review and because of the sheer number of factual errors and differences of opinion, I have
chosen to address my concerns under five headings: Governance and Public Participation, Regulatory
Issues, I&I and Infrastructure Repair, Consolidation/Collaboration Savings, Matters of Equity and
Fairness and AB1232 rather than go paragraph by paragraph through the report. Hopefully this will
2
provide the commissioners with a more concise and cogent discussion of our problems with the current
report.
Governance Issues and Public Participation
LAFCO staff’s governance arguments for consolidation are summarized below, the first three from
page 5 and the last two from page 70 of the report:
The present structure of SASM and its six member agencies dilutes responsibility and
accountability for sewer service to the point of near inconsequence for single purpose sanitary
district members.
The public is disinterested in participation in district meetings or standing for election because so
little is at stake within each jurisdiction when that jurisdiction is responsible for only a small part of
a small sewer system.
The political divisions within SASM and its members create an environment that does not allow
the public to understand the governance of the sewer services that it receives. Staff believes that the
system’s complexity has created confusion, disengagement and apathy with regard to the
operations of the agencies and in public participation.
The pattern of governing board activity as portrayed in the minutes is one of very low workload,
spread over many meetings of different agencies, with a large fraction of meeting time devoted to
reports on the activities of the other SASM members. Each collection agency handles such a small
fraction of the total business of the sewer system that the role of each is severely circumscribed.
Finally, the chances for conflicting and inconsistent decision making of these systems from a
regulatory and water quality perspective are great when four separate managers and boards deal
with the same issues confronting this very small service area. All decisions required for the best
interest of this area can and should be handled with a minimum of opportunity for inconsistent
direction and approach. Having multiple boards decide issues affecting the service area can create
unnecessary efforts to reach consensus on important operating and water quality concerns.
I am hard-pressed to think of an area whose residents, as a group, evidence a more sophisticated awareness
of social, political and environmental issues than the residents of Marin County, especially southern Marin.
The assertion that SASM’s organization as a joint powers agency so confuses our constituents that they
apathetically sit home strains credulity. If this was the case, LAFCO should be seeking the consolidation of
another similarly organized joint-powers sewer agency, the Central Marin Sanitation Agency and its four
member agencies for causing the confusion, disengagement and apathy on sewer issues for some many
Marin residents. Obviously, this is not the case. All of our agencies are well known in our communities.
Three of our agencies recently completed Proposition 218 hearings requiring mailings to all registered
property owners and Mill Valley just finished theirs. Almonte regularly sends out communications to its
residents. Alto and Homestead have recently polled their residents on the question of consolidation.
Richardson Bay’s trucks drive the entire district five days a week checking their numerous pump stations
and conducting the district’s business. Richardson Bay’s office is located adjacent to the Tiburon bike path
and is subject to significant local traffic. Websites and email allow residents easy access to information or
communication. Finally, we have all been in business for almost sixty years.
3
LAFCO staff cites lack of public attendance at board meetings and lack of contested elections as evidence
of public apathy and something that would be not occur in a larger consolidated organization. On page 75
of the report LAFCO envisions future consolidation activity among SASM members:
―The recommended alternative would not achieve the full extent of consolidation envisioned by
AB 1232. It would ―set the table‖ for a larger sanitary district about the same size and configuration
as Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District to serve the City of Mill Valley as well as the
unincorporated areas now served by the four sanitary districts.‖
As a means of comparison, one would think that LAFCO staff might have made similar inquiry into
attendance and elections at Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District to validate their claims. Had LAFCO
conducted such a review this is what they would have found:
LAS GALLINAS SANITARY DISTRICT PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
(105 meetings: July 12, 2007 to July 28, 2011)
Meetings with public attendance: 10
7/12/2007 – Carlo Oughourlian, 12 Bay Hills
12/2/2008 – Public Hearing: Ruth Barney, Ron Marinoff, George Walters, Marilyn Mori, Nick Fara and John Bolles
4/23/2009 – Nathalie Salles
12/9/2010 – Barry Taranto
3/25/2010 – Barry Taranto of San Rafael Manor
5/13/2010 – Terry McEllistrim, Marin Association of Realtors
10/14/2010 – Michael McCrea, Barry Taranto and Robert Doban
11/11/2010 – Logan Murray, Jack Murphy, Ben Faibaisch and Daniel Kong (Boy Scout Troup 101 of San Rafael, performing
Flag ceremony and cited the Pledge of Allegiance)
3/24/2011 – Mike Cass and Barry Taranto
7/14/2011 – James Rawlings and Gail Connolly
- SASM public meeting attendance for the 39 month period was 22/40 or 55%
- SASM and its member agencies public meeting attendance for the 39 month period was 30/201 or 14.93%
- Almonte, Alto, HVSD and RBSD public meeting attendance for 39 month period was 7/161 or 4.35%
- The Las Gallinas public meeting attendance for the 48 month period was 10/105 or 9.52%
It was 8.57% if you don’t count the Boy Scout Troup;)
What conclusions can be drawn from this? Probably the only real conclusion is that meeting attendance by
members of the public at sanitary district meetings is low.
However, even though board meeting attendance may be low, that does not equate to either lack of public
knowledge of the sanitary district or a lack of public business. In fact, public attendance at sanitary district
board meetings may have nothing to do with sewers per se. At Richardson Bay Sanitary District, the
biggest public crowd was attracted over concern that Richardson Bay would approve a request from Marin
Emergency Radio Authority to locate a microwave repeater antenna at the Richardson Bay yard. Almonte
attracted a number of residents at their meeting to voice concerns over board action not to approve food
scrap composting for the area (later approved). This goes to show that the public will attend when they feel
there is a reason.
Contested Elections:
Uncontested elections are not a rare occurrence in Marin.
Challengers line up for Novato City Council, but no contest for many Marin elected seats
4
By Richard Halstead
Marin Independent Journal
Posted: 08/17/2011 08:42:14 PM PDT
Seven candidates will compete for three open seats on the Novato City Council in the Nov. 8 election, while council
elections in Mill Valley and Tiburon won't be held due to a lack of challengers.
The extended filing period for the Nov. 8 election ended Wednesday with more than 100 candidates filing for elected
positions up for grabs on dozens of councils and boards.
In Novato, where there will be three open seats in November, incumbents Madeline Kellner and Jeanne MacLeamy filed
along with Eleanor Sluis, Leslie Schwarze, Eric Lucan, Jerome Ghigliotti and Manny Fernandez.
Mill Valley, however, will avoid a Town Council election because no one filed to challenge any of the three incumbents —
Kenneth Wachtel, Stephanie Moulton-Peters and Garry Lion. Likewise in Tiburon, no council election will be needed. The
two open seats will be filled by incumbent Dick Collins and Frank Doyle. Incumbent Jeffrey Slavitz chose not to seek re-
election.
There were more than two dozen other boards where a paucity of challengers resulted in no need for an election
.
However, LAFCO views the lack of contested elections among the four targeted agencies as symptomatic
of public disinterest in serving on the boards due to the relatively small size of the districts which ―dilutes
responsibility and accountability for sewer service to the point of near inconsequence for single purpose
sanitary district members‖ and ―because so little is at stake within each jurisdiction when that jurisdiction
is responsible for only a small part of a small sewer system.‖
While elections do serve an important function in providing a forum for candidates to debate issues and
communicate with voters, the ultimate result is to comply with election laws and deliver individuals to
serve the public in various capacities. Once the election is over, the actual public service begins. While
contested elections are indeed rare among our four agencies, this is a poor measure of actual community
involvement or the commitment to public service displayed by our board members. The lack of elections
simply is the result of not having more people filing for open seats than seats available come election time.
Community Involvement:
If one looks at the twenty directors on our four boards as opposed to five directors on say the Las Gallinas
board, then purely in terms of local individuals involved in public governance as an indicator of
community interest and involvement then LAFCO’s argument fails. Also, I doubt that LAFCO would argue
that the service of an appointed director is in any way less valuable or commendable than an elected board
member. The fact that there is not a contested election is in no way an indication on the job the boards are
doing. In fact, the lack of an election can be viewed as a confirmation from constituents that the current
members are doing a good job. This sentiment was voiced by the three incumbents recently appointed to
new terms in the Mill Valley council race:
Barring an unforeseen objection, the Mill Valley City Council is set to appoint three of its members to a
second term Wednesday night after no challengers stepped up for the Nov. 8 election.
Mayor Ken Wachtel, Vice Mayor Garry Lion and Councilwoman Stephanie Moulton-Peters all filed to run
for re-election by the Aug. 12 deadline, but no one else filed to run against them. Only longtime Mill Valley
resident George Gordon, who ran unsuccessful campaigns for City Council in 2007 and 2009, pulled papers
to run this year - but he decided against running.
5
County election law dictates that the City Council can hold a special meeting at least 75 days before the
Nov. 8 election to appoint the three incumbents to another term without holding an election. Skipping the
election saves the city approximately $19,000, according to City Clerk Kimberly Wilson.
Wachtel, Lion and Moulton-Peters all indicated that the lack of challengers was a reflection the current
council is doing a good job and that challengers can run without facing an incumbent in both two years
(Andy Berman and Shawn Marshall are serving their second terms) and in four years.
Moulton-Peters noted that the appointment of unopposed incumbents is far from uncommon in Mill
Valley. Similar council appointments occurred in 1993, 2001 and 2003, city officials said.
Also indicative of the level of community involvement is that 12 mid-term appointments have been made
in the districts. If public apathy was actually a problem vacancies would be difficult to fill which has not
been the case. Also, when these appointments are made, the new members bring a different perspective to
the board.
The report’s assertion that ―The pattern of governing board activity as portrayed in the minutes is one of
very low workload, spread over many meetings of different agencies, with a large fraction of meeting time
devoted to reports on the activities of the other SASM members. Each collection agency handles such a
small fraction of the total business of the sewer system that the role of each is severely circumscribed‖ is
simply untrue. The board conducts the business of the district. I would invite any of the LAFCO
commissioners to attend an Almonte board meeting or any of the other districts. Discussion about other
SASM member activities is relatively rare except for reporting on the monthly SASM meeting which is
usually covered during a standing agenda item.
And LAFCO staff’s assertion that ―the chances for conflicting and inconsistent decision making of these
systems from a regulatory and water quality perspective are great when four separate managers and boards
deal with the same issues confronting this very small service area. All decisions required for the best
interest of this area can and should be handled with a minimum of opportunity for inconsistent direction
and approach. Having multiple boards decide issues affecting the service area can create unnecessary
efforts to reach consensus on important operating and water quality concerns.‖ is simply editorial
comment. LAFCO staff cites no example or evidence that this is a problem or has ever actually occurred.
Regulatory Issues, I&I and Infrastructure Repair
What becomes evident in the report is a pervasive lack of understanding of how sewage collection,
treatment and disposal works, the regulatory framework that governs it, the recent shift in regulatory
enforcement posture, the historical scope of the I&I problem and how our agencies have responded. What
concerns us greatly is LAFCO staff’s willingness to draw numerous conclusions and make
recommendations on how the sanitary districts should be organized and operate given this fundamental
lack of understanding.
Comments from CASA during the AB 1232 legislative process echo these concerns:
In their initial letter of concern, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), writes:
"CASA's major concern is that LAFCOs have little expertise in water quality or wastewater treatment
issues. CASA feels the more appropriate way to address sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) is pursuant to
existing statutory and regulatory requirement under the Clean Water Act and Porter Cologne Act, or
6
direct consolidation such as designating agencies to be consolidated in legislation. To provide a
consistent, statewide regulatory approach to address SSOs, the State Water Resources Control Board
adopted Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Water Quality
Order No. 2006-0003 (Sanitary Sewer Order) on May 2, 2006. The Sanitary Sewer Order requires
public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems to develop and implement sewer system
management plans and report all SSOs to the State Water Board's online SSO database. Consequently,
we feel that the [CAL] EPA, State Water Board, and Regional Boards are in a far better position to
address SSOs than are LAFCOs. In fact it is our understanding that the particular agencies contributing
to recent spills are currently under EPA orders."
Inflow and Infiltration (I&I)
Marin’s treatment and collection agencies have spent decades working with a consortium of engineers and
wasterwater professionals in close coordination with regulatory agencies (EPA and RWQCB) to provided
environmental sound, regulatory compliant and financially responsible wastewater treatment and collection
services to our constituents. Analysis and attempts to quantify the problem began in the mid-1960s with a
County of Marin sponsored study Sewerage Study (Brown & Caldwell – 1967) This report noted
significant Inflow and Infiltration county-wide in both public and private sewers. (see Appendix C). Our
agencies have been aware of the problem from practical experience for years prior but changes in
regulatory requirements brought the problem to the forefront. (see Appendices – A & D)
.
Over the past 40 years our agencies have conscientiously addressed the problem of I&I reduction through a
variety of programs such as smoke testing and televising, disconnection of direct inflow sources, pipe joint
sealing, spot repairs, and larger scale pipe replacement.
LAFCO argues that our agencies had done little to address I&I prior to the spills of 2008 other than
working to increase pumping and storage capacity:
II. Problems with the Status Quo
“The sewage spills of 2008 revealed a sewer system with significant problems in its structure,
facilities and its operations. In the past, SASM and its member agencies have pursued a strategy
of allowing persistent problems in the collection systems to go unaddressed in favor of taking
action downstream to expand pumping, emergency storage and treatment capacity in order to
contain wet weather flows. While it has been argued by some of the SASM member agencies that
the SASM plant design was sufficient to handle the 2008 peak wet weather flow, the EPA clearly
does not accept (or no longer accepts) this “down streaming” strategy.” (pg. 67)
The LAFCO report is in error on two accounts. The inventory of replacement and repair below
indicates that our efforts began long before 2008. The EPA was sent detailed records of projects
for Richardson Bay that went back decades. The reports included in Appendix A show actions by
our agencies dating back 40 years.
Also, the claim that “convey and treat” as a strategy is no longer accepted is untrue. The recent
multi-million dollar project at Central Marin is a prime example.
7
Richardson Bay
Budgeted $600,000 per year for pipeline replacement
Replaced 14% of total pipeline miles
Rehabilitated 10% of manholes
Increased private lateral replacement (x20)
Increased education & outreach
Decreased general & operating expenses by 3.25%
Reduced SSOs by 85% in past four years (from 20/yr to 3/yr)
Homestead Valley
Cleans 1/3 of collection lines each year
Entire collection system evaluated by TV
Replaced 20% of total pipeline miles last 11 years
3.5% of collection lines to be replaced this year
Lateral replacement programs being developed
Only 1 spill in 2010
Almonte
District committed to replacing 2% pipeline miles each year
Replaced/rehabbed 12% of total pipeline miles
Cleans 100% pipeline miles each year
Entire collection system evaluated by TV
Increased private lateral replacement
Increased education & outreach, upgraded website
Reduced SSOs to average 1/yr last 3 years
Alto
Replaced 21% of total pipeline miles in last 10 years
Entire collection system evaluated by TV
Cleans ½ pipeline miles each year
Lateral replacement programs being developed
Reduced SSOs to 0 in 2010
For a detailed discussion of I&I design criteria for the SASM area please see Attachment 7 of the subject
report.
Consolidation/Collaboration Savings
There are many problems with the projections of saving from consolidation or collaborative actions by our
districts.
1. Lack of agreement on the numbers used
2. Lack of agreement on or understanding of the methodology employed
3. Problems with implementation
4. Contradictory Experience
5. Overreaching/Interference into Board Decision Making and Authority
6. Misleading or Incorrect levels of staff and management positions
7. Problems with previous report analysis and application to the current recommendation
8
The two LAFCO generated reports, the current Southern Marin Sewer Agencies Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Update (July 2011) and Southern Marin County Sewer Service Alternatives Study
Report (PB Consult Inc. July 2005) both suffer from two major shortcomings:
1. Rather than presenting an objective, balanced examination of the issues, the reports come
across as conclusion-driven documents. Consolidation and collaboration appear to be the
answer to every problem, real or imagined.
2. As analytical tools, they lack the depth and detail of inquiry necessary to make an informed
decision. Reliance on the conclusions reached in these documents is problematic because of
factual inaccuracies, misstatements, statements of opinion presented as fact, and lack of
adequate documentation or explanation as to the methodology used to reach and support the
report’s conclusions.
Another significant problem is that the Southern Marin County Sewer Service Alternatives Study Report
looked at functional consolidation issues using all eleven southern Marin agencies as the basis for cost and
savings estimates and political consolidation looked at creation of what was termed Government Structure
Option 1 (GSO-1): SASM Integrated Sanitary District Consolidation of current SASM agencies into a
single integrated sanitary district with responsibility for both collection and treatment services. Ascribing
any of the conclusions about cost savings, efficiencies, etc. to the currently contemplated consolidation of
Richardson Bay and the three other smaller districts would be problematic at best and would require
validation.
Also, first-hand experience with a million dollar joint project produced none of the forecast savings as
opposed to subsequent lesser value individually bid projects. On a positive note, significant decreases in
the value used to estimate pipe replacement costs ($100 per foot vs. $200 per foot as forecast) significantly
changes the magnitude of projected costs and resulting savings but also makes these improvements much
more affordable.
Because we conveyed many of our concerns regarding the numbers and methodology to LAFCO staff and
consultant at our August 16, 2011 meeting I will not rehash them here but hopefully we will see a revised
Table 11 (pg. 61 of the subject report). Incorporation of the correct budget numbers will significantly
decrease projected savings.
Also, correction to actual cleaning and emergency response cost will substantially affect the analysis of
potential savings from an in-house line crew (pgs. 59-60). However, both agree that the decision of how
best to provide this service is a board decision not LAFCO’s.
Another problem is the number of stated of management positions. The LAFCO report continues to cite 8
managers. Actually, the actual number of full-time equivalents for our four agencies is less than two since
the two managers who oversee Almonte, Alto and Homestead are part-time employees.
While many of the arguments have an intuitive appeal, such as savings from economies of scale or
combining multiple management positions, or eliminating board of director positions, in reality there needs
to be a threshold size or applicable condition (such as the type of construction project) for economies scale
to work. Also, when combining multiple positions, there needs to be some redundancy of work and lack of
personnel utilization to see savings. It is probably not possible or even wise to think that you could
eliminate the three part-time district manager positions without adding to the staff of Richardson Bay. And
finally, some costs are just de minimis, board member stipends appear to fit the bill. The actual costs of
9
governing all of the existing SASM member boards is relatively small compared to overall budgets. Again,
in comparison to Las Gallinas Sanitary District’s budget of $48,000 plus $12,000 in benefits without staff
time costs for the annual twice a month meeting schedule, the current governance scheme is substantially
cheaper than the larger full service sanitary district
Another Take on Consolidation
While there has been much support for the call to consolidate public agencies, the recent Wall Street
Journal article below casts doubt on whether expected savings will actually materialize.
THE OUTLOOK
AUGUST 29, 2011
When Civic Mergers Don't Save Money
By CONOR DOUGHERTY
Governors and lawmakers across the U.S., looking to trim the costs of local government, are prodding school
districts, townships and other entities to combine into bigger jurisdictions. But a number of studies—and
evidence from past consolidations—suggest such mergers rarely save money, and in many cases, they end up
raising costs.
Economists who have studied the issue say there are a number of reasons why several small governments can
end up costing less than a single larger government. For starters, small governments tend to have fewer
professional—and higher-paid—employees, such as lawyers. Studies show small governments generally rely
more on part-time workers, who receive fewer long-term benefits such as pensions and health-care coverage.
Another reason: When small governments merge, they often "harmonize" services and employee benefits to the
highest level among the combining units. In other words, the consolidated city finds it politically expedient to
take on the more-expensive version of everything. Employees at the city with lower wages get raises and
residents of the city with fewer services get more.
Considering Consolidation
Illinois lawmakers considered consolidating smaller governments, such as townships, to save money. But a report using Illinois data says
townships contain costs more than bigger governments, through lower wages and more part-time workers.
TYPE OF CHANGE IN TOTAL PART-TIME EMPLOYEES AS A AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGES
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES, 1992•2007 % OJ: TOTAL EMPLOYEES• AND SALARIES•
ILLINOIS State 51% $4,449
.................................................................................... ........................................................
'
County 4,050
• ....-....................................................
Springfield Municipal 4,358
...... ............... ............................ ?!. .... . - n 2,993
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
School district 74 23 3,730
r •r., 2001 Sovrct: \oc~ Otmocr,><y and the Townships of Illinois: A Report to the Ptoplt,' by Wendt II Co,
"If the rationale [for a merger] is cost savings, you're going to be disappointed," said Enid Slack, director of the
Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance at the University of Toronto.
10
The logic often cited behind consolidations is saving money by shedding layers of management or having
departments share equipment such as snowplows. But managers and equipment account for far less than half of
local governments' expenses—most of their cost is rank-and-file labor.
There are other reasons for merging government entities. Some services—such as public transportation—can be
more effectively provided over a large area than a small one. And Jennifer Bradley, a fellow at the Brookings
Institution, says some mergers that haven't yet generated savings might do so in the future.
"The reason we haven't seen cost declines is there have been either sweeteners to make the deal work, such as
promises of leveling up pay or various labor protections," she said. In the current environment of deep fiscal
stress, "you might find consolidation or collaboration efforts are also not jobs-protective. Local government
payrolls are already being cut deeply."
Still, when it comes to controlling local government's largest cost—labor—smaller governments generally do
better. Take Illinois, where budget troubles and pension obligations have eroded the state's credit rating. There,
state Sen. Terry Link proposed a bill that would lead to local governments being combined or dissolved in a bid
to save money. "There are a lot of these units of local government that aren't necessary anymore," said Mr.
Link, a Democrat.
But a study this year for a group representing most of Illinois's 1,433 townships used state data to show that tiny
townships are the state's most austere government operations. Spending by the state's townships grew 17% from
1992 to 2007, adjusted for inflation, according to the study. State expenditures over that same period grew 51%,
while spending by larger municipalities grew 50%; school districts' spending rose 74%. One reason: Townships
have fewer employees per person and use more part-timers, reducing salaries and benefits.
Some of this cost disparity likely reflects different priorities between townships and other governments, such as
school districts. But the study found similar results when comparing wages for road workers. Township road
workers made $2,800 a month on average, 65% as much as county road workers and less than half as much as
state road workers.
"In government, the whole idea of economies of scale is turned on its head," said Wendell Cox, who produced
the report for Township Officials of Illinois, an umbrella group for the state's townships.
The consolidation bill was defeated, but Mr. Link plans to revive the effort next year.
Civic consolidation is labeled by voices across the ideological spectrum as a way to save money—or as a bad
idea that wastes money. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, a
Republican, have both championed the idea.
But Mr. Cox, the consultant, and a visiting fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, has prepared reports
for township organizations in other states, including New York and Pennsylvania, that all found small
governments cost less than big ones. "Anyone who looks at the data is going to come to the same conclusion,"
he said.
Write to Conor Dougherty at conor.dougherty@wsj.com
Comparison of Sewer Service Charges
LAFCO argues that larger organizations are more efficient and effective, capable of providing services for
less money. If this were true one would expect to see significantly lower rates among the larger sanitary
districts in the county. Below is the annual sewer service charge listed in the subject report for the SASM
11
member agencies (although the rate for Richardson Bay has been corrected). These rates also reflect the
property tax portion returned from the county. Nominal rates are less.
District EDU with Property tax 2011
Alto Sanitary District $ 532
Almonte Sanitary District 486
Homestead Valley Sanitary District 597
Richardson Bay Sanitary District 436
City of Mill Valley 694
Tamalpais CSD (SASM only) 1,014
The following rates are from the various sanitary district websites and to my knowledge do not reflect any
of the property tax revenues received from the county. What is strikingly evident is that even with the
significant increases imposed by the SASM member agencies to meet increased treatment and Capital
Improvement costs, our rates are among the lowest in the county. This seems counter-intuitive to the
Bigger is Better and Cheaper arguments contained in the subject report.
Ross Valley
Ross Valley Residential Sewer Rate: $638/year*
Larkspur Residential Sewer Rate: $864/year*
Novato Sanitary District
Novato Under the current rates, the annual bill for the average residence is $464 in 2010-11
Sanitary District No. 5
TIBURON - Charge per Single Family Home or Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU):
Fiscal Year 2010-2011: $598
Fiscal Year 2011-2012: $717
Fiscal Year 2012-2013: $825
Fiscal Year 2013-2014: $923
Fiscal Year 2014-2015: $1,034
BELVEDERE - Charge per Single Family Home or Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU):
Fiscal Year 2010-2011: $1,457
Fiscal Year 2011-2012: $1,748
Fiscal Year 2012-2013: $1,836
Fiscal Year 2013-2014: $1,928
Fiscal Year 2014-2015: $1,985
12
Sausalito-Marin City Sanitary District
Residential Fees
Residential Households in the City of Sausalito -
The annual District sewer service charge for a single family residential home and for each unit in multi-family buildings is
$388 per year. The District's sewer service charge is collected on the Marin County Assessor Tax Bill.
In addition, the City of Sausalito levees a collection system repair and maintenance charge, which is currently $215 per
year for a single-family residence and $167 per year for each unit of multi-family housing.
Residential Households in Marin City and Other Unincorporated Areas -
The annual District sewer service charge for a single family residential home and for each unit in multi-family buildings is
$438.66 per year. This includes $50.66 per year charge for collection system repair and maintenance. The District's sewer
service charge is collected on the Marin County Assessor Tax Bill.
Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District
Current Rate Schedule
The majority of residential and non-residential sewer fees appear on property tax bills.
2008-2009 $303 a year per sanitary unit
2009-10 $476 a year per sanitary unit
2010-11 $563 a year per sanitary unit
2011-12 $590 a year per sanitary unit
Proposed
2012-13 $662 a year per sanitary unit
2013-14 $680 a year per sanitary unit
Matters of Equity and Fairness
The LAFCO report appears to believe that the use of terms and conditions attached to any
consolidation effort will be able to solve problems of equity and fairness, such as preservation of
reserves, rate differentials, board member representation, etc. However, there are three issues that I
have not seen a satisfactory plan to solve.
Governance of SASM
If approved and implemented, the recommended alternative – consolidation of four of the six SASM
member agencies - would generate two types of benefit: cost savings and improved political accountability.
Although consolidation of member agencies could not directly change the terms of the SASM joint powers
agreement, the remaining three members of SASM could be expected to make logical modifications to that
agreement to improve its functioning, beginning with adjusting voting power on the JPA board from three
to two voting members. With a two member JPA board, SASM would be able to function as a partnership,
with clear and equal responsibility for each of its members. Neither member would be in a position to
claim that the actions of the SASM board were anything other than its own responsibility. In this way, the
recommended alternative approximates integration of collection and treatment functions, by reducing the
number of involved managers and board members. (pg. 75 of subject report)
13
I have been unable to figure out how the discussion above results in an organization that can effectively do
business. As currently constituted there are six voting members with a majority of four required to conduct
business. All six have equal voting power even though they have a wide variety of ownership interests in
SASM. Mill Valley has about a 50% interest, RBSD – 33%, Homestead Valley – 7.2%, Almonte – 5.2%,
Alto – 3.5% and TCSD – 1.1%. LAFCO staff suggests stripping TCSD of its vote and leaving Mill Valley
and the new consolidated agency to run the show. This makes no sense. First – I can’t imagine TCSD
would be too pleased. Secondly – decision making for the other two would either require unanimous action
or a stalemate would ensue, resulting in perpetual opposition and no action. If TCSD is allowed to remain a
full voting member then whoever swayed their vote would carry the day. That’s seems to be a lot of power
for only a 1.14% ownership interest.
The staff report continues:
―The recommended alternative would not achieve the full extent of consolidation envisioned by AB 1232.
It would ―set the table‖ for a larger sanitary district about the same size and configuration as Las Gallinas
Valley Sanitary District to serve the City of Mill Valley as well as the unincorporated areas now served by
the four sanitary districts. This would become logical and possible if the collection-only district formed
from Alto, Almonte, Homestead Valley and Richardson Bay Sanitary Districts establishes its standards and
methods of operation to the extent that the City of Mill Valley can transfer its present responsibility for
sewer service to the consolidated sanitary district. The transfer of sewer service from Mill Valley to the
consolidated sanitary district would be similar to the annexation of the City of Belvedere to Tiburon
Sanitary District in 2005. If this eventually occurs – and if the very small interest of TCSD in SASM is also
resolved – SASM can be dissolved and all sewer service functions can be united under the control of a
single sanitary district board of directors. The recommended alternative is an appropriate, manageable
evolutionary step in this direction‖ (pg. 75)…Maybe, in a perfect LAFCO world.
Apportioning the Costs of the New Consolidated District
There is a great deal of concern about how to treat reserves. I believe this can be handled by segregating
the costs of the CIP projects by the current district boundaries. Somewhat of an accounting nightmare and
may require that all projects be bid similar to the joint bid project that has been done in the past. Another
more troubling question is how do you apportion the ongoing O&M costs of the district. If you take
salaries, the biggest portion of the O&M costs, how do the costs get translated to rate zones? Currently,
revenue in excess of O&M costs goes to fund CIP in the respective districts. The question is how do these
costs get split between the various rate zones. The common practice is to use the relative number of EDUs,
which is how SASM O&M costs are split. Unfortunately, if you do that for the combined agency, the three
smaller sanitary districts end up paying substantially more than they do now (especially HVSD) for salary
and benefits. It is even more if staff is retained or new staff is required. Any other method of apportionment
would create an accounting nightmare unless the agencies simply came up with an acceptable scheme such
as a flat charge. Unfortunately, once the rate zones go away, the old Almonte, Alto and Homestead Valley
district residents will pay more for service than they do now, in that rates will provide less CIP money.
The costs of salaries and benefits are shown below. The current cost reflects the salaries and benefits as
paid now are shown in Figure 1. The apportioned costs show the salaries and benefits divided among the
agency rate zones in proportion to the EDUs. Figure 2 show cost with additional personnel, in this case
retention of the current small district managers.
14
Without additional personnel Figure 1
Apportioned Current EDUs Percentage
RBSD 465,860 $ 693,468 4902.6 67.2%
Almonte 74,612 51,672 785.2 10.8%
Alto 49,878 19,377 524.9 7.2%
HVSD 103,119 30,142 1085.2 14.9%
693,468 $ 794,659 7297.9 100%
Current RBSD Budget - Salary & Benefits
Salary 406,879
Benefits 286,589
Total 693,468
Current Salary & Benef its for Almonte, Alto HV SD (Manager
101,191 Salary plus FICA)
794,659
Add Almonte, Alto & HVSD Personnel Figure 2
Apportioned Current EDUs Percentage
RBSD 533,838 $ 693,468 4902.6 67.2%
Almonte 85,499 51,672 785.2 10.8%
Alto 57,156 19,377 524.9 7.2%
HVSD 118,166 30,142 1085.2 14.9%
794,659 794,659 7297.9 100%
Increased Exposure to Potential Costs and Liabilities
Currently, Almonte, Alto and Homestead Valley have no pump stations or force mains. All of our pipes are
gravity mains, mostly six inch. Richardson Bay has a substantial number of pump stations and force mains.
This type of infrastructure is more expensive to build and maintain. In addition, it presents a greater
exposure to potential liability in the event of failure.
At some point in the not too distant future, Almonte, Alto and HVSD will have replaced most of their
problem lines with the result that CIP costs, potential spill exposure and ongoing cleaning costs should
drop off substantially. In a combined district, rate payers in this gravity only system face the prospect of
paying for the costs and potential liability of assets that they do not currently own.
15
AB 1232
(i) It is the intent of the Legislature that SASM and its member districts take action
immediately to increase the effectiveness and efficiency if its operations in order to provide
more cost-effective customer service and to reduce the impacts on water quality due to
illegal sewage spills. It is also the intent of the Legislature that if SASM and its member
districts do not act to address the inefficiencies of their operations, that the Marin LAFCO
shall have the authority to require consolidation of SASM and its member districts into one
new district.
AB 1232 gives LAFCO the discretionary power to consolidate our agencies if it determines that SASM and
its member districts have not: ―take action immediately to increase the effectiveness and efficiency in its
operations in order to provide more cost-effective customer service and to reduce the impacts on water
quality due to illegal sewage spills‖.
From the LAFCO report pg. 71:
―LAFCO and the public should recognize the earnest and energetic efforts of SASM and its member
agencies in addressing problems in sewer facilities following the spills of 2008. However, recent
improvements in performance and reinvigorated efforts to improve facilities do not justify preservation of
an obsolete government structure. The EPAs administrative order has required the collection agencies to
thoroughly rebuild their systems, requiring a very substantial increase in fee revenue from the public. This
would be the time to create some uniformity of approach and accountability for results.‖
Other than LAFCO staff’s dogged insistence that consolidation is the only act that can demonstrate
compliance with AB 1232, it is not clear from either the plain text of the statute or from the legislative
history, that this was the bills intent. Nowhere does it state that our agencies must consolidate to satisfy its
requirements. AB 1232 simply gives LAFCO the power to evaluate our attempts at compliance and give
LAFCO the only remedy it actually possesses, the power to consolidate. We believe that we have satisfied
its requirements as noted above in the LAFCO report. We also recognize that LAFCO has powers under
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg to initiate consolidation proceedings. If LAFCO decides that initiating
consolidation of our agencies is warranted, then it should use its normal powers and procedures rather than
the special powers granted under AB 1232.
We believe that the evidence indicates that preservation of the status quo provides our residents efficient,
effective service at reasonable rates and that nothing in the proposed consolidation demonstrates significant
benefits of consolidation.
As it stands now:
LAFCO staff has recommended adoption of the subject report leading to consolidation of Almonte,
Alto, Homestead Valley and Richardson Bay into a single new sanitary district. Each of the agencies
targeted for consolidation is on record unanimously opposing the proposed action by LAFCO.
LAFCO staff argues that the proposed consolidation would generate two types of benefit: Cost savings
and improved political accountability. All of our agencies dispute LAFCO staff’s conclusion that
consolidation would result in significant cost savings or increased political accountability.
16
We respectfully ask the commission to:
a. Adopt updated service review determinations required by Government Code 56430 based on findings by
the Commission that preservation of the status quo is the preferred alternative.
b. Leave unchanged the 2005 sphere of influence determinations for Alto, Almonte, Homestead Valley and
Richardson Bay Sanitary Districts.
c. Revisit the issue in the normal course of compliance with Government Code 56430.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the
Almonte, Alto, Homestead Valley and
Richardson Bay Sanitary Districts.
- ~
Bonner Beuhler
District Manager
17
ALMONTE SANITARY DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 698, MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94942-0689 (415) 388-8775
DIRECTORS DISTRICT MANAGER
Kevin Reilly, Chair Bonner Beuhler
Lew Kious, Secretary-Treasurer
Loretta Figueroa
Frank Shirado
Emily Landin
October 10, 2011
Dear LAFCO Commissioners:
“Make everything as simple as possible but not simpler.”
- Albert Einstein
The LAFCO report attempts to make a case for consolidation. Others have pointed out its flaws.
Beside those, it ignores:
+ The value of having as many members of the public involved in public policy and operations as
possible – local control. It also serves as training for higher service.
+ The value of these local boards for being more closely aware of and accountable to their
customers – Isn’t this a very topical issue in national politics right now?
+ The value of local connection and how the board members who serve, contribute far more time
and value than the small stipend they receive.
+ The framework of collaboration and innovation that the smaller districts support. The EPA and
State agencies define the water quality and operating standards. The smaller boards each find their own
ways to innovate to provide quality, reliable service, save money and improve operations. Sometimes
this is via inter-district collaboration [smoke testing], sometimes this is from an experiment that works
and is shared with the other district GMs [method for combining main and lateral replacement]. Either
way, the many districts provide more imagination to solve problems.
+ The notion that we already have a natural desire to consolidate whenever we can find efficiencies.
Why not? But, as thoughtful custodians of our customer’s trust and assets, we cannot in good conscience
see improved operations, political responsiveness, reliability and savings from consolidation – So we are
unanimously against it.
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a
lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein
Respectfully,
Kevin Reilly
Chair, ASD
Marin LAFCO October 10, 2011
555 Northgate Dr., Suite 230
San Rafael, CA 94903
Dear LAFCO Commissioners,
I am sending you this letter on behalf of myself as a resident of the Almonte neighborhood. However, I
am also on the Board of Directors of the Almonte Sanitary District (Secretary/Treasurer) and the Board of
Commissioners of SASM (Secretary). I request that this letter be entered into the official record of
hearings regarding the consolidation of the sanitary districts of Southern Marin.
I believe that local control and governance is a key element of good government. The currently-
independent Almonte Sanitary District (as well as the other Southern Marin districts) is the ONLY
government body in Almonte, and the ONLY participation in government which most residents have.
This makes it a vital entity and contributes to what makes our neighborhood unique As an
environmentally and fiscally responsible member of SASM, ASD has been, and will continue to strive to
be, a valuable and responsive steward of Almonte’s sanitary and environmental needs.
As I have stated in open-forum on previous occasions, I disagree with the conclusions of the LAFCO
studies on consolidation and the intent of consolidation of the sanitary districts, and I believe that
maintaining the current more-local organization is a superior way to serve our customers. I do not believe
there will be measureable cost savings by consolidation, and I believe the transition will insert disruption,
possibly affecting service.
Having said the above, if the LAFCO Board takes action to consolidate, I will respect the Board’s action
and support the effort, with the hope that Almonte customers will get the same superior sewer service that
they receive today.
Additionally, there are some items in the recommended consolidation alternative that should
receive the LAFCO Board’s strong consideration:
During the transition period, the highest-possible number of directors should be
o
maintained. In the body of the LAFCO report, 11 Directors are mentioned. In the
graphic there are 9 mentioned. The higher number would likely result in less
disruption.
Formal mechanisms should be created to protect the Districts’ reserves and rate
o
structures. At Almonte, we have worked hard to be financially prudent, and I would
hate for this to be lost.
Consideration should be given for a way to increase the number of commissioners on
o
the SASM Board. Having only 3 SASM commissioners just “feels” like too-few to be
effective and prevent discord or conflict.
I will continue to work positively with LAFCO and other governmental agencies to maintain and improve
the sanitary processes and conditions of our district, and of all of Southern Marin. However, I ask that my
voice is heard and considered as LAFCO goes forward with your strategic planning activities.
Respectfully,
Lew Kious
Resident: Almonte
Secretary-Treasurer: Almonte Sanitary District
Treasurer: Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin
ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 163, MILL VALLEY, CA 94942: PHONE {415) 388-3696
And
HOMESTEAD VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 149, MILL VALLEY, CA 94942: PHONE & FAX {415)388-3696
10/05/11
Local Agency Formation Commission
555 Northgate Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Re: Comments on LAFCO Report "Southern Marin Sewer Agencies
Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update"
Honorable Commissioners:
This letter will address statements in the cited report which assert that the Boards of Directors of the
Almonte, Alto, Homestead Valley and Richardson Bay Sanitary Districts are inefficient and
excessively costly to their districts, and that the people of these districts would be better served by
consolidation of the districts under a single Board and management. As Manager of the Alto and
Homestead S.D.s I will address directly the issues as they pertain to those agencies, but many of the
following arguments can be extended to Almonte, and in some cases to Richardson Bay.
The Cost of Maintaining Separate Boards of Directors:
The report stresses the high cost of maintaining separate Boards of Directors for each of the districts.
The actual monthly cost of stipends paid to the Boards of directors of Alto and Homestead Valley is
$525.00 and $550.00 respectively. This is based on one Board meeting per month, with all Members
attending. (See Attachment No. 1.)
Incidental Costs:
Alto meets in the SASM conference room. and Homestead Valley meets in their community center;
these facilities are rent-free to the agencies. The districts do not maintain offices. The cost of operation
of each of these districts, including telephone and miscellaneous expenses, averages about $150 per
month. (See Attachment No. 1)
Manager's Salary:
The monthly salaries of the part-time manager of Alto and Homestead Valley are $1,500 and $2,333
respectively. The number of hours worked per month varies but averages about 50 hours for both
districts. This computes to about $75 per hour; the Manager receives no fringe benefits.
It would be unreasonable and shortsighted to expect the Manager of Richardson Bay SD, who is at
present fully occupied with running RBSD, to take on the management of the other three districts.
Under consolidation it would be necessary for the combined agency to hire another full-time
employee to perform the work now being done by the part-time managers of Almonte, Alto and
Homestead Valley. This employee will require office space and equipment and will have to be
covered by the usual fringe benefits. I estimate that this outlay would at least double the expense of
the present part-time managers.
-1-
Elections to the Boards of Directors and Longevity of the Boards
When vacancies occur the districts advertise in the local papers (Marin LJ. and Mill Valley Herald),
we pass the word verbally to our friends and neighbors, send out notices of vacancies and do
everything we can think ofto get applicants to come forward. But the fact is that people don't seem to
care much for getting involved in something as unpleasant as they perceive maintenance of a sewer
system to be. Being a member of a sanitary district board of directors doesn't carry the prestige of
being on the board of, say, a library, a school district or some of the other boards and associations
available to civic-minded individuals.
But when we finally succeed in getting a new member to fill a vacancy, about half the time a strange
thing happens. The new director, after a few meetings, begins to realize that what he/she is doing is
really quite important. At their monthly meetings they discuss and set policy for the maintenance of
their systems, the implementing and funding of capital improvement programs and other details of
operating the districts. They are instrumental in the management and maintenance of a fundamental
part of their community's infrastructure, and this is a responsibility they don't take lightly. Once they
become active members, directors often find the work rewarding enough to inspire them to remain on
the Boards for lengthy periods.
Public Attendance at the Meetings of the Boards of Directors:
Page 5 contains several assumptions which lead to extreme conclusions. Such as "The public is
disinterested in participation in district meetings or standing for election because so little is at stake
within each jurisdiction when thatj urisdiction is responsible for only a small part ofa small sewer
system." and "Staffb elieves that the system's complexity has created confusion, disengagement and
apathy with regard to the operations oft he agencies and in public participation. "
The report implies that the lack of public attendance at our meetings is inherently bad, that this is an
indication of inefficient, ineffective operation by the Boards as they don't entice the public to attend
their meetings. The report asserts that if the four existing boards, seating a total of twenty directors,
were replaced by a single board of five directors, the public would be more likely to attend its
meetings because a single board, presumably comprised of more important people, would confront
bigger, more important, more controversial issues, and would thereby generate greater public interest.
All of you sit on other boards in addition to your service on LAFCO, and you may question the
validity of this conclusion. You know that the primary purpose of the meetings of such boards is to
conduct the agency's business, not to provide the public with a divertissement. They meet openly, in
public forum, to discuss and debate issues confronting the agency. Through discussion between Board
Members, they each gain a fuller understanding of the issues by viewing them from other
perspectives. Public attendance is encouraged, but is not required for the system to work.
Sanitary District Board meetings are by law open to the public, and we do everything reasonable to
encourage public participation. Our agenda are posted in public places at least three days before each
meeting. On the rare occasions when people attend our meetings we give them every opportunity to
participate in our discussions, but the fact is that people don't choose to attend sanitary district
meetings unless they are interested in or directly affected by some item on the agenda Nobody ever
says "Hey, Hon, there's nothing on TV tonight; let's go down to the sanitary district meeting."
Effectiveness of the Boards:
The real issue here is not whether the public attends our meetings, but whether the Boards are properly
serving their districts. We believe that an objective examination of the records of these four districts
would have to conclude that the Boards have, since their organization in the middle of the last century,
followed the mandates and acted in the best interests of their constituents.
-2-
Effectiveness of the Boards (Continued):
First, after they organized themselves, the sanitary districts, through their Boards of Directors, and at
times against considerable opposition, undertook to eliminate the multitude of septic systems which at
that time were overburdening the soils of their communities with effluence from leach fields. They
floated bond issues and proceeded with the construction of sewer systems, employing what were then
state-of-the-art materials and construction practices.
The Boards thereafter adopted the policy of setting their service charges as low as possible, again in
keeping with the mandates of their constituents. (You will note that this is still the over-riding policy
of most governmental agencies.) But such saving is not wise in the case of sewage collection and
treatment, and going back as early as the mid-nineties the sanitary districts recognized that clay pipes
with oakum and.mortar joints are not a good match with Marin County terrain, and began replacing
the first-generation sewer systems to the extent that funds were available.
We embarked on capital improvement programs which, if allowed to run their natural course, would
have eventually replaced the old sewer systems with modern plastic pipes with rubber gasket joints.
Homestead Valley SD began a scheduled replacement of the old sewers in 1997 and Alto began in
1998. (There had been some replacement of sewers earlier, but that work was random, directed at
specific problem areas.) To date HVSD has replaced 12,800 feet of sewer at a cost of$1,700,000. Alto
has replaced 3,280 feit at a cost of $830,000. These expenditures accounted for about 30 to 40 percent
of the districts' budgets for this period. (See Attachments 2 and 3.)
But the spills of January 2008 threw out the old schedules, and as a result the districts have
accelerated their CIPs to more realistic programs. Further, the EPA mandated periodic cleaning,
televising, and spot repairing of our systems, which, while being costly, have had the spino:ff benefit
of reducing sewage overflow incidents to a level never before achieved. In order to meet these costs
three of the four districts have raised their sewage service charges through the Prop 218 process.
Acceptance of Consolidation by Residents of the Districts:
In keeping with the intent of the Boards to represent the best interests of their constituents, Alto and
Homestead Valley have conducted polls of their property owners to determine their feelings on the
matter of consolidation. Alto's poll was taken in 2010 and resulted in a response of 88% against
consolidation; HVSD's poll was taken within the last month and responses are still coming in, but as
of this writing the results are three to one against consolidation.
We do not claim that these polls were scientifically written, but even making this allowance it would
seem that the populace does not favor consolidation. We are aware that AB 1232 does not require
public approval for LAFCO to proceed in forcing a consolidation of the sanitary districts, but it would
seem reasonable for your agency to at least make an effort to determine the feelings in the
communities involved before taking an action which might resound negatively with the public.
In Conclusion:
Thank you for taking the time to read this submittal. I will be pleased to provide any additional
information available to me at your request.
Very truly yours, .
-=-<~~
. Tom Roberts, R.C.E.
Manager
-3-
ATTACHMENTN0.1
The cost of the Boards of Directors:
Following are the costs of the Boards of Directors stipends for attending Board Meetings:
Sanitary Stipend/ Board's
District Meeting Cost/Mtg
Almonte Chair: 100.00
Directors: 80.00
420.00
Alto Chair: 125.00
Directors: 100.00
525.00
Homestead President & Secretary: 125.00
Valley Directors: 100.00
550.00
Richardson
Bay President & Directors: 125.00 625.00
There have been instances reported of misuse of public funds in other sanitary districts in the County, but
such allegations have never been reported regarding any of the SASM Member Agencies.
Fixed Operating Costs
Alto & Homestead Valley Sanitary Districts: Alto HVSD
Sewage Treatment (SASM Assessment) 120,000 250,000 (1)
System Maintenance (Cleaning, TVing, Spot Repairs, etc.) 45,000 160,000 (2)
Professional Services (Audit Fee, Engineering, etc.) 16,000 16,000
Insurance, Dues, Fees to Other Agencies 5,000 6,000
Telephone and Misc. Expenses 2,000 2,000
Total Fixed Operating Costs 188,000 434,000
(1) The SASM assessment varies with SASM's needs;
SASM has announced that there will be a l 0% increase
each year for the next three years.
(2) System maintenance costs cannot be accurately predicted.
These figures are based on the budgets for 2011-12.
-4-
ATTACHMENT No. 2
ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 163, MILL VALLEY, CA 94942; PHONE (415)388-3696
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The district's capital improvement program during the past 13 years has rehabilitated or replaced
3,280 feet of sewers in various locations. The total length of the district's system is approximately
16,300 feet, so Alto S.D. has rehabilitated or replaced about 20% of the system to date.
SUMMARY OF SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECTS, 1998 THROUGH 2010
YEAR LOCATION LENGTH COST
l.998 Crossing under Hwy 101 350 Ft $177,000
2005 Tower Dr. from E. Blithedale to Plaza Dr.
Plaza Dr. to Valley Rd. Valley to E. end 1,000 241,000
2007 Plaza Dr. from Valley Rd. to 500 Ft
N. of Valley Rd. 900 185,000
2008 Plaza Dr. from 2007 job to end. Shell Ct.
From Lomita N. to end. Lomita from
Shell Ct. to 160 Ft. W. 850 194,000
2009 E. Blithedale from Fwy. Offramp to
180 ft w. 180 30,000
Total sewer rehabilitation performed this period 3,280 Ft $827,000
FUTURE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Future CIP expenditures will depend on availability of funds and will be based on TV
data and ranking of problem areas.
SEPTEMBER, 2011
-5-
ATTACHMENT No. 3
HOMESTEAD VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The district's capital improvement program during the past 14 years has rehabilitated or replaced
13,800 feet of sewers in various locations. The total length of the district's system is approximately
58,000 feet, so HVSD rehabilitated or replaced about 23% of the system during this period.
SUMMARY OF SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECTS, 1997 THROUGH 2010
YEAR LOCATION LENGTH COST
1997 Tamalpais Drive from Montford to Ridgewood 900' $68,000
2002 Tamalpais Dr (100'); Montford (716'); Seymore Ln (189') 1000' 109,000
2004 LaVerne from Hawthorne to near Reed (245'); Scott St. from
Laverne to Evergreen (327'); LaVerne, Melrose to N. Ferndale (195');
Montford from Melrose to 100 Ft. west of Melrose (95') 900' 142,000
2005 Evergreen/Melrose into schoolyard via Evergreen Lane (610');
Evergreen to house# 260, (208'); Evergreen, Ethel to Miller (450') 1300' 251,000
2005 Emergency jobs performed by Roto Rooter:
linden Lane, Evergreen south to end 400' 37,000
N. Ferndale from MH 420.29 to MH 420.19 500' 42,000
2007 Evergreen, Ethel to Hawthorne 900' 275,000
2008 Evergreen, Hawthorne to MH at house # 260
(Connects to work done in 2005 & 2007) 500' 135,000
2008 Emergency job performed by Roto Rooter:
Holly St, Evergreen ln to Montford 300' 40,000
2009 Evergreen Ln from 2005 job in schoolyard to end of Lane 600' 95,000
2010 Tributaries to Evergreen and Reed St. Systems 3,500' 365,000
2011 Tributaries to Evergreen System 3,000' 225,000
Total sewer rehabilitation performed this period: 13,800' $1,784,000
Future CIP expenditures will depend on availability of funds and will be based on TV data and
ranking of problem areas.
SEPTEMBER, 2011
-6-
Mill Valley, July 10, 2011
Dear fellow commissioners;
Unfortunately I am not going to be able to attend this Thursday's LAFCO meeting. Therefore I am taking
the liberty of sending you some of my comments in advance. In this meeting Peter Banning will present
his findings on the Service Review of the Southern Marin Sewer agencies. The report concludes with a
recommendation of consolidation of four of the agencies. This recommendation is supported with an
analysis which I, unfortunately, find seriously flawed and designed to support a preconceived result.
• The primary reason for the recommendation is the enactment of AB1232 which authorizes
LAFCO to force consolidation of the SASM sewer agencies. It does not mandate that LAFCO take
such action nor does tell the agencies to move towards consolidation. The report says that the
delay in implementation was to "allow the SASM member agencies to undertake action to
consolidate before Marin LAFCO gained unilateral authority to consolidate those agencies"
(p.22). The law says no such thing. It states that SASM and its member districts should "take
action immediately to increase the effectiveness and efficiency if(sic) its operations in order to
provide more cost-effective customer service and to reduce the impacts on water quality due to
illegal sewage spills." Otherwise, if the agencies do not act to address the inefficiencies of their
operations LAFCO is authorized to force consolidation without protest hearings. Nowhere does
it say that consolidation is the only acceptable way to increase efficiency and quality of service.
Unfortunately there is no metric to define "increase" so that whether or not that has been
achieved is somewhat up to the reader. There is no doubt, however that the service and quality
has seen major improvements (p.31, 32). Spills in the collection systems have been reduced
significantly and the compliance with rules and regulations is to the full satisfaction of the EPA.
Unfortunately the costs have not gone down. This is due to the influx of new rules from the
various governing organizations and stepped up activity in the rehabilitation of the systems. Also
the cost of treatment has increased dramatically as the SASM plant has come to an age where
replacement, upgrade and modernization is in order. Even though the plant is owned, through a
JPA, by its member districts, it is operated by the city of Mill Valley through a management
contract.
• In the report much is being made of the spills in 2008 and the operation of the SASM plant. This
is a red herring. The proposed consolidation is among the collection agencies and does not
affect SASM. The management of SASM probably needs improvement but this is not an issue
that is solved by consolidation of the collection agencies. The proposed new organization
significantly reduces the control of the smaller collection agencies, from 4 votes to 1, and gives
more power to Mill Valley who also is the contract operator (p.72, 73). This causes a major
conflict of interest.
• Some discussion about Infiltration and Intrusion (l&I) may be in order. There are still
uncertainties of whether or not 1&1 caused the first spill. The second spill was caused by an
operator error. One thing is certain: No warnings to the Districts of threats to the plant from
excess l&I have been issued by SASM and its operator since 1998. Even when I joined the board
in the late 90's, the tenfold increase in flow during storms was just presented as an interesting
fact that the plant was designed to deal with. As the rehabilitation work of the collection
systems progresses the inflow is taken reduced. Since no urgency was presented, that was all
that was done. Now, all of the agencies have started work to find points of intrusion by TV
inspection of the system and by inspection of laterals as work progresses. This work is a slow
and long term issue as there are uncertainties as to what rights the agencies have relative to
private laterals.
• An example of other distortions can be found on page 12 Ill. Here a resolution by Sanitary
District 5 is presented with the statement that a manager's working group was created and
disbanded after a year. The fact is that San #5 was never involved in the activity. They are not
part of SASM and are not affected by AB 1232. The managers of the SASM districts are still
meeting, discussing things of mutual interest and sharing experiences.
• When joint efforts are desired the mangers will do that. One example is the experiment of joint
construction contracts (p.41). In 2009 the four districts decided to join in a contract for major
construction work. We pooled a large part of our planned work for the year but found no
noticeable savings. The argument will be made that the work would be better done as one big
job in one place (p. 62). Unfortunately the reality is that each district, for the foreseeable future,
has areas with urgent need for renewal. To consolidate all of the projects such that each area
gets attention only every four years is far too risky. Furthermore, the topography is also such
that even a large project becomes many small ones.
• Where needs are similar, such as an agreements with outside contractors such as Roto-Rooter
or responses to regulatory agencies, a single document is drafted for signature by the four
agencies. The only duplication of cost is in the cost of making three copies (p.42).
Other inaccuracies are too numerous to mention in this memo. I mainly urge you to carefully analyze the
statements in the document. It is also important to remember that the questions before you are two,
not one:
• First: Are the state of affairs of the existing organizations really so bad that it is desirable to
force consolidation of the Districts and will consolidation solve these problems?
• Secondly: Is it so important and so likely that the voters will oppose the proposed consolidation
that we want to disenfranchise the people by invoking the permissions granted to us in AB1232?
Again, I apologize for not being able to attend the meeting.
I thank you for hearing me out
Einar Asbo
110 Reed Street
Mill Valley, CA 94941
asbo@msn.com
HOMESTEAD VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 149, MILL VALLEY, CA 94942; PHONE & FAX (415) 388-4796
October 3, 2011
Marin Local Agency Formation Commission
555 Northgate Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Honorable Commission:
We have read with great interest your report "Southern Marin Sewer Agencies Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Update". However, we find that the report mainly focuses on consolidation issues
and does not appear to be in line with the true spirit of what should have been its purpose. The matter
of consolidation of the Southern Marin Sanitary Districts is a topic of major concern to your Commission
and to the people living in the districts most directly involved with this consolidation, we feel that it
should be addressed head on.
By itself, the recommended action to the sphere of influence in Section VI, a. and b. we find acceptable.
If we understand correctly, this action merely allows any of the four affected agencies to merge at any
time. Items 2 and 3, however, we find highly objectionable. The concept of forcing a consolidation upon
these agencies without citizen desire or approval is not consistent with good governance. We also
believe that such a consolidation is counterproductive at best. The findings leading up to this
recommendation are largely based on the writer's opinion and frequently information is skewed to
present the current organizations in as an unfavorable light as possible. Additionally, the analysis
describing the cost structure and subsequent savings realized by the proposed "new" agency are based
on entirely spurious and unsubstantiated assumptions.
Starting with Section f. on page 9, an attempt is made to describe the structure of the newly
consolidated agency. This envisions a temporary 11 member board, which, through attrition, reduces to
a more manageable 5. It is worth noting that at this point the old districts are not guaranteed individual
representation with the members of the new board elected from the new district at large. It is not clear
how local representation is enhanced or even maintained through this change.
The report goes on to profess the uncertainty of the economies of the new agency, but savings are used
as a justification for a consolidation. Clearly it is necessary for that to be evaluated even though it is less
than 5% of total expenditures.
The cost savings are supposedly supported by a chart; Table 11. Unfortunately, the chart is missing its
headers (i.e. Almonte, Alto, Homestead Valley, etc.), but it was not too difficult to determine what they
should be. They have been added back as seen in Table 1 below. The rationale for the savings is not
specified, but it stands to reason that "total cost minus savings" should yield the projected budget. This
1
is highlighted in yellow. To our surprise we find that the new budget exactly matches the CURRENT cost
structure of the Richardson Bay district.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the current staff of RBSD is supposed to do the
combined work that the Districts have been doing, without any added cost burden. Therefore, the only
conclusion one can draw is that the current manager and administrative assistant must have a lot of
available or unproductive time and/or that the efforts of the other agencies "full time" staff is minimal.
Table 1.
Homestead Richardson
Almonte Alto Total Savings New Budget
Valley Bay
Board meeting and travel $7,400 $7,500 $6,100 $10,000 $31,000 $21,000 $10,000
General Manager $54,072 $15,600 $22,200 $131,789 $223,661 $91,872 $131,789
Waste Discharge Permit $1,226 $1,226 $1,226 $1,000 $4,678 $3,678 $1,000
Annual Fees
Insurance Premiums $3,500 $700 $3,000 $35,000 $42,200 $7,200 $35,000
Annual Audit Costs $7,000 $6,000 $6,000 $9,250 $28,250 $19,000 $9,250
Compliance Reporting $20,000 $7,000 $1,000 $28,774 $56,774 $28,000 $28,774
Office Expenses
Bookkeeping $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 $0
CCTV $6,500 $5,000 $30,000 $41,500 $4,500 $37,000
Sewer Cleaning and $97,000 $70,000 $75,000 $170,000 $412,000 $41-$82,000 $330-$371,000
Emergency Response
Administration and $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Memberships
Total $228-$269,000
Under CCTV, the cost of televised inspections is projected at an unexplained 10% decrease. This is not
detailed, but we assume it is attributed to doing the work in-house. Unfortunately, TV inspection of
large distances of pipe requires entirely different equipment than the type RBSD employs for
troubleshooting during emergencies, and requires professionals trained on its use.
The report also suggests that the current expenditures for "Sewer Cleaning and Emergency Response" of
$412,000 can be displaced by an in-house crew of three people with a saving of 10-20%. The cost for this
crew is suggested to be $285,000, fully absorbed, which seems low as the current two man crew has
direct salaries of approximately $200,000. Emergencies are not always limited to two or three people
and they do not always happen during office hours. One of the major advantages of out-sourcing this
kind of work is that a larger organization has more people available around the clock. Rota Rooter has a
2
large residential service component which allows them to provide this type of service. To try and
assume these responsibilities would also entail the acquisition of significant capital equipment such as
backhoes, Vactor trucks and TV vans, and the corresponding skills to operate them. In addition, there is
the maintenance and storage expense of all of this equipment.
The plan also specifies that separate reserve funds and rates are to be maintained. As such, extensive
bookkeeping must be done for each of the old districts to track things such as tax payments, and
allocations of reserve funds, job sheets for all work completed to properly assign the cost, etc.
It is highly unlikely that a consolidation will result in any saving close to what is being projected.
Finally, there is a claim that implementation of capital improvements costs can be reduced by 10%. A list
detailing the items contributing to this reduction is provided on page 62. The list is too extensive to
address individually, but some items are worth noting:
1. "Reduce the number of plans and specifications"
Response - Each location and part of a project needs its own drawings and specifications. It
does not matter whether or not it is part of a larger project, costs are the same.
2. "Establish uniform construction standards"
Response -Our construction standards are determined by code and do not differ by district.
We all use the same engineering firm with consistent internal standards.
3. "Save on mobilization and demobilization expenses"
Response -The topography of the region is such that it is very rare to have a large project
that is in one location. The contractor will have to move his equipment as needed. Also
there are consistently small sections of pipe which require high priority attention and
cannot wait until a larger project can be assembled nearby.
4. "Increase contractor interest"
Response - In today's economy there is great interest from contractors at large, and typically
our projects receive interest from even the largest of contractors. We also share 'best
practices" and information regarding bids and even cooperatively bid with other districts.
The claim that consolidation will meaningfully reduce construction cost is at best dubious.
The second major argument presented for consolidation is that it will create a more accountable board.
It is unclear what this means, but it appears to be centered on the lack of visitors to meetings and the
lack of contested elections. It is unclear how this would make a difference in the operation of the four
districts in question.
Regarding meeting visitors, it stands to reason that where there is controversy it can be expected that
there will be elevated levels of interest and therefore higher attendance by the public. Fortunately, the
agencies involved have had no major disruptions other than this proposed consolidation. Two of the
other agencies in Marin County have seen some major turmoil lately, so they are not really comparable.
3
Some other agency such as Las Gallinas might give us some insight as to how visitors to meetings might
help to achieve better results.
The fact that most elections have been uncontested is prominently mentioned. Perhaps these
organizations are too small to be seen as a stepping stone to higher office and don't have the cachet of
organizations such as Marin Municipal Water District, Marin Healthcare Districts, or the City Council. We
feel our residents prefer board members that are dedicated to their community and that can be
expected to serve for extended periods of time rather than viewing the position as a true "political"
opportunity. It is interesting to note that this year the elections for both the Mill Valley City Council and
Las Gallinas Sanitary District are uncontested. As a matter of fact, county elections this fall have 65 races
of which are 41 uncontested.
On page 30 it is stated that "None of the agencies, prior to the Administrative Order, were concerned
with long-term renewal and replacement of lines and services." This is patently untrue. Homestead
Valley started an aggressive renewal program in early 2000 and has continued ever since. The statement
"None of the agencies had a defined standard for the renewal and replacement" can only be meant to
denigrate our efforts. We have a list of high priority targets and repair/replace as much sewer line as we
can afford in any given year. Our projections indicate that it will take approximately 40 years to fully
replace the Homestead Valley system, which is typical for the industry. On a related note, we have
always considered replacement of laterals as part of our concern, but they are "private" so therefore in
very difficult legal territory. A definition of responsibility and available actions/remedies is something
useful our legislature could do something about!
One comment warrants specific mention. On page 43 it is stated that "Each agency acts completely
independently, even if it is to the detriment of its fellow member agency." No example is given and to
our collective memory no such thing has ever happened.
Much is being made of the 2008 spills at SASM. It must be understood that SASM is a Joint Powers
Agency with the City of Mill Valley as contract operator. Any deficiencies in the SASM infrastructure
have nothing to with to do with the collection agencies. In fact, the proposed consolidation possibly
makes the governing of SASM and its relationship with the current contractor MORE difficult. Today the
Districts have 4 votes on the SASM board, after the consolidation they will have only one. Given a
controversy or disagreement between Mill Valley and SASM, a standoff could potentially ensue with
TCSD simply serving as a tie-breaker. It is not clear how this will benefit our local sewerage operation,
but again, does not appear to be in line with good representation.
If, as hinted to on page 75, the desired long term result of the plan is the creation of a large district
providing services for all of Southern Marin, it should be stated up front. The best way of getting grand
results may be by small evolutionary steps, but the end goal must be articulated and presented. If the
vision of the future cannot be convincingly presented, it is hopeless to think that people will support
these small steps, which by themselves (as this one is), may seem to be pointless.
4
A good indicator of this, and in gauging overall citizen support, is the result we received from an
informal straw poll among the residents of Homestead Valley. We received a 27% response to the poll,
(which we find extraordinary for ANY poll), with 59% against consolidation and 18% in favor of it. 23%
were undecided, largely citing a lack of information. This response was only based on a short
informational piece in the local community paper (which was intended to be neutral), publicity in the
Marin Independent Journal and the Grand Jury report, which have all been in favor of consolidation. In
addition to the feelings of the general public as illustrated above, it is telling that in the 8 years of
various attempts to consolidate the districts, not a single person involved in the actual operations
thereof, has stepped up to endorse the concept. Clearly, the tactic of denigrating the work and results
of the existing agencies is not winning any converts.
In conclusion, it can safely be said that the report presents a poor case for both consolidation and action
under AB1232, and that the proposal should be abandoned promptly without any further wasted
efforts. Additionally, a well thought out, clearly defined vision of any future organization and its cost
structure must be presented to garner full public support. Lastly, and in line with this premise is the fact
that there are several more sanitary districts in Southern Marin and we feel that their participation in a
true "Sphere of Influence" plan is vital.
Simply trying to make the argument that "bigger is better" is not good enough. We recognize that some
of these efforts are probably outside the scope and capabilities of LAFCO as an organization, in which
case LAFCO has overstepped its bounds and should leave the job to individual/s or groups better
prepared to truly take on this monumental task.
We appreciate the time you have spent reading this response to your staff's report, and hope that you
will find our arguments helpful in your evaluation of the report's findings and recommendations. We
stand ready to meet with you and/or your staff to discuss the issues in more detail.
BurnettTreg~
5
J
m~mIIwmJ
Bruce Abbott
458 Greenwood Beach Road
BY.•
'.fibµron, CA.94920 •
•••••••••••••··········
August 7, 2011
Marin Local Agency Formation Commission
555 Northgate Drive, Suite 230
San Rafael, CA 94903
In re: Consolidation
Dear Commissioners:
The LAFCO staff proposal, contained in The Southern Marin Sewer
Agencies Service Review update of July, 2011, to consolidate four sewage
collection agencies is not in the interest of RBSD and does not serve its rate
payers. There are a number of problems that argue against consolidation: it
will be complicated, costly, disruptive, and will produce no significant
improvements in the status quo.
The Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update is replete with
unsupported and inaccurate data, assumptions, conclusions and projections.
The District Managers Report details these deficiencies, and is incorporated
herein by reference. In the interest of brevity, its contents are not duplicated
here.
The expressed intent of AB 1232 was to increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of the operations of SASM and its member agencies. SASM is
not included in this proposal. All four agencies that are targeted by the
proposal have made dramatic improvements in effectiveness and efficiency.
Any intent and purpose that overlay those expressed above are not to be
found within the four corners of AB 1232, whose language is clear and
unambiguous.
Consolidation will require RBSD staff to divert attention from tasks at hand
to the assimilation of three additional districts, and would increase its scope
of responsibility from 4,697 EDUs to7,091 EDUs, a 51 % increase. This is
not an insignificant increase, and it is not realistic to assume that service can
be maintained at current operational standards without additional staff.
Consolidation would come at a critical stage in RBSD's Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) schedule that has been moving as rapidly as
possible to take maximum advantage of reduced contractor prices that have
attended the current recession. In order to justify diverting the attention of
RBSD staff to the details of consolidation, there should be realistic promise
of greater savings than could be achieved by continuation of its current
accelerated CIP. RBSD has not found those savings. The administrative
responsibilities of RBSD staff would also increase as much as fourfold with
the establishment of four separate rate districts, in order to avoid comingling
of funds, ensure proper attribution of costs, and thus must be expected to
require additional staff and impose confusion on a smoothly running system.
No accommodation is made for the expense associated with these staff
modifications in the Service Review Update, and no reference is made to the
expense of any additional operational and administrative equipment. The
addition of three former districts, now with individual rate structures, will
unreasonably impose upon the RBSD staff the necessity of choosing where
and how to balance the degree of service that those unequal monetary
contributions entitle each rate district to. Miscalculations, real or imagined,
could expose staff to constant criticism. The potential for disagreement and
disharmony alone exceeds any potential for improvements in effectiveness
and efficiency.
RBSD's annual service rate is $246 annually, not $436, and for various
fortuitous reasons is substantially lower than the rates of other agencies in
Southern Marin. RBSD is well capitalized, owns its own facilities, and
equipment and employs its own staff. These facts contribute to its lower fee
structure. If uniform rates are an ultimate goal of consolidation it is difficult
to envision how that can be accomplished without disturbing the
capitalization structure ofRBSD. Additionally, it is hard to envision how a
collective BOD could keep the individual assets of the several rate districts
discrete when the needs of one district exceededi its assets while another had
reserves. Further, as the BOD shrinks toward the ultimate goal of five
directors, a decision by the BOD to impose rate increases on a rate district
without representation on the BOD could reasonably be expected to provoke
resentment and resistance from the rate payers in that district.
RBSD facilities and equipment, worth several millions of dollars, are owned
by RBSD and its rate payers. Under the plan for consolidation, no provision
is made for how those assets are to be allocated in the consolidated district.
Much is to be said for economies of scale and efficiencies in government,
but those concepts, reduced to ideology, should not be allowed to drive the
argument to the exclusion of reason and concern for the citizenry and it
should not proceed in disregard of the disruptions and disharmony that
naturally ensue.
Nothing comes without a price, which is here to be paid by the affected
agencies Who is the beneficiary? Not one of the affected districts regards
itself as a potential beneficiary. Of the 20 BOD members, not one supports
this consolidation. It is not worthy of the LAFCO Commissioners to think
all 20 BOD members are driven by selfish motives to protect personal turf.
If perchance, a LAFCO Commissioner similarly situated on a public board,
evaluates himself or herself as driven by such a base instinct, then he or she
is worthy to think the same of the SASM Four BOD members. Otherwise,
he must accord equal dignity to the motives of those BOD members, and
lend credence to their unanimous opinion. Likewise, not one of the general
managers or employees of these districts supports the proposed
consolidation. Thus, among those most familiar with the operation of these
agencies, not one is to be found in support. Surely, this must give pause to
an objective and impartial Commission.
Those of you who represent municipalities may understand the position of
the SASM Four if you substitute yourself and your city into a situation in
which you confront compulsory consolidation with a neighboring city under
conditions that were attended by an equal amount of preparation, planning,
and consultation with the proposed targets of the consolidation.
This proposal needs a lot more thought, and it needs a lot more public
involvement. Above all, it needs more public participation, and most
importantly, it should not proceed while denying the public the right of
protest, as the enabling content of AB 1232 provides.
s z
Bruce Abbott
President, Richardson Bay Sanitary District
IJl®If:wmB
Roy Benvenuti .BY:
408 Hilary Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
August 22, 2011
Marin Local Agency Formation Commission
555 Northgate Drive, Suite 230
San Rafael, CA 94903
In re: Consolidation
Dear Commissioners:
I do not believe consolidation as proposed by LAFCO
will better serve the interests of Richardson Bay
Sanitary District (RSBD) ratepayers.
LAFCO's approach that under consolidation
considerable savings would result, is flawed. On the
contrary, I believe it would increase costs for all
ratepayers. Consider the probable addition of field
personnel with benefits including trucks, clothing,
boots, etc. In addition, consolidation would require the
increase of equally well-compensated and pensioned
office staff in order to serve a new consolidated district.
I do not see a savings, I see increases.
RBSD's annual service rate of $246--NOT $436--
(LAFCO's figures), is probably the lowest in Marin
County. RBSD is well-capitalized, and in addition, owns
its own facilities which belong to the ratepayers. I see
no provision in LAFC0 s plan for equitable allocation of
1
these assets and how our ratepayers would be affected.
Presently, all directors are required to reside in the
districts they serve. Smaller districts are in a position to
offer "personalized,, service to their constituents. We
have been fortunate in having good management and
boards of directors, aware of the importance of public
relations. Any resident who has dealt with RBSD for
encroachments, easements, permits etc. has been
satisfactorily served.
RBSD has been aggressive with its capital maintenance
1
and improvement programs. The BOD s fiscal
management plan includes the review of all charges and
warrants and must be approved and signed by two
directors.
Consolidation could have some merit. However, I do
not believe that LAFCO has all the facts to make this
proposal without more thought, discussion, and public
participation which is denied under AB 1232.
~erely,
Ro~envenuti
Director RBSD
Kenneth R. Wachtel Shawn Marshall
Mayor Councilmember
Garry Lion ( MILL VALLEY) Stephanie Moulton-Peters
Vice Mayor Councilmember
Andrew Berman James C. McCann
Councilmember City Manager
October 10, 2011
Mr. Jeff Blanchfield, Chairman
Marin County Local Agency Formation Commission
555 Northgate Drive
San Rafael, Calif. 94903
Re: Southern Marin Sewer Service& Sphere of Influence Update Report
Dear Mr. Blanchfield,
The City of Mill Valley appreciates this opportunity to offer comments on the July 2011
draft Southern Marin Sewer Agencies Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update
Report. We also very much appreciate the extension of time granted pursuant to our
request to provide these comments.
To begin, the City of Mill Valley understands very well the charge of the Marin County
Local Agency Formation Commission and commends you and your Commission for its
serious and beneficial work on behalf of the residents of Marin County. We also very
much appreciate the efforts which have gone into the study and evaluation of the
Southern Marin Sewerage Agencies and in your thoughtful consideration of possible
steps and policies to enhance this most essential of public services.
The July 2011 report provides a substantial evaluation of the manner in which sewerage
services are provided in our area and recommends specific action to enhance these
services though the consolidation of the members of the Sewerage Agency of Southern
Marin (SASM). While there are aspects of the staff recommendation regarding the
sphere of influence and consolidation matters which may have merit as well as elements
which raise question or concern to the City of Mill Valley, our comments will focus on
other aspects of the report which are most specific to the City of Mill Valley.
The report contains a number of statements and opinions which are in error, not fully
informed, unnecessary or inappropriate for a report on this particular topic. Of most
concern to the City of Mill Valley are statements contained in the report which speculate
1
City of Mill Valley, 26 Corte Madera Avenue, Mill Valley, California 94941 • 415-388-4033
about sensitive matters related to the spills of 2008 and the steps taken to address this
event. Statements beginning on page 48 of the report regarding the 2008 events are
incorrect and, in some cases, inflammatory largely because the statements are not fully
informed by the substantial amount of data, analysis, discussion and advice available to
the SASM Board during privileged deliberation. These statements should therefore be
deleted. Further, it should not be noted, the SASM Board has discussed these matters in
the recent weeks and has reached no new determinations nor pursued any further or
subsequent action regarding the events from 2008. Toe statements which should be
deleted are specifically:
1. The statement: "The question of actual or legal liability for the costs of the spills
was never directly addressed despite Section 10 of SASM's operations and
maintenance agreement with the City of Mill Valley ... ", should be deleted as the
author is unaware of the facts surrounding this assertion and cannot be aware of
the deliberations which occurred in closed session which may have addressed the
legal issues related to liability. Further, this point has no bearing on the core issue
before LAFCO and is consequently an unnecessary line of discussion.
2. The statement on page 48: "It may clearly be argued that the City of Mill Valley-
not SASM- was liable for at least $2.8 million in costs under the terms of the
O&M Agreement." Is clearly wrong and ill-informed. Beyond the flawed and
unarticulated basis for the opinion of a "clear argument", no basis for the
suggested liability of $2.8 million is provided. This statement should be deleted.
3. Toe suggestion on page 48 that the SASM Board did not discuss the legal issues,
potential liabilities and causes of action with its general legal counsel or with
special legal counsel is incorrect and ill-informed. These statements speculate
upon closed session and privileged attorney-client discussions, do not bear upon
the core focus of the LAFCO study and should be deleted from this report.
4. Toe statements in the final paragraph of page 48 speculating that
" ... communication and lines of authority between SASM board ,and staff at the
treatment plant became immediately problematic" are simply incorrect. There is
no record, nor any suggestion from any party involv.ed that those events that any
such problems occurred. This statement should be deleted. The balance of this
paragraph should also be deleted as the assumption stated that: " The SASM
General Manager could not effectively communicate with the members of the
SASM board or with the boards of member agencies without the possibility that
his statements could invoke the City's liability under the O&M Agreement or
that the accuracy of his statements could be thought to be affected, by his
employer's potential liability'' is, again, completely speculative, factually wrong
and not germane to the primary focus of the LAFCO report.
5. Toe statements contained in the first paragraph on page 50 of the report regarding
the suggested lack of critical evaluation and legal counsel with resp,ect to potential
liability related to the spills of 2008 are also completely incorrect and speculative.
They should be deleted.
Beyond the points of concern noted above, the report contains a number of factual errors
or omissions some of which have already been identified by others to date; I will add a
few requests for correction below:
2
1. Table 2 on page 14 of the report indicates that SASM has 15 employees and that
the City of Mill Valley has 2.5 employees devoted to sewerage services and
Figure 2 on page 15 indicates that SASM has 10.5 employees and that the City of
Mill Valley has 3 employees devoted to sewerage services. These should be
corrected to reflect SASM with 14 employees and the City of Mill Valley with 3
employees engaged in sewerage services.
2. The last paragraph on page 29 appears to be incomplete. It appears that the
concluding sentences were inadvertently deleted.
3. Table 5 on page 36 reflects an incorrect sewer service rate for the City of Mill
Valley twice. The correct rate is $600/EDU in 2011.
4. The funding level committed to by the City of Mill Valley specific to sewer pipe
repair and replacement over the next five years as summarized in Table 6 on page
38 of the report should be corrected to reflect $6,500,000 rather than the
$2,750,000 in the draft report.
5. The last paragraph on page 38 incorrectly states:" Finally, because only
Richardson Bay appears to have a true funding strategy for renewal and
replacement, it is expected that the agencies will need to increase their respective
spending levels in the future to account for the legacy unfunded costs for renewal
and replacement." Please note that the City of Mill Valley has in place adopted
sewer service charges sufficient to provide the funding necessary to address on-
going operations and maintenance of our sewer collection systems as well as a
substantial facilities improvement and replacement program.
6. The first paragraph on page 39 should be corrected. The last sentence states:
"None of the agencies are currently believed to include the full cost of operation,
maintenance and replacement in their current rate structures as good asset
management philosophy would suggest." This is incorrect with respect to the
City of Mill Valley. We do in fact include the full cost of these aspects of our
service and facilities management in our current rate structure. This structure is
available for review on the City's website through our Department of Public
Works or the City Clerk's Office.
7. The statement in the last paragraph on page 49 of the report the: "The SASM
board has requested loans from its member agencies to fund capital improvement
program and a short term revenue anticipation loan from the County of Marin to
temporarily fund its operations until new member assessments are received" is
incomplete and incorrect. The statement is incomplete because it does not
provide the context of the discussion regarding the potential interagency project
funding as an option being explored compared to more traditional debt financing
of the facility improvements. Further, there has never been a request made of
Marin County (or any other entity for that matter) for funding for operations, the
statement in the report is simply incorrect.
8. Finally, the alternative suggested and the "next steps" listed on page 75 should not
be viewed as the only options to be considered. It should be noted that the City of
Mill Valley would have substantial concerns with the transfer of responsibility for
sewer collection services within the Mill Valley City Limits and would require the
detailed exploration of alternate scenarios to address our needs and interests.
3
Again, thank you for the courtesies you've extended to us to respond to this report and
thank you very much for reviewing and considering these comments. Please contact me
should you wish to discuss any of the points contained in this letter.
Sincerely,
i Manager
City of Mill Valley
c.
Mayor and City Council
Steve Danehy, General Manager, SASM
File
Correspondence
4
Scott Drotman
43 Irving Drive
San Anselmo, CA 94960
MarinLAFCO
555 Northgate Drive
Suite 230
San Rafael, CA 94903
Dear.·JVlarinLAFCO,
It is stupid to have 17 sewer districts, 17 managers, 17 billing systems and so
on! This is not local control; this is illogical & inefficient government. The
sewer districts should be built around the plants and the areas that feed into
the plants. I support consolidation.
In addition, flat rates are unfair and probably illegal. Rates must be based on
usage to be fair and for conservation purposes.
Myra Drotman
43 Irving Drive
San Anselmo, CA 94960
MarinLAFCO
555 Northgate Drive
Suite 230
San Rafael, CA 94903
Deilf .. MarinLAFCO,
I urge you to consolidate these fiefdoms that we call sewer districts.
Marin County has very few people in comparison to other areas and we do
not need 17 sewer districts. In addition, our beautiful watershed, creeks,
streams, rivers and bay water should not be at the mercy of spills from 17
different agencies that fight and sue each other and pass the buck constantly.
There is major mismanagement, over payment of duplicate services,
litigation, and un-necessary spills that th~se sewer districts are putting on
their ratepayers. It is a sad fact that people just are not getting involved in
these special assessment districts like they use to and like they should. We
need LAFCO's intervention to fix this mess that has been cr4eated by all of
these incompetent fiefdoms that still exist from a century or more in the past.
.I n·addition, I am entirely against the flat rate structure. The gross
injustice of having small users subsidize large users needs to be corrected
immediately. The people who are being hurt by these exorbitant costs cannot
wait any longer for change.
-Article XlllDof our stat-e's constitution mandates that any fees or
charges against real property be in direct proportion to the benefit conferred
upon the real property. Nevertheless, the sewer districts do not accept the
proportionality argument and simply dismiss it as a waste of their time.
A flat rate structure, in addition to being contrary to our constitution,
results in a huge inequity upon those residents least able to afford the
wrongful charges. Moreover, flat sewer rates violate legislative water
conservation provisions that encourage districts to employ allocation based
conservation pricing.
\ \
11@1111Wl1lfm
1oJ
Ramona Flood j
j
OCT O6 2011
350-356 Du Bois Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
BY: ....... .. ..............
(650) 948-1477 ,,,
October 4, 2011
Peter V. Banning
Executive Officer
Marin Local Agency Formation Committee
555 Northgate Drive, Suite 230
San Rafael, CA 94903
Re: Review of Spheres of Influence
There is no need for some seventeen sewer boards in the County of Marin.
As the Marin Local Agency Formation Committee is looking specifically at the
six sewer boards serving Southern Marin, this situation affects Marin County as a
whole.
This antiquated system of doing business is cumbersome and inefficient. In this
cash-strapped economy, it is not cost effective. Local accountability is
compromised as grievances by tax payers are not heard through a single body,
having to go individually to one of the seventeen boards with no apparent
coordination with the other sixteen boards. Governance is also compromised
with this cumbersome system.
This is truly a serious situation. Old ways of doing business have to be updated.
esp tfully submitted,
,-v-.,,..........,_._~~
Ramona Flood
Joseph Neufeld 415-456-6953 p.1
Monday, September 19, 2011
Joseph Neufeld
155 Canal Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
Peter V. Banning, Executive Officer
MarinLAFCO
555 Northgate Drive, Suite 230
San Rafael, CA, 94903
Re: Southern Marin Sewer Agencies Service Review and Spheres of
Influence Update
This is in response to the "Notice of Public Hearing," regarding the
proposal to consolidate the several sewer agencies of southern Marin
into a single sanitary district under Assembly Bill 1232.
I. LAFCO
LAFCO's mission is to:
* Encourage the orderly growth of government agencies.
* Preserve agricultural lands.
* Discourage urban sprawl.
* Assure efficient local government services.
LAFCO's responsibilities are to:
* Coordinate changes in local governmental boundaries.
* Conduct special studies reviewing ways to reorganize, simplify,
and streamline governmental structure.
* Prepare a sphere of influence for each city and special district
within each county.
Source: <http://www.calafco.org/>.
II. Special Districts
The purpose of special districts, such as a sanitary district, is to
provide afocused service. Focused because a special district serves a
specifically defined area and typically provides only a single service,
allowing it to concentrate on one activity. Service because it delivers
Joseph Neufeld 415-456-6953 p.2
only the public programs and public facilities that its constituents
want. Counties and cities provide multiple programs. A special
district provides a public service the public wants. (What's So Special
About Special Districts?: A Citizen's Guide to Special Districts in
California, California Senate Local Government Committee, 4th
Edition, October 2010, p.1
http://www.calafco.org/docs/Special Districts/Whats So Special.p
df)
Special districts first arose to meet the water needs of San Joaquin
Valley farmers. Frustrated by an inconsistent water supply and
unstable prices, farmers in Stanislaus County organized the Turlock
Irrigation District under the Wright Act of 1887. This allowed
landowners to fonn new public entities to deliver irrigation water,
and to finance their activities with water rates and bond sales. As
California's first special district, the Turlock Irrigation District made
it possible for local farmers to intensify and diversify their crops.
(VVhats So Special About Special Districts?, p.4.)
Special districts range from a single neighborhood to vast areas. The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California serves nearly 19
million people in over 5,200 square miles in six counties. Most special
districts operate within one county, but some districts cross city and
county lines. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District serves
an unincorporated territory plus nine cities. The Roubidoux
Community Services District delivers services in two different
counties. And, unlike counties and cities, special district boundaries
are not always limited to contiguous territory. The Pajaro/Sunny
Mesa Community Services District serves several separate pockets of
territory. (What's So Special About Special Districts?, p.2.)
III. Marin County Sanitary Districts
Sewage agencies across Marin County, including those in southern
Marin, need more revenue, and look to the ratepayer:
See Almonte Sanitary District's "Notice of Proposed Increase of Sewer
Service Charge"
(http: //www.almontesd.org/resources/Meeting Minutes and Agen
<las/NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 2010 rate increase.pd{)
Joseph Neufeld 415-456-6953 p.3
See Homestead Valley Sanitary District Sanitary District's Notice of
Public Hearing on [Increasing] Sanitary Rates
(h:ttt>://www.homesteadvalley.org/jadworks/hvca/jwsuite.nsf/Siteln
dex/756EF723E1F239248825771Boo76773A/$file/April +2006.pdf)
See Alto Sanitary District's public hearing to discuss proposed
increase of its annual sewage service charge.
(http: //www.marinscope.com/articles/2010 / 05 /21/mill valley hera
ld/news/community/doC4 bf317dddo4a8230208677. txt)
See City of Mill Valley vote to increase sewage rates, council meeting
minutes, June 6, 2011, agenda item 10, pp.3-6.
(http: //www.cityofmillvalley.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?doc
un1entid=7316)
Marin County has 13 of the 73 sanitary districts in the state. (Ross
Valley Sanitary District: Not Again!, Marin County Civil Grand Jury,
June 2011, p.3
htt;p://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/GJ /main/cvgrjr /201ogj/Ross
Valley Sanitary District.pd{) That's almost 18%. Yet, Marin's entire
population is less than 1% of the state's total population. (Source: US
Census Bureau http://Quickfacts.census.gov/<J,fd/states/06000.html)
The seven sewer agencies of southern Marin serve a population of
approximately 29,700. (Southern Marin Sewer Agencies Service
Review And Sphere Ofinf[.uence Update, Marin LAFCO, July 2011,
p.3 h:ttt>://lafco.marin.org/staff reports/pdf/So Marin Sewer update
web.pdf)
The Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin, formed to consolidate
wastewater collection, treatment, reclamation and disposal, consists
of six member agencies. Each agency owns and operates its own
collection system that feeds into SASM for treatment and disposal.
SASM owns and operates approximately 5 miles of sewer, consisting
mostly of gravity sewer. (Clean Water Act Compliance Evaluation
Inspection, Sewerage Agency ofS outhern Marin Wastewater
Collection System, US Environmental Protection Agency, October 30,
2007. pp.1-2 http://www.epa.gov/regiong /water /npdes /pdf/ SASM-
SSO-report-final-2-11-08-redact.pdO
Joseph Neufeld 415-456-6953 p.4
IV. Good Example: Southern Marin Fire Protection District
The Southern Marin Fire Protection District is a special district
established by the board of supervisors in 1999, formed by the merger
of the Alto-Richardson and Tamalpais Fire Protection districts. In
July 2006 the City of Sausalito Fire Department joined. In October
2010 the District signed a contract with the National Park Service to
provide services to the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker areas of the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The Fire District now serves
Tamalpais Valley, Almonte, Homestead Valley, Alto, Strawberry, a
portion of the town of Tiburon, the City of Sausalito, Fort Baker and
the Marin Headlands. The District covers 11.5 square miles, a
population of approximately 27,700 and over 14,100 homes and
con1n1ercial properties. Source: http://www.southernn1arinfire.org/
Regarding the District's reasons and support for consolidation, it
offers: "It has always been the goal to provide a higher level of service
to more people for less cost by eliminating repetitive overhead costs
while increasing the training and effectiveness of the firefighters."
(http://www.xmrfire.org/som/news.aspx?ID=5.5)
V. Canel usion
Statistically, it makes no sense that less than 1% of California's
population operates 18% of the state's sanitary districts; that seven
agencies serve a combined population of less than 30,000 occupying
approximately 11.5 square, when special districts, such as the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, serve some 19
million people spread over 5,200 square miles in six counties; that
the southern Marin fire protection agencies, which must respond at
the drop of a hat, already combined into one special district, yet
several splintered sewage agencies continue to drag their feet.
Opposition to consolidation is best summed by the Alto and
Homestead Valley Sanitary District's response to the Grand Jury:
"The board of directors for these two districts strongly believe that
they are more capable of serving the needs and evaluating the intent
of their constituencies than a centralized governing body [because] as
residents of the communities they represent, they are more directly
Joseph Neufeld 415-456-6953 p.5
concerned with the welfare of their neighborhoods than would be the
case under central management." (Response to Grand Jury Report
Southern Marin Sewers: Cracks in the System, Mays, 2009
http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/GJ/main/cvgrjr/2oo8gj/Response
s/Southern Sewers Cracks/alto homesteadvalley.pdf)
The fallacy lies with the basic misunderstanding of special districts,
and the reason LAFCO was created. Special districts are not charged
with tending to the welfare, well-being or comfort of the public. Nor
do they represent the public, the neighborhood or municipality or
county or area in which they operate. They provide special services.
LAFCO is charged with overseeing the efficiency of those services.
If board n1en1bers of sewage agencies of southern Marin are
concerned with the health, welfare and safety, and wish to craft social
legislation which impact the people and neighborhoods they serve,
then they should run for the city council, board of supervisors, or the
state assembly or senate. Special districts are service-oriented, not
people- or neighborhood-oriented, and are charged with the
efficiency of the service they provide and deliver.
The question is: will the consolidation of the seven sewage agencies of •
southern Marin promote the efficiency of sewage and sanitary
services delivered to the people of southern Marin? Nothing has
changed from the 1887 formation of Turlock Irrigation District,
California's first special district, to the present day. The people of
southern Marin are just as frustrated as the San Joaquin Valley
farmers of 1887, but in this case, with inconsistent, overlapping and
duplicative services, unstable rates, difficulty in resolving issues
across political boundaries (boundaries which special districts are
designed to cross), lack of accountability and little to no
communication across agencies.
I urge LAFCO to exercise the authority granted by the provisions of
Assembly Bill 1232, and consolidate the several sewer agencies of
southern M~ingle sanitary district.
1:tufeld
Marin LAFCO Staff
From: nepenthium@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 4:46 PM
To: kathy@coyles.com; Marin LAFCO Staff
Subject: LAFCO Guestbook
Comments from --Michael Hancock
/ 17-Sep-11 / 04:45 PM
First Name: Michael
Last Name: Hancock
E-Mail: nepenthium@comcast.net
Comments: We believe that the proposed sewer consolidation is a blatant effort to subsidize inefficient
sanitary districts at the expense of the (far more) efficient districts.
We exhort you not to support this proposal.
1
Marin LAFCO Staff
From: robert-crowder@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 5:33 PM
To: kathy@coyles.com; Marin LAFCO Staff
Subject: LAFCO Guestbook
=======--------=---===========================================----
Comments from - Robert Crowder
/ 16-Sep-11 / 05:33 PM
========---======================================================
First Name: Robert
Last Name: Crowder
E-Mail: robert-crowder@sbcglobal.net
Comments: I am againstthe reorganization or consolidation of The Richardson Bay Sanitary District
into a Southern Marin Sewer Agency.
1
Marin LAFCO Staff
From: Gazellebelle2000@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 4:46 PM
To: kathy@coyles.com; Marin LAFCO Staff
Subject: LAFCO Guestbook
==================================================================
Comments from - Diane Lowenstein
/ 16-Sep-11 / 04:46 PM
=================================================================
First Name: Diane
Last Name: Lowenstein
E-Mail: Gaze1lebe1le2000@yahoo.com
Comments: The residents of Tiburon do not want to consolidate our sewer district and do not want our
sewer rates to increase!!
Thank you for your support.
1
Marin LAFCO Staff
From: theblochs@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:01 PM
To: kathy@coyles.com; Marin LAFCO Staff
Subject: LAFCO Guestbook
=================================================================-
Comments from --Spencer Bloch
/ 15-Sep-11 / 09:01 PM
==============================================================---
First Name: Spencer
Last Name: Bloch
E-Mail: theblochs@gmail.com
Comments: Huffman's proposal for consolidating the sewer agencies in Southern Marin is outrageous
from the perspective of those served by Richardson Bay Sanitary District. The more so because it can occur
without public input. Let the RBSD opt out of this plan, if it is effected.
1
Marin LAFCO Staff
From: ampmkochis@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 12:20 PM
To: kathy@coyles.com; Marin LAFCO Staff
Subject: LAFCO Guestbook
==================================================================
Comments from - Paul Kochis
/ 15-Sep-11 / 12:20 PM
=================================================================
First Name: Paul
Last Name: Kochis
E-Mail: ampmkochis@comcast.net
Comments: The proposal to merge Tiburon's Sanitary District into six other is the area may make sense
as a means to eliminate duplicative costs. However, Tiburon's nearly $10 million dollars in reserves should not
be used to prop up the poor management that exists in other Districts. Tiburon's reserves should either be
returned to Tiburon rate payers or set aside in a separate fund to protect Tiburon rate payers from rate
increases until it is exhausted. Further, such a merger should be put to a public vote.
1
Marin LAFCO Staff
From: rickupjohn@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 11 :24 AM
To: kathy@coyles.com; Marin LAFCO Staff
Subject: LAFCO Guestbook
======-===========================================================
Comments from - Richard Upjohn
/ 15-Sep-11 / 11:24 AM
=======----======================================================
First Name: Richard
Last Name: Upjohn
E-Mail: rickupjohn@comcast.net
Comments: As a homeowner in the Reedlands on Tiburon, I am strongly opposed to sanitary district
consolidation. Currently, our district is well managed and I do not want to be annexed into other districts.
Management needs to be as local as possible to be effective!
1
Marin LAFCO Staff
From: traceyvanhooser@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:39 PM
To: kathy@coyles.com; Marin LAFCO Staff
Subject: LAFCO Guestbook
==============================================================-=--
Comments from --Tracey Van Hooser
/ 14-Sep-11 / 09:38 PM
==========================================================-------
First Name: Tracey
Last Name: Van Hooser
E-Mail: traceyvanhooser@yahoo.com
Comments: I do not understand why we are seeking consolidation of the sewage treatment plants -or,
rather, I should say that I do not see how this will benefit me in Tiburon. Can you show me how I benefit?
1
Marin LAFCO Staff
From: Johngreenspan@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:26 PM
To: kathy@coyles.com; Marin LAFCO Staff
Subject: LAFCO Guestbook
==================================================================
Comments from --John and Deborah Greenspan
/ 14-Sep-11 / 09:26 PM
==========================================================-=-=---
First Name: John and Deborah
Last Name: Greenspan
E-Mail: Tohngreenspan@comcast.net
Comments: Sewage District Consolidation.
We deeply oppose this arbitrary and high-handed proposal!
1
Sep 07 2011 1:49PM Aon Health Care 415-458-2926 page 1
;
1
lvremorandum
tiS"#li::!MIJltl!BU!llltiAIR'l!]l'!f.H!•U\llrllll~~fM'flU
To: Marin Local Agency Formation Commission
CC: Local Media
From: Committee FOR Sanitary Consolidation
Date: 9/7/2011
Re: Public Hearing: Southern Marin Sewer Agencies Service Review and Spheres oflnfluence
Update
The attached two pages encourage support of consolidation efforts deemed a priority for efficient and
effective public management of our local resources. In case we are not able to personally attend your
upc0?11ing Commission Meeting, we would like to make sure you have in writing our encouragement
to'move this process forward by empowering your staff to proceed with the consolidation of sanitary
districts. Thank you for your attention to this important matter of public policy.
1
Sep 07 2011 1:49PM Aon Health Care 415-458-2926 page 3
No One Said It Would Be Easy
After passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
mandated the reduction of"direct pollutant discharges into waterways," and helped to finance
sewage treatment facilities. The small communities in Southern and Central Marin that formed
during the past century and a half were responsible for collection and treatment of their residents'
sewage. More than 25 years ago these small sewer districts were compelled to band together to
build modem sewage treatment facilities, but they retained their unique collection agencies.
Marinites have experienced 25 years of excuses why collection and treatment of sewage should
be managed by separate districts. The more than 50 elected officials sitting on sewer boards, with
a few exceptions, have resisted relinquishing their small quota of power. These multiple
bureaucracies have cost ratepayers millions of dollars in wasted spending due to duplicity of
efforts, lawsuits, and fines. In Southern California, dozens of agencies have merged----and not
just wastewater-realizing various combinations of water, wastewater, solid waste and power
agencies.
The districts in Southern Marin claim this financial mismanagement is true of Central Marin, but
not their own agencies-despite million dollar fines and legal costs :fighting each other over
responsibility for sewage spills. The districts in Central Marin have seen consolidation efforts
stalled because of financial mismanagement by the Ross Valley Sanitary District (RVSD) and
now the large liability resulting from numerous sewage spills in the past six months.
The directors often claim they represent the interests of their ratepayers-<lespite spending
hundreds of thousands of dollars the past several years misinforming their constituents.
Practically all the flyers and newsletters sent out by the districts have distorted the facts and
blamed other agencies for their shortcomings. Assemblymember Jared Huffman blamed those
responsible for defending their "fiefdoms," rather than what is best for ratepayers as the rationale
for legislation to facilitate the consolidation process by the Local Agency Fonnation
Commission (LAFCO). As evidenced by Bruce Abbott in the Marin Voice column of May 31,
the sewage directors are still resisting doing what is best for ratepayers and the environment.
Change does not come easily-especially after decades of ''this is how we've always done it."
After serving on the RVSD board for 9 years, Steven Vanni did not seek reelection because his
fellow directors continued down the road of financial mismanagement and disastrous policy and
management decisions. Even one of his staunch opponents on the board, Sue Brown, stepped
down shortly after him, not wanting her name associated with the pending disaster that could no
longer be disguised. Rick Holland warned ratepayers the past two elections in Central Marin
about the mismanagement of Marin's sewer districts-and faced tens of thousands of dollars
spent by managers at these same agencies in propaganda to negate the charges. Any change
requires leadership, and to deny that combining collection and treatment of sewage will be
beneficial to ratepayers is a very shortsighted and flawed argument. This is a bumpy road, but
Steven Vanni and Rick Holland have formed a Political Action Committee-the Committee FOR
Sanitary Consolidation, and are fund.raising to lead the good fight:
Committee FOR Sanitary Consolidation
P.O. Box63
Fairfax, CA 94978
www.RickHoUand.com/donate.htm
Sep 07 2011 1:49PM Aon Health Care 415-458-2926 page 2
Public Hearing
Southern Marin Sewer Agencies Service Review and Spheres of Influence Update
The Committee FOR Sanitary Consolidation promotes the unification of sewage
collection and treatment agencies. With firsthand experience dealing with the
inefficiencies of separate agencies and the obvious waste of resources-both financial
and human-under the current system, we support action that leads to consolidation with
fair representation and transparency.
Your staff has already highlighted the rationale for moving this process forward. Much
political capital has already been spent to facilitate the process of consolidation. At this
conjecture, as public agencies need to demonstrate effective and efficient management, it
is imperative to demonstrate to ratepayers that local government is achieving the best
outcomes. Maintaining the status quo is not acceptable.
Acting both through the committee and as individuals, we have provided factual
infonnation to local officials and the public regarding the financial mismanagement,
environmental damage and fraud perpetuated by our local "fiefdoms" (see attachment,
published under Marin Voice by the Marin Independent Journal). Change requires
leadership and we have faith that LAFCo will provide the leadership required at this time.
We are at your disposal to support you in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
'J_,.,.:/ t. I ~
.~?J'IJ6ar·
Steven M. Vanni Richard L. Holland
Co-Chair Co-Chair
Committee FOR Sanitary Consolidation
P.O. Box 63 I Fairfax I CA 194978
Jll@~
PAUL M. DAVIS
TELEPHONE lJt:.~fJ{ Q $~:,Au~v,s
(650) 349-0700 ATTORNEY AT LAW
SAN MATEO COUNTY
•••••• ALSO ADMITTED IN THE
(415) SS4-Z555 448 IGNACIO BLVD. #201 ••••••••• DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARIN COUNTY NOVATO, CAI,..IFORNIA 94949-.6085 ••••··
June 24, 2011
Peter Banning
Marin County Local Agency
Formation Commission
555 Northgate Drive, Suite 230
San Rafael, California 94903
In re: Request to Dissolve and Consolidate
Sanitary Districts in Marin County
Dear Mr. Banning:
The time has come to take a serious look at giving
consideration to folding up and consolidating into a single
countywide entity all of the sanitary districts in Marin County.
I respectfully request that LAFCO forthwith consider this.
The cost of operating the several districts is staggering.
The employees receive salaries and compensation packages that are
beyond belief, indeed unimaginable. This letter shall focus
primarily on one such district, the Ross Valley Sanitary
District.
In 2010 the district's manager, Brett Richards, received an
annual compensation package of $308,622. That is absurd. Allow
me to put that into perspective. In 2011 Governor Brown will be
paid $173,987, which is $134,635 less than what was paid to Brett
Richards a year earlier. In 2010 Brett Richards received only
$91,378 less than what will be paid to President Obama in 2011.
In 2010 Sheriff Doyle was paid $278,168, which is $30,100 les£
than what was paid to Brett Richards. The math is clear. Brett
Richards' salary is 77% of the salary of President of the United
States. Why is Brett Richards not in state prison? We may never
know but I certainly would like to know.
Ross Valley has a "Business Manager", Bridgett Wilson, who,
in 2010, received a compensation package of $148,657.
Additionally, they have an administrative assistant, Elena
Hastings, who received $112,649. The list is long and
disgusting.
Ross Valley is Marin's version of the City of Bell,
California. We all know about the City of Bell and its officials
who are awaiting trial in Los Angeles County on felony public
corruption charges.
Marin County LAFCO ( ... Cont'd)
June 24, 2011
Page Two
The abject incompetence of Ross Valley's management and its
employees, in addition to the unbelievable compensation packages
it pays to its employees, is nothing short of astounding.
That agency represents the epitome of cronyism, incompetence
and corruption; it is the poster child for dissolution and
consolidation.
The arrogant managers at Ross Valley hire incompetent
employees who cannot even get the district's telephone system to
work properly. Nevertheless, they provide those incompetent
employees with compensation packages that are unimaginable. And,
to fund that crooked scheme they continue to raise the rates. On
June 28 there will again be a proposal before the Board of
Directors for a 36% rate increase, which I anticipate they will
adopt.
Several weeks ago, according to the Marin Independent
Journal, Ross Valley had an after-hours sewer emergency. Nobody
could reach their emergency repair crew. The $308,622 per year
district manager had no proper phone system in place. Someone
went to the home of one of Ross Valley's directors, Pat Guasco,
to get him to handle the emergency. Why are they compensating an
incompetent manager at the annual rate of $308,622?
Also, according to the Marin Independent Journal, a few
weeks ago an incompetent employee of Ross Valley mis-marked an
area on the street for subterranean repair work. As a result of
that error the district suffered huge losses. Had the district
used a contractor instead of an overpaid, incompetent district
employee, the contractor would be held liable for the damages and
the ratepayers would have suffered no damages.
Instead of using independent contractors at less cost Ross
Valley now wants to hire even more very expensive public
employees with inflated salaries and benefit packages.
Conflicts of interest abound at Ross Valley. The rates are
set by the board of directors who set them in a manner that keeps
their own rates low at the expense of apartments and other multi-
unit dwellings. They charge each tiny unit e.g., 350 square foot
apartments occupied by single persons, the same rate as 5,000+
square foot homes occupied by an entire family. By doing this the
low-income apartment residents are subsidizing the large and
lavish homes of the directors. Rates should be based on water
usage (flow-based); that should not use an arbitrary flat rate
that neither takes into account the size of the dwellings nor how
many people reside in them. If the directors were to adopt a
fair and equitable method of charging for services, they would be
voting against their own interests.
Marin County LAFCO ( ... Cont'd)
June 24, 2011
Page Three
At the meeting of Ross Valley's board on June 22, the
$308,622 per year district manager, Brett Richards, could not
adequately respond to some questions of the several board
members. And, each time an engineering issue came up he offered
to hire an engineering firm for tens of thousands of dollars to
run up expensive engineering reports. The problem with that is
the district already has an engineer, Randell Ishii, who last
year received a compensation package of $180,969, and an
assistant district engineer, Dennis V. Gavallos, who last year
received a compensation package of $194,261. It is interesting
to note that in 2010 the assistant district engineer was paid
almost $20,000 more than his boss, the district engineer. So,
for an annual cost of $375,000 what do these overpaid engineers
do if everything is to be contracted away to outside engineering
firms at great expense? We will never know. It is also
noteworthy that Dennis V. Gavallos, the assistant district
engineer, is not registered or licensed as an engineer by the
State of California, a legal requirement to practice engineering
in this state. His name does not appear on the state's website
for engineers.
I include with this correspondence a chart showing the
compensation packages paid to ten employees of Ross Valley during
2010. I assume their pay has been increased for 2011, even
though the economy is lousy and many people are losing their
jobs.
The Marin County Grand Jury recently published a scathing
critique of Ross Valley wherein it castigated every aspect of its
management. Instead of acquiescing that the district is plagued
with a host of management problems, including cronyism, a public
payroll that is out of touch with reality, and the existence of
pervasive and abject incompetence, director Pat Guasco
characterized the report as a timed hit piece. Indeed, Mr.
Guasco has not denied any part of that scathing report; he simply
takes issue with the fact it was made and published.
Consolidating these little fiefdoms must be done now. It
will save the ratepayers of Marin County millions of dollars
every year by the elimination of unnecessary layers of management
and ridiculous compensation packages. In fact, the elimination
of only ten of Ross Valley's positions would save the ratepayers
of Ross Valley alone about two million dollars in 2011.
We have all read about the fiasco at SASM. That is another
classic example of abject incompetence at every level.
It is time to fold up and consolidate these districts into a
single countywide entity with competent management, reasonable
compensation, and proper oversight.
Marin County LAFCO ( ... Cont'd)
June 24, 2011
Page Four
By copyB yo f cthoisp yle ttoefr tot hthies M laerint tCeoru nttoy Dtishteric tM Atatorirnne yC aonudn tthye DAttiosrtnreiyc Gt eAnetrtaol rI naemy r equesting
and the Attorney General I am requesting that they initiate
that they initiate criminal investigations into the practices of the Ross Valley Sanitary
criminal investigations into the practices of the Ross Valley
DSiastnriictt.ary District.
Enclosure
cc: Marin County Grand Jury
Kamala Harris, Attorney General (Public Integrity Section)
Ed Berberian, District Attorney
Ross Valley Sanitary District
Jered Huffman, Assemblyman
Marin Independent Journal
Dan Hillmer
Dennis Gilardi
Ross Valley Richards, General Manager $220,291 $0 $220,291 $15,265 $33,534 $17,017 $6,510 $16,004 $308,622
Sanitary Dist. Brett Administration
Ross Valley Yee, Jeffrey R Maintenance Superintendent $119,166 $29,043 $148,209 $1,915 $17,264 $8,764 $0 $10,112 $186,263
Sanitary Dist. Maintenance
Ross Valley Cimino, Inspection Superintendent $127,930 $1,248 $129,178 $14,399 $20,178 $10,234 $0 $9,883 $183,872
Sanitary Dist. Joseph A Inspection
Ross Valley Ishii, Randell District Engineer $131,468 $1,314 $132,782 $6,883 $20,746 $10,517 $0 $10,041 $180,969
Sanitary Dist. y Operations
Ross Valley Garcia, Maintenance Supervisor - $91,815 $28,387 $120,202 $8,864 $13,835 $7,031 $0 $9,598 $159,531
Sanitary Dist. Francisco L Pipebursting Crew
Pipeburst/ng Crew
DAVIS PROPERTY COMPANY
448 IGNACIO BLVD. #201
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94949-6085
TELEPHONE: [415] 884-2555
June 30, 2011
Jon Elam
Tamalpai ommunity Services District
305 B Ln.
Mi ley, California 94941
In re: Sewer Assessments
Dear Mr. Elam:
Thank you for your letter of June 22, which, unfortunately, is long on rhetoric and short
on substance.
It is neither acceptable nor reasonable to wait until 2012 to see what, if anything, the
District may do vis-a-vis the current sewer rate structure. It is completely unnecessary for the
District to require that kind of time in order to follow accepted industry and business practices
that are being employed in many areas outside the District. No private sector business would
need that amount.of time to make adjustments. I thus view this as a stalling tactic.
Any rate structure that is not 100% flow-based will be unacceptable; it should be
implemented forthwith with retroactive adjustments to the date the current structure was put in
place.
Finally, it is time to start folding up and consolidating these unnecessarily expensive little
Districts that post huge public payrolls amounting to nothing more than a high-dollar welfare
system under the guise of employment.
I look forward to your immediate reply.
Thank you.
cc: Marin County Grand Jury
Huffman, Assemblyman •
come operty Owners Association
Marin Independent Journal