Measure O – MPWMD: YES 44.85%, NO 55.15%

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION

June 3, 2014
Semi-Final Official Results 6

Last Updated: June 6, 2014 2:19 PM

Measure O - MPWMD

55/55 100.00%

	Vote Count	Percent
YES	10,011	44.85%
NO	12,311	55.15%
Total	22,322	100.00%

NOTE: 58,870 registered voters in the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 

22,322 Total Vote Count represents 37.92%

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION

June 3, 2014
Semi-Final Official Report 5 (Final Report of Election Night. Next update Friday, June 6)

Measure O - MPWMD

55/55 100.00%

	Vote Count	Percent
YES	6,827	43.61%
NO	8,826	56.39%
Total	15,653	100.00%

NOTE: 58,870 registered voters in the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
15,653 Vote Count represents 26.59% of register voters

Only Recourse for Residential Water Customers Is To Support Measure O: Residential Water Customers Are Subsidizing Other Water Customer Classes

ABSTRACT: In the Guest Commentary, “Residential ratepayers will bear brunt of fine if O fails,” by Ron Weitzman, WaterPlus President, (05/17/2014), in The Monterey County Herald, Weitzman explains reasons why residential water customers/voters should support Measure O, including the following relevant, highlight excerpts:
“Different from Cal Am's residential customers, its business customers are well organized into groups like the Monterey County Association of Realtors and the Monterey County Hospitality Association. These commercial groups have made a pact with Cal Am: They would support its water-supply project if it would persuade the Public Utilities Commission to eliminate tiered rates based on usage for commercial customers. Both sides have kept their part of the bargain. Though good for them, it is far from good for Cal Am's unorganized residential customers, who are now substantially subsidizing commercial and other customers. That is what a graph in a filing by the Office of Ratepayer Advocates of the PUC (March 28, 2014, p. 2-22, pertaining to Application 13-07-002) clearly shows. The only recourse residential customers have is to support Measure O.”
“In doing so, they would be going against the mayors they elected. That is because the mayors have chosen to support their business constituents instead of their residential ones. The mayors are rightfully concerned about the economic well-being of their cities. So, politically, we residents are on our own, not only without political power behind us, but even with it against us. All the television ads and mailers featuring the mayors and financially supported by Cal Am amply testify to that.”
“The state would impose the fine on Cal Am, but Cal Am, following its customary practice, would seek authorization from the PUC to recover the cost of the fine from ratepayers. If Cal Am succeeded with the PUC, residential ratepayers would bear the brunt of the fine because, as shown in the ORA graph, we are substantially subsidizing other local water users. We could assure Cal Am would succeed with the PUC at our expense if we voted no on Measure O because then we would be voting in unison with the mayors and the business community in favor of Cal Am's project and so would deserve the fine when the project fails to meet the state deadline. To prevent Cal Am from recovering the cost of the fine from us, we residential ratepayers should vote yes on Measure O.”
The aforementioned graph entitled Figure 1-A: Revenue vs. Consumption shows residential customers subsidizing other water customer classes in Monterey based on 2012 Recorded %Revenue/%Consumption and 2015 Forecasted %Revenue/%Consumption. The OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION “ORA Analysis and Recommendations on OPERATING REVENUES, RATE DESIGN and SPECIAL REQUESTS: 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24, 25 of California American Water Company Application 13-07-002” PUBLIC VERSION, March 28, 2014 document is embedded. Information regarding 2012 Revenue/Consumption vs. 2015 Revenue/Consumption is reproduced from pages 2-20 and 2-21 and Figure 1-A: Revenue vs. Consumption page 2-22 is embedded.

ORA Report on Revenues, Rate Design, And Special Requests No. 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24, 25

OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

ORA Analysis and Recommendations on OPERATING REVENUES, RATE DESIGN and

SPECIAL REQUESTS: 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24, 25 of California American Water Company

Application 13-07-002

PUBLIC VERSION

San Francisco, California

March 28, 2014

ii) 2012 Revenue/Consumption vs. 2015 Revenue/Consumption

ORA concluded from this analysis that although Cal Am’s testimony states rates are designed so that the proportion of revenue from each class approximates the proportion of consumption in the class,121 the proportionality seems to be diverging, rather than converging, between present and proposed rate designs. In the majority of Districts, Residential customers will be contributing more revenue proportional to the quantity of water consumed.

The following chart shows the percentage of total revenues generated by the residential class in each District and how the percentage revenues is proportional to the percentage of total consumption by the residential class in each District in Year 2012 and Year 2015. As a general example, if a Residential customer class in a District generates 25% of the total revenue for that District and, as a class, consumes, 25% of the total consumption in that District, this is reflected in the table as 100%, or direct proportionality. From the chart, it is clear that a greater proportion of total revenues relative to total consumption will be collected from the residential customer class for all Districts in 2015. This also means that the Residential customers are subsidizing other water customer classes. A dramatic example of this is shown in the chart below is of the revenue versus consumption proportionality in Monterey in 2015, where clearly the Residential customers are responsible for a greater percentage of the total revenues not proportional to the amount of water they consume at 115%. This does not validate Cal Am’s testimony that rates are designed so that the proportion of revenue from each class approximates the proportion of consumption in the class.

Figure 1-A Revenue vs. Consumption.pdf

Figure 1-A: Revenue vs. Consumption (2-22)

Source: OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

ORA Analysis and Recommendations on OPERATING REVENUES, RATE DESIGN and SPECIAL REQUESTS: 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24, 25 of California American Water Company Application 13-07-002

PUBLIC VERSION

San Francisco, California

March 28, 2014

REFERENCES:

A1307002 – Proceeding
Filed By: California-American Water Company
Filing Date: July 1, 2013
Category: Ratesetting
Current Status: ACTIVE
Description: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Authorization to Increase its Revenues for Water Service by $18,473,900 or 9.55% in the year 2015, by $8,264,700 or 3.90% in the year 2016, and by $6,654,700 or 3.02% in the year 2017.

Friends of Locally Owned Water (FLOW) Felton Residents Produce Documentary Addressing Effort To Take Over Their Water System from Cal-Am, Defend Public Buyout & Urge Voters to Vote ‘Yes on Measure O’

ABSTRACT:  Felton residents Nancy Gerdt, Jim Mosher, Barbara Sprenger, Glenn Lyons, Alexis Krostue, Ken Meshke, John Fasolas, Michele Mosher and Donna Young Fasolas address “What made Felton residents decide to go public? Tell us about your experience with the Public Utilities Commission. What was the campaign like? What was Cal-Am’s campaign like? How did you pay for the purchase of Cal-Am? How did the vote come out? Are you saving money under public ownership? Knowing what you know today, would you vote for public ownership? What do you think of the ad featuring a Felton resident? Do you have any advice for Monterey residents?

The Truth About Felton
Published on May 14, 2014

Felton residents talk about their experiences taking over their water system from Cal-Am and dispel the lies of the commercial put out by the YES on O opposition. This documentary examines the effort starting with why they did it to how its success reduced total rates (buyout plus water charges combined), now and forever.

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Felton enters Measure O debate after own Cal Am buyout
TV ad against takeover, YouTube video in support compete for attention
By Jim Johnson

Excerpt Highlights:

Within days, a group of Felton activists from the Friends of Locally Owned Water (FLOW) who helped engineer the takeover fired back, conducting a Yes on Measure O-backed press conference and making a video defending the buyout and accusing Hollenbeck and the ad of misleading the public by suggesting things are worse under public ownership. They argued that Felton rates are still lower today than they were under Cal Am when the system was sold in 2008, that the $14,000 on property owners' bills amount to about $39 per month over 30 years, and that public accountability had made all the effort well worth it. They urged Monterey voters to pursue public ownership.

MINUTES, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, February 13, 2014

MPWMD Draft Minutes 02-13-14

Draft Minutes – MPWMD Regular Board Meeting – February 13, 2014

RE: ACTION ITEMS

23.  Adopt Plan for Submission and Review of Arguments For or Against the Monterey Peninsula Water System Local Ownership and Cost Saving Initiative

On a motion by Thayer and second of Lewis, the Board voted unanimously to approve the plan to: (a) adopt a neutral policy with respect to arguments for, against, and rebuttals with respect to the initiative, and (b) assign District staff and General Counsel responsibility for receiving from outside parties and conveying to the County Registrar the arguments for, against, and rebuttals. The motion was approved on a vote of 7 – 0 by Directors Brower, Byrne, Lewis, Markey, Thayer, Pendergrass and Potter.

The following persons addressed the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) Rick Heuer asked for clarification of the suggestion that the General Manager might sign a rebuttal statement. (2) George Riley stated that Public Water Now would follow any direction the Water Management District would give with regards to a rebuttal statement. 

‘NO ON O’ FACTS Regarding Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Rebutted by David J. Stoldt, General Manager, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

ABSTRACT:  In the news article entitled “Measure O: Initiative takes aim at public buy-out of Cal Am's Monterey system: Conflicting views on proposed takeover's cost, benefits, By Jim Johnson, (05/05/2014), The Monterey County Herald Staff Writer Jim Johnson writes “Both sides have been criticized for their reliance on questionable claims, with a Superior Court judge ordering several changes to the Yes on O ballot arguments and Stoldt sending a terse letter to Cal Am challenging the No on O talking points.” The “material sent to Cal-Am regarding certain claims made about the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District” by David J. Stoldt, General Manager, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, is embedded. Specifically, General Manager David Stoldt states the actual facts to “Why is Measure O a Bad Idea?” and “Won’t our rates be cheaper if water distribution is managed by the public sector?” and “Won’t a public takeover ensure increased public oversight?” and “Doesn’t the MPWMD have its own experts better qualified to study and provide recommendations for solving our area’s water shortage?” from the "NO ON O" FACTS website.

Problems With Cal-Am No on O Website

Document: Material sent to Cal-Am regarding certain claims made about the District

SUMMARY

“NO ON O” “FACT” CLAIMS & REBUTTAL RESPONSES FROM GENERAL MANAGER, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

NO ON O “It’s A Risk We Cannot Afford” “FACT” Claim

Why is Measure O a bad idea?

If approved, Measure O requires the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to do a feasibility study before moving forward with a takeover. However, we’re given no information about how much this study would cost, how the MPWMD would interpret the results, nor does it force them to come back to voters for a final decision. Measure O would give a blank check – with no oversight – to the MPWMD to study seizure of the water delivery system from Cal-Am. In 2005, the proposed study was estimated to cost $550,000. Today, the price tag could reach $1 million or more. Furthermore, it could delay the construction of a desal plant that is the long-term solution to the Peninsula’s water shortage issues.

DAVID J. STOLDT, GENERAL MANAGER, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT:

The actual fact: Of course there is oversight. Moneys can only be expended for the purpose defined in the initiative. There is a Board of Directors and management staff. We also have had discussions with a national firm that performs this type of analysis who thinks such a study should cost $400,000 to $600,000. Also, we see no direct linkage between the study and the obligation to proceed as scheduled on the desal plant.  How do you determine that it will cause a delay?

NO ON O “It’s A Risk We Cannot Afford” “FACT” Claim

Won’t our rates be cheaper if water distribution is managed by the public sector?

Just because the government is running something instead of the private sector does not ensure that it is run more efficiently. Government operations incur all kinds of expenses that the private sector doesn’t, which ultimately can lead to local residents paying the bill through increased taxes and/or water bills. Currently the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District spends an average of over $100,000 on each employee.

DAVID J. STOLDT, GENERAL MANAGER, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT:

The actual fact:  Calendar 2013 Gross Salaries paid = $2,257,886 divided by 36 total employees equals $62,719 earned per employee. Even if you include benefits costs it won’t get above $100,000. Plus, since a renegotiation of labor contracts, employees pay an increased share of their own retirement benefits, decreasing what the District pays. Be careful about relying on gadflies and hobbyists who don’t know what they are doing when they examine the District’s budgets. Will you show similar calculations for Cal-Am Monterey District employees and G&A charges locally for non-Monterey District staff?

NO ON O “It’s A Risk We Cannot Afford” “FACT” Claim

Won’t a public takeover ensure increased public oversight?

No. Currently oversight of local water rates is done by the California Public Utilities Commission which undertakes a grueling and thorough analysis of proposed rates. Additional protections are provided through the Office of Ratepayer Advocates that represent the interests of rate payers by insuring the lowest possible rates. If the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District takes control, these safeguards to protect ratepayers will not exist. MPWMD will have no oversight whatsoever in the setting of water rates.

DAVID J. STOLDT, GENERAL MANAGER, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT:

The actual fact: The safeguards to protect ratepayers exist and are established by law.  MPWMD would limit imposition and collection of rates and charges as required by the MPWMD enabling legislation and by other requirements of state and federal law. These limitations include, but shall not be limited by the following:

· California Constitution Art. XIII C, Section 1(e), mandates that the rates shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services for which MPWMD charges the fee.1 When the budgeted cost of activities funded by the rates, less proceeds of any other sources of revenue, are less than the authorized, MPWMD shall be required to reduce or suspend collection of the rates to avoid overcollection.

The rates must be reasonable, fair, and equitable in nature and proportionately representative of costs incurred by MPWMD.2

· MPWMD acknowledges continued collection of rates is subject to the requirements of Propositions 62 and 218, including publication, mailing, and protest hearing processes to ratepayers.

· MPWMD shall to adhere to requirements of Water Code sections 35470 and 354713 even though it is not a municipal water district as defined by the California Water Code, and instead is a special district created by special legislation.

· MPWMD has a Board of Directors answerable directly to the electorate. In its annual budget review and approval process, the Board shall assess any need to adjust or rebalance revenues based upon prior year revenue and expenditures funded by the rates. It is a public process, typically accompanied by a rate design performed by outside consultants.

NO ON O “It’s A Risk We Cannot Afford” “FACT” Claim

Doesn’t the MPWMD have its own experts better qualified to study and provide recommendations for solving our area’s water shortage?

The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District primarily exists to augment the water supply for the Monterey Peninsula. Despite costing over $100,000,000 of taxpayer dollars over 35 years, MPWMD has failed to find any new large source of water for Monterey County. Their record does not inspire confidence that they would be any more successful in an area in which they have no expertise, institutional knowledge or infrastructure.

DAVID J. STOLDT, GENERAL MANAGER, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT:

The actual fact: First of all, since its arrival in 1966 Cal-Am has not produced any new large source of water for Monterey County. The stranded costs on the Regional Treatment Plant alone were over $44 million.

$26,568,651 RDP approved for recovery

5,354,229 RDP 2011

860,098 RDP 2012

12,000,000 RDP “Wrap-Up Costs” for un-winding

$44,782,978 RDP Sunk Costs

The District executed all concept, design, test well, and proof of principle for the 900 AF Paralta Well in the 1980s before turning it over to Cal-Am to convert to a production well.

The District financed and continues to this day to sell water from the Pebble Beach Reclamation Project which created over 800 AF of recycled water, thereby releasing a like amount of potable water for other uses.

The District brought a 3,400 AF desal project which was rejected by voters in 1993 – the District was ready to go.

The District brought a 24,000 AF dam project which was rejected by voters in 1995 – the District was ready to go.

The Aquifer Storage and Recovery projects were developed by the District and will produce over 1,900 AF of water annually on average.

The District, since its inception in 1978 has spent $49.5 million on capital projects and $65.3 million on Conservation and Mitigation (see attached.) The mitigation activities are required by law under several permits and CEQA decisions to offset the deleterious effects of Cal-Am water extractions from the Carmel River.

REFERENCE:
Measure O: Initiative takes aim at public buy-out of Cal Am's Monterey system
Conflicting views on proposed takeover's cost, benefits
By Jim Johnson, 05/05/2014

MEASURE O Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, "Shall the ordinance, Measure 0, which directs the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to adopt a policy to move toward public ownership of all water systems within its boundaries by conducting a feasibility study, and if deemed feasible, move forward with acquisition of all such water systems' assets, be adopted?"

ABSTRACT:  MEASURE O Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, "Shall the ordinance, Measure 0, which directs the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to adopt a policy to move toward public ownership of all water systems within its boundaries by conducting a feasibility study, and if deemed feasible, move forward with acquisition of all such water systems' assets, be adopted?" is presented. IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY COUNTY COUNSEL and ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE O, REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE O and ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE O, REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE O pages from the VOTER GUIDE, Statewide Primary Election, June 3, 2014, are reproduced in an embedded document.  And AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SYSTEM LOCAL OWNERSHIP AND COST SAVINGS INITIATIVE document is embedded.

Measure O MPWMD June 3, 2014

VOTER GUIDE, Statewide Primary Election, June 3, 2014 Document
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY COUNTY COUNSEL and
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE O, REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE O and
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE O, REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE O

Mpwmd Ordinance Local Ownership and Cost Savings Initiative

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SYSTEM LOCAL OWNERSHIP AND COST SAVINGS INITIATIVE

ADDENDUM:

BEST EDITORIAL ON MEASURE O
The Weekly's Editorial Board
O Boy Yes on Measure O: It’s time to find out if public ownership is feasible.
Posted: Thursday, May 8, 2014 12:00 am

PUBLIC WATER NOW
The Ballot Initiative

NO ON O
It’s a Risk We Cannot Afford

‘Learn from Felton: No on O!’ TV Ad & PUBLIC WATER NOW: ‘The Truth About Felton,’ Food and Water Watch: ‘An Overview of the Successful Public Purchase of the Felton Water System,’ Fact Sheet, November 2013

ABSTRACT: The recent “No ON O” TV ad (32-seconds) featuring Beth Hollenbeck, Felton Resident & Teacher, is featured. In the ad/video, Beth Hollenbeck claims “WATER RATES ARE UP 60%” and she is “PAYING ALMOST $13,980 MORE IN PROPERTY TAXES” due to the successful 2005 public water takeover vote in Felton. However, “In 2008, at the request of Felton households, the San Lorenzo Valley Water District purchased the Felton water system from California American Water. American Water and other companies have tried to distort this successful public purchase to undermine other local buyout efforts.1 Communities should not heed these corporate scare tactics. Felton has benefited from local, public control of its water services, ” according to PUBLIC WATER NOW: The Truth About Felton and Food and Water Watch: An Overview of the Successful Public Purchase of the Felton Water System, Fact Sheet, November 2013.

Learn from Felton: No on O!
Risk We Cannot Afford
Published on Apr 30, 2014
A 2005 public water takeover in Felton has led to increased water bills and property taxes. Don't make the same mistake in Monterey - vote no on Measure O. www.riskwecannotafford.com

ADDENDUM:
San Lorenzo Valley Water District

PUBLIC WATER NOW: The Truth About Felton

An Overview of the Successful Public Purchase of the Felton Water System
“In 2008, at the request of Felton households, the San Lorenzo Valley Water District purchased the Felton water system from California American Water. American Water and other companies have tried to distort this successful public purchase to undermine other local buyout efforts.1 Communities should not heed these corporate scare tactics. Felton has benefited from local, public control of its water services.”

Felton Households Are Saving Hundreds of Dollars a Year With Public Control
“Public ownership saved a Felton household about 30 percent, or $500, in 2011.”

Felton Households Have Control Over Their Water Rates and Service

Felton Households Overwhelmingly Supported the Public Purchase

Water Corporations May Try To Inflate the Value of Their Water System

Source: An Overview of the Successful Public Purchase of the Felton Water System,’ Fact Sheet, November 2013, Food & Water Watch

REFERENCES:

An Overview of the Successful Public Purchase of the Felton Water System, Food & Water Watch, Purchase of the Felton Water System, November 8th, 2013

ADDENDUM:

Food & Water Watch

November 4th, 2009
American Water

Food & Water Watch

Case Studies
November 4th, 2009
Montara, CA

November 4th, 2009

Monterey, CA

Food & Water Watch

July 12th, 2012
Water Municipalization Guide
How U.S. Communities Can Secure Local Public Control of Privately Owned Water and Sewer Systems

MINUTES, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, January 29, 2014

ABSTRACT: Re: GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT, 16. Update on Development of Water Supply Projects, Stoldt restated several points outlined in the staff report on this item. He also announced that a draft version of the water rate relief bond legislation was distributed that morning for review by the California State Office of Legislative Counsel.

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
	16.	Update on Development of Water Supply Projects

Re:  ACTION ITEMS – 21. Consider Action to be Taken with Respect to Public Water Now Initiative Petition, The Water Management District’s Elections Official, Arlene Tavani, certified to the Board that the petition submitted by Public Water Now was sufficient. Certification was based on Monterey County Elections Department’s examination of the petitions, verification of signatures, and subsequent communication dated January 21, 2014, stating that the initiative petition contained 135% of signatures of qualified voters needed.

Byrne offered a motion to adopt Resolution No. 2014-02 to immediately order that the ordinance included in the Public Water Now initiative petition that calls for an investigation into the feasibility of public purchase of Cal Am be submitted to the voters without alteration. The motion was seconded by Markey and adopted unanimously on a vote of Byrne, Markey, Thayer Pendergrass and Potter. Directors Brower and Lewis were absent.

On a motion by Markey and second of Thayer, the timeline for review and submittal of arguments related to the ballot measure (submitted by staff at the meeting) was adopted unanimously on a vote of Byrne, Markey, Thayer, Pendergrass and Potter. Directors Brower and Lewis were absent.

The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) George Riley, representing Public Water Now, expressed support for adoption of Resolution No. 2014-02. He stated that public ownership would result in a lower cost water supply. (2) Rick Heuer spoke in support of adoption of Resolution No. 2014-02. He stated that an election would provide an opportunity for public discourse on the drawbacks of public ownership. (3) Eric Sabolsice, Director of Operations for California American Water, stated that the company is not for sale. He expressed support for adoption of Resolution No. 2014-02. He described the Public Water Now initiative as a distraction to development of a water supply project. (4) Nelson Vega, Vice President of the Commercial Property Owners Association, expressed support for adoption of Resolution No. 2014-02. According to Mr. Vega, it cannot be said that public agencies operate more efficiently than private entities. (5) Bill Hood stated that if a ballot measure calling for purchase of Cal-Am is approved by the voters, costs for low and middle income rate payers will be controlled because the CPUC would not be involved in rate setting. (6) John Narigi, Co-Chair of the Coalition of Peninsula Businesses, referenced a letter dated January 24, 2014 (on file at the District office) recommending that the Board of Directors adopt a resolution calling for an election on public ownership of Cal-Am, because the voters would be responsible to pay for a feasibility study on the purchase of Cal-Am facilities. (7) Sam Teel, Chair of the Monterey County Hospitality Association, expressed agreement with comments made by John Narigi. (8) Michael Behr stated that public ownership of Cal-Am would provide an opportunity for local control, and the incentive for profit would be eliminated. (9) Doug Wilhelm, representing Public Water Now, stated that 85 percent of the population of the United States is served by public water. According to a market survey completed by Public Water Now, three out of four people who had an opinion expressed support for local control of the water supply by the Water Management District. (10) Tom Rowley, representing the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, recommended that if the Board voted to place the Public Water Now initiative on the June 3, 2014 ballot, it should keep an open mind and let the public hear all the issues before they cast a vote. (11) Kevin Stone, representing Monterey County Association of Realtors, referenced a letter to the Board dated January 29, 2014 (on file at the District office) requesting that the Public Water Now initiative be submitted to the voters. He stated that the Association of Realtors is opposed to public ownership of Cal-Am. (12) Harvey Billig, member of Public Water Now, asked the Water Management District to analyze Cal-Am rates and determine what percentage of the rates collected are utilized locally. (13) George Brehmer expressed support for adoption of Resolution No. 2014-02. He spoke in support of public ownership of Cal-Am. (14) Stan Dursa stated that the cost of a feasibility study on the purchase of Cal-Am may be higher than originally anticipated.

21.	Consider Action to be Taken with Respect to Public Water Now Initiative  Petition
		Action:  The Board will consider adoption of Resolution 2014-02   calling for an election within the MPWMD boundaries on June 3,  2014, as specified in the Public Water Now Initiative Petition.   The petition requests that the District submit to the voters a  proposed Ordinance that adds Rule 19.8 to the District Rules  and Regulations and requires the General Manager, within  nine months of Rule’s effective date, to complete a Feasibility  Analysis and Acquisition Plan for the acquisition, long-term  ownership, and management by the District of Cal-Am’s assets.   If the Plan concludes acquisition is feasible, the District shall, as  soon as practicable, take all necessary and proper actions  consistent with its powers under District Law and Eminent  Domain Law to acquire Cal-Am’s water system assets.
		Ø  MPWMD presentation
		Ø  Supplemental Recommendations for Item 21   (presented by MPWMD staff)
		Ø  Letter from Monterey County Association of Realtors   (presented by MPWMD staff)
		Ø  Letter from Coalition of Peninsula Businesses   (presented by MPWMD staff)

MPWMD Final Minutes 01-29-14

Final Minutes – MPWMD Regular Board Meeting – January 29, 2014

Thomas W. Wills, Judge of the Superior Court, County of Monterey: [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT & JOINT PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE Regarding Case No. M 127 186 (Ballot Argument), Case No. M127 244(Ballot Label) and Case No. M 127 272 (Rebuttal), Measure O

ABSTRACT: On Thursday, April 3, 2014, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT and JOINT PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE, by Thomas W. Wills, Judge of the Superior Court, County of Monterey, was filed regarding Case No. M 127 186 (Ballot Argument), Case No. M127 244(Ballot Label) and Case No. M 127 272 (Rebuttal). The [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT and JOINT PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE, including ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE O, document is embedded. BALLOT LABEL AND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE O, BEFORE JUDGE'S ORDERSJ and AFTER JUDGE'S ORDERS TABLES are presented.  Monterey County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wills ruled that “the Measure O ballot title should be changed, and several ballot arguments submitted by the initiative's proponents — Public Water Now — should be stricken or edited because they were clearly false or misleading.” And “County elections officials are slated to send ballot materials to the printer on Friday,” according to reporting in The Monterey County Herald.

MEASURE O Ballot Argument, Ballot Label and Rebuttal Legal Cases

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT and JOINT PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE, including ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE O

April 3, 2014

MEASURE O

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

BEFORE JUDGE’S ORDERS                             AFTER JUDGE’S ORDERS

BALLOT LABEL

Shall the citizen-circulated initiative entitled 'Monterey Peninsula Water System Local Ownership and Cost Saving Initiative' be adopted?"

"Shall the ordinance, Measure 0, which directs the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to adopt a policy to move toward public ownership of all water systems within its boundaries by conducting a feasibility study, and if deemed feasible, move forward with acquisition of all such water systems' assets, be adopted?"

  

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE O

Vote YES on Measure 0 for lower rates and local ownership. YES means keeping the investments on the Peninsula and owning, not renting, the assets of our water system.	Vote YES on Measure 0 for lower rates and local ownership. "YES means keeping the investments on the Peninsula and owning the assets of our water system."
Local public ownership means lower rates for water. By eliminating profit, and qualifying for lower cost municipal bonds, studies show that public ownership delivers water 25% cheaper.	Local public ownership means lower rates for water.  "By eliminating profit, and qualifying for lower cost municipal bonds, a study shows that public ownership in California delivers water 20% cheaper.”
Measure 0 would bring additional jobs to the Peninsula. Cal-Am, a private New Jersey company takes more than half of its revenues out of our community. Over 20% of the money you pay goes to profit.	"Measure O could bring additional jobs to the Peninsula." "Cal-Am, a California corporation which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a private New Jersey company takes revenues out of our community."
YES means an immediate savings as public agencies operate without profit. The savings will boost our local economy. Cal-Am admits its rates will TRIPLE over six years with no accountability to you. Under Measure 0, rates would be set locally.	"YES means savings as public agencies operate without profit." The savings will boost our local economy.  "Cal-Am states its rates should increase by 41% by the end of 2018.” Under Measure 0, rates would be set locally.
Local, public ownership of water is common since water is a public resource. 85% of Americans get their water from public agencies where all decisions are local.	Local, public ownership of water is common since water is a public resource. 85% of Americans get their water from public agencies where all decisions are local.
Investor-owned utilities (lOU's} like Cal-Am are beholden to their remote shareholders, not to local ratepayers. That’s why Cal-Am was able to waste over $35 million in failed efforts to find new water and pass those increases off to you. Since 2003 Cal-Am has failed three times to produce new water. Under the current system, we take all the risk while distant shareholders reap all the reward.	"Investor-owned utilities (lOU's) like Cal-Am are beholden to their shareholders, not to local ratepayers." That’s why Cal-Am was able to waste over $35 million in failed efforts to find new water and pass those increases off to you. Since 2003 Cal-Am has failed three times to produce new water. "Under the current system, we take risk while shareholders reap reward.”
Public ownership assures long term supply reliability and controlled costs. In fact, the only success to date in developing new water sources has come from the local Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.	"Public Ownership promises long term supply reliability and controlled costs."  ‘In fact, success to date in developing new water sources has come from the local Monterey Peninsula Water Management District."
Background citations available at www.PublicWaterNow.org	Background citations available at www.PublicWaterNow.org
We pay for our water, we should own the system that delivers it. It's common sense.	We pay for our water, we should own the system that delivers it. It's common sense.
The League of Women Voters of Monterey County endorses Measure 0.	The League of Women Voters of Monterey County endorses Measure 0.
Vote YES on Measure 0.	Vote YES on Measure 0.
lsi Beverly Bean, President, League of Women Voters of Monterey County lsi Ronald T. Cohen, Managing Director, Public Water Now lsi Richard Stillwell, Local Business Owner /s/ Priscilla Helm Walton, Past President, Democratic Women of Monterey County /s/ Alan Haffa, MPC Professor	lsi Beverly Bean, President, League of Women Voters of Monterey County lsi Ronald T. Cohen, Managing Director, Public Water Now lsi Richard Stillwell, Local Business Owner /s/ Priscilla Helm Walton, Past President, Democratic Women of Monterey County /s/ Alan Haffa, MPC Professor

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Water war: Judge orders revision to Measure O ballot language, Jim Johnson, The Monterey County Herald, 04/03/14
Highlight Excerpts:
Judge Thomas Wills ruled on Thursday that the Measure O ballot title should be changed, and several ballot arguments submitted by the initiative's proponents — Public Water Now — should be stricken or edited because they were clearly false or misleading.
On the ballot title, Wills ruled that a reference to the "Monterey Peninsula Water System Local Ownership and Cost Savings Initiative" should be stricken because there was no "absolute certainty" that passage of the initiative would result in either local ownership or cost savings. Instead, the judge ordered that the title include a description of what the initiative proposes to do, requiring the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to adopt a policy that all water systems within its boundaries should be publicly owned, and to conduct a feasibility study and attempt to acquire Cal Am's Monterey system if it is found to be feasible.

In contrast to the ballot title, Wills said courts allow ballot arguments more leeway to include rhetoric and opinion, and let the voters decide. In that context, he ruled that many of the Measure O proponents' arguments would be allowed, including the statement that voting for the initiative would result in "lower rates and local ownership."County elections officials are slated to send ballot materials to the printer on Friday.

ADDENDUM:

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District "Water System Local Ownership and Cost Saving Initiative," Measure O (June 2014), BALLOTPEDIA