For current Foresthill weather go to;www.foresthillweather.com
The Foothill Inquirer
Roy West

Home Improvements

Specializing in Residential Improvements Custom Homes and Remodels since 1987

www.roywest.biz

*Doors  *Crown  *Casing  *Mantles  *Custom Woodwork
County Looking To Fill Vacancies On Charter Review Committee
Placer County is seeking applications from residents interested in serving on its County Charter Review Committee.
The committee is being created to review and evaluate the County Charter, a governing document approved by voters in 1980 that provides a level of flexibility in local decision making. The charter also contains provisions that guide the organizational structure, duties and responsibilities of elected and appointed officials.
The 2012 review committee will be composed of seven members. The five members of the Board of Supervisors will each select one review committee member. The other two committee members will be at-large public representatives selected by the board as a whole. Topics for review by the committee can come from the Board of Supervisors, other elected or appointed county officials, the committee, the public, other agencies or county employees.
Any recommendations for changes or additions proposed by the committee will go to the Board of Supervisors for review. Changes supported by the board will go to county voters for consideration. The County Charter stipulates that the board should convene a Charter Review Committee every five years. The last review committee met in 2007-08.
For an application form, call the Board of Supervisors' Office at 530-889-4010 or go to the county website for an application.  Completed applications should be delivered to the Clerk of the Board's Office in person or by mail. The office and mailing address is 175 Fulweiler Ave., Auburn, CA 95603.
Who’s Agenda Makes Sense to You?
By Tamra West,  FPUD Director
There are two sorts of people in the world. One sort throws their trash along the roadside and the
other goes along and picks it up even though it is not their mess. More often than not the “picker-uppers” do it without complaining. The “throwers” add insult to injury by throwing out more trash.
It’s equally obvious that there are two factions in this community when it comes to the FPUD and
dealing with the crisis that the District faces. And it is a crisis folks.
 
Camp 1, “the throwers” promoted Measure B which insured that the District would be under funded. They spread misinformation about the employee related expenses prior to the 2010 election.
They attacked the non-management employees. They offer no solutions. The “Author” of Measure
B stated that there are accounting maneuvers which would fund depreciation but when asked where the actual money would come from he answered at a public meeting, “That is up to this Board to figure out”. He still down cries virtually every decision that the Board makes. A local accounting business owner suggested at a public meeting that District assets should be revalued on paper in order to show a lesser need for depreciation funding. In other words, cook the books to make it look like more revenue is not needed. They promoted three candidates who ran on a “CUT, CUT, CUT” platform but who all agreed publicly after they were seated on the board that the rate increase was needed after all. The same three hired an interim general manager who had absolutely no experience in water distribution. He resigned after four months. Two of the three later voted to approve the District’s rebuttal to Measure B, (Stan Cantrell had resigned by that time after three months on the job). Eventually the other two resigned after serving less than a year of their four year terms.
Currently the “throwers” characterize everything the current Board and general manager says as a
lie and accuses us of working for special interests. According to them: “There is nothing wrong with the infrastructure; the District is over staffed; other districts pay less than we do; the Board is not transparent with the community; the Board is having secret meetings and ignored the will of the
voters and, MAKE MORE CUTS.” On the subject of rates, they say something like this, ‘The
District has plenty of revenue and does  not  need  to raise rates; by the way we should ask the Feds, the State, Placer County and PCWA for grant money to save us.’ This begs the question: If we have plenty of revenue, why do we need grant money?

Camp 2, the “picker-uppers” assert that while we don’t expect the whole system to suddenly explode, the system is aging.  Some of our pipes are 50+ years old WWII  surplus; we have 40+ year old storage tanks, (Vietnam War surplus), a 30 year old dam and conveyance system etc… Think about it; even if the whole system were installed this morning, doesn’t it seem prudent to put money away for eventual replacement?
As to staffing – four field personnel cannot possibly monitor and maintain a dam, a treatment plant, nearly 50 miles of pipe, pressure reducing stations, nearly 2,000 water meters, fill out State
mandated reports, repair the leaking old pipes, flush the system as required by law and perform a
host of other duties that most of the community never knows even takes place. Quite frankly many
essential duties are not getting done at all.
Some other Districts do pay less than we do but guess what; many of them are also in financial trouble and a little research will show you that many of them are conducting rate studies to see how to keep from going bankrupt; many also have old infrastructure, (Elk Grove Water Service has some 80 year old pipes – SACBEE.COM). Few of them have a Dam as an asset, (huge responsibility), some don’t even have their own treatment plant but buy treated water from other Districts; many of them are subsidized by huge property tax revenues from their respective Counties while FPUD receives practically nothing from Placer County. In reality it does not matter what other Districts are paying; we need to pay what it takes to run THIS District.
Please consider transparency from a Director’s perspective for a moment:  The community demands better communication; The Board tells the community that the District is in financial trouble; The “throwers” accuse the Board of lying and not being transparent. Can you see the dilemma that we are in? 
Consider this: every Board member and general manager and auditor since early 2008 has agreed
that the District needs more revenue. They disagree on many other issues but they are all in agreement, (on record, in public) on the revenue issue. Do you really think it is some sort of conspiracy?
Secret meetings? Really? They are called, “Closed door sessions” and the Board has no choice about such rules. It is interesting to note that the three 2010 electees attended closed door sessions too. In fact two of the three had private meetings with District counsel at rate-payer expense and to this day they have refused to tell even the other Board members what was discussed in those meetings. Where were the cries for “Transparency” from the “throwers” then?
Believe me; I would love to make all District information public, but if we do, we risk bringing more lawsuits against the District that we the rate-payers would foot the bill for. There is already a
lawsuit in limbo since 2008 that one group of “throwers” refuses to end costing the rate-payers
thousands.
Last December the Board did vote to reverse the prior acceptance of the terms of Measure B. Why?
Is it that we think we are above it all and have no respect for the will of the voters? No. It is because there is a bank that holds the note for the purchase of Sugar Pine Dam and just like the bank that holds the notes on our homes they need to be assured that we are being financially responsible people. There are also bond companies and State and Federal overlords that need assurance that we are going to meet our obligations. We made the decision and contacted the interested parties and showed them that we DO have a game plan; part of which was putting Measure C on the ballot to give you the rate-payers/voters the opportunity to have the final say about the future of YOUR water District.
As to revenue: yes the Board is looking at all options. Raising rates is not our only solution. Rest assured, if we can secure grants we will. We hope to develop alternate sources of revenue such as hydro-electric, downstream water sales, raw water sales, bottled water sales, singing telegrams and bake sales if that will help, but we cannot just plod along hoping that someone with deep pockets and a soft heart will dump millions of dollars in our laps.
The “throwers” call it arrogance; I call it leadership.
Think about it. Each camp has an agenda. To deny that would be childish. You must ask the question – What is the agenda of each camp? What do they hope to accomplish? Well, look at the
actions of each side. Which side is moving forward with a plan and trying desperately to allow you
to have a say in the future operations of YOUR water District? 

Which side is attacking and undermining and accusing but offering no solutions? In short, which ones are the “picker-uppers” and which ones are the “throwers?”

Finally, I offer this admission that there really is a “Special Interest Group” that the Board is serving. It is you the reader of this column. It is you the rate payer and owner of this District. It is you the voter. It is you our neighbor. It is us collectively known as the community of Foresthill. You just have to decide who you are going to believe.

Foresthill Public Utility District releases a new video, “The Situation with the Foresthill Public Utility District”
FORESTHILL, CA – In an effort to provide facts about the Foresthill Public Utility District to the local community, the FPUD has released an online video titled, “The Situation with the Foresthill Public Utility District.”
This seven minute, forty-two second video can be viewed on the FPUD website at  http://www.foresthillpud.com/video01.html
“We wanted to provide the community with some tangible facts about the district,” said Leo Havener, the district’s general manager. “It is important to get the real information as to what is happening.”
Topics covered in the video include:
•How the district’s funding problems started almost a decade ago
•Why deferred repairs and replacement on the water system has created a potential crisis today
•Why the district has been forced into a situation where it cannot operate viably and may be forced to close
This is the first in a series of videos being produced that detail the situation with the water district, how that may impact the residents of Foresthill, and how to solve these problem for the future.

“This is a new era for the district,” said Havener. “We are making our decisions open and transparent to the community. We are actively working to provide viable solutions for the future.”
The online video approach was taken to allow a way to reach community members that doesn’t require attending a public meeting or presentation.
In addition to the videos, the district has held public information meetings and the general manager has done presentations to community groups. Informational mailings have been sent.
A Community Advisory Committee of 30 Foresthill residents was formed who carefully reviewed the situation and made recommendations that are being implemented.
“Our goal is to return the Foresthill PUD back to being financially solvent,” said Havener. “Having control over our water supply is a key contributor to the quality of life here in Foresthill.”
For more information about the Foresthill Public Utility District, go to: www.foresthillpud.com.
The district is located at 24540 Main St., Foresthill, CA 95631. (530) 367-2511