Letters to the Editor 10-3-13

Enough parks already
Editor: A grant of tax money from the county is being sought by a citizens group to purchase an eight acre parcel costing $1.5 million that lies adjacent to downtown Forestville to make it open space, meaning that it can never be built on or developed — ever. It’s a complete waste of your tax money.
I am opposed to the Forestville Open Space Grant for the following reasons:  
It eliminates a future tax base that would enable El Molino High and Forestville Elementary to stay in operation.  Both are in danger of closing due to declining enrollment.   
It’s out of scale for the town; the entire downtown commercial part of Forestville is less in acreage than this proposed “park” would be.
If there is one thing Forestville has plenty of, it is open space. Why spend your tax money to purchase what is already abundant.  
The County already owns a parcel in downtown Forestville right next to the eight acres that is under construction as a park at the entrance to the West County Trail.
Forestville has more park space than the population utilizes: Forestville Youth Park, Steelhead Beach, Riverfront Regional Park, Sunset River Beach Park, Forestville River Access (formerly Mother’s Beach) West County Regional Trail, Wohler Bridge Park.  
Wendi Flowers
Forestville
Graton rebuttal
Ms. Jane Eagle, President, Graton Community Services District (GCSD), stated in her Sept. 26 letter to Sonoma West Times & News that it is “popular” for the Sonoma County Grand Jury and “journalists” to censure Graton for the 90 percent rate increase since 2005. The concerns of the two negative Sonoma County Grand Jury reports of 2009/2010 and 2012/2013 were not about the exorbitant rate increases, but about the poor performance of the GCSD Board.
As stated in the 2012/2013 Grand Jury report, the jurors “discovered deficiencies in Board operations, including problems with Board governance, communication between the Board and ratepayers, and Board financial and management controls.”
Concerned Ratepayers were told before the last rate increase in May 2012 that the increase was necessary in order to qualify for the $6.5 million grant from the state to build a new plant.
Because the grant was awarded partly because Graton has a significant number of low income households, this statement did not make sense. When we asked whom we should contact at the state to verify that a rate increase was part of meeting the criteria for the grant, we were told by the GCSD General Manager that anyone who contacted the state should be “tarred and feathered.”
When we contacted the state, we learned that the criteria for the grant was not a rate increase but that the GCSD should show a 15 percent budgetary reserve. Instead of budgeting to create this 15 percent reserve, the GCSD Board of Directors chose to raise the rates.
When we took a closer look at the GCSD finances, we learned they paid their bookkeeper $126,000 in 2011, and discovered other surprising high costs — such as paying flaggers for the West County Trail during construction of a wall $40 per hour. Seventeen to $20 is the common rate in the county for flaggers on busy highways.
We also reviewed the contract for the General Manager and discovered that the Board had given him the right to use plant facilities for his private research and that such rights would continue five years beyond any termination of the contract.
We cannot help but question if the General Manager’s private interests in the operation of the sewer plant may have impacted the finances of the district, due to the inherent conflict of interest created in his contract.
It is an interesting tactic for Ms. Eagle to bring in other sewer districts in defense of Graton’s high rates. Graton’s ratepayers are not concerned about other districts. They are concerned that GCSD “Board members do not have a working knowledge of their roles and responsibilities,” as stated in this year’s Grand Jury report.
HolLynn D’Lil
Member, Concerned Ratepayers of Graton
Candidate for GCSD Board of Directors