Empanelled watchdog group calls for immediate resolution to San
Juan Bautista water grant fumble; calls the SBC water district
‘arrogant’
The San Benito Grand Jury has published a scathing report
regarding the handling of San Juan Bautista’s water project,
calling for an end to the stalemate between federal grant
co-recipients, the San Benito Water District and the City of San
Juan.
Empanelled watchdog group calls for immediate resolution to San Juan Bautista water grant fumble; calls the SBC water district ‘arrogant’
The San Benito Grand Jury has published a scathing report regarding the handling of San Juan Bautista’s water project, calling for an end to the stalemate between federal grant co-recipients, the San Benito Water District and the City of San Juan.
There might be hope for reconciliation between the two entities. Several sources close to the issue have confirmed that water district and city officials met several times during February. The upshot of those meetings is not known yet – but at least they’re meeting.
The recent pow-wows could be a result of the civil grand jury’s recommendations on the issue. The 19-member panel of county residents, empanelled to investigate community issues and problems that crop up in local government agencies, were apparently so alarmed over the issue of the suspended $3.8 million in federal grant money for the project that they came out with a special report on the controversy before finishing their entire report for all county agencies for 2005-2006.
The special San Juan report, punctuated with exclamation points and underscores, is most critical of the water district, the would-be partners with the city for the construction of a new water infrastructure project. The jury calls for a county-created oversight task force and a schedule of meetings between the two agencies.
“Actions to resolve city and district differences and mediate a solution on this matter must be taken immediately!” the report stated. “The city’s residents and businesses continue to be at risk and estimated project costs continue to escalate!”
The jury said the district has dragged its feet in negotiations with the city and has considered pulling out of the deal – a notion the grand jury finds unacceptable.
“There is no choice on the district’s part to withdraw,” the report stated. “It is their responsibility to participate. They owe it to the citizens of San Juan Bautista whom for many years, through their property taxes, have been paying the district.”
The district earmarked $3.1 million for the project, which would help provide a new wastewater treatment plant for the mission town, a reliable water supply and distribution system, land for a new municipal storage tank and overall improvements, including a new sewer main and drainage pipe replacement. The district’s contribution is a crucial part of the funding for the project, along with another $3.8 million promised by the federal Economic Development Administration. But in September, the EDA suspended the federal portion of the grant money when negotiations broke down between the city and the district. The district sent a letter to EDA grant-givers complaining that the city wanted to do the project on its own – without telling San Juan officials about the communique – and EDA officials put a hold on everything.
The jury said the district’s letter to the EDA “displayed a level of arrogance and unprofessionalism on the district’s part.”
Mark Davis, San Juan’s water and special projects manager, says the city has tried to schedule a meeting with the water district since June, but until recently, all attempts had been unsuccessful.
“The issue is whether or not the district is going to enter into substantive discussions with the city,” Davis said.
But the city is not without fault in the deadlocked issue. Former City Manager Jennifer Coile made incendiary remarks toward water officials about the issue, driving the chasm between the two agencies even wider.
The topper came when Davis and several other city council leaders traveled to Seattle to meet with EDA officials in November, ostensibly to find out if they could do the project on their own or if they had a deadline to reach an agreement with the water district. The hush-hush Seattle junket was not even revealed to the entire city council beforehand.
When they returned, none of those who went to Seattle would speak about the trip, not even when City Councilman Chuck Geiger demanded to know about it during a public council meeting. Attending citizens were outraged, and County District Attorney John Sarsfield became involved and started investigating the council on Brown Act violations. In the end, council members and Coile had to admit the trip was made and disclose the expenses they chalked up on it, but they did not talk about what they learned from the EDA. Shortly after, Coile resigned, and new City Manager Jan McClintock has vowed a new policy of public disclosure.
“My personal opinion [on the Seattle trip],” Davis said, “I think it was a mistake.”
The grand jury also took note of the city’s lack of transparency, as well as that of the water district.
“[T]he citizens of San Juan Bautista have a right to know what their local government is doing when working on a project of this nature,” the report stated. “Therefore, the city and district’s climate of non-disclosure and covertness on matters related to the project must cease.”
But what, exactly, is the beef between the county water district and San Juan officials? From reading their report and recommendations, not even the grand jury, it seems, could ascertain that.
When asked the question, Davis told The Pinnacle that the differences revolved mostly around water rate hikes. He said under the district’s proposal, it’s impossible to tell what the rate impact would be to residents. There are 700 hookups to city water and sewer currently, and most people in town are already feeling the impact of a water and sewer bill that has doubled in recent months. City officials upped the rate to start gleaning capital for the project, and besides, the rates haven’t been raised in years.
San Juan officials now are conducting a rate study, to compare their rates with Hollister’s and other nearby cities to make sure that users don’t get overcharged – or undercharged. McClintock and Davis pulled out papers showing that a new connection fee to the system, for a new home, is $825, when the average in other comparable areas is $13,500. They hope to bring their new connection fees up-to-date after the study is complete. As decrepit as the current system is, the city officials say that the current fee connection is unreasonably cheap for a new hookup.
It’s hard to believe that an eight-month impasse in the water deal was due to a refusal to talk about rate fees. But that’s the city’s side of things. The water district is still not speaking to the press. Water District Executive Director John Gregg did not return phone calls for this story, as he has not for the past several stories published by this paper on the subject.
Nonetheless, the city is preparing to move forward with the project. San Juan has secured a $500,000 line of credit from San Benito Bank, as well as $883,000 from Caltrans for the ambitious project in the town of 1,700 people. Another $125,000 to $200,000 is expected to come from PG&E for engineering costs, and the city’s water project design is 95 percent complete. The city has already submitted the plans to the Department of Health Services for review, Davis said.
“Under any scenario, the council would have to go out and secure debt financing with or without the district,” Davis said. That’s because even if the water district committed fully, city officials would still have to come up with about $2.5 million to finish the $9.5 million project, according to the jury.
The jury, in its report, insists that the city work with the district.
“[T]he City should not attempt the project on its own,” the report states. “It would cause an increased burden on the citizens of San Juan Bautista and could affect the future financial solvency of the city.”
The report adds: “They [the city] needs the water management expertise and financial support that would be provided by the district.”
As for the jury’s recommendation that the county Board of Supervisors cobble together an oversight committee to make both parties re-negotiate, Supervisor Chair Pat Loe said it isn’t likely to happen, and she is reluctant to allow the board to muck up an already precarious situation even further.
“We have 90 days to answer the grand jury,” Loe said. “But we have no power over those elected bodies. I have talked to both members of the San Juan City Council and the water district and they are talking to each other. There is dialogue.”
“The other problems and characterizations of the past ought to stay in the past,” Davis said.
