Rainbow Municipal Water District Proposition A, August 2009
From Ballotpedia
Contents |
The Rainbow Municipal Water District Proposition A was on the August 25, 2009 ballot in San Diego County for voters in the Rainbow Municipal Water District, where it was defeated.
Measure A, if it had passed, would have amended a 1995 ordinance that requires the district to obtain voter approval before it is allowed to incur large debts. Officials of the water district are seeking the change because they want to get a $25 million loan to construct reservoir covers.[1]
The question asked of voters on the ballot was, "Shall the District adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance 95-1 to authorize participation in federal and state loan assistance programs that require incurring public debt to take advantage of favorable financing terms, and not authorizing any new taxes?"
The election was held on a mail-in ballot only basis. The last day to register to vote in the election was August 10. There are about 11,000 voters in the district.
The measure was defeated.[2]
- Yes: 2,247 (47.42%)
- No: 2,492 (52.58%)
Ballot language
The question asked on the ballot was:
- "To minimize water rate increases necessary to fund utility improvements, including for the protection of drinking water reservoirs to comply with federal law, shall the Rainbow Municipal Water District adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance 95-1 to authorize participation in federal and state loan assistance programs that require incurring public debt to take advantage of favorable financing terms, and not authorizing any new taxes?” (Answer: Yes or No)"
Problems with water covers
The water district has four open-air reservoirs. State law requires the district to install covers on them. It is estimated that this work will cost $48 million. According to Dave Seymour, general manager of the Rainbow water district, the district is overdue in installing the covers. It has $20 million on hand to begin the construction project.
Seymour says that when the State of California makes low-interest loans available, the district does not have time to organize a local election to obtain voter approval during what he says is a "a small window of opportunity" allowed by the state for loan applications. According to Seymour, "The time window for the loans is, in some cases, a couple of weeks." [1]
If Proposition A wins, the water district plans to ask for $6.8 million in loans for the North and Northside reservoirs and $7 million for the Morro reservoir.[3]
Arguments against Prop A
Jack Wireman and Ron Thompson, who fought to put the limits in place that are being challenged with this new proposition, re-booted the Ratepayers Oversight Committee (ROC), which fought that battle. The reasons they gave for a "no" vote on Proposition A include:
- Wireman said, "Ordinance 95-1 has been completely successful for 14 years and produced a debt-free district; you shouldn’t abandon that."[3]
- According to Wireman and Thompson, if Prop A had passed, it would "take away the ratepayers’ rights” to decide how much debt the district will be encumbered with at any given time."[3]
- Wireman said that the water district is losing the opportunity for low-interest loans not because of the current prohibition on entering into debt with voter approval but because the district has repeatedly failed to properly plan. As examples, he mentioned:
- "On April 2, 2008, RMWD was sent an invitation to submit an application for project funding for Beck Reservoir. This invitation was a result of a prior pre-application done earlier in the year. Hence, as early as February 2008, a public vote could have been ordered."[3]
- Applications for federal stimulus money were open in February 2009 but the district's board members failed to satisfy "the requirements of 95-1 and hence, are in trouble again, this time with federal stimulus money.”[3]
- Wireman also said, "Contrary to Rainbow’s propaganda machine, the existing 95-1 provides for using low-interest money and has for the last 14 years. Consequently, Prop. A will no doubt raise water bills, as it would give absolute power to the directors to put unlimited debt on the ratepayers."[3]
- Thompson said, "A ‘no’ vote on Prop A will preserve your right to vote on all debt over $1 million. Don’t get sucked in and give a blank check for unlimited debt that we will be responsible for paying back long after current directors are replaced."[4]
Lawsuit
On July 2, 2009, Judge Thomas Nugent ruled against a legal complaint brought by two residents of the water district, Jack Wireman and Ron Thompson, who on June 24, 2009 had asked the court to remove Measure A from the ballot on the grounds that the language of the ballot measure contains "vague and misleading language."[1][5]
Wireman and Thompson were behind the 1995 ordinance that the water district is now seeking to alter. The 1995 measure, according to its supporters, was put in place to ensure that the district acts in a financially accountable way.
Their attorney, Everett DeLano, said in his briefs to the judge, "The argument in favor of Measure A contains two false and misleading statements. The impartial analysis contains four false and misleading statements. And the measure as a whole is so vague that it really isn't a proper subject for an initiative in the first place."[1]
External links
- Sample ballot
- Election details from the San Diego Registrar of Voters
- Website of the Rainbow Municipal Water District
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 North County Times, "Rainbow water district ballot measure challenged in court", June 28, 2009
- ↑ The Village News,"Rainbow Water's Prop A defeated with close finish," August 25, 2009
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 The Village News, "Rainbow Water’s Prop. A likely to be a battle to the ballot box", July 16, 2009
- ↑ The Village News, "Don’t give RMWD a blank check", July 16, 2009
- ↑ North County Times, "Challenge to water district measure dismissed", July 7, 2009
