Mailbag: There is no reason to merge sanitation, water districts

According to an article that appeared in the Daily Pilot July 30, “Voters to have say in possible merger,” Mesa Water District board members voted on July 28 to seek “public input on the idea of merging with the Costa Mesa Sanitary District — voting to place an advisory measure on November’s ballot .” Mesa board members apparently reached this decision “after a study showed combining the two agencies could result in substantial savings for ratepayers.”

The study commissioned by Mesa Water District, “Optimal Governance Structure Study,” was discussed by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District board of directors on July 28. On July 29, the CMSD board responded to the study in a letter to Mesa Water board members. Included with the letter was a memorandum prepared by CMSD Treasurer Marc Davis. The memorandum contained Davis’s analysis of the study. The letter and the memorandum are posted on the CMSD website at cmsd.gov.

In their letter, the CMSD Board noted that Mr. Davis found “flaws” and “incorrect information” in the study. Davis noted “that an assumption [of the study] is that the new combined service area would remain unchanged.” The CMSD currently provides services to an area that is similar, though not identical, to the Mesa Water service area. Mesa Water, therefore, does not provide water service to all the ratepayers in the CMSD. It is also the case that the CMSD does not provide waste water and solid waste services to all ratepayers in Mesa Water. If the service area of a combined agency remains unchanged, there would be a special district that would not provide all services to its constituents. It makes more sense to have the service area of a combined agency serve the same constituents.”

As noted by Davis, “This would involve bringing the city of Newport Beach, the County of Orange, and the Irvine Ranch Water District to the table to discuss service areas. This would be a more difficult process, but it would be the right thing to do.”

Davis also discussed the section of the study that deals with annual savings that could be realized by a combined agency. He noted that the study indicated that in addition to a one-time savings, savings of $1 million per year would be possible. He also noted that in order to determine the annual savings the study assumes that the CMSD will issue debt in the future to fund capital improvements. What is the basis for this assumption, when, as Davis indicated, the CMSD “has never issued debt to fund capital improvement in its 72 years of existence?”

Last year, the CMSD initiated a new curbside program which provided ratepayers with an additional cart for organics only. This program is good for the environment, is on track to be in compliance with the state mandate, and it was provided at no additional cost to ratepayers.

The CMSD manages its operations according to fiscally conservative principles, such as those that benefit current CMSD ratepayers. Isn’t the path toward saving money not borrowing money in the first place?

As discussed above, and as noted by Davis, the study contains “flaws” and “incorrect information.” Voters should not be expected to make an informed decision about a merger that is based on “flaws” and “incorrect information.” This is not consistent with the idea of good government, and as such, it is inadvisable for this measure to be placed on the November ballot.

Shirley Frobes
Costa Mesa

..

Banning Ranch is a property rights issue

I write in support of the July 2016 development plan proposed by the current owners of Newport Banning Ranch. In this plan, 80% of the land will be dedicated open space, and the entire site will be cleaned up and remediated at no taxpayer expense, all on a defined schedule. The Newport Beach City Council approved an earlier plan in 2012 and remanded the matter to the California Coastal Commission.

The currently proposed plan has met with opposition by a well-meaning segment of the population.However, these opponents have offered no viable alternative plan or schedule. The property rights that protect me and all citizens, including those opposed to the current Banning Ranch plan, also protect the property rights of the current owner. To deny the current owners their property rights is to invite the future denial of the property rights of anyone.

In 2012, the Newport Beach City Council approved development plans for Newport Banning Ranch. Opponents have had at least since then to raise money to allow purchase of the land from the current owner, I am not aware that they have raised adequate funds to support a viable purchase offer, much less the significant funds adequate to clean-up and remediate the site.

Without Coastal Commission approval of the generous plan offered by the current owners, it is likely that the Newport Banning Ranch will remain an oilfield closed to the public for the foreseeable future. I have toured this gem of potentially publicly accessible space and am anxious for the day when it is cleaned up and opened to the public.

I urge the commission to approve the current plan.

Thomas R. Damiani
Newport Beach

..

This is the last chance to save Banning Ranch

If you are concerned about the new development in Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa that has been proposed or already adopted and built, you might like to focus your attention on what might be termed “the last frontier” in Orange County. On Sept. 7, the Coastal Commission will most likely seal the fate of Orange County’s last and largest piece of undeveloped coastal property: Banning Ranch.

There are a number of reasons why this property should not be developed: greatly increased traffic and pollution, existing drought conditions, the environmental concerns of disposing of 2.8 million cubic yards of toxic soil due to the more than 500 oil wells which were operating on the property at one time, ecological concerns of preserving precious coastal sage scrub, vernal pools, and the almost 100 species of birds and other precious wildlife found there, not to mention the preservation of local Native American burial grounds.

When Newport Beach amended the city’s General Plan in 2006, the voters’ intent was to make Banning Ranch a permanent open space their No. 1 priority. If acquisition of the land as open space was not possible, owners could pursue development. There was not enough time to acquire the land as open space because developers filed their project plan with the city within two weeks.

Let’s hope that the California Coastal Commission sets the record right and disallows any development on the historical Banning Ranch Property. Come early to Newport Beach Civic Center on Sept. 7 to attend the hearing, which is scheduled to start at 9 a.m., and show your support for maintaining the preservation of this last frontier.

For more information, please visit banningranchconservancy.org.

Suzanne Forster and Lynn Lorenz
Newport Beach

..

Costa Mesa can learn from Apple CEO

Here’s a switch. The CEO of the world’s most valuable and profitable company says, in effect, a business should be run more like the city that Costa Mesa used to be just six years ago.

Tim Cook, Apple Inc. chief executive officer, in a recent Los Angeles Times interview, described his business strategy. It’s logical to conclude that if Cook’s strategy were employed going forward as a governing strategy in Costa Mesa, it would return our city government to what it was before the current City Council majority took control six years ago.

Here are Cook’s words:

“I think of a traditional CEO as being divorced from customers. A lot of consumer company CEOs — they’re not really interacting with consumers. I also think that the traditional CEO believes his or her job is the profit and loss, is the revenue statement, the income and expense, the balance sheet. Those are important, but I don’t think they’re all that’s important. There’s an incredible responsibility to the employees of the company, to the communities and the countries that the company operates in, to people who assemble its products, to developers, to the whole ecosystem of the company.”

He also told The Times:

“And so I have a maybe nontraditional view there. I get criticized for it some, I recognize. But I’ve never wanted to be the stereotypical CEO. I don’t think I’d be very good at it, honestly. And I don’t think for Apple that would in the long run be good for the company. If you care about long-term shareholder return, all of these other things are really critical.”

I can imagine Cook’s strategy translated into local government terms: “There’s an incredible responsibility to the employees of the city, to the community that the government operates in, to people who support city operations, to the whole ecosystem of the city.”

Had Costa Mesa’s government of the past six years been based on Cook’s business strategy, things might have been much different. The city might not have arbitrarily issued layoff notices to half its workforce. Experienced, loyal employees might not have fled to other cities and been replaced by expensive consultants.

Further, the city’s leaders might not have sued their own police association. The debt for pensions might have prudently been reduced. And, not least, the city’s customers (the taxpaying voters) might have been listened to and not been criticized and insulted in public from the dais.

I’d be willing to bet that if Apple’s business had been run like our mayor’s “business,” Apple would not have become the world’s most valuable company.

Instead, it’s likely Apple would now be bankrupt.

Tom Egan
Costa Mesa