Los Osos needs to reevaluate water rates
May 12, 2017
OPINION by DOUG SCHEEL
The proposed Los Osos Community Service District (LOCSD) water rate increase is a heartless devastating plan to the citizens of Los Osos. Effective in June, if unchallenged, is a water rate increase of 298 percent for the most conservative water users. For water users who use the most water, it is only an increase of 133 percent.
That is the first problem with the proposed increase; for a water board that states they encourage water conservation, they are financially rewarding the worst conservators.
The reasons justifying this unrealistic increase, Los Osos citizens have been conserving too much water and they are not making enough to cover expenses. Also, there is a vague section about changes to administrative costs and reallocations of property taxes.
Well, I call it just poor planning when you fiscally enforce water rationing, and then complain people are doing such a good job rate increases are need. Like it was not possible to foresee revenue would go down when you sell less water? A plan should have been in place to address this reduction before conservation was enforced.
Administrative expenses have been increasing for the LOCSD in the last five years their annual budget postings show a 148 percent increase in salaries for the LOCSD water district (Fund 500), the largest expense of administrative costs. And reallocating property taxes; it is hard to understand shuffling money away from the LOCSD water district, when there is almost nothing else LOCSD does, other than support the expensive of the LOCSD board.
It is time to start over and work on a reasonable water rate increase plan that helps the citizens of Los Osos.
Doug Scheel is a 25 year resident of Los Osos who retired last year.
The comments below represent the opinion of the writer and do not represent the views or policies of CalCoastNews.com. Please address the Policies, events and arguments, not the person. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling is not. Comment Guidelines