fresno elections 2008

I oppose the idea. We should not give up control of fundamental city services, such as garbage, water and electricity. It is unfortunate that prior councils lacked the political will to incrementally increase rates rather than wait in order to burden us with the dramatic increases we are currently dealing with. Giving up control of basic city services means that City Hall will be unable to guarantee the quality of public services and with quality neighborhood services as my beacon, that’s a risk I will not take.

If it will decrease our bills and utilize renewable technology, then I would consider the proposal.

Depending on the amount of information available it would depend on the overall financial picture.

The City of Fresno is currently considering the creation of a new, independent public utility district. This district would cover most of Fresno. Ostensibly, this offers the opportunity to save millions of dollars for customers. It has been estimated that this new district could save taxpayers about $7.7 million over 15 years. The primary reason for reducing costs is the new district would qualify for lower, tax exempt interest rates on bond financing. Current city bonds cannot be refinanced because they have exceeded the maximum number of refinances. It is estimated that refinancing could free up as much as $138 million for new projects in Fresno.

The only salient question is how this new district would affect the city’s 600-700 utility employees. City employee representatives are obviously concerned about what will happen to the city employees affected.

In addition to the potential cost savings, the new utility district will have an independent board of directors elected by the voters of Fresno. An independent board will be more removed from the politics at city hall and provide more attention to the utility issues. I would support this new district if careful evaluation can confirm the potential costs savings and that the new district can integrate the city employees with comparable wages and benefits.

I am skeptical of this proposal. I haven’t been told a good reason why we need to create a new bureaucracy—a new administration, a new executive manager, a new board, a new set of attorneys and other professional staff-- when we already have all of those things in place with the Council and the City now. The Council just voted themselves a 44% raise and now they want to reduce their responsibilities? They are seeking to reduce their workload, and, in reality, are removing themselves from having to make unpopular political choices. Moreover, they have proposed this without having all stakeholders at the table.

This is a proposal that must go to the voters for an up-or-down vote on a ballot. Before it can go the voters the City Council must approve it and send it to the LAFCO for further consideration and approval. If approved by all the necessary agencies it will go on the ballot. This proposal came to the Council last year, at that time it was half-baked. There were still big questions that needed real answers. As a result, I opposed it and sent it back to staff to get more answers. When it comes back to Council I will make my decision based upon the facts presented and what is in the best interest of District Four and the City.

There are advantages and disadvantages in shifting the city’s public utilities into a separate municipal utility district. It isn’t known if this will actually save any money. It does put another government agency in place to do work the city is already doing. However, it will give those who don’t live in the city but are served by Fresno utilities a voice they now lack.

I support the Municipal Utility District for two very simple reasons: First, by creating a special board, the district eliminates the governmental bureaucracy and improves the quality of service. Second, it reduces the rates of our customers. So, better service at a lower rate…some things are not that difficult.

While I credit Mayor Autry for trying to think out-of-the-box, it was an idea that did not pencil out. The idea originated after the city lost the in-lieu tax battle over public utilities. The intent was to find ways to replace the $8 million lost to the General Fund. I know this to be the case because I was in the meeting when it was discussed and where this municipal utility district first came up.

The City hired an expensive consultant and came up with a recommendation that it tried to get the City Council to approve putting on the ballot.

I joined a majority of the Council when we send this proposal back to the Mayor. My concerns were based on a lack of independent review of the report, serious doubts about the assumptions that were the financial basis of the so called cost savings, the inclusion of the Solid Waste Division in the analysis, the unprecedented nature of this change, and a general lack of feedback from the public.

As I learned more I was also concerned with the creation of yet another new government agency.

While the Council majority did not say no to the idea, we needed much more information before we were ready to move forward on it. We still have not gotten any of the additional information we requested.

I am concerned about the increased cost to deliver critical services of water, sewer and waste collection. The focus on keeping costs under control with our water and waste water is a much better approach than turning it over to an unknown entity.

In terms of keeping our solid waste costs down, as a businessman, I’m a firm believer in competition as the best way to keep your cost as low as possible. We have several quality private companies that are capable of providing good economical service. As Mayor I would initiate the effort that would allow private companies to compete against the city for your business. Fresno is actually one of a small handful of cities in California that operate a city-owned solid waste operation.

I oppose this approach because the city needs to maintain control.