RELIABLE SERVICE.
RESPONSIBLE PLANNING.
FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
The Humboldt Community Services District provides essential services that most of us rarely think about until something goes wrong.
Delivering reliable water and wastewater service requires constant maintenance, skilled employees, sound planning and continued investment in infrastructure.
I strongly support maintaining and improving that system.
Where I believe we need greater discussion is how we pay for those improvements, how quickly we place those costs on today's ratepayers, and whether we have fully examined the alternatives before making major financial decisions.
MY PRIORITIES
What I Believe HCSD Needs
Reliable Water & Sewer Service
Protect the essential services our community depends upon every day.
Fiscal Accountability
Carefully examine major expenditures, financing alternatives and their long-term impact before asking today's ratepayers to shoulder the cost.
Responsible Infrastructure Investment
Maintain and improve our aging infrastructure while planning intelligently for the next generation.
Affordability
Recognize the impact that increasing water and sewer rates can have on families, seniors and others living on fixed incomes.
Transparency & Independent Judgment
Ask questions, examine alternatives and make decisions based on the best long-term interests of HCSD ratepayers.
WHY I VOTED NO
I believe HCSD must continue investing in its water and wastewater infrastructure.
My disagreement has not been about whether we maintain and improve our system. It has been about how we pay for it and how much of that burden should be placed on today's ratepayers.
When the Board considered the most recent increases in water and sewer rates, I voted No.
I was concerned about the cumulative impact of the increases on our customers and about relying too heavily on a pay-as-you-go approach for major capital improvements that may serve the community for 50 years or longer.
I also have concerns about the substantial increase in connection fees for new homes and businesses. Those costs ultimately affect housing affordability, development and the future of our community.
Before asking today's ratepayers to carry such a large share of these costs, I believe we should carefully compare the alternatives — including grants, low-interest government loans and responsible long-term financing.
Voting No did not mean voting against our infrastructure. It meant asking whether there was a fairer and more affordable way to pay for it.
