Below is one portion of the Community Services District's "Candidates Night" meeting Thursday. Here are links to the other sections:
- Candidate introductions
- Question: What is the role of a CSD director and how much time are you willing to give?
- Question: How do you handle squeaky wheels?
- Question: Your top three issues?
- Audience questions
- Candidate closing statements
Bob Kjome: You all did well on that. We will open it up now for the audience. Is there anybody that would like to ask a question? And if you do, please step up to the microphone, state your name and your address, and go ahead and fire away.
Jeff Kohlhardt: My name is Jeff Kohlhardt. I've lived here three years although I've been active in the community since '86. First of all I'd like to thank each and everyone of you that is here tonight for this interview process and putting in your time and your effort to make sure that this community is a better place to live in. So, thank you very much. The question I have is, if I can read my own writing here, how did you describe yourself? Are you more a ... I thought we'd just go around here. Are you more of a builder of more ideas, are you a black and white resolver of current issues, or do you work towards a middle ground?
Bob Kjome: Just a point of clarification, after we've all listened to these, the intent of this is you to ask the question to an individual, specific individual. Is there anybody you'd like to direct that question to, specifically?
Jeff Kohlhardt: I'll direct that to Linda Butler.
Linda Butler: Go through it one more time.
Jeff Kohlhardt: How would you describe yourself? Are you a builder of new ideas, are you a black and white resolver of current issues, or do you work towards a middle ground?
Linda Butler: I'm looking for the middle ground. I think that especially in a diverse community like this, there's always going to be issues, and not everybody is going to agree. So you have to deal with what the issue is, understand it, and then try to find a resolution or communicate with the person who's presenting the issue, or the people who are presenting the issue, and work on a solution.
Bob Kjome: Thank you, thank you. Okay, any further questions from the audience? Madame Ferraro.
Betty Ferraro: Thank you, I didn't know you spoke French. Betty Ferraro. I have several questions that I'll ask to various ones or I am I allowed only to ask one question?
Bob Kjome: You can ask questions directly to individual candidates.
Betty Ferraro: But I can ask more than one?
Bob Kjome: I can cut you off if you keep going too long. You'll be fine.
Betty Ferraro: Five questions? You shortened my life (laughing). Okay, first one to Mr. Jenco. How many board meetings and community meetings have you attended this year and why did you attend?
Randy Jenco: I have not attended any meetings this year.
Betty Ferraro: And why didn't you attend them? Since you didn't attend, why didn't you attend?
Randy Jenco: I have a full-time job, but I would also say that if I'm elected I will never miss a meeting. I never missed an RMA meeting. And I will be here full time.
Betty Ferraro: Okay. Next one, Linda, I'm going to ask you. How do you think CSD should participate in the evacuation plan developed by the community being held October the 24th at the RMA Building at 6 o'clock?
Linda Butler: How do I think CSD should participate?
Betty Ferraro: Yes, they've been invited to be participants.
Linda Butler: They don't participate in it already?
Betty Ferraro: They're asked to be a participant. But how do you feel that they should participate? In other words, what do you think should be on the agenda that they're presenting?
Linda Butler: Who's presenting the agenda? I'm sorry, I'm confused.
Betty Ferraro: Okay, maybe I need to educate the board. The present meeting on October 24th is going to be a town hall meeting. It is about the evacuation plan of our community in case of a fire or a flood that we would have to leave. The RMA and CSD have joint ownership in this. They are asking at the October 24th meeting that the community give input into that evacuation plan. How would you feel, if you are elected, how would you feel that CSD, as a representative, would participate in making up an evacuation plan?
Linda Butler: CSD in conjunction with RMA, since they're both involved, should be very specific about what the evacuation plan is. And that information should be distributed to the community before the meeting.
Betty Ferraro: Okay, this is to gain information, not to make a decision that night. It's to gain the community's information that they feel is important.
Linda Butler: But there is a plan in place.
Betty Ferraro: No, it's developing.
Linda Butler: Well then you've got to listen to what people need and what they have to say.
Betty Ferraro: It is an evacuation plan. They listen and security because it is for the safety of the community. It is not just security, meaning our friends here, that present security. It's not to point that security needs to do blah, blah, blah. It is how would we make a plan for the community to know how to evacuate.
Tim Maybee: Bob, can I just interject real quick? I'm sure this goes for everybody that's currently on the CSD board or anybody that's running. There are two agencies that oversee evacuations in this district. That's Metro Fire and Sacramento County Sheriffs. So at the end of the day, whatever the district comes up with, it's got to dovetail into those two agencies' specific evacuation plan. So we're a little ahead of ourselves here. I understand the question, Betty, but the district can't come up with any type of evacuation plan. We can have some guidelines but the two all-risk agencies have to be on board. Because the expectations to the Security chief has to be very clear. And it's not going to come at this level. It's actually going to come from the all-risk agencies, Sacramento County Sheriff's office and Sac Metro Fire.
Betty Ferraro: And my next question is, if elected, what policy changes would you hope to make in security? And I'll go to Mr. Pohll.
Martin Pohll: Well I think the security seems to be in flux right now. And CSD has been telling the public about that they're just going observe and report. The other side of security is the gate function. I don't see many issues with the gate function at all. So, with regard to policies, I would get back to the budget because the CSD is saying they don't have money for security. But actually the last two budgets, or the last budget shows excess income, just overall. May not be true, I don't know. But it shows it.
Betty Ferraro: I know what you're looking at.
Martin Pohll: So, I would try to set a policy for the patrol people to, number one, coordinate their issues with RMA. That's where most of the work goes on. I would make sure that they're both on the same pages to what their goals are. And then I would try to use some technology with regard to solving problems instead of using manpower. Lastly I would try to allocate resources based on the current issues of the time. So I think there's room for CSD to do a better job with the amount of money that they have. I'm not in favor of increasing the tax. That's probably not even feasible. So I think that's my quick answer.
Jerry Pasek: Let me comment on that a bit. Security tax provides x dollars. Those x dollars must be used for security, and no matter what additional funding becomes available for water or drainage or sewage, it cannot be used for security purposes, by law.
Martin Pohll: I understand, but the security budget actually shows a profit. That's what I'm saying. I've got it if you want to see it.
Jerry Pasek: Pretty tiny, I would think.
Martin Pohll: It's tiny. It's not comparable to four hundred thousand (dollars), but there is a limited budget, no doubt. I don't disagree.
Betty Ferraro: Last question, and Mr. Maybee, I will ask you. Do you believe CSD should increase the size of Calero to ensure that there is adequate water for drought and development?
Tim Maybee: I think a couple of things. I think, one, when we're talking about the EDU's, the amount of water that the community has today, future development, the current developing group, Murieta North, has probably saved more EDU's than anybody else could ever. They had 1,144 at maximum build out, just on their development. I don't know if we'll even see five, six, seven hundred. So we know we're already saving from what the master plan build out has. Just with that development.
Specific question is, are we going to expand that? I would have to look at the numbers and have something done by an engineer that can estimate before you even go into it. If we go back in time, a general manager that was hired by the board, that was here for a very short time, one of his big things was he was going to dig out Calero, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The reality is the cost effectiveness is just not there.
Betty Ferraro: Plus CSD doesn't own the land. RMA owns the land.
Tim Maybee: CSD owns the water.
Betty Ferraro: Yes, and RMA owns the land.
Tim Maybee: So, that's where, again, I would say ... well, I said my answer.
Betty Ferraro: And Ron, my last question. I'm not asking questions to the already incumbents because they already have the answers. That would not be fair. So, I'm asking of the people that are candidates other than them. And so, Ron, the question to you is how do you feel piping recycled water to Stonehouse Park before new sites get recycled water? And why I'm saying that is that, under the plan, if you have purple pipe in the new development you are to get recycled water. You follow what I'm saying?
Ron Amarante: I think so. I haven't been here that long to get into the water issues like this.
Betty Ferraro: Okay, that's fine. That's a good answer.
Ron Amarante: I don't think I can answer that, with an honest and viable answer.
Betty Ferraro: You're being honest. I like that. Thank you for listening.
Ron Amarante: Okay, thank you.
Linda Butler: Just quickly, it's really not a question of feelings, it's a question of information. And I think we have to have the information before we can make any kind of decisions about that.
Bob Kjome: Thank you. Further questions from the audience?
Jim Crowder: Randy, just one question for you. Have you read the CSD water assessment study. If yes, do you have a concern or questions about it? If no, why not?
Randy Jenco: I did read it when it came out. My memory isn't that great. It's been awhile, but I believe what's in it. I don't have any concerns about the assessment and the summary.
Jim Crowder: And what year did it come out, again?
Randy Jenco: I don't know.
Jim Crowder: Okay, thank you.
Gary Dean: First a comment and then a question I'd like to direct. I've only been here since February. And we had difficulty locating our sewer line to drain our swimming pool. And one of the CSD guys, the supervisors, came out and took care of that problem, even though he was in alligator swamp on other issues. And I appreciated that. I just want to say that to those who work for them.
My question is, probably the only thing that being here so short of a time that really is important to me, is the budget. What are my costs as an individual homeowner going to look like over the next five years with the current plans, assuming there is developers and assuming there aren't any developers? I understand the concept that developers come in and pay for a lot of this. But what if we don't do any developing, that largely this board seem to be talking about? What's going to happen to keep what we have going? Because it seems that I'm paying pretty cheap compared to where I've lived elsewhere. Okay, I'm not sitting here saying, hey, we need to raise it big. But we also don't need to be so tight that we squeak when we walk. So, I'm going to direct this at Morrison, since you're on the board. So you can probably tell me what the projections and the views are that ... and then hopefully other people have comment about what they're bringing to the table in response to what you say.
Morrison Graf: So, the issue of, going forward, is you're an existing homeowner and the concern is, okay, with development going on we're talking about large expenditures for reclaimed water, and for the water treatment plan, and all this. You have to understand within the state and obviously, by requirement, within our organization, development has to pay for its own infrastructure cost. So that's the thing. The existing homeowners are not paying for a lot of this new development. That is indeed done by the developer.
Now, when there is a joint-use situation, there will be a shared cost. So, if we now have to expand the recycling system for the new development, that's on the developer. But as you get into the nitty gritty, when you get into our central plant area, there are upgrades and expansions that are happening.... It's again, replacement of aging infrastructure. We're taking an old, small tank and replacing it with a bigger and new tank in those cases. So there is a certain amount of shared costs associated. But it's very definitively described, and in fact, we get outside accountant types to review what's going on as to how these costs are split. So even though there is new development going on, the existing homeowner is not having to pay for all these expensive projects that are handling just the development. But they will pay proportionate share for anything that's deemed in use by new homeowners and old homeowners.
Gary Dean: Okay, I'm not sure that I got quite the answer I'm trying to fish for. Not in the sense that I have a pre-set answer on it, getting the information. If there isn't a great amount of development, it just plods along. Okay, and we have aging equipment, that's expensive. What's going to happen to my monthly fee?
Morrison Graf: So that's, in a discussion about reserves, that is the managing thing that is happening. Essentially, you are ... as we pay our bills, we actually are paying more than what today's costs are. Because there's money that's going into accounts that is there for the times that the water lines break, the pumps need to be replaced, when we had the huge flooding that's happened recently, we had several pumps that were inundated and jammed because of things floating down the river and sand getting in. Those had to be repaired.
So there are ... That, done properly, that management such that over time, you will see a steady increase as labor costs go up, material costs go up, things like that. But, very different, that's part of what the manager here is doing and the board is overseeing, is looking at are we properly reserving monies for this future work? Because all equipment has a lifetime. It has to be replaced.
Maintenance is something that is an ongoing, as an operational thing. But when we have to replace these things, that's the purse, that's the account for the rainy day, quite literally for us, the rainy day account for when we have these problems. You will see over time a gradual increase, but you should not see catastrophic jumps just because no development is here.
Gary Dean: I hope if somebody disagrees with that they'll speak up.
Mike Martel: I'm going to jump on the money question for a second because I have a difference of opinion. Martin, to me, brought up the same issue I brought up four years ago that there is $400,000 in excess money. I'm going to ask a question to the board and they can answer it. When we did a study and there is excess money every year for the last 12 years that I calculated to be about $3,500,000 that did not go as (into) the reserves, but went into different projects just before the budget year ended and also included raises to the employees. If we look at the history of CSD, we've raised rates every year except one for the last 20 years. The cost of living here is going out of what I think are reality, so I have a little difference with you, Morrie. You kinda caught that a little bit.
What I want to know is when we stop raising rates. I agree with you about development, but if you look at reserves, just a new plant, not only do we have excess income, we've raised rates every single year, we've also put a rate increase to pay for the portion of the water plant is $6 a month.
All the calculations say at the time that the life expectancies of the reserves, we'll be funded for it. So the question to the board is: Is financial stability for not raising rates a key to anybody on this board?
That's how it's been. (General Manager Mark Martin) spent over $60,000 on the study for open space. He did that, not the board. The changes in security was his decision, and not the board's, according to Jerry, so when is the board going to look at the ratepayers and see if there's a break for ratepayers?
Bob Kjome: You need to address it to an individual.
Mike Martel: I'll start with you, Martin. Is that important to you?
Martin Pohll: I think it looks wrong to have an excess revenue at the end of the year's budget. It looks wrong. I think the better way is to figure out what your reserves really need to be, and add some money to the budget for that and make the other ones, the other systems pay for themselves and budget to zero. If you can make a case for that you need more reserves, then make it, but don't upset the rates so that you're not going going to get $400,000 at the end of the year. That seems wrong.
Granted, it's not so easy to figure out what the real reserves ought to be. I think there needs to be some studies done to see what the condition of some of these elements really are and then set the reserves based on that. It's not an overnight process to do that, but at least you can start the process so you know that your budgets are reasonable. When you look at that $6 million budget and see $400,000, somebody set the budget wrong, I thought.
Mike Martel: I agree with what Morrie said. What happened was when we got to the drought and we didn't a rain, we had to take a lot of motor power and pump it into the lake a lot faster so we did have the impacts of the drought. So that was a cost of about $50,000 I think was not projected in my costs. If you look at the past practices and you start looking at June and July, you start seeing projects approve that is not been scheduled and not been and we're spending money and it's a way to raise rates again without doing the fiscal stuff. Does anybody want to put the ratepayer first? That's my question really.
Randy Jenco: I think the ratepayer absolutely has to come first, but I have a question for you, Mike. You did mention the reserves, but I didn't follow ... You were saying at some point that they're going to be 100 percent?
Mike Martel: Look at the water plant. Our share of the water plant was $4,200,000 equally against the developer from the South, the developer from the North, and the current residents there. Everybody had to put $4,200,000 into the pot. We got their 4, we got their 4, we took our $4 million out of the reserves that we had and we're putting it back in because we charged everybody the $6 rate increase every single month. We raised our dues on top of raising our dues to put the money back in reserves so when 50 years from now when we have to buy another water plant, the money's in there to do that stuff.
I agree with Maury about having the right reserves, but we have excess income all the time. Mr. Martin gave a 6 percent raise going back two years. I keep on getting my rate ... and everybody's guilty of this. The Country Club's guilty of this, the RMA's guilty of this, and all three entities keep on raising rates. Personally, for me, I can afford to live here and I can afford the raise, but I think we're not being efficient with our money. I really don't. So, I want to know if somebody's got a financial ... Is that a priority to them to save the ratepayers money?
Randy Jenco: Well, I think it is, Mike, but Marty hit the nail on the head with you gotta have the reserves first. You can't put this on your children to come in here and fix something that you haven't put the reserves in for. I heard what you said about spending money on projects, but until you figure out what you really need to put into reserves, you don't know if you've got enough money or not. When that's done, and if the $400,000 per year is enough to fund your reserves, then I say yeah. There's no reason for rate increase. But you don't know yet.
Mike Martel: I think whoever gets on the board, you look at reserves. I think you're gonna see, other than security a little bit, it needs a boost then to it. But I think everything else is funded pretty, pretty well. That kinda stuff there. I just want, whoever wins the election, I want them to consider the ratepayer. I want us to not raise rates if we don't have to.
Bob Kjome: Thanks, Mike.
Jerry Pasek: Let me comment a little bit on that. The government codes require how the funding here is handled. So when you develop the budget, you kind of have to anticipate the degree of overtime, the type of unanticipated expenses that are going to come through, et cetera, et cetera. They have to have it covered because you really can't go into the negative for any of the funds.
Mike Martel: Ten years in a row.
Jerry Pasek: I'm saying they're always developing it on a very conservative basis and that's how they wind up with what they're at.
Mike Martel: $3.5 million got voted into the dues –
Bob Kjome: OK, this is candidates night. We're not going to debate issues. Thank you. OK. Anybody else want to come up?
Linda Klein: I'm Linda Klein. Three of you have stated that you have no agenda. Either tonight, you've said that or you've said it in your voter guide statement. I'd like to ask Randy to speak for the three of you, if you have no agenda, why are you running advertising together. What unites you?
Randy Jenco: I can't speak for them, Number One. Number Two is, we were on the RMA board together and we feel like we turned that board around and we did a hell of a job. That's why we're running together.
Linda Klein: And why Tim included in that?
Randy Jenco: Tim was on the board with us. The three of us were on the RMA ...
Linda Klein: You feel your past performance on the RMA board is what unites you.
Randy Jenco: We feel like we work well together and we've had some success in the past.
Linda Klein: Okay. Thank you.
Gary Dean: I'm up here again. I probably don't have to introduce myself.
Bob Kjome: That's okay. Yes, you don't.
Gary Dean: This is for ... is it Morrison? How would you work to build consensus between RMA, the developers, CSD and SOLOS. Can you be specific?
Morrison Graf: Well, getting back to the issue of transparency, communication ... It's combined meetings. There was actually, as part of the process, the county recommended a stakeholders meeting. That point in time, the county presented the developer's plans as they currently were, which was kind of the prior version to what's currently being looked at. But, I thought is was actually very successful series of meetings because each entity got to get up and talk about what their concerns were, what their needs were, what their requirements were.
Obviously, a lot of what we were doing was talking about is this is what we have to do. When these plans come in, these are the things we are looking at because we have to address the impact of development on our infrastructure. For us, actually, that's pretty clear compared to some of the societal issues that the development is going to bring within our community. So, it's really, I think, it's just communication. That's getting together, sometimes with alcohol, to just get the conversations going. I think the more we understand what is concerning the other person, it gives us a better understanding, potentially leads to that compromise solution that everybody can walk away in a win-win situation instead of ... It's not all one. It's not all the other.
But, you really can't get to that without having those discussions. There was an effort for a while to have a discussion between the Country Club, CSD was represented, the developer, SOLOS was involved in that, to talk about what are some of the options. That wasn't successful at that time, but I think the benefit of that is now all the sides kind of understand there are some potential options. This planning effort continues down the process, there might be more incentive for some of these other options that have been discussed. I think that was a great thing to do, just to get the parties to talk and explain why they were concerned. Hopefully solutions will come out.
Bob Kjome: Thank you, Morrie. Further questions from the audience?
Richard Gehrs: This is actually a question that I'd like to ask of everybody, but I'll just pick one person randomly I guess. Why would anybody in Murieta Village want to vote for you? Like I said, I'd like to ask everybody, but let me choose Randy.
Randy Jenco: Well, I think I've said that I am concerned with people outside of the RMA boundaries. My number one concern is that the tax payers are getting their money's worth. I think that's what I'd probably be concerned with if I was living in the Village – make sure that you get your services and they're good and efficient and you're not paying too much for them.
Bob Kjome: Thank you. I'll allow anyone else to comment if you'd like.
Tim Maybee: I'll answer that. Specifically when I was on the board with Randy and Martin, we did meet with the folks from the Village about access into RMA, what the perceptions were, what was reality, and what was possible. That started that conversation all the way to the point where the current RMA board most recently had a meeting, and if I'm not mistaken, your entire homeowners association board has changed. Now there is a working relationship with RMA and your HOA. So, that's just an example of what the three of us have done. You asked the questions to Randy. I would answer that's why you should vote for him or Martin.
Bob Kjome: Anyone else wish to comment no that question?
Jerry Pasek: The last time we talked to the Villages, they had an issue and demand for security cameras, exit in particular, and that's still being worked.
Richard Gehrs: May I ask one other question?
Bob Kjome: Yes, sir.
Richard Gehrs: Linda, can I ask you what your position is on CSD purchasing the Country Club?
Linda Butler: That was one of the potential things that Morrie was talking about. I'd like to see it revisited. I'd like to see it become a live issue again. I'd like to see the community address the needs.
Richard Gehrs: Do you think it's reasonable for CSD to purchase the Country Club? It's a reasonable option?
Linda Butler: I think it's a possible option.
Bob Kjome: Thank you, sir. Step on up.
Kathleen Westwood: Hi, my name's Kathleen Westwood. I've lived here for one year. I just need something clarified for me because a lot of this is new to me. When you speak of development, and I will ask this of Linda. Are you speaking of what's proposed over by, I believe, Lake Calero, or is that including the commercial development over here?
Linda Butler: Does not include the commercial development over here.
Kathleen Westwood: So that's strictly the tract development.
Linda Butler: That's what's affected. The tracts.
Kathleen Westwood: Proposed new tracts. All right, thank you.
Linda Butler: Separate issue.
Bob Kjome: Thank you.
Cheryl McElhany: Hi. I'm Cheryl McElhany. I have a question for Linda Butler. Linda, I'm so happy that we have a woman running for this board. I'm going along with what the governor just signed and all public corporations now have to have a woman on their board. I don't think that trickles down to CSD quite yet, but would you address why you think it's important? Because I think it's darn important.
Linda Butler: I think, as a woman, certain issues or perceptions are dealt with differently. I believe that there's opportunity for the community to identify with a woman's point of view. It may not be different than the male point of view, or it may be. I think that the opportunity to converse and address through a woman on the board would be really helpful.
Morrison Graf: Our pioneer on that, Betty, is sitting in the back of the room, right?
Bob Kjome: Any questions from the ...
Larry Shelton: Larry Shelton. I've got two other RMA board members here that spoke, I've got to say something.
Tim Maybee: Don't bring up midge flies, Larry, okay, please?
Larry Shelton: Oh, darn. You know that's my favorite subject.
Tim Maybee: I know, I'm with ya. I'm all in.
Larry Shelton: During your question and answers, both Randy and Linda discussed briefly our water problems in the future and the water plan that was put out a couple of years ago by CSD. I'm actually going to pick on another person that's going to be new to the board. And my discussion here is going to be more of an informational thing, so I can ask somebody and make it legal, I'll phrase this to Tim.
This group is going to represent, almost half of this group is going to represent the board in the future. I think it's critical that we recognize the water issues that we're facing. Our water rights are going to be renewed by the state very soon. We need to be prepared for that. As one of you pointed out, everybody in the state is going to want those water rights. The water coming down the Cosumnes River is some of the best water in the state. There's going to be a big fight for that. In addition to that, the water plan, that CSD come up with a couple years ago, did not adequately address the demands on the water. One of the flaws in that report was that they did not use, and I tried to tell them this at the time, they did not use actual data to determine what kind of water we might have in the future to use. The actual volume of water coming down the river that we can pull our water rights out of, could change drastically with global warming, with many other issues of farmers upstream using the water, more people using wells.
Another major issue is the idea of a secondary water supply and why we don't have one. This is very critical for us. We have only one water supply. If anything happens to that, whether there's contamination or a loss of water, we're in a world of hurt.
Bob Kjome: Question, please.
Larry Shelton: This is a question for Tim, and I'm getting there. An augmentation well is not a solution. The state abandoned the idea of using augmentation wells for secondary water supply. So Tim, what do you think you could see as a future plan for solving some of these issues and addressing them?
Tim Maybee: Yes. Do you want me to go further? Larry, you and I have had these discussions. You're way more knowledgeable, as I explained to everybody, I'm a pretty simple guy. But with that said, the most recent water rights issues, the water tables. The state has now told the farmers what's underneath your properties belongs to the state, so even if we had wells and we had water access, I'd almost guarantee you, it's not a guarantee for us to have water rights.
With that said, I think technology, a couple of years, is where we're going to end up. What I mean by that, I don't know how many of you have taken cruises, but a whole lot of stuff gets used. The water you drink on the cruise ship has been used a couple of times, folks. The Navy's been doing it for decades, so I think the issue is, we're probably not going to be using the purple pipe to the volume that we have. We're going to be reusing that water. The technology's there, now the holdup is really at the state level, some of the regulatory issues.
In the conversation I had with Mr. Martin earlier in the week, I am pleasantly satisfied that he is aware of what is going on at the state level, and that we need to be an advocate for our own water rights, because no one else is going to do that. With that said, the person or the group that has saved the most amount money for, or not money, but EDU hook-up, is the developer. Again, one developer had 1,144 (units) maximum buildout. They're going to be nowhere close to that, so we've saved several hundred just in that alone.
With that said, I understand the question, that's something that, should I get elected, something should already be in place. That's just what I know from the outside person looking in.
Bob Kjome: I want to do something a little different. You know, being on a board there are a lot of people who are outspoken. You've got to speak up when needed. What I'd like to do is, I picked a random question out of the bowl, it's going to be a toss-up question. I'm going to ask it and whoever wants to jump on it first, go ahead. Everybody will be given a chance.
Tim Maybee: Do we have to answer in the form of a question?
Bob Kjome: You don't have to spin the wheel. Okay, here we go. If you wanted to change any district rule, document or process, what would it, or they be, and why?
Jerry Pasek: I think I've answered that before, when I said the vote of '94 is really constraining and we need to look at either getting rid of it or adjusting what it does. In that particular vote it also talked about who gets what allocation-wise. It just doesn't limit funding, it's where does the funding come from. I think it's way out of date, so to me, that would be a top priority, to just get rid of it.
Martin Pohll: Simple one. I think there was a time when CSD was paying people to get rid their lawns. I think that went away if I'm not mistaken. I'd put it back. It's hard to keep lawns greens these days and it would save the district some water.