The Tia Juana Valley County Water District: Why?

Assessment income $179,970.38 $188,995.95

Salaries of manager, directors, $ 99,593.56 $ 65,744.00 And office staff (Does not include FY01 Directors/Office expense of $2,2298.00 and payroll burden of $6,145.75)

Professional fees and consulting $ 30,982.00 $ 59,304.73

Operating income/ 1 $<21,308.00> $ 959.49 E. The District has placed a current value of $200,000 on the Ground Water Exploration (GEP) wells. This asset originally was capitalized in 1997 at $350,000, to be depreciated over 30 years. Since 1997, the wells have not produced any potable or irrigational water. A San Diego County financial official stated that changes in government entities can only happen because of two events: an agreed upon “solution” or a “crisis”. The Grand Jury finds that, if the District were not to carry the non-producing wells as an asset, the District would be in crisis. F. The District claims to measure the political environment of the Tia Juana Valley County Water District, and acts as an “advisor” to elected officials. The assessment funding received from the District property owner is paying for District payroll expenses and lobbying. A senior water official of the City of San Diego advised the Grand Jury “the District is an enigma. They spend a lot of money. They have no customers and produce no water. Their only value would have to be as an advocacy group.” G According to conversations with the District General Manager and the Board President, the District has applied for a Federal Grant. As per the District’s “Budget Cash Flow 2002-2003”, the grant amount requested is for $1,575,000.00. These monies are to be used to permit the District to attempt to drill wells in order to establish a source of potable water. None of the water, if developed and found to be potable, would be used for the citizens of the District but would be sold to other water districts. The grant has not been approved as of this date and, in light of the current financial situation of the Federal Government, the chances do not appear encouraging that this grant will be approved. H. On July 24, 2002, the District Board of Directors passed and adopted Resolution #115. This Resolution estimated that the District needed $200,000.00 for 1 During FY 01-02, consultant fee of $48,000 replaced manager fee. _1_5_0__________________________________________________________________ operating expenses for the fiscal year 2002-2003. The Board of Directors authorized that this sum be raised by a special assessment on the residents of the District . This means that the present $50.00 assessment will be increased by an estimated 10%. This open-ended assessment imposes upon the estimated 3600 District home and land owners an unfair financial burden not borne by other home and landowners in the City of San Diego. I. Supplemental funds, in the form of grants or loans, have resulted in no benefits to any taxpayers in the District. J. The biggest issues for the home and landowners in the District are flood control and pollution. The District officials claim their efforts were primarily responsible for the creation of the flood control berm. However, the Grand Jury found that the City of San Diego and the U.S. Corps of Engineers were the agencies fully responsible for the creation, planning and construction of the flood control berm. It is a Federal and City problem and has been completely addressed by them. K. At the last election, two of the present Board of Directors members were elected on a platform of dissolving the District thereby eliminating the assessment, but changed their positions once elected. L. Many home and land owners may not be aware of the assessment as it is included as a line item on their annual San Diego County property tax bill.