Was Prop A necessary at all?
Last updated 10/29/2009 at Noon
RMWD applied for the $6.7 million loan from the State Revolving Fund and the Federal Stimulus Program earlier this year.
However, throughout their Prop A campaign they told us repeatedly that they needed a ‘yes’ vote in order to be eligible for and receive the stimulus money because Ordinance 95-1 would not allow it. If you’ll remember, their entire campaign centered on this theme. Prop A failed and ratepayers retained their voting authority on debt.
But, now we’re told that Rainbow will receive the loan and the stimulus money anyway. The district says this is because debt is below $1 million. But hold on; RMWD debt was well below $1 million during the Prop A campaign!
Therefore, if Seymour’s interpretation of 95-1 is correct and the RMWD was eligible for the loan and stimulus money all along, then Rainbow never needed to do an election to amend 95-1. So, they wasted many thousands of dollars of ratepayers’ money on attorney fees, staff time and the election, all for nothing!
Or, if Seymour’s interpretation is incorrect and RMWD in fact needed to amend 95-1 in order to be eligible for the loan and stimulus money, then why were the ratepayers not given the opportunity to vote on this? So which is it?
Either way, the credibility of four board members and the district on this important issue is in serious doubt. 2010 elections are just around the corner, when I am sure all of this will be aired again.