Ballot

Recall Targets are:

Jason Mumm (Resigned)

Shephard Root

Mary Spencer

Mike Casey

Doug Neves is not being recalled because a review of two years of reflect his actions to be generally responsible.

Vote Recall Yes!

The Petitioners are allowed a 200 word statement of their reasons for recall. This statement was on all petitions and appears on the Ballot:

The Recall Targets are allowed a 300 word statement of their reasons for retention. This statement appears on the Ballot:

"Consolidated Statement for Board Retention

Don't fall for the recall. Please vote "NO" and protect Parker's water!

This recall election will cost Parker Water residents $50,000, and is unnecessary since there will be a regular election next May. Vote "NO" on the recall and the waste of money.

One year ago local residents expressed concern about a proposed rate hike and we, as your elected Board, took action. We cut the budget $2.4 million, froze all salaries, hiring, and stopped equipment purchases.

A Community Working Group was formed to review expenditures, revenues and conduct a rate study. We stopped any rate increase in 2009 and cut the 2010 rate increase in half.

A dependable supply of water is critical for our community. Don't risk Parker's water with a group that doesn't tell the truth. When the Douglas County Clerk reviewed the recall petition, he declared it was full of "substantially false and misleading information" (Parker Chronicle, April 24, 2009).

The petition claimed salaries have doubled. Fact: Salaries have been frozen for 2010. The petition claimed the largest rate increase in five years was proposed. Fact: There has been no rate increase in five years, and the increase in 2010 will be half what was originally proposed.

Parker Water Board members are your neighbors and have worked hard to secure a long-term supply of water and protect the aquifer. Our property values depend on our water supply. We are proud of the new regional Rueter-Hess Reservoir, which will provide water and recreation for our community and enhance our quality of life.

This Board is committed to prudent and frugal management. We are dedicated to securing long-term renewable water. This recall is not justa waste of $50,000; it endangers our progress and plays politics withour water.

Don't risk Parker's water. Vote "NO" in the recall.

The petition claims are stated in their entirity at the top of this says "unreasonable expenditures and salary increases" which the Recall Targets did vote for and are reflected in the 2009 Budget. Doubled ???

Securing a long-term supply of water is the challenge facing all SE metro water district. This is the reason that PWSD Staff is spending much time and dollars attempting to organize a coalition to build a multi-billion dollar pipeline from Flaming Gorge Resevoir in Western Wyoming.

Rueter Hess has been 25 years in the making and provides no water, only storage. While permitting of the reservoir allows recreational use, PWSD is not in the recreation business and this Board has made clear in Board meetings that it is doubtful that any recreation will be developed.

The record of this Board evidenced by their origianl 2009 budget, selection of a rate consultant etc. is clear and frugality is not a valid descriptor.

DeCoding the Statement for Retention-

"Recall Petition Committee Statement

The signers of this petition are dissatisfied and hold the belief that the following Parker Water and Sanitation District Board members, Mary Spencer, Chair; Sheppard Root, Treasurer; and Mike Casey, Secretary; have failed to ensure the District is operating in a fiscally responsible
manner.

The signers believe they have supported unreasonable expenditures and salary increases for district managers and employees.

Furthermore, the signers of this petition feel they are out of touch with the public and have shown poor judgment as evidenced by their voting record on water rates by first voting to increase rates 20% without adequate justification to the public, then voting to rescind that increase, and then declining to support a lesser increase that would have helped
alleviate current District revenue shortfalls.

The undersigned PWSD electors seek a recall election of Mary Spencer, Sheppard Root and
Mike Casey to provide the electors the opportunity to establish their civic priorities regarding PWSD governance and expenditures."

State and Federal standards and continual testing protect our water. It is the Board's duty to constructively challenge Staff and set policy as Fiduciaries of District constituants.

Only one of the Recall Targets is up for re-election in May. The recall process addresses four Recall Targets and can change the voting balance. The May Election cannot.

Voting "NO" does not save the district any election expense while voting "YES" can save the District from questionable decisions such as selecting the $180,300 Red Oak Rate Consultant proposal over the $66,580 Black & Veatch or $97,300 Raftelis proposals.

The mis-explained 20% rate hike a year ago was not just proposed, it was adopted as Resolution 2008-13 then January 8, 2009 rescinded as Resolution 2009-1. A 20% swing in rate with no change in conditions was premised on public pressure rather than sound fiduciary judgment.

It was only after the members of the public raised questions of the legality of an unbalanced budget that the Board on February 12 made adjustments to the expense budget.

The January minutes actually stated:

"Create and select a community work group to act as an advisory body to the board and to work with the study consultant to evaluate recommendations.", not "to review expenditures revenues and conduct a rate study"

The 2009 rate increase was indeed rescinded after the Recall Targets refused to 2nd a motion by Board member Doug Neeves for a more reasonable 5% increase resulting in depletion of most reserves during 2009.

The 2010 rate increase was cut in half from what? The water rates increased 14%, wastewater increased 28% and poperty tax doubled. In fact the net result to a typical bill is about 22%.

"This" petition was filed in July 3 months after the April article! Page 5 of the Hearing Opinion on the "February" Recall Petition found that posting a copy of the actual 2009 budget adopted by the Board on the TAPWS WEB PAGE was misleading because it was amended after the recall process was initiated!