Water Rate Increase Becomes Key Test For New Council –
Two weeks ago, the council cited concerns of lack of public outreach and community awareness regarding the water hikes. In the first efforts to address these concerns, they temporarily delayed the implementation of water rate hikes that will come as the result of the large capital projects that have been approved in the last year.
While the council acknowledges that they have started down the path and made choices to upgrade the city’s sewer treatment plant and undergo a costly new water supply project with the City of Davis, several councilmembers, including Mayor Joe Krovoza, expressed concern that the city is not doing enough to educate the public about these rate hikes and also that they must present the public with additional options to conserve water and thus lower their bills.
City staff has now come back with some proposals to remedy the situation, while at the same time pushing council to approve rate increases that would take effect in August – again during peak water use – despite concerns raised at the previous meeting.
Staff created a listing “of all currently planned activities in 2011 that will provide an opportunity for the public to learn more about one or more of our utilities and the currently planned efforts that impact the rates.”
In addition, according to the staff report, city staff created “a proposed schedule of public opportunities to learn more about the City’s utilities and specific issues that are impacting rates up through and including the proposed Council meeting where rate adoption will be considered.”
Staff recommends, in addition to the required notice under Proposition 218, a special mailer to be distributed to all ratepayers in April and a Council workshop to focus specifically on the rates, prior to May when Council would consider adopting updated utility rates.
This is a decent, if low-tech start. It would be nice to see the city create a network of emails, facebook contacts, twitter, and other hi-tech means by which to distribute information more efficiently and cost-effectively.
This year’s utility rate is not going to see a huge change.
However, the bigger issue is what happens to rates between 11/12 and 15/16. We had long discussions about water and rates, but never once did we see this chart which shows that between the Fiscal Year 11/12 and FY 15/16 water rates will go from $35.50 to $109.42.
According to the staff report, “Water rates are proposed to increase 28% next year to evenly ramp up to a target average single family residential rate of nearly $110 per month.”
They continue, “This target rate is the currently projected average amount of revenue needed from single family residents to provide the cash flow to maintain current levels of operations and maintenance on our existing water system and to provide sufficient revenue to pay for the bonds necessary to build the surface water project by 2016.”
Staff justifies the series of increases that would meet the target rate in 2016. They write, “This series of rate increases is one way to raise the rates to meet the target, but not the only option. The critical factor is that rates need to reach the target level by 2016 with some flexibility in how quickly they are raised.”
They continue, “Staff has recommended an approach that increases rates relatively equally over the next four years before leveling them off after reaching the target rate in 2016.”
Because, obviously, that is going to make the difference when the typical ratepayer is paying $109 per month rather than the $35 per month they are currently paying.
Staff continues, “As has been discussed over the past few years, the significant rate increases projected are driven by the cost of delivering the surface water project.”
But, unfortunately, most in the public have never seen these numbers before. We were demanding to see what the rates would look like, we knew it would be a hike, but I don’t think anyone every imagined it would look like this.
Staff continues, “The regional facilities will be designed, constructed and managed by the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency and the local improvements will be designed, constructed and managed by City staff.”
They continue to offer platitudes, “Both the Water Agency and City staff will be working to reduce costs where possible to minimize the rate increases.”
Bottom line is that these numbers are a bombshell. Choices for Healthy Aging is worried about Senior Housing – how are they planning to keep seniors in their homes, given this kind of proposed rate increase?
Businesses are going to have to absorb a huge hit.
And the typical family will go from paying $426 per year to paying $1333 per year. And that is only on the water side.
This issue needed to be thoroughly addressed and it needed, probably, to have gone to the voters prior to now. At some point, the public is going to catch on to this and they are going to be angry.
It is all well and good that the council is looking for educational outreach efforts, but the bomb will have already gone off.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“the city is not doing enough to educate the public about these rate hikes and also that they must present the public with additional options to conserve water and thus lower their bills”
So the city persuading shoppers to go to reuseable bags that studies have shown need to be washed frequently (some studies show after every use) is somehow presenting options to the public to preserve water?
There is no question that these rates present many challenges for both the community (to pay them) and the city/CWA (to keep the costs of bringing the project online as low as possible). All efforts are being made to use financing and construction/operation cost reduction systems to lower the rates from those projected in the current staff report.
Staff reports and council discussions have signaled the higher rates, though I can only speak directly to my involvement since July 2010, and especially the strong interest Stephen Souza and I have taken (as the City’s WDCWA board members) in ensure maximum transparency on all aspects of the new water supply.
In our December 19, 2010 commentary on this blog we wrote:
“In anticipation of increased capital costs, we have gradually increased wastewater rates for the past eight years. As a result, “Sanitary Sewer” increases on our Davis Services Bill are predicted to be two percent per year over the next 10 years. Increases for water use on our bills will be steeper. Our current average residential bill of about $40 per month is approximately half the statewide average. Assuming current demand levels, our average is projected to climb to $90 per month by 2020, when the statewide average is predicted to be $100 per month. This news isn’t great, but without a new system we delay the inevitable and costs will increase.”
For more that we wrote then, please see: [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3952:special-guest-commentary-rebuilding-davis-water-utility&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url].
The rate information here was the best summary at the time. I am optimistic that the current increase estimates will ultimately be viewed as conservative. But I want to be cautious here so there are no surprises down the road, and all incentives — political and otherwise — are present for us to find ways to reduce the estimated rate increases.
Sanitary sewer rates have been adjusted in anticipation of the added costs coming to upgrade our waste water facility. Over drafting our groundwater, very high well maintenance costs, and the need for better water quality into our system drive the need for the Clean Water Agency’s joint project with Woodland. All the documents and FAQs for the project are at: [url]http://www.wdcwa.com/[/url]
Be assured, no one at the city (staff or council) is taking these rates lightly. In particular at our last meeting, Council ask staff to bring back ideas to help lower income rate payers. However, there are state laws that prohibit us from doing this with funds collected from other ratepayers. Conservation programs available to all are one key option.
Okay, time to get to work.
Joe
Mayor- thanks for your comment. Clearly you have to deal with the hand you have but understand this is the primary reason many of us opposed the water project you have pushed.
Rusty- these are fixed capital costs the will be there regardless of usage. It would be helpful if you didnt conflate issues.
Here is a comparison of water rates throughout California:
[url]http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/2006_water.pdf[/url]
DG: “…this is the primary reason many of us opposed the water project you have pushed.”
But you never gave a credible alternative answer as to how the city should deal with the waste water quality problem, other than that Davis should violate clean water standards and ask for a waiver. On water issues, you don’t have very strong environmental credentials.
dmg: “But, unfortunately, most in the public have never seen these numbers before. We were demanding to see what the rates would look like, we knew it would be a hike, but I don’t think anyone every imagined it would look like this.”
These gargantuan numbers have been out there literally for years. People just were not listening. Sue Greenwald has brought up the issue repeatedly at City Council meetings. I myself have brought the issue up on this blog many times, and at City Council meetings. As far back as 5 years ago, a senior citizen brought up the issue at our Senior Citizens Commission, and the Commission has been following this serious issue ever since. It has been repeatedly said that the City Bill could as much as triple – and I have said it could quadruple.
Secondly, water conservation is not going to help us much. The fixed costs of the water project still have to be paid for within the next four years, whether we conserve water or not. The reason to conserve water has to do with the sewer project. The more water we can conserve, the less expensive changes we have to make with respect to the sewer project.
The problem is that these steep costs are going to hit lower income folks very hard, particularly seniors on fixed incomes. It is very possible that people could literally not afford to live in Davis anymore, bc they cannot pay their City of Davis bill. My hope is that some sort of special fund can be set up to help those folks who find themselves in that sort of dire situation.
Bottom line, you can rail all you want against the steep water fees that are coming, but they are coming. The water project, for good or bad, has been approved and has to be paid for. That horse is already out of the barn. So as far as I can tell, the only possible mitigation would be to spread the payments out over a longer period of time – which means paying more interest in the long run on the loan. Pick your poison…
Joe wrote: “Council ask staff to bring back ideas to help lower income rate payers. However, there are state laws that prohibit us from doing this with funds collected from other ratepayers.” My PG&E bills have a $6.00 plus Gas PPP surcharge. PG&E’s page http://www.pge.com/myhome/myaccount/explanationofbill/res/ explains this charge as follows: ” Public Purpose Program Surcharge — If you are a gas customer, your bill includes a Gas Public Purpose Program (PPP) Surcharge, which is used to fund state-mandated gas assistance programs for low income customers, energy efficiency programs, and public-interest research and development.” If PG&E can collect $ on my utility bill to help low income folks pay their bills, than cities ought to be able to do the same (with a simple majority vote of the residents) or PG&E should not be able to.
Don- i think the enviro issue is more complicated because you have to weigh technical discharge amounts against further removals of water from the sac river and thus the delta.
Elaine- there are two alternatives one is the prop 218 protest that is largely impractical and the other is putting the water supply project on the ballot.
Ballot? What if the voters vote it down?
Then the city might have to rethink how they approach an issue.
“If PG&E can collect $ on my utility bill to help low income folks pay their bills, than cities ought to be able to do the same (with a simple majority vote of the residents) or PG&E should not be able to.”
So I much would you propose that the avg. ratepayer would have to pay in 5 years being that they’re already going to be stuck for $109/month not even counting the higher sewer rates? How much more would you burden them with to help low income residents?
“Ballot? What if the voters vote it down?”
I would say hooooray.
dmg: “Elaine- there are two alternatives one is the prop 218 protest that is largely impractical and the other is putting the water supply project on the ballot.”
Put it on the ballot? How and to what purpose? If the voters chose to vote the water rate increase down, what then? You have a largely uninformed electorate, according to you, so how is that going to work? I guess what I am asking you is what do you propose, if you are upset about the extreme rate increases? What are your suggested solutions? Two independent experts brought in to analyze the situation insisted the surface water project was necessary, and should be done as soon as possible. The only solution to the increasing the water rates that I can perceive of is to spread the cost over a longer period of time – but as others have pointed out, that is costlier in the long run. As I said, pick your poison. I don’t see any good solutions here…
My complaint is w the idiot 1972 federal legislators who years ago passed these ridiculous water standards, without doing a cost/benefit analysis. And the feds/state don’t seem inclined to change their minds or offer any waivers, so the city is stuck with complaince to standards that are completely unreasonable and probably counterproductive in the current economic climate.
Rusty- assuming efforts to kill this fail, you dont mind ppl being force out of their homes?
If the voters vote it down, the City of Davis will eventually be in violation of the water quality laws. Those laws are not going to change, no matter who you vote for. There will be no way to mitigate the water quality problem without either clean surface water or a much more expensive water treatment plant, so the city will be fined increasing amounts as it fails to comply. Don’t think it will happen? The city of Dixon has been operating under a cease and desist order and has been levied thousands of dollars in fines over the last decade for this exact reason. BTW: the voters there voted down the treatment plan. So the city has no way to comply. The city of Davis would have no way to comply either, except to build a much, much more expensive sewer treatment plant. We have gone over this so many times, I find it hard to believe people are still making the argument that “the city might have to rethink how they approach an issue.” The fact is, David, you have opposed this water project from the start, opposed every aspect of it, and yet have NO solution to the problem it solves. It has been studied and discussed and debated for years and years.
The water project reduces the need for waste water treatment expenses and provides a long-term water supply based on senior water rights. Davis has historically paid very low water rates. Those rates are going to go up. They would, in fact, also go up regardless of the water project; in part because of the staff costs, and in part as the wells around town need to be replaced (most are getting old). If that is a burden on low-income residents, the city council can direct staff to make a more steeply tiered rate structure based on consumption. They can do that now, or they can wait until they get protests.
“The City of Dixon owns and operates a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) located in farmland to the southeast of the City of Dixon. ….
Since adoption of WDRs Order No. 94-187 in 1994, the Regional Water Board has adopted three Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) for the City’s facility, primarily due to excessive inflow and infiltration (I/I); inadequate treatment, storage, and disposal capacity; and degradation and/or pollution of groundwater for salinity. The City did not fully comply with these Orders. In early 2008, the Executive Officer issued and settled a $220,000 Administrative Civil Liability Complaint to the City for violations of the current CDO.”
It is simply irresponsible to suggest that Davis should avoid addressing water quality issues and do nothing.
[i]”assuming efforts to kill this fail, you dont mind ppl being force out of their homes?”[/i]
Low income people in dozens of other communities in California pay much higher water rates than Davis.
You can pay for this water project now and have a secure water source, or you can delay further and pay more in the future. In the future I expect clean water to become an increasingly precious commodity. Invest now.
“The city of Dixon has been operating under a cease and desist order and has been levied thousands of dollars in fines over the last decade for this exact reason.”
What are the avg. water rates in Dixon? They can’t be too bad, they’ve been paying the fines for the last decade. Heck, leaving our system the way it is and just paying the fine might be a much better way to go than strapping Dvais residents with onerous water and sewer bills.
To begin with Roberts Musser is absolutely right on this one. The numbers have been out there for years, and yes Sue Greenwald used to raise the issue of the huge increase in sewer and water rates numerous times. That was several years ago (no time to go to my clippings file for citations), but no-one, including the Davis Vanguard and the DE, unless I missed something, has brought this issue up for quite a few years. On the Right you have people who have so much money that they simply don’t care, if they know anything about what is going. And. as was argued by some, once upon a time, developers will be only be too happy to be able to tap a much larger water supply to justify faster development. On the so called Left, I’d call them the “not so left but politically correct (and often quite affluent) liberals” you have environmentalists who argue that we must meet EPA standards and protect the Delta.
I am VERY much on the left and a very strong environmentalist. But being truly on the left I recognize that, especially in times like these (since the financial crisis of 2008 and the massive problems with the state economy), a significant number of people in Davis are going to be REALLY hurt by the huge increase in fees–it’s not rocket science if you make much less than let’s say $80K.
My political awareness grows not only out of my ideology or idealism but out of my own situation, or cynics might say, my own self interest. When I moved to Davis in 2000 my city fees were $115 to $125. They are now consistently double that despite the fact that while I have an irrigation system I am quite careful about water use. I am now retired and on a very modest, not penurious, fixed income. If my city fees go up to circa $500 in a few years it will be hard on me and I think on many other Davisites. And, incidentally to you developer types or people concerned about the value of your house who also might want to think of their own self-interest: how many people are going to want to buy or live in Davis when their city fees are like a small mortgage???
I have lived in California for almost 40 years and I cannot think of a single environmental measure I have not supported, or one to make the tax system a little more progressive for that matter.
I have always had contempt for the phrase “unfunded mandates” as a statement of greedy and often rich people who are anti-environment, greedy, and selfish. However, somewhere a line has to be drawn and I draw it here. People and communities (how many people in this flat earth city are aware of just what a municipal and state budget crises so many cities and states face across this country?), there are some mandates that have got to be, for want of a better term, and in short, “flouted.”
According to the DE, Feb. 28, 2011, in contradiction to what DW wrote in response to one of my comments, the water rate increase has to be voted on under Prop. 218. I will, needless to say, vote against any increase in water rates and urge friends and neighbors to do the same. More than that, despite the fact I have voted for every single measure to fund education at all levels for almost 40 years I will not support or vote for the parcel tax notwithstanding my appreciation and longtime support for Davis schools, despite the fact I have NO children.
I am just tired of being taken for granted as a goody liberal ATM tax source when I have a limited income, and when I know at least a few others in Davis are in the same position. I strongly suspect when, or if, any Davis voters find out about the huge increase in city water fees they will take my position, if not on the school’s parcel tax. Indeed in time, when people do find out what kind of fee increases there are in for, I think there will, be outrage by many Davis voters as much at the increase as the silence and deceit with which this fee increase has been “handled” in recent years.
No folks, I am not a Tea party populist. Indeed I probably hate the Tea party as much as any single voter in Davis. Bu there comes a time when one must draw a line. More broadly, and by way of genuine progressive education, I would say this: 1) There was a time when we had a much more progressive federal income tax; 2) There was a time when the federal and state funds were available to largely fund major infrastructural improvement projects so that the costs of such projects did not bear so heavily on communities and the poorer residents of such communities.
Wake up Davis! Those of you that support the new water increase are in for a shock and those that are totally unaware of what is in store for them (the majority I suspect) are in or an even bigger shock that will poison the significant degree of consensus that has long characterized Davis politics with respect to funding many admirable public projects.
Sorry, I can’t resist it: “Be warned this Ides of March.”
David G. Can you give us your plan? Thanks, G&G
@Herman: I wonder if such a rate can be constructed so that current seniors (65 and over) can be exempted from paying a regular higher rate. The school parcel taxes completely exempt seniors, why can’t this be done the same way?
Also, why not use RDA money for something like this?
I checked our Don Shor’s link to water rates, but it is now 5 years old. I Googled, but wasn’t able to find more current data. Does anyone have a link to current water rates in other communities?
I know I am in the minority here, but $100 a month for decent water doesn’t sound all that outrageous to me. I support the plan.
Here is a more recent chart with selected cities:
[url]http://www.fresno.gov/Government/DepartmentDirectory/PublicUtilities/News/2009/WaterRates.htm[/url]
Here is some info from the city of Vacaville about possible consequences of failure to comply with wastewater discharge standards. They don’t provide a source. This is from an FAQ about their proposed rate increases:
City of Vacaville “filed suit against the State for unnecessary and
excessive conditions and requirements. …. Despite these efforts, judges have ordered
that the City must meet the permit requirements and construct the plant
improvements to avoid heavy penalties.
What happens if the City does not meet the State-mandated treatment
requirements?
Failure to meet the new treatment standards opens the City to fines that
include:
Mandatory minimum fines of up to $3,000 per day;
Fines up to $10 per gallon for treated wastewater discharged per day
multiplied by 9.5 million gallons per day;
Fines equaling the avoided project cost (up to $150 million) by the State,
and:
Civil penalties and attorney fees from third-party litigants.”
GreenandGolden asks me what is my plan. Here are various thoughts/suggestion:
1) Vote against 218 when water rate increases for Davis get on the ballot.
2) If possible get the whole project of bringing water from Sac. River on the ballot. Let’s get a measure, if we really have to have one, that extends payments over many more years.
3) If all else fails come up with exemptions for senior citizens (in Davis defined as over 60 for most purposes incidentally) and low income people.
4) More broadly, I cannot believe that Davis is the only city in the country prospectively severely stressed by this particular, and maybe other, EPA mandates. I can’t speak to the initial wisdom of the EPA mandate–doubtless it had merit. But have no EPA mandates, sometimes wisely and sometimes unwisely, not been reversed (???), and it starts with us, and by “us” I mean the Davis voters.
5) If CA was hit by a 9.0 quake would not some consideration be given to delaying or canceling certain mandates? Well we are not Japan, but we are suffering a major quake in terms of our continuing economic downturn except perhaps for those well invested in the stock market.
And while on the subject of mandates and EQs, if they are so valuable, and they can be, why is so there little uniformity regarding EQ codes and standards something that is a real matter if life and death. On the subject just listen to some of the experts from the Bay Area who have talked about such matters in the last few days on NPR.
Apartment dwellers in this town need to step up and pay their fair share , it’s a slap in the face to the homeowners who subsidize them !!!!!
“Apartment dwellers in this town need to step up and pay their fair share , it’s a slap in the face to the homeowners who subsidize them !!!!! “
First of all, apartment dwellers get their water rates passed through their rent. Second, apartment dwellers don’t have a yard, a lawn, or a pool, many don’t even have washing machines, so they don’t individually consume the same amount of water as home owners. But other than that, good point.
“David G. Can you give us your plan? Thanks, G&G “
I don’t have a plan.
[i]”The regional facilities will be designed, constructed and managed by the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency and the local improvements will be designed, constructed and managed by City staff.”[/i]
Scariest sentence in the entire commentary.
Increased water and sewer fees, increased parcel tax for the schools, increased state taxes…..what the f#$&! are we talking about here!! How about an article summing all of this together.
I’m not sure how Herman has missed all the articles the Vanguard has done on this subject.
I’m just going to pick a handful:
March 3, 2011 – Council Delays Implementation of Water Rate Hikes ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4150:council-delays-implementation-of-water-rate-hikes&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
December 16, 2010 – Historic Water Deal or Rate Jacking of Davis Residents? ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3944:historic-water-deal-or-rate-jacking-of-davis-residents&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url])
November 12, 2010 – City Staff Recommends Nearly 100 Million Dollar Wastwater Treatment Upgrade ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3875:city-staff-recommends-nearly-100-million-dollar-wastwater-treatment-upgrade&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
July 18, 2010 – Water Agency Close to Getting Water Rights; Doubling Davis’ Water Rates ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3587:water-agency-close-to-getting-water-rights-doubling-davis-water-rates&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url])
May 13, 2010 – Don’t Raise Water Rates in Davis ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3427:dont-raise-water-rates-in-davis&catid=102:all-community-blogs&Itemid=1[/url])
May 12, 2010 – Council Puts Off Decision on Water Rate Hikes Until May 25 – But They Seem Inevitable ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3424:council-puts-off-decision-on-water-rate-hikes-until-may-25-but-they-seem-inevitable&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url])
I could go on and on, but I will also post the first article the Vanguard did from back in January 2007
January 30, 2007 – Tracing the recent history of the water supply project ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/~vanguard/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=263:tracing-the-recent-history-of-the-water-supply-project&catid=60:water&Itemid=92[/url])
Developers who own land on Davis’ periphery CANNOT transform their properties into residential developments unless an adequate water source is available which does not exist with our current ground water system. How will these developers, who stand to make enormous future profits, with the availability of this new water source, be made to pay their “fair share” of the cost of this system?
When Herman says his city utilities were ~ $120, that was FOR TWO MONTHS. We only see the city utility bills once every two months. Yes, %-age wise big increase. But compared to PG&E, gasoline, over the same period of time?
[i]”Developers who own land on Davis’ periphery CANNOT transform their properties into residential developments unless…”[/i]
…the city council and the voters approve their projects.
David,
1.””””First of all, apartment dwellers get their water rates passed through their rent.”””Sure subsidized by homeowners !
2. “””” Second, apartment dwellers don’t have a yard, a lawn, or a pool, many don’t even have washing machines, so they don’t individually consume the same amount of water as home owners.””””Yes but all apartment complexes have those water using amenities just like homes !
3.”””” But other than that, good point.””””
There are two issues at play worthy of mention:
1. Water is the most precious natural resource in CA. We all chose to live in a state where there is inadequate water resource to support the people and industries of the state. Water costs will continue to increase until the supply and demand balance. I think we are a lot more likely to thank the city council in 10 years, than to look back and wish they hadn’t locked down the additional water supplies.
2. The progressive/liberal group has been pushing for years for the environmental regulations which are at the heart of Davis’ sewage issues. These regulations have already cost agriculture and industry hundreds of millions of dollars in order to comply. Now, many cities also have to comply. It is incredibly ironic, and hypocritical, for that group to now claim that paying and extra 50 – 60/month per household is too much,and that Davis should consider not complying. Next time you are considering hopping on the plastic bag bandwagon, please remember how much you dislike “paygo” when it is you that has to pay.
I suspect that apartment rents will reflect the increased water/sewer/garbage rates if any water is used by apartment dwellers. Apartment dwellers will not get off scott free in this…