The city council moved forward with their plans for a Prop 218 notice, despite the clear insufficiency of the process. The problem this community faces is captured perfectly by Bob Dunning’s most recent column.
Mr. Dunning quotes a reader stating: “Between the steep rise in water rates and the school bond measure that just passed, I feel severely beaten up here in Davisville.”
The problem as we see it is that the Prop 218 process itself has been made so cumbersome that it is almost deceitful. The process and the rights of homeowners are buried within the notice.
They indicate that ratepayers have the chance to protest the rate hikes by submitting a protest by or before a public hearing on September 6.
What they do not spell out until the end of the notice is that “if a majority of affected property owners file written protests, the proposed rate changes will not be implemented and current rates will remain in effect.”
The typical person is left unaware that they actually have an ability through the language of Proposition 218 to protest their water rates. It is difficult enough to get more than half of the property owners to submit a protest, but the fact that so few even know they have the right to submit a protest is a problem.
It would take a concerted campaign to get enough people to protest, to even register on the screen.
We are pleased that at least one of our suggestions has come partly true with the Davis Enterprise laying out the Prop 218 process in a front page story.
Nevertheless, Bob Dunning’s more simple choice would be optimal: “Now, the City Council could make it easy for us by giving us a box to check “Yes, I protest” on our next water bill, but making things easy for the electorate does not seem to be what this council has in mind for us.”
For once I think Mr. Dunning is exactly right. This could be a very simple process, but the purpose of Prop 218 is to allow for the chance to protest without actually giving anyone a chance to succeed at the protest, unless you are a small and limited area like El Macero where it is no big deal to canvass the whole neighborhood and get enough signatures to protest the rate hike.
What is council afraid of by making a more simplified process for people to protest rate hikes? Is council afraid that the public really does not support these rate hikes?
There is a better alternative to the Prop 218 process.
As we noted previously, the Solano County Taxpayers President Earl Heal wrote the Vanguard recently to note that the City of Dixon was able to repeal the tripling of their sewer rate through a simple initiative.
“Our group has been involved and has helped cities with their Prop 218 process and placing initiatives on the ballot. It may be difficult to collect fifty percent (50%) plus one protests needed to stop the water rate increase,” Mr. Heal told the Vanguard. “But it is very easy to collect signatures of five percent (5%) of the registered voters who voted in the last gubernatorial ballot.”
In addition to the City of Dixon’s successful efforts, Rohnert Park repealed their water rate increase and the City of Rio Vista is holding a special election on June 7, 2011, to bring their water rates back to the 2006 fee structure, and a water district in Sacramento is in the process of collecting signatures for an initiative.
People have been asking me what I favor as an alternative. The new water discharge standards take effect in 2016, and I favor finding a way to put it off until 2021. That would give us ten years. During that ten years, we need to build in rate hikes to alleviate the impact and look at new and different technologies for dealing with discharge standards.
At the same time, delaying the full blown rate hikes will allow both the city and the school district to avoid huge budget cuts and the possibility of ratepayer revolts.
Is it perfect? No. Ultimately, Matt Rexroad’s post to my Sunday commentary not withstanding, it comes down to a prioritization of our needs and I value investment in education over an expensive new water supply project.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Pardon my ignorance, but if 218 protest was successful, what would happen to the whole water and waste water projects? I thought those trains had left the station(s)??
According to Sac Bee, Rio Vista decided to maintain quality water by voting to retain higher rates that were imposed a couple of years ago.[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/07/3684910/rio-vista-voters-reject-measure.html[/url]
Please join the public meeting this Thursday evening to understand the project and its evolution over the last twenty years of studies to become our best alternative for a sustainable water supply. Re the meeting: [url]http://www.wdcwa.com/detail/events/community_meeting1[/url]. For project basics, start at: [url]http://www.wdcwa.com/the_project[/url]. Then work to the FAQs and more information on the CWA’s site.
Further outreach regarding the associated rate hikes will take place via neighborhood meetings and more over the coming months. For more on the rates and the planned public outreach, see item 10 at [url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/packet.cfm?agenda=57D8919C-1143-EEBD-B06F179DB2D4D4AE[/url]
I believe the development of the project and the 218 notice has been exceedingly transparent and open to all suggestions.
Best,
Joe
SODA: it would mean the project would lack funding and the city and JPA would have to re-think things.
The opposition to this rate hike is a “perfect storm” of voters with different issues. Of course, rate hikes are not welcomed by all,especially in these most difficult economic times since the Great Depression. Add to these, the clear growth inducing effect(supporters of Davis slow growth policies), the significant voter block that are being told that they must pay for this project WITHOUT receiving any change in their water quality, those who see Tskapolous’ purchase of Conway water rights as an attack on Yolo agriculture,using his enormous wealth and political power to divert this water away from agriculture and use/sell to gain leverage for his future Davis residential development plans. If put before the Davis voters, this would overwhelmingly fail to gain Davis majority. Our current mayor as well as the Council majority well understands this.
” re-think things.”
It would kill the water project. Most likely the cities would have to back out of the water rights deal. Davis and Woodland would be out of compliance with the water quality standards in 4 to 5 years. Those cities would then try to get those standards changed, or delayed, by means of lawsuits or appeals for awhile. In the event those fail, both cities would then have no reliable surface water supply, unless they were still able to secure the water rights. The project will not cost less further down the road.
This has been the most consistently irresponsible position that the Vanguard has taken since its inception. It is shortsighted, regionally myopic, and flouts environmental standards that have been developed over the last decades to try to reverse the salinity in the Delta. It is amazing that the Vanguard is seeking advice from the SCTA on this topic. Pick up the phone and call the public works folks in Dixon to ask how failure to comply has been going there.
[quote]Is it perfect? No. Ultimately, Matt Rexroad’s post to my Sunday commentary not withstanding, it comes down to a prioritization of our needs and I value investment in education over an expensive new water supply project.[/quote]
Matt Rexroad’s post to your Sunday commentary notwithstanding? LOL How convenient! Bc it is really the crux of the issue… If you really believe what you say, then you should be knocking on your representative’s door to hold in abeyance the implementation of the Clean Water Act standards as too stringent in light of the cost. It is not really fair to ask for an exception just for Davis. What about all the other communities across the U.S. that are subject to these ridiculously stringent standards? Why should Davis get an exception and other communities do not? And most other communities are not as well off as Davis… like Woodland.
I think your statement says it all – your top priority above all else is to fund schools. That is fine, and your are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don’t think many would agree that school funding should come before anything/everything else. This is particularly true since school funding takes up about 50% of the state budget; we have spent more and more on education and it has not gotten any better for those extra dollars we are spending. Nor do I think it appropriate to conflate the two issues of water and schools. There are many competing needs in Davis – water, schools, parks, road maintenance, community programs, etc. All of them are important; all must be considered; all are subject to the shrinking funding supply – just my opinion.
[quote]In addition to the City of Dixon’s successful efforts, Rohnert Park repealed their water rate increase and the City of Rio Vista is holding a special election on June 7, 2011, to bring their water rates back to the 2006 fee structure, and a water district in Sacramento is in the process of collecting signatures for an initiative. [/quote]
From http://www.dixon.patch.com: “To help generate revenues, the DSWA levied a 9 percent increase in the water rates last year. Most expenses are running at budget or below it, with the exception of equipment repairs and maintenance according to a staff report. At the same time, the authority saw an increase in utility spending to the tune of $235,000, which is $10,000 to $15,000 above budget in 2011.” Please explain what you mean by Dixon’s “successful efforts”. Don Shor, you can jump in here and tell us what you think about Dixon’s situation.
Rohnert Park may have repealed their water rate increases, but we do not know what the fallout of that decision will be. Sacramento’s initiative may be going nowhere for all we know. Is the Vanguard going to start an initiative process in Davis? If not, then who will? Many in Davis believe the water project is a necessary evil, and will not protest it. I would strongly suggest the Vanguard make its presence known at the neighborhood meetings as Mayor Krovoza has suggested, and see how much public traction the Vanguard gets… bc it will need 51% of the rate payers agreeing with it; or must start its own initiative process or convince someone else to start one…
[quote]I believe the development of the project and the 218 notice has been exceedingly transparent and open to all suggestions.[/quote]
I think the City Council and City Staff are to be commended for their diligence in making the process “exceedingly transparent”. And a huge thanks goes to Council member Sue Greenwald for saving the city $100,000 on the wastewater treatment plant upgrade.
Nevertheless, I do like Bob Dunning’s idea of just being able to check “no” on the Prop 218 notice – it has a lot of appeal as a simple way to protest rate hikes. But it is not possible bc there are statutory requirements that must be met…
From the LAO’s Office: “Election Requirement: All Property-Owners
Vote on Assessments
Local governments must mail information regarding assessments to all property owners. (Prior to Proposition 218, large communities could publish assessment information, rather than mail it to every property owner.) Each assessment notice must contain a mail-in ballot for the property owner to indicate his or her approval or disapproval of the assessment.
After mailing the notices, the local government must hold a public hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the local government must tabulate the ballots, weighing them in proportion to the amount of the assessment each property owner would pay. (For example, if homeowner Jones would pay twice as much assessment as homeowner Smith, homeowner Jones’ vote would “count” twice as much as homeowner Smith’s vote.) The assessment may be imposed only if 50 percent or more of the weighted ballots support the assessment.”
[url]http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/board_decisions/tentative_orders/0809/cityofdixon/cityofdixon_wwtf_buff.pdf[/url]
Like Tracy, and unlike Davis, Dixon does not have a fresh water supply available to mitigate the waste water problem.
[quote]http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5…f_buff.pdf
Like Tracy, and unlike Davis, Dixon does not have a fresh water supply available to mitigate the waste water problem[/quote]
Thanks Don for the enlightening context. What say you Vanguard, about the City of Dixon’s “successful efforts”?
D2: [i]”The opposition to this rate hike is a ‘perfect storm’ of voters with different issues.”[/i]
People don’t want to be made poorer, having to pay so much more for water than they are used to. I really don’t see your ‘perfect storm.’
D2: [i]”Add to these, the clear growth inducing effect …”[/i]
Davis will not grow on its periphery [i]because[/i] we obtain a better source of fresh water. We will only grow on the periphery if the voters of Davis approve a land-development project.
I grant, nevertheless, that the new water project may give ratepayers an incentive they don’t now have to want new growth: that is, if we add say another 10,000 houses to Davis, the fixed infrastructure costs of this project will be divided by 30,000 households, not 20,000. However, I don’t expect this logic will affect a single vote on any future peripheral developments.
[i]to Council member Sue Greenwald for saving the city $100,000 on the wastewater treatment plant upgrade.[/i]
I think you slipped a decimal again on this!
“I don’t expect this logic will affect a single vote on any future peripheral developments “
I profoundly DISAGREE. Those who lost control of Davis’ growth policies with the passage of Measure J clearly recognize that the most effective way to neutralize the populist Davis ethos of slow growth is to make it economically unsustainable for the Davis voter.
Measure J’s negative voter expression, in its first “outing” in the Measure X/Covell Village vote, demonstrated the reality of populist power and dramatically altered the political playing field of future development agreement “negotiations”,IMO, to the benefit of the interests of the Davis voter. In a similar fashion, the rejection/delay of this current surface water plan will demonstrate the populist power of the Davis voter and have a positive effect,again with regard to the interests of the Davis voter,in any future reformulated plan to bring surface water to Davis
[i]”I profoundly DISAGREE.”[/i]
I will never accuse you of profundity.
[i]”Those who lost control of Davis’ growth policies with the passage of Measure J …”[/i]
Whoa, Tiger! The developers in Davis* played no part in pushing for a switch from well-water to river water. As the lawyers like to say, you are basing your argument on an assumption which has never been demonstrated.
[i]”… clearly recognize that the most effective way to neutralize the populist Davis [b]ethos[/b] of slow growth …”[/i]
Whoa, Nelly! You love that word ethos. Yet you don’t really know how to use it. An ethos represents the immutable, fundamental character of a community. It won’t be ‘neutralized’ because we have a better water source.
*For the record Angelo Tsakopoulos is not a Davis developer; and AKT did not own Conaway Ranch over the 20 years this water project was developed.
“Davis will not grow on its periphery because we obtain a better source of fresh water”
WRONG… Davis CANNOT grow on its periphery, in any significant fashion, without a new source of water. This is CA law and was clearly demonstrated by the machinations that the Covell Village developers had to go through to get ‘under the wire” with regard to the water available for their development.
[quote]I think you slipped a decimal again on this![/quote]
Thanks Don, for noting this mistake, yet again!!! Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze, I do seem to be having a lot of “senior moments” lately, or else my fingers are typing faster than my brain is working!!! Correction: Thank you Sue Greenwald for having saved the citizens of Davis $100 million on the wastewater treatment plant upgrade.
[quote]In a similar fashion, the rejection/delay of this current surface water plan will demonstrate the populist power of the Davis voter and have a positive effect,again with regard to the interests of the Davis voter,in any future reformulated plan to bring surface water to Davis[/quote]
“The populist view” doesn’t seemed to have worked too well or had a “positive effect” for the city of Dixon or some other cities that have tried to fight the imposition of the Clean Water Act standards. And that is really the point – if citizens successfully protest the imposition of the water rate increases in Davis, so that the city is not complying with the Clean Water Act Standards, what then? Dixon has had to pay a big fat fine…
I am not unsympathetic to your argument that to some extent the surface water project will allow for more development. If it were business development, that actually might be a good thing. If it is housing development, that may or may not be a good thing – depending on whether the city is willing to make sure developers pay THE FULL COST OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
However, how do you get around the arguments for the need for a more reliable water supply; and the need to comply with the federally mandated Clean Water Act standards, as ridiculous and wrongheaded as these overly stringent standards are?
R1: [i]”Davis will not grow on its periphery [u]because[/u] we obtain a better source of fresh water” [/i]
D2: [i]”WRONG… Davis CANNOT grow on its periphery, in any significant fashion, without a new source of water.”[/i]
Holy non sequitur!
Remind me to never accuse you of deductive reasoning.
Elaine, Dixon’s situation was very different. They themselves acknowledged that their salinity limits could have been appealed. The problem was that they had an old, leaky wastewater treatment plant. We are building a new wastewater treatment plant.
I don’t believe the new wastewater treatment plant will be sufficient to meet the EC/salinity standards without a clean source of surface water. But I’d have to go back through numerous references to be sure.
[quote]Elaine, Dixon’s situation was very different. They themselves acknowledged that their salinity limits could have been appealed. The problem was that they had an old, leaky wastewater treatment plant. We are building a new wastewater treatment plant.[/quote]
I’m really confused here. Are you saying that Davis should build its wastewater treatment plant first, then wait and see for a number of years if we really need the surface water project? Because your own wastewater treatment experts indicated that to reduce the costs of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade by the $100 million you keep touting as having achieved, it is necessary to have the surface water project in place…
[quote]Moreover, the core of Tracy’s argument was that they had no fresh water alternative–Don Shor[/quote]Don, the core of the court’s decision was that the WRCB should be taking into account the financial impact of its salinity requirements on cities.
As I have said, that is one of the reasons that state is in the process of revamping the salinity management in the Delta, and is looking at more flexibility and variance policies.
Following is an excerpt from the “Notice of Scoping Meetings – Variance Policy and Interim Salinity Program”:[quote]This document describes the regulatory issues that result when there are effluent
limitations that cannot be met, immediate compliance with such limitations is not
reasonable, and, due to current laws and regulations, regulatory flexibility does
not exist to avoid a difficult compliance situation. More specifically, this
document describes the need for regulatory flexibility when there are effluent
limitations for salinity that cannot be met without construction and operation of
expensive treatment technology and there is an ongoing process to review and
revise water quality objectives and management plans for salts in the Central
Valley. This document presents various options to address these situations.—–Notice of Scoping Meetings – Variance Policy and Interim Salinity Program[/quote]
Here is the notice I found, in case anyone is interested in following this issue.
[url]http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/basin_plans/variances/variance_scoping_notice.pdf[/url]
I am curious how you think this would apply to Davis.
“[i]The California Water Code allows Regional Water Boards the ability to adopt time
schedules to achieve water quality objectives and to include time schedules in waste
discharge requirements. However, compliance schedules may be included in NPDES
permits only under certain conditions. It is useful for the Regional Water Board to have
a mechanism to adopt NPDES permits when discharger compliance with the water
quality standards is infeasible at the present time and the Regional Water Board would
like to maintain the current water quality standards as goals rather than removing uses
that may be ultimately attainable.
At this time, the Regional Water Board is interested in exploring variances from water
quality standards for salt while work is in-progress on a comprehensive salinity and
nitrate management program called CV-SALTS (Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for
Long-Term Sustainability). Dischargers regulated by waste discharge requirements but
not NPDES permits are not subject to the same compliance schedule regulations as
NPDES dischargers; however, the Regional Water Board is interested in including non-
NPDES dischargers in the interim program for consistency.[/i]”
Discharger compliance for Davis and Woodland is not infeasible: a plan is in place and underway via the surface water project.
Are you suggesting that Davis should apply for a variance from the salinity standards on the basis of infeasibility, or on the basis of cost? Or do you believe the salinity standards are going to change to allow use of Davis groundwater?
[quote]Are you suggesting that Davis should apply for a variance from the salinity standards on the basis of infeasibility, or on the basis of cost? Or do you believe the salinity standards are going to change to allow use of Davis groundwater? [/quote]
Excellent questions…