We were stunned when the City of Davis put into actual figures what we had expected for some time, that the surface water project was going to mean a tripling of Davis water rates. Among other things, we feared that this would price people out of their homes and it would, in effect, make it much more difficult to pass school parcel taxes aa well as other ballot initiatives.
At the same time, we were alarmed both that residents would not know that their rates were tripling and that from the Prop 218 notice they would not know that they had the right not only to protest, but that their protest was in actuality a vote against the water rate hikes, while their silence was actually a vote for it.
As one can plainly see from the first draft of the Prop 218 notice, the city, while following the statutory requirements, was allowed to bury the lead, to bury the process and the fact that citizens not only had the right to protest but that their protest was actually binding, not just symbolic.
The old council would have been satisfied with the idea of following statutory requirements. They would make the claim that the city is meeting with neighbors and that residents will have ample opportunity, through that outreach process and the various articles in the local newspaper, to be fully informed.
But we all know that would have been a dog and pony show. The reality is that most people will not read the paper, let alone attend workshops.
If you believe you are right in a policy, you do not hide even behind a “technically legal” process. You go above and beyond the reasonable call of duty. And the city does that here.
Writes city staff, “The City Council approved the Notice at their meeting of June 7th, and all City utility customers received the final version via mail on or around June 24, 2011. The Notice informs customers of proposed water and sanitary sewer rate increases over the next five years, and sanitation rate increases for the upcoming year. The Notice also includes instructions on how customers may protest the proposed rates.”
City Staff therefore writes: “In short – and consistent with all prior utility rate-setting processes – customers who wish to protest must submit their protest in writing, indicating proof as a qualifying rate payer. All written protests must be received by the City Clerk prior to or submitted during the September 6, 2011 utility rate public hearing.”
Had they done that, and only that, the city would have fulfilled the basic requirements under Prop 218. No one could legally complain about the process. But we all know it is a flawed process.
And thus there has been “discussion about providing customers with a separate follow-up protest mailer.”
This is not unprecedented, in fact the city of San Diego did this recently.
It is simple and clear. I believe they should add something to the effect of: “You have the right to protest the upcoming water rate hikes. If a majority of property owners return this ballot, the rate hikes will not go into effect. If you do not wish to protest the rate hikes, do not return this form.”
That way there is no ambiguity, and if the individuals do not see the rate hike information or otherwise miss it, it is on them. Moreover, if a group wishes to run a campaign, it gives them the form that they need to try to get a majority of property owners to sign.
Make no mistake, the Prop 218 process was a cumbersome process before and it remains a cumbersome process now. It still requires a majority of PROPERTY OWNERS to return their ballots and vote against the project, it still counts a non-vote as a “yes,” but at least within those limitations the process will now be fair. It remains to disallow any input from tenants, who will undoubtedly feel the repercussions from approval by property owners in the form of higher rents.
I still believe tripling the water rates is a problem, but I can live with the outcome if it is a fair and open process. This notice at least accomplishes that modest goal and I commend the council – if this indeed passes tonight – for their willingness to go the extra mile to ensure fairness and transparency.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If I am not mistaken the CC did not call for this immediately and it took awhile. Am I right and who was the CCpetson who pushed for it? Thx David for continuing to put this info out there.
My question has always been, what will happen if the majority of prop owners do vote this protest “in”? Hasn’t the train left the station and how much $ has been spent on the projects already?
“But we all know it is a flawed process”
This plan is a clear attempt to derail a citizen-initiated referendum now and should be rejected by the Council in favor of a vote at the ballot box two months later in November where, as has been the case in ALL past citizen referenda, the majority of the votes cast is the measure of citizen support or rejection. Anything less than a Council-initiated mail-in ballot measure, pure and simple, on this measure will be the measure of each Davis Councilperson.
I see this as an effort to bring transparency to the process, I do not see a sinister motive here and I do not see it as an effort to derail or prevent a citizen referendum.
I would argue there is no reason you can’t do both – if that is your goal. This has the advantage of not requiring a signature drive but the disadvantage that only property owners can vote and that a non-vote is a yes vote.
Council member Steve Souza brought this issue up at the last City Council meeting, which is to his credit. However, this matter is only agendized, and still has to be officially approved by a majority vote.
Secondly, the form should be placed in everyone’s utility bill – which is what I advocated for the Prop 218 notice itself. Many citizens do not read “mailers” from Public Works but just throw them away, do not read newspapers, do not have computers. The only way the city can notify them is to put whatever information is to be had inside their utility bill.
Up until now, this has been problematic, bc of the vendor that has provided the utility bill. The bill itself is generated in such a way as to make insertion of any additional information impossible. However, that has changed. So it would seem that the Prop 218 notice, or some shortened form of it can be placed in the utility bill, along with the protest ballot.
It is important to 1) make sure the information gets to every ratepayer; 2) make it convenient to protest the rates. That way if the surface water project is not protested by enough people, it becomes clear there is significant support for it. It is the right thing to do…
The Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency Water Supply Project has been developed over the years behind closed doors, and recently involved a “water rights deal” with Sacramento developer Angelos Tsakopoulos. As I remember, the “deal” was only available in December of 2010, so our portion of the Project was rammed through the Davis City Council during the week before Christmas, 2010 (when approval was assured) and with minimal public notification and input.
Because of the apparent lack of full transparency in the development and approval of the Project enroute, I think that the City Council should step up now and provide transparency for the cost of the Project at destination. By this, I mean that the Council should direct the appropriate City staff to provide Davis utility rate payers with a simple and straightforward form to protest the projected rate increases that they would be subjected to due to the Project. As of now, the protest process appears intimidating and gratuituously complex
The City Council by unanimous vote approved the E-Z protest form, to be mailed separately from the utility bill. I applaud the City Council here for doing the right thing – making this process as transparent as possible. I understand Mayor Krovoza’s irritation that this issue was not agendized much sooner, rather than essentially left to the eleventh hour. However, having an E-Z protest form is the right thing to do.