Councilmember Dan Wolk has tried to play the swing vote on a number of issues early in his tenure as a Davis city councilmember. In the process, he has had to cast some tough votes, like the deciding vote on the budget.
This week he has authored an op-ed in the Davis Enterprise, in which he both implores the community that we need to “get this water project right” and at the same time, takes “issue with both sides of this debate.”
He writes, “On one side, there are those who do not believe that we need to move away from our sole reliance on groundwater to a surface water supply. But this is simply untenable. Groundwater is environmentally unsustainable. Not only is the supply of quality drinking water shrinking, it’s also high in nitrates, as well as chromium, selenium and other harmful water quality constituents.”
This really does misrepresent most people’s view on the water issue – at least those informed. Even Sue Greenwald, the strongest public opponent of the project, does not believe that we do not need to move away from groundwater, she simply believes that we do not have to do it now.
“And although it would be easier to kick the can down the road, this would be a dereliction of my civic duty. My generation – and my children’s generation – is bearing the burden of the lack of long-term planning in unfunded liabilities and crumbling infrastructure. And nowhere is that more evident than with this water project,” he writes.
“When they grow up, I do not want my children to say that I had an opportunity to make the necessary investment in our future and did not do it,” he writes.
On the other hand, while I understand the sentiment, now having three kids to worry about in the future, I worry about the present as well, and not just my finances, but also the schools and this community. The cost of surface water on ratepayers could put that present in jeopardy.
Here Mr. Wolk seems to have problems, as well. He writes, “But when it comes to how the proposed surface water project has been and will be carried out, and the projected rates, I have some real problems. And this is where those championing the water project have failed.”
He argues that the process lacks transparency. “Consultants and decisions have been too distant from press coverage, the City Council and ultimately the community. This is partly due to the fact that the project is being guided by a joint powers authority, and not directly by the city,” he writes.
Furthermore he argues, “We have not sufficiently sought flexibility on the project’s timeline. We should be trying to do as much as we can to spread out the rate increases, including seeking a variance from the state and engaging our state and federal legislative delegation to assist us.”
Here he does not sound a whole lot different from Sue Greenwald.
He notes, “Only three entities will be allowed to bid on the project. This does not encourage competition and cost savings.”
And we have open concerns about two of them.
He adds, “It is not clear who will monitor construction and compliance. And who will monitor to ensure the bond rate and financing plan are reasonable?”
Councilmember Wolk notes that it is not clear that we have exhausted all funding opportunities – it appears, in fact, that we have not looked into a whole range of options that may or may not exist.
However, some of his ideas are impractical, “What about utilizing a portion of our sales tax, since all visitors, users of facilities, hotels, restaurants and the like will benefit from having clean water?”
That is money that comes from the general fund, a fund that is being taxed (no pun intended) to pay for basic city services that have been put in jeopardy by flat revenue streams and overly-generous employee compensation agreements.
I do not know the legality of using general fund money, but there is no way that general fund money is going to make much of a dent in a project that will costs hundreds of millions.
“There is no plan in place to assist those who are low-income or on fixed incomes. What about our affordable housing programs?” he continues.
He then adds, as we have, “We are in the midst of a historic and tenacious recession. Asking community members to significantly raise their water rates at this time is difficult.”
“The sum of all this is that the process has lacked credibility and the public has not adequately bought into it. This is evidenced by the almost 5,000 ratepayers who protested,” Councilmember Wolk writes, noting that he hears the ratepayers loud and clear.
He adds, “Although I did not have the three votes necessary for an alternative one-year rate proposal to the five-year rate schedule, I was able to fashion a motion that will greatly strengthen the process, result in greater openness and oversight, and ideally reduce costs for the overall project.”
This all sounds good, and many of these things were pointed out during the water debate. While Mr. Wolk tries to cast himself in the middle, those statements are not all that incongruent with what Councilmember Sue Greenwald has said.
Where we get concerned is that Mr. Wolk’s appointees to the “technical advisory committee” are Helen Thomson and Alf Brandt.
Everyone knows Helen Thomson. She was a great public servant. But she has also been part of the people who have brought us this water project at the county level. Meanwhile, Mr. Brandt is certainly a notable water expert, but he is best known for working on a lot of the delta protection legislation with Senator Wolk.
So, while Mr. Wolk talks a good game about independence, he ends up selecting two people with very strong ties to his mother, the Senator. It seems odd that, while on the one hand Mr. Wolk wants to play in the middle ground, on the other hand he brings on two people who are decidedly in his mother’s camp.
The criticism of these picks is not aimed at either individual’s wealth of experience on this issue, it is aimed at the fact that Mr. Wolk is professing to have problems with the water project, at least as the proposed financing has gone, and yet he ends up making very “safe” picks from his own perspective.
He is trying to split the baby here, so as to create support from both sides of the fence on this issue, but undermines that tactic with his own picks.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It takes at least two years to get one’s feet wet on the CC. I give Dan high marks for trying different tactics and strategies. I like his focus on the fiscal mess underlying the funding of this project.
I am not convinced that the surface water project is necessary. Even if it is, I have huge doubts about turning over at least partial control of our water to a regional body or the City of Woodland, or to a worldwide private water contractor.
The project as developed is completely nuts, even if you assume surface water is needed. This project started off as a joint project with UCD, West Sacramento, Woodland, and (I believe) the COunty. Now it has morphed into a deal with just Woodland, and their finances are extremely shaky.
Nancy Price, where the heck are you? We need you!
[i]Now it has morphed into a deal with just Woodland, and their finances are extremely shaky.
[/i]
Here we go again.
Don, forget everything I said above for a moment. I am not the spokesperson for the referendum.
You are going to sign the referendum petition because you believe that as the owner of a business that uses a heck of a lot of water that you should be able to vote on these huge water rate increases, right?
No, Michael, I would not sign the referendum, and I strongly urge everyone else to NOT sign the referendum.
Stop maligning Woodland.
[quote]You are going to sign the referendum petition because you believe that as the owner of a business that uses a heck of a lot of water that you should be able to vote on these huge water rate increases, right? [/quote]Interesting attorney tactic… similar to the old chestnut when an attorney was trying to destroy a witness’ credibility by asking, “when did you stop hitting your wife?”
As a property owner and rate payer, I chose not to send in the Prop 218 rate protest form when it arrived in the mail. Davis rate payers had ample opportunity to protest under the Prop 218 guidelines.
[quote]I am not convinced that the surface water project is necessary.
…I am not the spokesperson for the referendum. [/quote]
Then who is the spokesperson? Not necessary? Really? Based on what?
Information please: was Helen Thomsen involved in the prior issues with not getting Beressa water etc? Was that under her watch?
Dan mentions in his op Ed that the CC will review contracts etc the the JPA passes but what oversight will Davis actually have?
I again am concerned about the issues that Nancy Price has raised, design, build, operate.
@ Don Shor[quote]I would not sign the referendum, and I strongly urge everyone else to NOT sign the referendum.[/quote]Ditto.
In addition, I would strongly urge Davis voters to reject any local politician involved in provoking this rate payer revolt (officially or unofficially). This is cynical political manipulation in its absolute worst form.
To my way of thinking, Dan was expressing concerns that I think all citizens have about this project. It is unsettling, nothing is certain, but at the end of the day Dan believes the surface water project must be moved forward. I’m not going to tell you I don’t have doubts, that all of this isn’t unsettling. I don’t want to pay the higher water rates – who the heck would want to? But at the end of the day, one has to make a decision one way or the other – which risks are greater in one’s mind – moving ahead or delaying? San Diego – a city brought up as an example by critics of the surface water project as having cheaper overall water rates than we might have – did make the wise decision some time ago to address their water problems, and now will be better off for it. That in and of itself should be an object lesson that interminable delay is probably NOT the better answer.
[quote]I am not convinced that the surface water project is necessary. Even if it is, I have huge doubts about turning over at least partial control of our water to a regional body or the City of Woodland, or to a worldwide private water contractor. [/quote]
I think these are reasonable concerns, and why it will be very, very important in the coming days for the City Council members to choose wisely their choices for the citizen advisory board. People who will ask the hard questions, won’t necessarily accept what is told to them, but look “under the rocks” to see what is really going on.
correction: citizen advisory committee
The town has practically enshrined in stone the idea that we get to vote on border expansion projects, big (Covell Village) and small (Parlin Wildhorse). Heck, even Target was on the ballot.
Why is is so tough for some of you bloggers to get that maybe it’s a good idea that Davis voters have a direct ballot on a project that may well exceed $250 million of local rate payer money?
Just put it on the ballot and let the voters decide.
SODA, are you asking about the creation of Lake Berryessa/Monticello Dam, and the resultant water flows? That happened back in the 1950’s. I think David was pointing out, in the 9/6 article, that Senator Wolk had pointed out that Davis had been offered water rights back then. I believe Vernard Hickey was mayor at that time.
“Two former Davis Mayors, one now the sitting State Senator, argued that Davis along with other entities in 1958 were offered water rights as part of building the new Monticello Dam (Lake Berryessa). Davis said no.”
The ratepayers have voted. The Prop 218 process worked. Those of us who favor the water project chose not to send in the protest forms. They were really obvious. They arrived in the mail and said Utility Rate Protest Form Enclosed in bright red ink, right on the front. I had the option of protesting Water Rates, Sanitary Sewer Rates, or Sanitation Rates. It was really, really easy to understand.
Because I support the project, I didn’t send that back in. You did. That’s the way the rate increase system works.
[quote]The town has practically enshrined in stone the idea that we get to vote on border expansion projects, big (Covell Village) and small (Parlin Wildhorse). Heck, even Target was on the ballot. [/quote]
Fair enough. You’re right; we do vote on almost everything here in Davis. Personally, I have greater faith in the republican (small “r”) form of government than I do in direct democracy. One need only look at the California initiative process to see why. We all have our jobs and our lives, and we don’t have time or expertise to know everything, so we elect people we trust who do have the time and can at least access the expertise. The project has been thoroughly vetted over a number of years, and I don’t think it wise to risk losing it now. I know this is not PC, but I respect your question and wanted to answer it. Sorry for the second post.
Thx highbeam. Does Helen have a record on water, water rights and design, build, operate concepts. That might be a better way to frame it. I did not hear anything from David’s article other than the two appointees were Lois’ friends/supporters/cronies. Take your pick.
“Why is is so tough for some of you bloggers to get that maybe it’s a good idea that Davis voters have a direct ballot on a project that may well exceed $250 million of local rate payer money?
Just put it on the ballot and let the voters decide.”
That’s because those bloggers know full well that the water project will be defeated.
Don Shor:
“The ratepayers have voted. The Prop 218 process worked. Those of us who favor the water project chose not to send in the protest forms. They were really obvious. They arrived in the mail and said Utility Rate Protest Form Enclosed in bright red ink, right on the front. I had the option of protesting Water Rates, Sanitary Sewer Rates, or Sanitation Rates. It was really, really easy to understand.”
Then you have nothing to worry about if/when it goes to a vote.
[quote]Then you have nothing to worry about if/when it goes to a vote.[/quote]
The voting system, unfortunately can be “gamed” – remember Pizzagate? That said, since the referendum process is available to citizens, it is their right to avail themselves of it. But again, I would add the one caution: if the water rate increases are voted down, what is the back up plan? From what I’ve heard thus far, the so called “back-up” plans are built on a lot of wishful thinking…
It sounds like the lowered rates were also built on “wishful” projections.
The voters will decide.
Dan said he is worried about rates, but he wouldn’t second my motion to participate in the variance process to try to get maximum regulatory flexibility including the ability to postpone the project.
The only way to reduce rates in any significant way is to phase in our two projects.
By refusing to support my motion to seek regulatory flexibility to delay the project, he has assured that our rates will be higher, regardless of his protestation.
The same applies to my other colleagues.
By refusing to seek regulatory flexibility, are assured that we will have to do the project, regardless of price (which has not been determined yet).
We can’t reduce our rates significantly without postponing this project until we pay off our wastewater treatment plant. At that point, our wastewater treatment costs will go down. To pretend otherwise is to avoid facing reality.
The touted rate reduction is token. It merely postpones the time that we have to pay $2,300 a year in water/sewer/garbage fees for the average house from five years to six. And the postponement is in part because some needed water upgrades and their attendant increased rates are postponed for a few years beyond year 6.
All this assumes that the project will not end up costing more – which which engineers I have talked with think it will, and that other factors involved in our rates will not cost more than projected, which engineers I have talked with think it will. It does not count the cost of complying with expensive storm sewer treatment regulations that are likely to come down, and yesterday at the Water Resources Association meeting a speaker told us that we will likely have to comply with very costly mercury reduction regulations. River water actually adds mercury; our ground water is relatively free of it.
In six years’ time, our (Davis-Woodland) water/sewer rates will be far, far and away the highest in the region, and will be very high by statewide standards.
They will be higher than those of San Diego, the contrary to what those who have been championing undertaking both of our major projects at once. And the coastal regions have little in the way of heating and air-conditioning costs, so our total utility bill load will be off the charts.
This will have repercussions that we haven’t begun to contemplate.
There are no risks involved in postponing the project if we obtain a variance. We have our water rights secured, and we are ready to go quickly if we run into problems.
David on target, but is understating the contradictions involved in, on the one hand expressing concern about rates and, on the other hand, refusing to take the only action that could help us reduce rates. Without working hard for variance, our costs will probably end up far,far higher than the $2,300 average single family cost a year now projected by year six, no matter [b]WHAT[/b] we do. That is reality.
“David on target, but is understating the contradictions involved in…”
Ditto the above comment.
I just received a mass e-mail from Joe Krovoza that contains some serious misrepresentations. [quote]Joe says: “While our historically low water rates will increase to the average of other cities in our region, please learn why before rushing to judgment.” — list serve e-mail from Joe Krovoza[/quote]
This is dead wrong. Both our water rates and our combined water/wastewater/garbage rates will be [b]BY FAR[/b] the highest in the region.
They will also be very high by statewide standards.
Our water/wastewater/garbage rates will even be substantially higher than those of San Diego, an example of “really high rates” that has often been raised. And San Diego has minimal heating/air conditioning costs and no school and city supplementary taxes.
It is heartbreaking for me to see people that I otherwise admire and respect give citizens such incredibly wrong information on an issue of such overwhelming importance.
Read “train wreck in the making”.
“This project started off as a joint project with UCD…”
David… can you clarify the narrative concerning UCD and this project? The fragments of a narrative that I can put together from what I have read on the Vanguard goes something like this: UCD was initially a joint partner in the funding of this project. They withdrew from this commitment. UCD then went on to present to the State agency a plan to use future surface water accessed through Davis’ proposed surface water infrastructure to bring UCD’s overall water supply up to the necessary clean water standards.
Joe also said: [quote]In short, we are wasting precious dollars now fixing a dated groundwater system that can’t sustain us, near-term expenses are looming if we don’t act on a long-term solution – [b]List serve e-mail from Joe Krovoza[/b]. [/quote] In fact, “fixing the groundwater system” is chump change compared to our approximately $200 million share of the surface water project (counting Conaway water purchase and East Area water tank). And we have to “fix” our groundwater system anyway, because we are going to have to operate, maintain and rely on both groundwater and surface water even after the surface water project is built.
Hence, having to “fix our groundwater system” is not a valid reason to embark both the wastewater project and the surface water project at once, or to refuse to at the very least second a motion to seek the regulatory flexibility to postpone the project whose real cost we don’t even yet know.
If we don’t phase in these projects, City of Davis sewer/water rates will be infamously high – off the charts in the region and very high by statewide standards. That is because our per capita fixed costs will be so extraordinarily high.
Towns of 65,000 people just don’t undertake $300 million (and counting) of capital improvement costs simultaneously (not counting upcoming storm water and mercury regulations.
[b]Remember – half of all Davis households make under $60,000 a year.[/b]
I don’t know if this is news or I had never heard it before or if I am spilling some beans which I ought not be spilling, but last night, when discussing this year’s extraordinarily large* capital improvement projects (CIP) budget, Councilman Stephen Souza told the HRMC that in his recent trip to Washington D.C., where he was lobbying Congress for funding for the water works, he obtained $20 million in federal funds for the Woodland-Davis project.
*Extraordinarily large CIP budget? In recent years we have normally spent around $8 million or $9 million. The 2011-12 budget (due in part to the water works and in part due to the RDA funds) is set at $40 million. If the Council fails to heed my advice and fund historical resources, $400,000 of that $40 million will go into the Muni Arts fund and none will go to historical resources.
Rich, I fully support the appropriate funding of historical resources. I have restored several downtown cottages with build dates ranging from 1911, 1921, 1931, and the 40’s. I nearly always attended the HRMC meetings as CC representative, and enjoyed every minute of it. Keep up the good work!
[quote]he obtained $20 million in federal funds for the Woodland-Davis project.[/quote] ?????????
[i]” I nearly always attended the HRMC meetings as CC representative, and enjoyed every minute of it.”[/i]
As it happens, after I thanked Stephen Souza for his nearly perfect attendance record as the council liaison to the HRMC, which contrasts with Don Saylor, who never once stayed for an entire meeting, and to my recollection only once stayed for 10 minutes at one meeting, Rand Herbert, our very capable Chair, said, “When Michael Harrington was the liaison, he always came to the HRMC meetings.”
On the topic of councilmembers willfully spreading misinformation to the public …
According to the 2006 California Water Charge Survey by Black and Veatch, Davis ranks 406 out of 453 cities/agencies statewide.
If you double the Davis rate, we would rank 141 out of 453 — not even in the top quartile.
[Disclaimer: I did the tabulation by hand, so I may be slightly off on the exact ranks.]
Congrats to Stephen if the Rifkin info is right.
This type of money solves (rather than defers) a problem, and does not cost the rate payers anything. It’s an example of what can happen if we’re all pulling on the oars in the same direction.
Voter 2012: I wish you would have the courage to sign your name, so that we could make a bet on this. If you reveal your name, I will bet you a dinner with a fine wine at any restaurant in Davis that I our water/sewer bills will be spectacularly high by regional standards and very high by statewide standards six years from now, when the rates kick in.
That is, if I can still afford it.
In fact, our water rates and our water/sewer/garbage rates will spectacularly high by regional standards, and very high by statewide standards.
Our cumulative utilities including gas and electricity will be spectacularly high by statewide standards.
We will be famous.
“Now it has morphed into a deal with just Woodland, and their finances are extremely shaky.” Michael Harrington
“Here we go again.” Don Schor
Above is how Don Schor responds to Michael’s questioning of Woodland short, medium, and long term fiscal ability to support the project. Don is so full of facts and web links but I have never yet seen him make the case based on any evidence at all, or anyone else for that matter, that Woodland will be a totally safe and reliable partner in this project.
As I have said before, if Woodland is not, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down (Please let me know what the contingency plan is, if there is one, in such an event).
But most of all, be ye Don Shor or Matt Rexroad (another ardent supporter of the project), please make the case that Woodland is a safe and reliable project partner.
I am one opponent of the project who does not see this as a patronizing and politically incorrect question to ask, but instead a truly vital one.
Herman, how dare you ask a sensible question.
@Sue Greenwald: “… spectacularly high by regional standards … very high by statewide standards … spectacularly high by regional standards … high by statewide standards … spectacularly high by statewide standards.”
Sue: I’ve posted real quantitative information that that contradicts your rhetoric. So please spare us the shrill fear mongering and [b]post some data[/b] that makes your case.
Herman, Michael has not shown how Woodland’s finances, as they pertain to the ratepayer-funded water project, are shaky in any way. He has just said “their finances are extremely shaky.” I can’t prove a negative, except to say that I don’t think Woodland is on the brink of insolvency, nor has their bond rating been reduced to my knowledge, if those points matter. What I will say is that I believe Michael is making this up and it is up to him to provide any evidence that Woodland is any less credit-worthy than Davis for entering into a joint powers agreement to finance and manage this project.
The last time Michael mentioned Woodland, making the claim that they were hiding things and using questionable financing, he backtracked within the same blog post.
It’s up to him to prove his claim. Otherwise he is, as I said earlier, maligning Woodland’s financial management and city officials.
“I’ll bet you Davis rates will be lower than San Diego’s.” “I’ll bet you Davis rates will be higher than San Diego’s.” How much longer will this go on before someone produces data with reliable projections (and the others stop making baseless, generalized claims)?
“The goons are coming!” “Woodland can’t afford to pay anyway.” “The university cheated on this deal.” Boy, we’re in for an pleasant few months. Let the disinformation campaigns begin….
“”I’ll bet you Davis rates will be lower than San Diego’s.” “I’ll bet you Davis rates will be higher than San Diego’s.” How much longer will this go on before someone produces data with reliable projections (and the others stop making baseless, generalized claims)?”
JustSaying: I know your question was just rhetorical, but just for the record …
According to the 2006 California Water Charge Survey by Black and Veatch, the monthly water charge in San Diego is 2.26X the monthly water charge in Davis. Here’s the URL (first posted by Don Shor) if you want to verify the facts as I am representing them:
http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/2006_water.pdf
A 14% annual increase for 6 years will increase our water charge by 2.19X. So, if you use the 2006 data as a baseline (I don’t have the 2011 numbers but, hey, I’m doing this analysis pro bono) we can increase rates up to the 218 limit for the entire 5 years (plus the extra year that has been discussed) and our monthly water charge will still be less than San Diego’s. This would bring us to near parity with San Diego if they are able to keep their rates static. If they are also forced to raise rates during this period, then we will still be underpaying relative to San Diego when the dust settles.
I don’t know why Sue uses San Diego as an example of anything, but I think this particular talking point from Sue would certainly qualify as disinformation.
[quote]I’ll bet you Davis rates will be lower than San Diego’s.” “I’ll bet you Davis rates will be higher than San Diego’s.” How much longer will this go on before someone produces data with reliable projections (and the others stop making baseless, generalized claims)? — [b]JustSaying[/b] [/quote]I will make that bet because I talked with the staff member in San Diego who was referred to me by the Mayor’s office as the person who could best answer questions about rate projections.
We talked for about half an hour. He told me what the average single family house water/wastewater bill was, told me that they weren’t expecting any rate increases in the next few years, told me that if they needed to raise rates after that, he would expect it to be about 20% total (of water and wastewater) max if he had to guess. He said that garbage and storm sewer were covered by the general fund and that he didn’t think that they had any supplementary city or school district taxes (I would have to verify that with other staff members). He also said that he didn’t have much in the way of heating/cooling bills.
I added up their total water/wastewater/storm sewer/garbage in order to get an apples to apples comparison, and the figures he estimated for 6 years from now as maximum was about the same as ours or a little lower.
Our numbers are probably squishier than his, since we don’t know what our project costs are going to be yet.
I am also betting that by the time firm bids and all the change orders, etc. come in, that our costs will be higher than we anticipate.
San Diego water rates have been increasing. They buy most of their water from MWD, which buys much of it on the open market. Davis will not be buying water on the open market.
[url]http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/jan/24/city-debates-antoerh-water-rate-increase/[/url]
[quote]I don’t know why Sue uses San Diego as an example of anything –[b]Voter 2012[/b][/quote]Sue uses San Diego as an example because those who argue that our rates will still be low after this project is factored into our rates always use San Diego as an example of a city with outrageously high rates, and say that we are just lucky we are not San Diego.
I had assumed that this was correct because San Diego has a reputation for unbearably high rates, but I thought it was probably being overstated. So I thought I would call and find out.
I was surprised to hear that within six years, our cumulative water/sewer/garbage expenses would end up as high or higher than those in San Diego.
Next I will deal with the incorrect statement that our water/sewer/garbage rates will be below average for the region. No, they will be astronomically high for the region.
[i]”…always use San Diego as an example of a city with outrageously high rates, and say that we are just lucky we are not San Diego.”[/i]
Just curious: who has been using San Diego as an example?
@ Sue Greenwald (11:37 am)[quote]Our water/wastewater/garbage rates will even be [u][b]substantially higher[/u][/b] than those of San Diego, an example of “really high rates” that has often been raised.[/quote]@ Sue Greenwald (11:18 pm)[quote]I added up their total water/wastewater/storm sewer/garbage in order to get an apples to apples comparison, and the figures he estimated for 6 years from now as maximum was [u][b]about the same as ours or a little lower[/u][/b].[/quote]Sue: You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
[i]We talked for about half an hour. He told me what the average single family house water/wastewater bill was, told me that they weren’t expecting any rate increases in the next few years, told me that if they needed to raise rates after that, he would expect it to be about 20% total (of water and wastewater) max if he had to guess. He said that garbage and storm sewer were covered by the general fund and that he didn’t think that they had any supplementary city or school district taxes (I would have to verify that with other staff members). He also said that he didn’t have much in the way of heating/cooling bills. [/i]
Trash fees are out of the general fund (which, of course, isn’t necessarily an improvement over having ratepayers pay directly).
They buy their water from MWD. They have had water rate increases over the last three years, the last one approved in January of this year. They have to raise their rates if MWD raises the cost of their water. He has no way of knowing when that will happen again. The “20% total” figure is totally meaningless, since they don’t determine that. MWD does. In fact, Southern California water districts have threatened to sue MWD over this issue. In the link I posted above, a councilmember called for a state audit of MWD. MWD buys water on the open market, at very high rates at times.
Homeowners pay a water fee, a sewer base fee, a sewer charge, and a storm drain fee. “Covered by the general fund”? They are paid by ratepayers there, just like here. You can look at the fee descriptions online for San Diego:
[url]http://www.sandiego.gov/water/rates/how2.shtml[/url]
San Diego sales tax is 7.75%.
Not all of San Diego is coastal. Much of it is nearly as hot as here in the summer. They have heating and cooling bills. And SDG&E was one of the hardest-hit utilities in the Enron fiasco.
[quote]San Diego water rates have been increasing. They buy most of their water from MWD, which buys much of it on the open market. Davis will not be buying water on the open market.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, that is why I spend weeks tracking down and talking to the guy who deals with the rates in San Diego. I wanted to get his PROJECTIONS, and I did.
The reason that their rates are going to be equal to or lower than ours is because the fixed costs just swamp the cost of water.
I actually think that our rates will end up far higher than we projected, but I used the staff figure for comparison.
And yes, San Diego has come up meetings many times. Enough to make me go to the trouble to look it up.
Voter2012: Your above observation is correct. I had been relying the chart that E. Roberts Musser posted as a comparison because Paul Navazio was out of town.
As soon as Paul got back on Monday, I asked him to verify those figures. He didn’t get the answer until this evening (I asked a few times, actually). By tonight, he had the information and he explained that Elaine had not used the right chart, so I went back and readjusted my figures to be accurate.
The correct statement is:[quote]I added up their total water/wastewater/storm sewer/garbage in order to get an apples to apples comparison, and the figures he estimated for 6 years from now as maximum was about the same as ours or a little lower.[/quote]
[b]Don Shor:[/b]I have been using the cumulative water/wastewater/stormwater/garbage figures all along whenever available because Davis bills them, they are unavoidable, and they affect the pocketbook. I could have used water/wastewater/stormwater/garbage/gas/electricity and supplementary taxes, and we would have come out far, far worse.
I identified an apples to apples figure early on that shows the cumulative effect on the pocketbook, and stuck with it when the comparative figures were available.
[quote]Trash fees are out of the general fund (which, of course, isn’t necessarily an improvement over having ratepayers pay directly). –[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]It most certainly is an improvement, since the city can pay for it without any supplementary taxes at all. The whole point that I am making is that Davis’ city utility costs are going to be sky-high.
If Davis could pay for the water project/or wastewater projects out of our general fund without needing any supplementary taxes, I would be quite enthusiastic.
I’ll debate your comparisons later, since there are hundreds of water districts in California. Bottom line: do you support the referendum to cancel the rate increases?
San Diego buys 200,000 acre feet per year from Imperial Water District for 75 years starting in 2019. See the link.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0f8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=San+Diego+buys+water+from+Imperial+cost&source=bl&ots=MUdkCZ4Zds&sig=SanMXBrjGqHvNVVbPFfxLUQRrSo&hl=en#v=onepage&q=San Diego buys water from Imperial cost&f=false
So San Diego actually will pay more for water in the long run since future generations will need to renew the contract. Conaway is selling us rights in perpetuity.
The article also talks about how San Diego deferred costs increasing what they will pay in the long run.
The link doesn’t work but the Source is San Diego Magazine May 2005
From:
http://www.sdcwa.org/water-transfer
“Water conservation and transfer agreements that were completed in October 2003 will provide an additional 277,700 acre-feet of water annually to the San Diego region. The Water Authority-Imperial Irrigation District water transfer will provide 200,000 acre-feet of water a year through water conservation measures in Imperial Valley. The transfer is the cornerstone of the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement, a broader plan that reduces California’s use of Colorado River water to its basic annual apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet.”
“Price: Payments from the Water Authority to IID started in 2003 at $258 per acre-foot and increase each year according to a set schedule until 2015. For 2016 through 2034, the price per acre-foot will be based on the annual increase in the Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator as published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the United States Department of Commerce applied to the prior year price per acre-foot. Beginning in 2035, either the Water Authority or IID can, if certain criteria are met, elect a market price through a formula described in the water transfer agreement. In addition, a shortage premium price can be imposed, under certain conditions, after year 2035.”
So San Diego will eventually pay more. Our cost for the water itself will eventually decline.
Voter2012: thanks for bringign the water rate report back into the discussion. It’s a critical piece of information that was quickly lost. Sue, when you approach folks at the Water Board with your request for a financial hardship variance, you better have a better reason than you spoke to some staffer in San Diego, who, as Don has pointed out, doesn’t seem to know their own cities fees and rate structure.
Thank you mayor Krovoza and Stephen Souza for continued work on this project.
Mr. Toad: have you noticed that in this rate report that the City of Davis has a very low hook up fee. The reports states that the city’s hook up fee is a little over $1,000. There’s plenty of room to push this number up, and it should be increased, substantially.
Hook up fees from new development, sell the treated wastewater, State aid, Obama bucks. There are many ways to skin the cat. I praise Dan Wolk for both supporting the project but looking for ways to do it with lower rate increases.
[quote][b][u]Bottom line: do you support the referendum to cancel the rate increases?[/b][/u] — Don Shor[/quote]I agree with Don. Let’s just cut to the chase. How about a simple yes/no answer?
Many of us already know what’s going on, but a statement on the record would be the honorable thing to do (since you were elected to represent the entire city).
[quote]Voter2012: Your above observation is correct. I had been relying the chart that E. Roberts Musser posted as a comparison because Paul Navazio was out of town.[/quote]So you are using Elaine and/or Paul as an excuse for spreading misinformation? Sweet.
@ Davis Enophile: [quote]Sue, when you approach folks at the Water Board with your request for a financial hardship variance, you better have a better reason than you spoke to some staffer in San Diego, who, as Don has pointed out, doesn’t seem to know their own cities fees and rate structure.[/quote]Sue: Can you explain how it took WEEKS for a sitting councilmember and former City of Davis mayor to track down and speak to a San Diego staffer for 30 min? I know this is intended to impress us with your diligence, but it really just raises red flags about the quality/competency of your research.
Did you memorialize your efforts in a memo to the City Manager and/or your council colleagues so that they could benefit from your work (after all, this is supposed to be a team effort)? Is this staffer’s name secret, like many of your other sources? If not, can you please post it since there seems to be some question as to his/her understanding of the San Diego rate structures?
[quote]As soon as Paul got back on Monday, I asked him to verify those figures. He didn’t get the answer until this evening (I asked a few times, actually). By tonight, he had the information and he explained that Elaine had not used the right chart, so I went back and readjusted my figures to be accurate. [/quote]
I “had not used the “right” chart”? So would you please post the “right” chart according to your view? There is just no way to say this any more nicely (apologies to everyone, but I feel I must speak out): Thanks to various commenters who have carried the ball in pointing out Council member Greenwald’s repetitive comments, shifting positions, unnamed sources, accusations that none of us have the correct information, etc. It is extremely frustrating to deal with…
As Sue said, “train wreck in the making.”
If there are charts, graphs, or images that anyone wants posted, send them to me by email at donshor@gmail.com and I can post them to my server and provide a link. Then they can be referenced in future blog posts.
[b]Voter2012[/b]: IMHO, you are not discussing, you are bullying. If you had to sign your name, I guarantee that this would not go on.
— Sue from the Core
[quote]Voter2012: IMHO, you are not discussing, you are bullying. If you had to sign your name, I guarantee that this would not go on. [/quote]
Who is doing the bullying here?
Wow!!! I guess water is a very emotional topic. I am just concerned with getting the projects done in a fiscally feasible manner.
[quote]San Diego sales tax is 7.75%.—[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]The surcharge appears to be from a county tax, Don.
The 20% estimate was definitely an estimate — it was an estimate by someone who does this for a living in the city of San Diego. Similarly, our figure of $325 million for the entire surface water project is just an estimate.
If you want to look at ancient comparison figures and extrapolate, here are some more recent than the “hard” figures referred to by Toad and Voter2012. Remember, these are water rates alone, and my concern is doing approximately $300 million of capitol improvements and permanent water rights purchases simultaneously.
Average Monthly Water Charge: 2009
San Joaquin Valley $ 37.14
Southern: $ 42.11
Northern: $ 54.35
Central Coast $ 60.24
In 2009, water prices were unusually high because of the great drought.
Our profile is probably closest to San Joaquin Valley, if we had to choose, with its $ 37.14 2009 monthly water costs.
Now, our water rates are currently projected to be $78 dollars in 6 years. But remember,very, very few towns of only 65,000 in the San Joaquin or Sacramento Valley are undertaking $200 worth of water infrastructure and associated and improvements at this time.
There is no reason to believe that their $37.14 costs will double. Hence, ours will be the highest. Now, on top of that, we have a new waste water treatment plant.
[quote]Similarly, our figure of $325 million for the entire surface water project is just an estimate. [/quote]
[quote]ours will be the highest.[/quote]
If “our figure of $325 million for the entire surface water project is just an estimate”, your claim that “our [water rates] will be the highest” is nothing more than an “estimate”. You cannot have it both ways…
[quote]Wow!!! I guess water is a very emotional topic. I am just concerned with getting the projects done in a fiscally feasible manner.[/quote]
No one doubts your civic minded motives here. But fanning the flames by pouring gasoline on the fire with terms like “bullying” towards anyone who disagrees w you is just not helpful to the discussion…
To Sue Greenwald: And just as an aside, there are many, many others who disagree with your position who are just as civic minded as you are. We care about the city and its citizens, but honestly feel there is less risk in moving with the surface water project now rather than later. Reasonable minds can disagree on an issue. You yourself supposedly took a “nuanced” position at one time, and said in public something to the effect (don’t have time to dig up the exact quote) there were good reasons to move forward with the project and good reasons to delay…
Correction: moving forward with the surface water project…
[quote]If “our figure of $325 million for the entire surface water project is just an estimate”, your claim that “our [water rates] will be the highest” is nothing more than an “estimate”. You cannot have it both ways…[b]R. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]It is not an estimate, it is an inference. If most jurisdictions in our region embark on projects with similar per-capita cost, then our water rates which be average, but no one knows of any planned.
Since our entire region depends mostly on free water — the region has have area of origin preference when it comes to river water and we have ground water — the cost of water itself will not be a large factor.
[quote]It is not an estimate, it is an inference.[/quote]
IMHO, a distinction w/o a difference. It is an exercise in risk assessment. You want to live “more on the edge” than I do…
“Voter2012: IMHO, you are not discussing, you are bullying. If you had to sign your name, I guarantee that this would not go on.”
Sue: LOL. I don’t sign my name because I live and work in this town and don’t want people like you making my personal and professional life miserable … and you know exactly what I mean.
12 years is enough.
Sincerely, The Walrus
[quote]IMHO, a distinction w/o a difference. It is an exercise in risk assessment. You want to live “more on the edge” than I do…[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]I agree with you Elaine. It is absolutely a matter of risk assessment. I just don’t understand where you think the risk is.
There are a lot of risks that I worry about. Eating known significant carcinogens like pickled food and smoked food and charcoal broiled food (I do it anyway, and just worry about it). Eating high-cholesterol food like a good roquefort cheese (I worry about it, and just do it anyway). I take real risks, like driving on the freeway. I worry about a real threats, like drug resistant bacteria and evolving new virus diseases. I worry about overpopulation, war, loss of civil liberties, the growing concentration of wealth and power.
I just don’t see any risk at all regarding our water supply if we work with the SWRCB through the variance process they themselves that have set up to try to obtain a variance allowing us to postpone the project until we pay off much of our wastewater treatment plant.
Where is the risk? If they refuse to allow us the variance or any other regulatory relief, we build the project now with the attendant socio-economic hardship and threat to our needed school and city supplementary taxes. Ditto if we run into physical problems with the well water — these problems to not occur overnight.
I don’t see the risk involved in proceeding in this fashion.