For the last few months the council has come under fire due to water rates that were set to triple for residential rate payers. It now appears that the rates the council will vote on have been downwardly revised from nearly tripling the rate of increase, to an increase of 2.2 times the current rate.
It is thus unclear if these represent real reductions in cost or if they are simply moving money around.
One critical question that has arisen is whether the council-approved rates would be controlling, or whether they could simply without further vote restore rates to the Prop 218 noticed water rates.
According to the city’s finance director Paul Navazio, the ordinance sets the maximum rates.
He told the Vanguard that once the City Council “adopts a five-year rate ordinance BELOW rates published in our Prop 218 notice, these become the new annual MAX rates. Any future increase that exceeds the new (lower) max rates would require a new Prop 218 process….the original Prop 218 notice ceases to have any effect.”
Furthermore, “The adopted five-year ordinance sets max RATES (not % increase) for each individual year. The Council can set actual annual rates at or below these rates at the beginning of each year.”
He continued, “So, legally, the council could adopt a five-year rate ordinance, not approve ANY actual increases for four years, and still raise rates to the max rates reflected in Year 5 of the rate ordinance….effectively implementing the entire five-year ramp up in the last year.”
“The Council could NOT go to levels in OLD Prop 218 notice,” he added before qualifying that he is not in a position to render any formal legal opinion, and that he believes these are generally accepted tenets of the Prop 218 process.
Mayor Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Stephen Souza this morning continue to argue for the necessity of the project, but they write, “The necessity of the project does not negate our concern for the impact of higher water rates.”
“As a direct result of this input, and after a careful re-evaluation of all project costs, financing options and rate model assumptions, the recommended rates coming before the City Council on Tuesday evening are substantially lower than those published in the Proposition 218 notice,” they add.
“The revised water rates would increase monthly costs for typical single-family residential customers from $34.75 to $77.18 over five years. Year one and two increases are proposed at 14 percent per year, which is half of what was published in the Prop. 218 notice. City staff members are proposing year three through five increases at 19 percent,” they continue.
“If adopted, these increases would be 2.2 times our current water rates for an average single-family residence,” they write. “An option for spreading the rate increases over a six-year period also will be considered by the council, resulting in 14 percent increases for all six years.”
Clearly, the reduction in costs may be seen as good news. However, a cursory view of the way in which they got there is not completely encouraging.
First, they are deferring selected water investments. That is not the worst news. Many have suggested that the city has undertaken a project that is a luxury model, rather than a necessity. By deferring some aspects of the project, it will save money.
On the other hand, borrowing money from the sewer fund will do little other than defer some costs. We have often criticized the city’s failure to build in costs for the water project over time.
The final point is that we always assumed this project would at least double rates, and even then we were concerned with costs. We are talking about doubling water rates during the deepest economic downturn we have had since the Great Depression. Businesses are struggling to survive. Consumers are furloughed and out of work. Any increase in cost is problematic.
We are concerned that property owners will simply pass the costs on to renters, and that will leave renters, many of whom live month to month on small margins, without the kinds of protections that the ratepayers are getting.
We also believe that the city could find more cost-cutting measures than they have already found. While better than the originally advertised rates, this is still a problem for many in this community.
This is clearly a calculated measure, hoping to cut the legs out from a possible referendum that could be a huge setback for the city.
Despite improvements, our view is still that we need to find a way to avoid these kinds of rate hikes, in the middle of such a bad economic period that will put school funding and general programs for the city in jeopardy.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Sounds lime this ninth inning lowering makes it a done deal.
[quote]First, they are deferring selected water investments. That is not the worst news. Many have suggested that the city has undertaken a project that is a luxury model, rather than a necessity. By deferring some aspects of the project, it will save money.
On the other hand, borrowing money from the sewer fund will do little other than defer some costs. We have often criticized the city’s failure to build in costs for the water project over time.[/quote]
Precisely – there is an attempt to keep costs to a minimum and still do the surface water project. That would seem to me to be a sensible approach.
I don’t understand the Vanguard’s criticism in regard to deferring costs. I thought that is what the Vanguard was advocating for?
[quote]We are concerned that property owners will simply pass the costs on to renters, and that will leave renters, many of whom live month to month on small margins, without the kinds of protections that the ratepayers are getting.[/quote]
Actually, the landlords can only pass on so much of the water rate increases to renters. If the landlords make the rent too high, students will start renting elsewhere, where it is cheaper.
[quote]We also believe that the city could find more cost-cutting measures than they have already found. While better than the originally advertised rates, this is still a problem for many in this community.[/quote]
And what exactly would those cost-cutting measures be? Be specific.
Secondly, the city has found a way to decrease the water rate increases from 3.5 to 2.2. At what point will the Vanguard be satisfied? What rate of increase would be acceptable? Or are you saying no rate of increase is acceptable?
Thirdly, if you are saying no rate of increase is acceptable at the moment, how do you answer the problem presented by the SWQRCB representative, who emphatically stated that any money the city would save by not doing the surface water project will be levied in the way of fines for noncompliance with the new water quality standards?
[quote]This is clearly a calculated measure, hoping to cut the legs out from a possible referendum that could be a huge setback for the city.[/quote]
This is clearly a calculated measure to address the economic impact of too steep a rate of increase for water. Why put a nefarious motive to what is obviously a good faith attempt to address the very concerns the Vanguard raised – the undue burden of the Prop 218 rate of increase for water?
“I don’t understand the Vanguard’s criticism in regard to deferring costs. I thought that is what the Vanguard was advocating for? “
The Vanguard did not criticize deferring costs (“First, they are deferring selected water investments. That is not the worst news. Many have suggested that the city has undertaken a project that is a luxury model, rather than a necessity. By deferring some aspects of the project, it will save money. “), it criticized taking money from the sewer fund. That is taking the money from one place and sticking it into another. It wouldn’t be so bad except that we are doing both project at the same time.
When I suggested we defer costs by delaying the project, I was talking about a ten year delay to pay off the wastewater project and hope that the economy had been improved. All I see here is playing around with the numbers.
“Secondly, the city has found a way to decrease the water rate increases from 3.5 to 2.2. At what point will the Vanguard be satisfied? What rate of increase would be acceptable? Or are you saying no rate of increase is acceptable? “
They found a way to do it on paper, that’s not the same thing as finding a way to do it. I have stated my position which is to defer the project for ten years.
“Thirdly, if you are saying no rate of increase is acceptable at the moment, how do you answer the problem presented by the SWQRCB representative, who emphatically stated that any money the city would save by not doing the surface water project will be levied in the way of fines for noncompliance with the new water quality standards? “
That’s one persons view. I am not accepting that as the final answer on the subject until I have more information.
to dmg: I will assume your “cost cutting measure” that you think the city needs to find is to defer the project for 10 years. What makes you think the water-sewer project will be paid off in 10 years? Secondly, how will you effect the necessary cost savings on the wastewater treatment plant, if you build it first rather than second? The cost savings of the wastewater treatment plant very much depend on importing surface water from the Sacramento River FIRST.
[quote]…it criticized taking money from the sewer fund. That is taking the money from one place and sticking it into another. It wouldn’t be so bad except that we are doing both project at the same time. [/quote]
What it would be doing is paying for some of the surface water project up front with funds already collected, forcing the city to borrow some of the costs for the sewer project later. In other words DEFERRAL, which is what you claim you wanted. To DEFER the project for 10 years carries its own risks – a) financing/construction costs will be more expensive later; b) fines levied by the SWQRCB will take away any savings that would have been realized by delaying the surface water project; c) loss of water rights; d) deep water aquifers subside/are too contaminated.
[quote]All I see here is playing around with the numbers.[/quote]
What you see is a genuine attempt to address the economic impact of overly steep water rate increases, which brings with it some risks of its own, as with any decision that is made. Why ascribe nefarious purposes to an honest attempt to bring the water rate increases in line with what people can better afford, especially in this economic downturn? Because it still might interfere with the school district’s ability to pass their tax extension/increase?
[quote]That’s one persons view. I am not accepting that as the final answer on the subject until I have more information.[/quote]
What precisely more do you need to know? A representative from the SWQRCB emphatically stated that the SWQRCB will levy fines in such a way that communities will not benefit financially from not doing necessary projects to bring their discharge water into compliance. I’m assuming you don’t believe him? If so, why not? Is it your assumption that this representative is putting the worst face on things in the hopes of intimidating jurisdictions into compliance, when in fact it is not likely the SWQRCB will carry out any of its threats? Are you willing to gamble “the store” on that?
Certain portions of the water project are directly related to the waste water project in that improving the inflow water quality improves the waste water inflow. As such their cost can be attributed to the waste water project. The advantage is that the city can then borrow from the State Revolving Loan Fund. These rates are much cheaper than other forms of borrowing and there is a net saving to the city as financing costs are lowered and we all benefit. This is sound fiscal management.
I believe that to delay for 10 years will kill this project as surely as we lost out on Lake Berryessa water. Our kids won’t thank us for that.
Borrowing rates are low and construction costs are extremely competitive. Staff has done an excellent job of strategic review to lower the Prop 218 rates. And, without promising it is possible there may be some further reductions.
These projects are the sustainable path forward.
Bob Schneider
[i]”the landlords can only pass on so much of the water rate increases to renters. If the landlords make the rent too high, students will start renting elsewhere, where it is cheaper.”[/i]
I think it is an open, but very interesting question as to who, landlord or tenant, absorbs most of the cost of this increase. I would imagine much will depend on the balance of supply and demand for apartments at any given time.
That is, if the vacancy rate is over 5%, then landlords are not going to be able to pass on this cost. If the vacancy rate is 2% or less–which it usually is in Davis–then landlords (especially those whose properties are very close to campus) will likely be able to pass on the costs to their tenants.
Most apartment leases are gross leases. In other words, the tenant pays one fixed amount for “rent” each month. Out of that check, the landlord pays for the cost of his property insurance, property taxes, common area maintenance and utilities, exterior repairs, water, garbage, landscaping and so on.
What I could see happening–especially if the vacancy rates are low–is some apartment landlords moving to more of a net rent lease when it comes to water bills. In that case, if the rent was $1,000 per month, he might ask for $1,000 for “rent” plus another fixed $100 for water, assuming that the water is not metered for individual apartment units. If the water is metered by each unit, then landlords would simply make each unit pay the bill for that.
What many people including Elaine and Don seem to have lost sight of is the political and economic context in which the decision on the Davis-Woodland water project is being made. On the economic front so many advocates for the project, and I suspect generally comfortable off ones, seem to have lost sight of the strain that the original (and even the revised one) measure would have put on a significant number of household budgets (both owners and renters). A charitable view would be that we have no alternatives and must be environmentally correct no matter what the consequences, a less charitable is view is that, like many Americans they are infused with the spirit of neo liberalism (Take, for example, Elaine’s remark today that property owners can’t pass much of the cost on or renters will go somewhere else to rent!!!???), and have a compassion deficit.
On the macro level they fail to realize or acknowledge what dramatic increase in water rates will do to the Davis economy by reducing net purchasing power and increasing business costs. They remind me a bit of the many who in 2005 said that people predicting a housing bubble burst were just doomsayers. They seem further unconcerned that even if the economic impact is not as bad as some worse case scenarios, it is likely that far fewer residents will be willing to vote for property parcel tax supplements including two school ones that will go to the ballot box next year. Do these advocates read the newspapers listen to NPR? Do they not hear or read the frequent stories about the existing and impending fiscal crisis of countless cities and states and cities across America? Furthermore, very likely, the state budget deficit will result in further cuts to Davis budget by the end of this year and there is no apparent end in sight to continual state budge deficits. Judging by the newly revised project proposal Krovoza and his staff are just beginning to grasp this as well as to recognize the political unpopularity of their earlier proposal.
As Walter Sadler noted in his DE Op-Ed piece a week ago under Section 13241 of the Porter Cologne Act, “economic considerations” are one of six elements that the board has to take into consideration. This is part of the political context in which the SWQRCB will make its decision as to whether to grant Davis a variance or to impose fines. But there is a second and related one: Many of the “flat earthers” appear unaware there is another national political context in which decisions on the project will be made. The 2012 presidential election looms and, like it or not, Rep. candidates are unanimous in supporting a roll back of govt. regulations/mandates. In response to this, last week, the Obama administration, like it or not, decided to suspend some air quality mandates, while during the same week Darrell Steinberg, California Senate President Pro Tem, met with Republicans to talk about loosening state regulations and mandates?
In this economic and political environment is the SWQRCB likely to hit Davis with huge fines or refuse a variance? Just possibly, but I doubt it.
Finally, aside from the variance that Tracy was granted, it is worth pointing out the following: In November 2008 voters in Rohnert Park voted to rollback its sewer rates by 40%. Is Rohnert Park threatened with heavy fines by any regulatory body? Please inform me.
Yes, in September 2008 Dixon was slapped with a $220,000 fine, for violating wastewater treatment but this was AFTER it had received cease and desist orders in 1995, 1996, and 2005, and this fine was levied in a very different political context. In addition, I am unclear, in view of Dixon efforts to mitigate the problem, whether any fines were ever collected.
Staff mostly made more optimistic assumptions about interest rates, which were only assumptions anyway. Our interest rates could end up being higher or lower. And staff spread the increases over one more year. Every year we defer the increase, we actually increase the amount that citizens will have to pay over the next 40 or so years.
The fact is, we don’t know how much this project will cost.
I talked to a knowledgeable engineer this weekend who thought that the project would cost significantly more than is now estimated. Also, we have not taken into account pending storm sewer costs. New regulations look as if they are going to require storm water to be treated. No one has a clue as to how much that will cost.
Unfortunately, if I had to guess, I would guess that our future combined rates will be higher than had been previously estimated by the time we are finished if we don’t succeed in postponing this project.
In their Op-Ed in the DE today Krovoza and Souza state that a 2009 water rate survey prepared by the California-Nevada Section of the American Water Works Association revealed that Davis water rates “have been well below the Northern California average for decades.” I have been to the website of the California-Nevada Section of the… but I cannot find the specific site with this information. Please could they provide the link.
Further, please could Krovoza and Souza provide any links to relatively recent studies showing where Davis ranks in terms of the TOTALITY of its city fees per household relative to other Northern California cities.
Herman, I have had a business here for thirty years. It is a relatively high water user. I am fully and very specifically aware of the impact the water project will have on my own business expenses. I am very much aware of the political and economic context of this issue. And, for the record, I am far from well off.
I believe counting on relief from the water board, which enforces federal law and has very little latitude, is a very faint hope. We have specific commentary that it is not likely, compared to unattributed anonymous commentary that Davis might prevail. Or might prevail for a while, in which case the expense is still there — just waiting for future generations.
I don’t believe the deep water aquifer option holds water, if you’ll pardon the pun.
I don’t believe the “ten years” estimate that David has presented. It is much more likely that the project would be delayed 20 to 25 years, or killed outright, leaving Davis without a reliable clean water source and counting only on declining aquifers.
Please don’t accuse project supporters of ignorance or lack of concern. I believe project opponents are the ones being short-sighted.
Herman, you might find what you are after here:
[url]http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/2006_water.pdf[/url]
[quote]In their Op-Ed in the DE today Krovoza and Souza state that a 2009 water rate survey prepared by the California-Nevada Section of the American Water Works Association revealed that Davis water rates “have been well below the Northern California average for decades.” [/quote]And our combined water/sewer rates will be much higher than average if we undertake our new waste water and surface water projects simultaneously.
Don Shor: There is a variance procedure in place. We should apply. The decision is not made by an administrator; it is made by the board.
[quote]I don’t understand the Vanguard’s criticism in regard to deferring costs. I thought that is what the Vanguard was advocating for? — E. Roberts Musser[/quote]Elaine, we are talking about two different things here.
Delaying the [b]PROJECT[/b]until we pay off all are most of our waste water treatment plant (and probably storm sewer costs as well)will keep rates manageable. Once we start the project, we have to pay for it, and at that point spreading out increases will actually increase rates after the six year phase-in period. Once we float those bonds, we are paying interest every day.
AWWA 2009 California Nevada Water Rate Survey
[url]http://heritageranchcsd.com/2009RateSurvey.pdf[/url]
BLACK & VEATCH 2009/2010 Water/Wastewater Rate Survey
[url]http://www.bv.com/Downloads/Resources/Brochures/rsrc_EMS_Top50RateSurvey.pdf[/url]
Don, I think we differ on just how much potential there is for latitude on the part of the water board, especially in the present, and near future, political and economic context. I cannot agree, even I we look at past history, that it is a “faint hope,” and I agree with Sue G, that you put too much faith in the word of one man. (And incidentally, I understand why experts that Sue may have talked to would not be willing, or not want, to have their names used in public. I think Sue is right to respect their privacy, and I do not believe she is inventing sources).
At the end of the day, to paraphrase what I think is a British expression, “You [America] are not as stupid as you look.”. Put another way, I don’t think the national or state government, in this climate are willing, or stupid enough, to impose five to six figure fines on countless cities and towns across America that have not complied with EPA guidelines. (We don’t have data, as far as I am aware but I am willing to bet there are hundreds). It would greatly help if politicians including US senators and congressmen, California legislators, and the people really on the ground, mayors and council members would lobby for delays in these mandates given the fiscal train wreck we are in. (With the exception of Sue, don’t look for any help from our council). Yes, we can blame many for not starting these projects a long time ago, I agree, but when the Clean Water Act was passed (1972), I don’t think many of its supporters envisaged that communities would have to bear the whole burden of these infrastructure upgrades, and indeed this has not been the case until relatively recently.
Don, as one of your customers I know you reasonably well. I like you and respect your locally unmatched knowledge of “garden issues.” You and your business have provided great service to the community for many years. I don’t want to get sappy, but I also like you very much. However that said, the “concern” you express has never, to the best of my recollection, been for those individuals who many have a hard time making ends meet but for Davis’s water needs, at any price, coupled with the fear of water board fines.
In addition, “well-off” is a very relative term, I would not lose my house if my water rates quintupled, but it would strain my budget. I am in the fortuitous position of having my house paid off and this is only due to some money I inherited from my late wife. With my pension and my wife’s social security, my annual income is $45,000 before taxes. Some are worse off, by far off course, but I’d consider my income to be “far from well off.” In addition, at the risk of seeming petty and personal, and in the interests of full disclosure, for those reading this blog who don’t know, you live in Winters. So while the fee increases will hit your business, to be sure, it will not affect your household bills.
I look forward to seeing data that compares city fees in totality for cities and towns in California or for someone doing some selective but honest research into the matter.
I have no time to debate the viability of alternatives—that’s for another day. But at this point I think I agree with David that the best solution is to delay the project for ten years subject perhaps to a (genuinely expert and objective) study of our aquifers.
I would like to repeat that I have called up a number of high water rate cities in the state, and asked them what their projected water and waste water rates will be in five years, and their projected combined water/waste water rates were higher than ours.
Some council members have continually repeated that our water rates are historically low. That is true, but it is irrelevant. The relevant fact is that our projected future combined water/sewer rates are much higher than average.
Herman, just for the record: I live in Solano County, outside of Dixon. I pump my water from the ground. My domestic water bill is my PG&E bill, which has varied a lot in the 25 years I’ve lived there. My annual income has been less than yours for a couple of years.
My nursery is a pretty high water user. Water is about 1.5% of our expenses; I expect it will go to 4.5% to 5% of expenses (compare to payroll at 40 – 45%). Since I likely won’t increase my prices much, or decrease payroll, and revenues will depend on weather and economic conditions, that will probably come out of my own pocket.
Sue: [i]and their projected combined water/waste water rates were higher than ours.
[/i]
Was that what you meant to say? Or will they be [i]lower[/i] than Davis in five years?
Herman, here is the last study done on groundwater management. Enjoy all 85 pages.-:-)
CITY OF DAVIS-UC DAVIS GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
[url]http://www.waterbucket.ca/okw/sites/wbcokw/documents/media/179.pdf[/url]
[HERMAN: [i]”please could Krovoza and Souza provide any links to relatively recent studies showing where Davis ranks in terms of the TOTALITY of its city fees per household relative to other Northern California cities?”[/i]
This is an important question. I doubt anyone has good data on this. In Davis, we pay about 50% more for garbage service than households pay in Vacaville, W. Sac or Woodland. We also have a public safety tax that the others lack. We also have our added sales tax, which most of the others also have. Additionally, we have our Measure O tax, which no one else has. And we have 3 very substantial school taxes, which surely are well above average. And we have a large library tax and a modes parks tax, both of which are likely higher than most cities.
Beyond those taxes, some parts of town pay substantial Mello-Roos fees. However, the cost of those fees was reflected in the market-rate price of the properties upon sale, so it is double counting to include them.
What I think property owners need to understand is that any financial burdens upon your house will lower its value by a discounted amount of that burden. For example, if you add a $1,000 tax or a fee to your home, and discount that at 5%, your house will be worth $20,000 less*, all else held equal.
* 1,000/.05 = 20,000.
It is also generally recognized that homes without a secure potable water supply generally have a lower value. Sorry. Couldn’t help adding that.
Bob S.: We have a potable water supply. We have surface water rights that are good for 40 years. We have our environmental work done. We have supplementary water secured. Postponing this project while we pay off all or most of our new waste water treatment plant will keep our rates lower while at the same time assuring that we can proceed with the surface water project if we run into problems with our deep aquifer (it doesn’t happen overnight). Manageable water rates/waste water/storm water rates with a future surface water secured will clearly be best property values as well as cost of living.
[quote]Was that what you meant to say? Or will they be lower than Davis in five years?–Don Shor[/quote]Sorry, Don. What I meant to say was that our projected future rates were higher than the projected future rates of cities known to have high current water costs. Are rates are lower than their rates now, but will be higher than their rates in five years.
There I go again: My fingers don’t communicate with my brain.
OUR rates are lower than their rates now, but will be higher than their rates in five years.
Sue writes “We have surface water rights that are good for 40 years. We have our environmental work done. We have supplementary water secured.”
In addition to exceedingly low interest rates and construction costs these are important reasons for proceeding now. There are no guarantees that our water rights will continue unless we use them. The risks of not proceeding are significant.
[quote]Herman, I have had a business here for thirty years. It is a relatively high water user. I am fully and very specifically aware of the impact the water project will have on my own business expenses. I am very much aware of the political and economic context of this issue. And, for the record, I am far from well off.
I believe counting on relief from the water board, which enforces federal law and has very little latitude, is a very faint hope. We have specific commentary that it is not likely, compared to unattributed anonymous commentary that Davis might prevail. Or might prevail for a while, in which case the expense is still there — just waiting for future generations.
I don’t believe the deep water aquifer option holds water, if you’ll pardon the pun.
I don’t believe the “ten years” estimate that David has presented. It is much more likely that the project would be delayed 20 to 25 years, or killed outright, leaving Davis without a reliable clean water source and counting only on declining aquifers.
Please don’t accuse project supporters of ignorance or lack of concern. I believe project opponents are the ones being short-sighted.[/quote]
Nicely said.
[quote]In addition to exceedingly low interest rates and construction costs these are important reasons for proceeding now. There are no guarantees that our water rights will continue unless we use them. The risks of not proceeding are significant.
[/quote]
Again, nicely said.
[quote]Delaying the PROJECTuntil we pay off all are most of our waste water treatment plant (and probably storm sewer costs as well)will keep rates manageable. [/quote]
Not necessarily. For instance if the state decides to do what is says, and steeply fine us for not coming into compliance; if interest rates/constructions costs increase in the future; if the deep water aquifers do not hold up, etc.
[quote] There are no guarantees that our water rights will continue unless we use them. The risks of not proceeding are significant.—
Bob S.[/quote]And a meteor could hit us. And if we don’t have six fire stations, we undertake some risk.
Bob S., our water rights are secured for 40 years, and merely postponing the project will not jeopardize those rights.
This rate “decrease” is not genuine. It relies on lower cost assumptions. From engineers I have talked with, the costs of this project will probably be higher than projected, and the rates don’t take into account storm sewer rates.
The “downward” change in future water rates can be characterized as desperate attempt to forestall the impending citizen referendum signature-gathering campaign(if a prop 18 protest vote fails)which the Council knows will garner a significant majority vote to halt this surface water project at this time.
“….and steeply fine us for not coming into compliance; if interest rates/constructions costs increase in the future; if the deep water aquifers do not hold up, etc.”
The city made little or no attempt to get a variance, the city made no attempt to perform an in-depth analysis of capacity/future of the deep-water aguifers, cost increases will be handled by increasing city revenues and personal incomes; without increasing incomes if the economy stagnates as Japan’s did since 1990, there probably will be significant deflationary pressures that may indeed lower the costs.
ATTEND TOMORROW’S COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR PROTEST IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO… WATCH FOR THE CITIZEN-REFERENDUM SIGNATURE-GATHERING TABLES AT THE FARMERS MARKET AND YOUR LOCAL SUPERMARKET LOCATIONS.