As many who read the comment section yesterday figured out, the city’s advertised water rate hikes include an assumption that the residents will conserve an average of 20% of their water. Failing to do this by hook or by crook, the resident could see water rates increase far more than 14% annually.
But that is just chump change. The real hammer is the second tier, which is $2.46 per unit. The worst part is that the floor for the second tier drops from 36 ccf (hundred cubic feet) to 27 ccf.
What does that mean? It means if you are using 27 ccf this year, your rates go from $1.50 up to $2.46. That marks not a 14% increase or a 26.6% but a 64% increase.
By year 4 which starts on January 1, 2016, that tier 2 rate will be $4.60 per unit and the floor is 23 ccf. So for that same family, at 27 ccf, they are looking at their rates going up 206% or more than three times their current rate.
As columnist Bob Dunning wrote yesterday, “No, you gave us a head fake on the rates and tried to convince us they’d increase by only 14 percent per year, when in reality the actual increase for many families will be closer to 27 percent per year, and in some cases much, much higher than that. In four years, some folks will be paying over 300 percent more for their water according to the city’s own charts.”
He was speaking to Mayor Joe Krovoza, who defended the city’s policies arguing, “We lowered the rates significantly by stretching them over a longer period of time and putting some project components off for years.”
All of this presumes that the DBO (Design-Build-Operate) process works as advertised and locks in capital costs. However, history, as we discovered looking at the background of the two of the three “O’s” in the DBO process, United Water and Veolia, shows that savings may be more elusive than the council and water consultants believe.
There has been the suggestion that the council has attempted to hide the ball on these rate increases. Given the complexity of the rate structures, it seems more likely that they just failed to explain the rate hikes well enough.
As Finance Director Paul Navazio told the Vanguard yesterday in a meeting with consultants and city staff on the water project, embedded in this rate structure assumption is the notion of conservation. The actual implementation of the rate hikes will depend on future consumption patterns.
Both the finance director and interim public works directors conceded that the current rate structure is not the only way to skin this cat and that if they can find a better structure, they can change it.
Of course, as Mr. Navazio acknowledged, he did not have all the answers today, and there may be a different rate structure at the end of the day, at the same time, and that new rate structure would require a new Prop 218 notification process.
There are clear problems here. The first is that, like all rate hikes, the tiered usage is determined per household. That becomes problematic, because it means that a household of one is expected to have the same usage as a household of six.
Obviously, there is simply going to be more water usage by the larger households, and that means that they are more likely to get bumped into the second tier. The tier system does not take into account such cases, as it don’t measure water use per person in the household, but rather per household.
When posed this question, the public works director asked how we were supposed to take this into account.
It is also difficult to know exactly how many people would fall into tier 2 in the coming years. The city pointed out that use is variable and that people end up in tier 2 for some of the time, particularly in the summer, but are in tier 1 at other times.
The question really is how many people are able to reduce their water usage by 20 percent, is that a reasonable assumption, or will the city eventually have to go back to the drawing board to make this more fair to lower income families and families with more children.
Then there is the public communications aspect of this problem.
This is exemplified in today’s Sacramento Bee article.
Writes the Bee’s Hudson Sangree, “Davis city staff members estimated the rates would increase by 70 percent over the next five years for average homeowners – assuming they reduced their consumption by about 20 percent in response to higher rates.”
Technically, the city staff needs to stop saying that this is going to be a 70 percent rate increase. The Vanguard caught Paul Navazio in the same error yesterday; you cannot merely multiply 14% by 5 and come up with a 70% rate increase. It does not work that way.
You have to compound the interest. That means the base rate increase in the five year period is not 70% but 92.5%. And then it goes up another 14% in year six.
That is sloppiness, as Mr. Navazio told the Vanguard. He simply multiplied the numbers, and then acknowledged it was actually higher than that.
The second problem is more serious, the Bee continued, “Under that scenario, homeowners’ water rates would increase on average from about $35 per month to about $60 per month. Rates for heavy water users could increase much more.”
And then, finally, the Bee added, “The two sides dispute whether the estimates are accurate.”
The dispute is not whether the estimates are accurate, it is what the typical ratepayer is going to pay.
In both cases, the city acknowledged that it was dependent on reduction in consumption and that heavy waters users could have their rates increase much more, but this is equivalent to the loss leader in a store.
You get people in the door on a barebones sales, but then, realistically, those numbers that they advertise are not what people are going to pay. That may be honest enough in the retail world, but in the political world, I think we need to question such things.
The question is whether conservation assumptions are realistic.
The Vanguard spoke to a family of six yesterday on the phone, and they took the time to walk me through their numbers. At the end of the day, the person told us that they would have to rip out their lawns, collect water in buckets, and only flush for number two toilet usage, and still they did not believe they could get down to tier 1.
While they do not live on a fixed income in the literal sense, given their job, they might as well be on a fixed income. They just cannot afford to pay what amounts to between 27% and 64% this year, and upwards of 200% within four years.
They are looking at going from $40 per month now for water to $66 per month next year to $124 per month by 2016. That’s just for water. For a family struggling to get by as it is right now, that’s a lot of money.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I wonder how many residents have no idea that the 14% rate increases were predicated on a 20% conservation assumption. Just another reason to get out and SIGN THE REFERENDUM.
The average residence can achieve a 20% reduction in water usage, without any change in lifestyle or diminishing of landscape quality, simply by watering correctly. I have been consulting on this topic for 30 years. The first question I ask is how big the lawn is and what kind of grass they have, and how they are watering.
[i]”At the end of the day, the person told us that they would have to rip out their lawns, collect water in buckets, and only flush for number two toilet usage, and still they did not believe they could get down to tier 1″[/i]
They need to speak to a landscape professional. That’s where the water use is.
The main point is, most people will in fact conserve at known rates if they have an incentive to do so. They will conserve briefly in response to a drought crisis, but not for sustained periods.
And so what is the Vanguard’s alternative to the surface water project? I’m all ears… Because if the city is unable to obtain a variance on the basis of “economic infeasibility”, which is highly unlikely, the city will be fined just as if it had built the surface water project, w absolutely nothing to show for it. Meanwhile there will very likely be subsidence/contamination problems with the current existing well infrastructure.
Secondly, the water rate increases are based on consumption – the more you consume, the more you pay. That seems perfectly equitable to me, as opposed to a flat rate for everyone, which would not be fair, because it would not take into account how much a person uses. Now I don’t particularly have any problem with tweaking the rate structure if it becomes necessary, but ultimately the surface water project has to be paid for one way or another. That is the cold, hard reality of the new water quality standards enacted back in 1972, that are now coming into play all over the nation.
So all this hand wringing over rate structure really ignores the basic question: If not the surface water project, then what? Pay gargantuan fines w nothing to show for it and accept an unreliable source of water as the wells subside/become too contaminated to use? Like it or not, much of CA is in a desert climate, where it does not rain for 6 or more months of the year. Water is becoming a scarce/dear commodity, along with the implementation of new water quality standards. The bottom line is the bottom line – water will have to be paid for, and paid for dearly, like it or not.
Kicking the can down the road by delaying/killing the surface water project does not seem like a very good/realistic/less costly option to me…
Three years ago as part of El Macero’s Prop 218 process I had to come up to speed with the proportion of the typical Davis water bill that is for in house use versus outside the house use. On average in our 400 residences the proportion was between 1:3 and 1:4. So conservation opportunities in outside the house water use are between triple and quadruple what they are inside the house.
Don has laid out the irrigation opportunity very well above, and the math means that if your out of house ratio is 1:4 and you have four times the irrigation water conservation opportunity as toilet/shower/sink water conservation opportunity.
In many ways outside the home water conservation opportunities are like the transparency issues discussed regarding this project. We will all be “surprised” at just how huge our opportunity for water conservation really is. We simply haven’t been paying attention.
Matt. You are so right we all need to do better
[i]…you have four times the irrigation water conservation opportunity as toilet/shower/sink water conservation opportunity.
[/i]
How ironic that the City of Davis only provides rebates for water conservation devices inside homes (e.g., toilet rebate and clothes washer rebate). The city could do more by providing financial incentives and other support to conserve water used outside our homes like other cities are doing:
The city of Roseville offers up to $1000.00 per site to replace lawns with low water use plants in their Cash for Grass program: http://www.roseville.ca.us/eu/water_utility/water_efficiency/for_home/cash_for_grass/default.asp
The city of Santa Rosa offers rebates for graywater reuse, rainwater harvesting and removing turf. The city of Santa Rosa also offers a Water Conservation Checkup, a FREE on-site review of indoor and outdoor water use. See http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/utilities/conserve/Pages/Rebates.aspx
The city of San Francisco offers a Discounted Rain Barrel and Cistern Program http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=178
And the city of San Franciso also offers rebates for installation of gray water systems for outdoor irrigation: http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=445
[quote]”At the end of the day, the person told us that they would have to rip out their lawns, collect water in buckets, and only flush for number two toilet usage, and still they did not believe they could get down to tier 1″
They need to speak to a landscape professional. That’s where the water use is. [/quote]
This is so accurate. I pulled out my front lawn – which is small and on a slope – and replaced it with drought tolerant plants. I then started hand watering until I can put in a drip irrigation system. Because of that simple change, I never go above Tier 1 water consumption now, whereas before I would nudge into Tier 2. I have known for years that the water from my sprinkler system tended to run off the slope onto the sidewalk, so now I am mulching more to keep the moisture in and watering less. It is a matter of taking the trouble to make simple changes to make water conservation work.
[quote]The city of Roseville offers up to $1000.00 per site to replace lawns with low water use plants in their Cash for Grass program: http://www.roseville.ca.us/eu/…efault.asp [/quote]
And where do you propose the city of Davis get the money for a program like this?
[quote]The city of Santa Rosa offers rebates for graywater reuse, rainwater harvesting and removing turf. The city of Santa Rosa also offers a Water Conservation Checkup, a FREE on-site review of indoor and outdoor water use. See http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/dep…bates.aspx [/quote]
The city of Davis is looking into graywater reuse and rainwater harvesting…
eastdavis, in fairness to the City Public Works Department, our water rates have been so low up until now (because we have all been willing to accept the vagaries of our well water) that residents haven’t been calling for the kind of savings opportunities that you outline above.
What I have heard most frequently from Davis residents are complaints about the water quality, and their frustration that they have to buy 1) bottled water to drink (disclosure … my wife and I buy only about 12 pint bottles of bottled water a year), and/or 2) saline chemicals for their water softener (disclosure … my wife and I don’t have a water softener). Now that water rates are going up one way or another in response to Federal (EPA) and State (SWRCB) mandates, the programs you outline will indeed finally get traction.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt. You are so right we all need to do better”[/i]
Agreed, it isn’t all about being enablers, apologists, progressives and/or regressives. We have the ability and opportunity. We simply need the will.
If my water rates rise to as high as $60/month, that will still be less than I pay to the school district. I’m under the impression that progressives have a very narrow view of the world.
[i]And where do you propose the city of Davis get the money for a program like this? [/i]
A good place to start is to contact the cities that have these water conservation incentive programs and find out how they are funding them. There have been grant programs offered by the Feds and State that support water conservation efforts. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation just announced these grants for water conservation:
[url]http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=38024[/url]
[url]http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=38023[/url]
With all due respect, some of the project’s long term proponents (such as ERM and Don Schor) are missing the point of David’s article TODAY. The real point of the article is THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS OBFUSCATED, IF NOT OUTRIGHT LIED, ABOUT HOW MUCH PEOPLE’S WATER RATES WILL INCREASE. This is something that many opponents of the project have long argued. People like ERM, Don Schor, and Souza in ignoring this issue help perpetuate this DECEIT, and then have the nerve to accuse referendum proponents of disseminating falsehoods. (Read also Bob Dunning’s column in full yesterday, Oct. 19)
If the city and the majority of its council can so blatantly attempt to deceive the public over the increase in water rates then what else are they hiding??? Any responsible citizen of Davis would or should want two things:
1) A project of this magnitude to go to all voters.
2) That the existing project be scrutinized for at least another six months in terms of costs, possibilities of variances, et al. before a final vote of the people is taken.
For those who assume that the signature gathers will get enough votes to qualify for the ballot, please do not be so complacent. If you have not signed, please do so and urge all your friends to do so. We need 3,700 VALID signatures handed in by Monday Oct. 24. As an “insider” I can tell you that this one is going to be close! If you want to sign the petition please call Pam Nieberg at 756-6856 or Mike Harrington at 759-8440 and they will tell you where you can sign it.
Good post Herman, I totally agree with you. Nowhere did I hear that water conservation was baked into the 14% number and I’ve been trying to follow this. Come 2012 when those water bills are sent out imo there are going to be some very surprised and ticked off ratepayers.
rusty, here’s is a direct copy and paste from the City Council packet Item 8 (the “Utility Rates Approval” Staff Report from Robert A. Clarke, Interim Public Works Director and Jacques DeBra, Utilities Manager). The underlining has been added by me to draw your eyes to the pertinent sentences. How much clearer would you like Staff to have made it?
“[i][b]Fiscal Impact – Summary[/b]
Five year water and sewer rates, and one year sanitation rates, are proposed to generate revenues required to replace and upgrade utility infrastructure and continue providing garbage disposal service and recycling programs to ratepayers. Utility rate changes would be effective December 1, 2011 and overall customer utility rate impacts are summarized herein.
[b]Water Utility[/b]
Current water utility rates yield annual revenues of $10.5 million supporting operations and maintenance, capital investments and existing debt. The proposed water rates are projected to result in annual revenues up to $20 million by Year 5. This level of annual revenues is primarily required to fund increased debt service costs for the proposed Surface Water Project and related capital improvements, as well as increased costs of operations of the City’s wells (due to wellhead treatment) and regional water facilities.
Overall revenues requirements are projected to increase by 100% over the five-year period, with the average single-family residential customer experiencing an increase in their monthly cost of water from $34.75 to $77.18 in Year 5. [u]These estimated monthly water bill impacts assume an overall 20% reduction in single family residential water consumption over the five-year period. Customers with below average water use now will experience lower-than-average monthly water bill impacts, while customers with above average water use would see higher than average monthly water bill impacts. The individual water bill impact will vary depending on a customer’s current water use and their future conservation efforts during the five year period.[/u][/i]
Herman said . . .
[i]”With all due respect, some of the project’s long term proponents (such as ERM and Don Schor) are missing the point of David’s article TODAY. The real point of the article is THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS OBFUSCATED, IF NOT OUTRIGHT LIED, ABOUT HOW MUCH PEOPLE’S WATER RATES WILL INCREASE.”[/i]
Herman, I expect you will now retract your statement above regarding any obfuscation or lying. The Staff Report laid it out in black and white for all to see.
Regardless of conservation the water RATES will rise nearly 25%/yr and by about 150%, a factor of 2.5 over the next 4.3 years beginning 1/1/2012. This what the new City Ordinance says. It is very confusing how all this money will be spent and what are the priorities! The $10 glossy [part of the $300,000 public money given to a consultant]I got from Sauza lists project parts:
Intake from Sac river
Pipeline to regional treatment plant
New treatment plant
Pipelines to Davis and Woodland and associated infrastructure
The glossy also mentions that our junior river water permit will “prohibit diversions during most summer months and some other months during dry years —. During these times the Project will divert [ie, buy] water — from upstream agricultural water users with senior water rights.”
The cost and availability of Yolo bypass water from Conway Ranch or from other [Ag] users with senior rights is not given.
The cost of the upgrades to our waste-water plant is not given.
Adding in estimates for these, puts the total cost for Davis near $300 million.
The is eerily close to the $300 million that was the last straw pushing Harrisburg to file for bankruptcy
We are still collecting like crazy through the weekend, and will turn in Monday. I am very confident that we will have enough, but need the cushion on top of the 3700 since there will be disqualified signatures when the County Elections Office goes through them. 430 D St.
Will post this weekend as to the time we are filing on Monday.
My response to Matt Williams:
1) Do you really expect the vast majority of the electorate to wade through endless and long city reports? How many people have the time to do this, aside from anything else. Even to read the text of Ordinance 2381 is an ordeal and it would take a very educated person with time on his/her hands to calculate THEIR increase in water rates.
2) It is the job of organs such as the Vanguard and the DE to help distill the essence of these reports and ordinances for the public. In doing so, especially with respect to the DE’s coverage of the issue, the c ommon assumption by most citizens is that they will face a 14% increase in water rates beginning December 2011., However, as David points out in his article below, and Bob Dunning has done on several occasions, the issue is a lot more complex than that and many citizens will face increases far in excess of this.
3) The city math on this project has been inaccurate, fuzzy, and ever-shifting. First we were told that a 28% increase annually would be needed. Then circa two months ago we were told that in fact only a 14% increase in rates was necessary even though the project costs were exactly the same??????? The explanation: The city and the council majority moved the rate goalposts because they feared the mounting public opposition.
4) To repeat, and follow on, the city’s own calculations have been exposed as at least dubious. See the Op-Ed piece in the DE, July 3, 2011 by Greg Stovall in which he meticulously dismantles and deconstructs the city’s math. Stovall estimates that his water rates would more than triple.
5) Even if we assume the honesty and competence of city staff and their council majority the cost estimates are in fact guestimates. To my knowledge no agreement has been signed with contractors. And when (or rather after) this happens there may be significant, even huge, cost overruns. Given the above, what is to stop the city going back to the voters through the 218 “voting” process and asking for higher water rate increases either BEFORE or after 2017?
Once we have committed to the project and it is under construction it will be almost impossible to convince Davis voters, though a 218 vote or a referendum, that they should pull out of the project and burn their boats. Of course the city, the council majority, and strong proponents of this project know this only too well. That is to say, once we start on this project, which will happen unless we get the signatures to put the measure on the ballot, there is almost no possibility of going back.
For comparison Fair Oaks now charges all a flat rate of $43.34 per month. Water meters take effect next year. Then the price will vary as used.
I’m not sure if anyone else will find these quotes interesting, but I found the thoughts of most of the Davis City Council candidates in 2004 ([url]http://www.motherlode.sierraclub.org/yolano/Issues/Elections/2004_Council_Candidates.html[/url]) on the surface water project (and some other topics). Some of the 2004 candidates are still active in Davis politics: [quote][b]Mike Harrington:[/b] Currently there is a program by the city to investigate building a pipeline to Sacramento to obtain river water. I have voted against it. UCDAVIS and the City have been willing to spend $400,000.00 on this study (federal grant). This pipeline would quadruple our water rates, allow for explosive growth, and may subject residents to river water contaminants such as pesticides, antibiotics, industrial waste, fertilizer runoff, and persistent chemical contaminants that may not be removed by available filtering. To pay the fixed cost and operation of this expensive pipeline the city would have to expect residents to increase water consumption. If this pipeline is built the city would have no financial incentive to promote water conservation.
The alternative is to examine the Deep Aquifer and ways to recharge our underground water supply. We can help recharge the shallow aquifer by preventing the paving of mower strips and landscaping. Let’s quit making so many impermeable surfaces. We can also use water from the shallow well to irrigate our landscapes and wash our cars. Let’s save drinking quality water for drinking. Let’s use lower quality and/or shallow aquifer water for outdoor uses and industrial needs.
I don’t think we need additional surface water, we should look at serious conservation measures like repairing leaks in our distribution loop, helping renters fix leaking fixtures, and promoting resource friendly landscaping. Additionally, there is an opportunity for the city to distribute storm water cisterns like in the mid west. Something like the City of Davis free compost bin program. This program allows Davis residents to obtain a free compost bin. I have been of a similar program were residents could connect a garbage can size cistern to their rain gutter to store rainwater. If we distributed enough external 40-gallon cisterns to people homes we could make better use of our rainwater.[/quote]
[quote][b]Don Saylor:[/b] Among the criteria I would address in considering this issue are impacts on water supply, water quality, aquifer recharge, fish and wildlife in Sacramento River, and costs.
This is both a water quality and water supply issue for Davis, as it currently exists. Providing a reliable source of good quality water to Davis is a good idea unto itself. This is not about growth and it is plain irresponsible to deny this community improved quality water when we can manage growth through planning, Measure J and policy choices. If it proves feasible, Davis’ moderate to low quality water can be combined with surface water to improve the overall quality of water in Davis. Typically, the worst water quality is found in mid-depth wells. Surface water is best and deep wells provide water quality between the other two sources. We share the aquifer with other users and it is finite. We are depleting the aquifers at mid depth; it seems responsible to assess the costs and feasibility of alternative sources, including unallocated surface water from the high winter flows of the Sacramento River. We need reliable supplies of high quality water for our existing community.
[/quote]
[quote][b]Stephen Souza:[/b] Everyone in Davis could be in trouble because of our dependence on our groundwater aquifers. We don’t yet know how large the deeper aquifers are and how the water moves from the upper to the lower depths. As the shallow wells were shut down because of pollution from surface waters, so could the deep wells. If this happens, UC Davis, Davis and Woodland are in a lot of trouble as all share the same aquifers.
The criteria I would use to assess the need for supplemental surface water supply will be based on the report that is expected in the next year about how the deeper aquifers work. Before any surface water project could go forward, years of additional investigation of other options will need to take place. And only if we truly faced loss of our aquifer supply. Even then, I would want to see we could continue to use the polluted supply through massive investment in a local purification and distribution system for the deep aquifer water. [/quote]
[quote][b]Sue Greenwald:[/b] The council majority passed a motion designating importation of surface water as their preferred alternative. I voted against this. I made a motion that council ought to complete a study of the capacity of the deep-water aquifer before determining a preferred solution, but this motion did not pass.
We cannot rely on imported surface water alone, because we will not be allowed to buy enough water on a regular basis to fulfill our needs. Thus, if we import surface water, we will need to maintain two distinct systems. This will be very expensive. Importing surface water will cost each household in Davis around $500 additional dollars a year.
Before considering the importation of surface water, we should have a better idea of the capacity and the recharge rate of our deep-water aquifer. When assessing this capacity, we should assume that we will be taking all reasonable steps the use the mid-depth aquifer for irrigation of our major parks and other open space areas.[/quote]
Perhaps the most interesting quote comes from Don Saylor on Covell Village: [quote][b]Don Saylor on Covell Village:[/b] I cannot support the Covell project as proposed to date and have been consistent in my expressions of the criteria I would consider for this or any project. There are opportunities for infill within Davis and we should take advantage of them. But infill is not trouble free as noted in the Sierra Club’s policy statements on Infill and Compact Urban Development. Whether infill or added greenfield, I will make sure any proposal pays for itself without imposing a financial burden on the existing community, mitigates any environmental concerns, provides two for one agriculture mitigation, completely addresses school and other infrastructure needs, is designed consistent with our General Plan elements for pedestrians, open space and environmental friendliness, and addresses traffic issues. In my view, traffic issues are particularly challenging for the Covell Village site.
[/quote]
Who has been saying that the rate increase will be 70%, David? Is this in writing anywhere? Has this number been raised at any of the public education sessions?
It is inexcusable to not compound the figures. Staff responsible for working on these figures are probably making over $200 thousand a year total comp, and they forget to compound the figures? And they neglect to add the sixth year when discussing rates? What other mistakes were made?
[quote]The average residence can achieve a 20% reduction in water usage, without any change in lifestyle or diminishing of landscape quality, simply by watering correctly. I have been consulting on this topic for 30 years.– [b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, the problem is that many of our fixed-income seniors that I have talked with tell me that they have already taken extreme steps to conserve, due to problems paying the bills. The people who are already conserving will be hurt the most relative to what they are paying now, and these tend to be the lower income and fixed income folks.
Remember, most city, University (and maybe state — I haven’t checked) pensions only rise at 2% a year for cost of living adjustments. Over a 30 year plus period, the real value of these pensions can greatly erode. (Remember to compound the erosion rate!!!!!) Most of our current retirees retired at 2% at 60 at lower final salaries, and their pensions are not particularly high to begin with.
Correction: I mean most of our current public sector retirees retired at 2% at 60 at lower final salaries.
Herman said . . .
[i]
“My response to Matt Williams:
1) Do you really expect the vast majority of the electorate to wade through endless and long city reports? How many people have the time to do this, aside from anything else.”[/i]
First, there is [u]absolutely no wading[/u]. It is right there on Page 1 of the Staff Report. The very first page. So YES I do expect the electorate to take the less than five minutes needed be informed. Second, although I can’t give you the precise minute on the Council video where Staff reviews this portion of their Staff Report, I am sure it is there. My Macbook doesn’t seem to be able to play videos from the City archive.
[b]Is that too much to ask of a Davis citizen who is interested in this issue?[/b]
Herman said . . .
[i]”Even to read the text of Ordinance 2381 is an ordeal and it would take a very educated person with time on his/her hands to calculate THEIR increase in water rates.”[/i]
Why read the Ordinance when the Staff Report is so much more informative?
Why would the Ordinance contain anything about Conservation projections?
Why wouldn’t you go to the Rate Calculator the City provides on their website?
[quote]The is eerily close to the $300 million that was the last straw pushing Harrisburg to file for bankruptcy–[b]pbradyus[/b][/quote]Our water related new infrastructure and Conaway purchase is currently estimated at $300 million ($155 for surface water project, $8 million east area tank, $100 million wastewater treatment plant, $37 million Conaway water purchase. Actually, sometimes staff gives a higher figure than $155 for our share of the surface water project — I haven’t nailed them down on that yet).
It is exactly the same type of comparisons that Paul Brady is raising that raised the red flag for me. I first noticed that the average share of the single-family cost was similar to that of the Jefferson County Alabama (home of University of Alabama) sewer cost which ultimately drove Jefferson County to bankruptcy (they panicked when ratepayers stopped paying and resorted to unwise financing schemes to try to lower the rates).
Our situation is different for many reasons, and it won’t play out as badly. But it does illustrate the stresses that this level of encumbrance is likely to create, if undertaken at one time. I still hope that we can consider at least trying to phase in the projects.
Sue, your hugely paid finance director failed to compound the annual increase Basic math
Herman said . . .
[i]”3) The city math on this project has been inaccurate, fuzzy, and ever-shifting. [b]First we were told that a 28% increase annually would be needed. Then circa two months ago we were told that in fact only a 14% increase in rates was necessary even though the project costs were exactly the same???????[/b] The explanation: The city and the council majority moved the rate goalposts because they feared the mounting public opposition.”[/i]
Herman, you haven’t been paying attention. As was explained here in the Vanguard, the Prop 218 regulations require each and every rate setting jurisdiction to submit the wost case scenario rates to the public in the Prop 218 process. Davis did exactly that. Once a Prop 218 process was completed, the jurisdiction has the right and the ability to promulgate actual rates that are lower than the Prop 218 rates. It had nothing to do with “The city and the council majority moved the rate goalposts because they feared the mounting public opposition” but rather was the logical outcome of the water rate advisory committee meetings that started long before the Prop 218 process began, and were designed to identify opportunities for reducing the project cost and (as a result) the rates.
You are simply spouting unfounded rhetoric.
Herman said . . .
[i]”5) Even if we assume the honesty and competence of city staff and their council majority the cost estimates are in fact guestimates. To my knowledge no agreement has been signed with contractors. A[b]nd when (or rather after) this happens there may be significant, even huge, cost overruns.[/b] Given the above, what is to stop the city going back to the voters through the 218 “voting” process and asking for higher water rate increases either BEFORE or after 2017?”[/i]
That is certainly possible; however, in the current economic/construction industry environment, we are more likely to see competitive bids that come in substantially lower than either the $325 million total project estimate for the Surface Water project or the $100 million for the base Wastewater Treatment plant upgrade needed to comply with upcoming EPA and SWRCB mandates.
I strongly believe that if we asked the construction companies to bid on a project that has no committed revenue source, their bids would be upwards of 25% higher to account for the risk of the jurisdiction(s) not having the ability to pay. Why should we throw away that 25% when setting rates that can come down if actual costs are lower than guestimated (to use your term) is so easy and straightforward to do.
The rate structure approved by Council has some flaws IMHO, but the [u]annual[/u] review process to ensure that cost savings are passed on to the rate payers is one of its great strengths.
Matt:
You’ve probably mentioned this before, but could you post the link to the staff report? Also, I’m able to watch the Water Forum on my iMac via the web at this link: http://cityofdavis.org/media/special/waterforum.cfm
“we are more likely to see competitive bids that come in substantially lower..”
My personal experience with bids on my home repairs is that the economy has driven many of the potential bidders out of business leaving only the strongest still in business and NOT lowering their bids.
[i]”Sue, your hugely paid finance director failed to compound the annual increase Basic math” [/i]
Mike, Is it possible for you to make a comment or ask a question without the denigrating someone at the same time?
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”My personal experience with bids on my home repairs is that the economy has driven many of the potential bidders out of business leaving only the strongest still in business and NOT lowering their bids.”[/i]
That may be true in the home repair industry, but for large projects like the big ones on the UCD campuses (Davis and the Med Center), bids are coming in as low as 50% of what they were expected to come in at. Feel free to call Mike Boyd at the Med Center to confirm that. It has caused a serious project management challenge because some of the monies have deadlines by which they have to be spent or the monies evaporate/expire. Therefore when project estimates come in 10’s of millions of dollars below expectation an additional project has to accelerate its schedule to fill the void and use the monies.
I could be wrong, but think the Water Project and the Wastewater Project will follow the UCD experience much more closely than your personal home repair experience D2.
eastdavis said . . .
[i]”Matt:
You’ve probably mentioned this before, but could you post the link to the staff report? Also, I’m able to watch the Water Forum on my iMac via the web at this link: http://cityofdavis.org/media/s…rforum.cfm”[/i]
No problem. Go to [url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/agenda.cfm?c=18[/url] and click on either the 9/6 Agenda link and then scroll down to Item 8 and click on it, or alternatively click on the 9/6 Packet link and then click on the Item 8 link.
I’m able to play the embedded Water Forum as well. The Council video links on [url]http://cityofdavis.org/media/[/url] that I can’t get to play.
Don: [i]The average residence can achieve a 20% reduction in water usage, without any change in lifestyle or diminishing of landscape quality, simply by watering correctly. I have been consulting on this topic for 30 years.[/i]
Sue: [i]Don, the problem is that many of our fixed-income seniors that I have talked with tell me that they have already taken extreme steps to conserve, due to problems paying the bills. The people who are already conserving will be hurt the most relative to what they are paying now, and these tend to be the lower income and fixed income folks.[/i]
I would hope most of those people would stay in Tier 1 and experience a relatively low increase.
From the city rate info link: “Explore the creation of a rate-subsidy program for low-income households.”
Was that done? Also, it is worth noting that these rates will be paid eventually, one way or another, whether by these fixed-income seniors or by the next generation.
Ryan what’s not true ?
1. Hugely paid finance director
2. Failed to compound the annual increase
[quote]I would hope most of those people would stay in Tier 1 and experience a relatively low increase.—[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, the problem is that as more and more people conserve maximally, the costs will have to go up in every tier in order to meet the fixed costs. I don’t see any way around it.
Dont worry. We are going to knock your socks off with a CPA report combined with an impact report of what the real rate increases would do to a selection of real people and families and businesses in Davis and el macero and old Willowbank
Compare that, to what the city told us, and watch ’em run for cover
Promise.
The problem, Sue, is that your alternative doesn’t reduce the costs. It just postpones them.
[quote]Don, the problem is that as more and more people conserve maximally, the costs will have to go up in every tier in order to meet the fixed costs. I don’t see any way around it.[/quote]
I’ve said this before, but I will repeat it. Those who can afford it may not conserve water. Certain businesses cannot conserve water. Further, water conservation should result in savings on the wastewater treatment side, according to the two UCD experts YOU insisted be consulted. Thus it will be to EVERYONE’s benefit to conserve water, including the low income…
To Don Shor: Trying to set up a subsidy program for low income is still under consideration, but thus far the city has not been able to find funding…
Mike, you can’t cherry pick your stories. Do a random selection from the tax rolls and see how the stories play out then. I wasn’t involved in any of the calculations, and when I found the same issues two weeks ago when calculating my Yolo County taxes, both the issues of averaging and conservation were discussed. Some people are going to do worse than the average and some are going to do better. Cherry picking only the ones who are going to do worse is simply gaming the system.
What we should be concentrating on is working hoard to ensure that Davis residents maximize their water conservation opportunities. Hopefully in the next five years the number of lawns in Davis will be cut in half. That is an ecologically sound objective that will cause significant reduction in water bills.
[quote]A good place to start is to contact the cities that have these water conservation incentive programs and find out how they are funding them. There have been grant programs offered by the Feds and State that support water conservation efforts. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation just announced these grants for water conservation:
http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/n…rdID=38024
http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/n…rdID=38023[/quote]
Thanx for this info!
I checked out the 9/6 Davis CC Agenda link that Matt provided above and read over the staff report under Item 8. The last page, page 27 of the pdf, has a table that compares water quality of the groundwater with surface water. There’s a footnote for the source of data for the groundwater (cities of Davis and Woodland annual water quality reports), but no source listed for the surface water. Is this the actual water quality for the Sacramento River at the proposed Intake for the SWP? Does anyone know?
My friend Matt said: “Mike, you can’t cherry pick your stories.”
It will be a representative sample. Matt, since you live in El Macero, maybe you can find 2-3 household that would participate. They would release their water bills for a year before, then we use the CPA analysis to predict five years ahead for both the city’s figures, and the CPAs.
I really feel sorry for all of those households in El Macero and Old Willowbank who dont get to vote, but would be stuck with our higher water rates. But if they cannot vote, then they should send our Committee some money for costs.
When I have compared City of Davis, UC Davis, and Sacramento water quality, I use the City of Sacramento water reports.
MIke: [i]I really feel sorry for all of those households in El Macero and Old Willowbank who dont get to vote, but would be stuck with our higher water rates.[/i]
It’s ok. They got to vote in the Prop. 218 process.
Actually Don, we didn’t. We will have our own Prop 218 process some time in the future where only we vote. In our last Prop 218 vote about three years ago, we approved the new water rates, which for us more than doubled at that time.
What happens if El Macero residents oppose the rate increases next time?
[quote]The problem, Sue, is that your alternative doesn’t reduce the costs. It just postpones them.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]This is where I really disagree with you, Don. A time-honored way to keep costs manageable is to phase in projects, i.e., pay off one project before starting the next. This does not result in “just postponing the costs”. It results in not paying $10 million interest a year for the water project until we have been able to pay off our wastewater project (and the early phases of the surface water project). The savings is related to the time value of money.
If we could work it out with the WRCB, I would suggest cutting the $300 million roughly in half. For 20 years, the current cohort pays for the only the first half. The next 20 to 30 years, the next cohort pays off the surface water project (or wastewater plant if it could be arranged — which I have been told is less likely), paying for only the second half. Anyone who is a member of both cohorts will be paying at a lower rate for the duration.
Remember, the current cohort might be paying for a whole new storm water collection and treatment infrastructure as well.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”What happens if El Macero residents oppose the rate increases next time?”[/i]
It will register 7.0 on the Richter Scale.
Actually, I think that there are huge opportunities for water conservation in El Macero, so in effect, El Macero can probably follow the old saying, “Physician, heal thyself.”
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”This is where I really disagree with you, Don. A time-honored way to keep costs manageable is to phase in projects, i.e., pay off one project before starting the next. This does not result in “just postponing the costs”. It results in not paying $10 million interest a year for the water project until we have been able to pay off our wastewater project (and the early phases of the surface water project). The savings is related to the time value of money.”[/i]
Sue, the problem I am wrestling with if we do not change the water source quality going into the Wastewater Treatment Plant is that the short term costs are shifted but really don’t go down all that much if you delay changing the water sources.
Please accept the following numbers as preliminary. I’m still working on vetting them, but . . .
If we go forward with the Surface Water project as our method for changing the water inputs to the Wastewater Treatment Plant then the capital costs are $255 million, the components of which are,
$155 million for the City’s portion of the $325 million total project costs,
[u]Plus[/u] $100 million for a base level Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade to accomplish Tertiary Level Treatment by 2017 (the Federal and State requirements of Davis’ SWRCB permit as well as the Title 22 Requirements for Satellite Water Reclamation and Reuse).
If we continue with our current well water (and continued use of all the individual water softeners in residences throughout the city) as our inputs to the Wastewater Treatment Plant then the capital costs are $180 – $225 million, the components of which are,
$25 – $50 million for the 5-10 additional Deep Water Aquifer wells needed to fully replace the current 16 selenium-rich Intermediate Aquifer wells in the Davis system. Each Deep Aquifer well will cost $3 million to drill plus $2 million for well head treatment to achieve potability standards.
[u]Plus[/u], $15 – $25 million for subsidence damage remediation for Deep Aquifer wells. The subsidence history with Well 18 in Davis that resulted in the forced abandonment of that well in the system is one example of the cost of a subsidence incident.
[u]Plus[/u], the $100 million for the base level Wastewater Treatment Upgrade to meet the Federal and State requirements of Davis’ SWRCB permit as well as the Title 22 Requirements for Satellite Water Reclamation and Reuse.
[u]Plus,[/u] another $50 million for an incremental addition to the base Wastewater Treatment Upgrade providing reverse osmosis (RO) removal of both the Salinity and Selenium from the well water. This RO process will produce a concentrated brine slurry that will have to be disposed of in an environmentally appropriate process.
The NWRI Report indicates that permit levels for Selenium are 4.4.
By comparison, Well 19’s Selenium level is 19, Well 23’s Selenium level is 27, Well 1’s Selenium level is 9.4, Well 33’s Selenium level is
Truncated
Well 33’s Selenium level is
David, I give up. I’ve typed the info from the well quality report two times now and it doesn’t publish.
Bottomline, there are 12 current City of Davis wells with Selenium levels in the range from 9 to 34. Not very promising when a permit limit is 4.4.
Further, I am told a contract exists between UC Davis and the City that forces the City to get express written permission from UC Davis before drilling each and every deep aquifer well, and UC Davis has the express right to withhold that permission.
Will UC Davis withhold permission? Sue, what are your thoughts?
So, bottom line: we would have to replace 12 current wells to meet selenium standards?
That is what the numbers appear to say. I’ll wait to hear from Sue before jumping to that conclusion. What say you Sue?
We have to get UCD’s written permission to drill a deep well under our own legal jurisdictional land? What’s this, more political malpractice? Our CC has again given away local control of our local resource to another jurisdiction?
Same rocket scientists who promoted Unted Water (multiple felony indictment in Indiana) and got our CC and the JPA to basically close off bidding because we had three good ones?
This has to stop.
[i]our local resource[/i]
What makes water [u]under UC Davis[/u] the resource of the City of Davis, Michael? Have you done any research on the topic of the deep aquifer?
Don… you might want to cut Mr. Harrington some slack… as I recall, he is an aviation attorney… by the time a plane is 1500 feet deep into the ground, so is his client.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”We have to get UCD’s written permission to drill a deep well under our own legal jurisdictional land? What’s this, more political malpractice? Our CC has again given away local control of our local resource to another jurisdiction?
Same rocket scientists who promoted Unted Water (multiple felony indictment in Indiana) and got our CC and the JPA to basically close off bidding because we had three good ones?
This has to stop.” [/i]
Mike, as I find out more about this agreement, it may well prove to be an agreement that predates your CC tenure. Does that mean there is the possibility that you are one of those rocket scientists because you didn’t find this out while you were on the CC . . . and put a stop to it.
More to come when we see the actual document.
When was the first deep aquifer well drilled? That may prove to be a clue.
Matt: I have every confidence that you will mine the archives!
I think it would be helpful that we, the community, establish a document repository of the “hot documents” that facilitate the educational process.
Matt, actually I also handle marine cases. I have one in Florida right now where events happened in the far South Pacific. So maybe I need to take a local marine case, and find out whether the nasty rumor is true that Mrak Hall has to approve our drilling deep below city territory, and if so, which CC committed political and water malpractice?
Mike, the results of mining are exactly why I reached out to you yesterday to meet and talk about the info found. I was sorry you chose not to meet.
“Further, I am told a contract exists between UC Davis and the City”
Without even knowing if such a contract exists and the details, it is a legal given that contracts are not sacrosanct and are routinely challenged in court.
[quote]Without even knowing if such a contract exists and the details, it is a legal given that contracts are not sacrosanct and are routinely challenged in court.[/quote]
Just bc a contract can be challenged does not mean the contract will not hold up. In fact, the burden of proof will be on the challenger to come up with some sort of REASONABLE defense as to why the contract should not hold water (pardon the pun)!