Last year, the Davis City Council met late in the year, just before Christmas, to ratify an agreement to obtain summer water rights from developer Angelo Tsakopoulos. This year, the city council is meeting on December 20, five days before Christmas, to repeal the water rate increase.According to the staff report, “The Council action to rescind the rate increase(s) approved in September will result in current fiscal year water utility revenues remaining in the range of $10.0 million, depending on actual water usage.”
They add, “A new water rate study would be conducted in calendar year 2012 providing water rate options and future water revenue targets based on City Council water system goals and priorities.”
At the December 6 council meeting, Council directed staff to repeal water rate ordinance 2381, containing the five-year water rate hikes approved in September 2011; and approve modification of the City’s water rates to those in place in August 2010 until subsequent water rates are evaluated and approved through a new Prop. 218 process during calendar year 2012 in coordination with the Water Advisory Committee.
The staff report also notes, “Council asked staff to address a new Proposition 218 process regarding future water rates, recommend a short term rate to provide revenue for ongoing operations and maintenance needs, consider reducing the scope and budget for the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) as only critical path items are pursued, and to provide language for a ballot measure seeking a community vote on the desire to pursue surface water.”
By January 24 the council will be asked to approve the water rate study services contract and the city attorney will brief council on ballot options during 2012.
There will also be discussion, in a separate but related item, on revisions to the water advisory committee.
Staff reports that, during the first meeting of the Water Advisory Committee on December 8, 2011, the committee discussed this issue and unanimously agreed to recommend the council keep the size of the committee at ten regular members.
Reports staff, “The Committee members felt the addition of more regular members would likely make it too difficult to allow all members to fully express their thoughts and still make timely recommendations to the Council.”
Which is an interesting point, given that many such bodies are much larger, including Woodland’s which has 25 members.
At the same time, they recommended the consideration of five alternate members.
“The Committee thought that adding five alternates would ensure a quorum at all meetings and facilitate timely decision-making,” staff reports.
Commentary
We have three major points we wish to address here. There has been a lot of discussion about what went wrong in the process on September 6. Some commenters have suggested that we need to look not at what went wrong but to the future to create a solution.
While looking to the future is important, it is equally important to evaluate what went wrong. So far, one glaring error has been corrected and that is the lack of a rate study. The council is now taking seriously the idea that rates were not properly set on September 6.
The idea of a 14% rate increase is something that we called fraudulent because it is not based on real numbers. As we noted in the past, a rate is the per unit cost of a service. In this case, the actual rates would go up at the lowest level from $1.50 to $1.90, which is nowhere near a 14% rate increase.
We can argue about semantics all we want, but at the end of the day, the city denies attempting to mislead the public, but admits that the communication was not as clear as it needed to be.
This is what Bob Clarke wrote on November 3:
“The confusion and the misperception that the city has been less than forthcoming stems from the way in which the rate increase was characterized in staff reports. While staff attempted to point out in our reports and at our dozens of communitywide and interest group meetings all the factors impacting the rates, we didn’t do a very good job of differentiating clearly among the actual rate increase, the increase in customer water bills and the total increase in revenue.”
“The overall amount an individual household’s bill will change varies based on usage. As many people have correctly observed, the maximum rates shown in the Proposition 218 notice and adopted by the council represent more than a 14 percent increase for each year (14 percent was cited in a staff report as being the average annual rate increase for single-family residential users). “
The rate study should fix this problem. However, many have pointed out that the rates will still have to go up steeply, due to the size of the project.
That is why the election is important. The election will determine to a good degree whether there is sufficient support in this community to go forward.
Both sides made assumptions about what will happen when a vote comes up, but from our perspective we continue to believe next November is the time to bring this forward, when rates have been fully studied, impacts understood and we can lay out a very cogent plan to go forward.
However, council must at least accept the possibility that there is no rate that the voters and ratepayers are willing to take on that will fund the project. I do not know if there is a Plan C at this point, but it should be entertained.
That gets us to the WAC (Water Advisory Committee). I hope for the best, but experience has taught me to expect the worst. We are charging this committee with an incredibly tough, if not ultimately impossible, task.
Tough questions need to be asked and people need to hold staff’s feet to the fire, because unfortunately at the end of the day, I think that city staff has not served us well in this process.
Some of that is due to inexperience. Some of that is due to the previous city manager promoting people beyond their expertise.
Unfortunately, the planning of this project is only going to be as good as the staff that did the work. Staff says one thing publicly, then says another thing when jammed privately. Unless the committee can capture that, they will be a failure.
Some members of the public that post on this site and are members of that committee claim that they have problems and questions with the project. But we have not seen that skepticism, what we have seen is support to the point of rationalization and justification.
That does not serve the community well, and it continues to lead us to skepticism about this project.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In my opinion, the concept of moving a vote beyond June 2012, is a thinly-guised plot to avoid the issue for the candidates for City Council. I’d like to see the issue on the June ballot.
That’s fine, but the opponents argument is going to be very simple to predict: we don’t know what the rates are actually going to be and therefore they are going to be much higher than staff currently projects. At least with a completed rate study there will be a solid basis for the claim and that argument will have a good deal resonance with the average voter.
[quote]Some members of the public that post on this site and are members of that committee claim that they have problems and questions with the project. But we have not seen that skepticism, what we have seen is support to the point of rationalization and justification.
That does not serve the community well, and it continues to lead us to skepticism about this project.[/quote]
What I have not seen is the Vanguard in attendance at the WAC meetings. That does not serve the community well, and it continues to lead me to skepticism about the objectivity of the Vanguard in regard to its position on the surface water project. Before casting aspersions on this committee, the least the Vanguard can do is be present and listen to what is being said…
Since we are on the subject of water, I saw a news article on the internet this morning, in which a PUBLIC utility was caught overcharging its customers. Because there has been much talk about public versus private operation of the surface water project, I thought this piece was of particular importance. You can read it at:
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/16/4126374/california-puc-orders-golden-state.html#mi_rss=Sacramento County News[/url]
Verification that this is a public utility can be found at:
[url]http://www.linkedin.com/company/golden-state-water-company[/url]
“….and to provide language for a ballot measure seeking a community vote on the desire to pursue surface water.”
It will be interesting to see how this ballot measure language is worded. A simple statement concerning the desire to pursue surface water does not speak to WHEN or AT WHAT COST which are the most important questions to be put to the voters. A majority of Davis voters would most likely vote YES to the simple statement,”desire to pursue surface water”. A June vote is clearly an attempt to get Souza and Wolk off the hook in their election bids. IMO, Souza, as the last remaining Council author of the decade-long effort to “slip” this flawed project past the scrutiny of the Davis voter, will not be a Council asset as it attempts to regain its credibility on this issue. For the good of the Davis community, he should resign from the JWA as he declares that he will not be running for reelection.
Has there been a meeting other than on December 8?
If the ballot measure doesn’t include the actual rates then they’re just wasting our time and should postpone the vote until more info can be gathered.
“[i]However, council must at least accept the possibility that there is no rate that the voters and ratepayers are willing to take on that will fund the project. I do not know if there is a Plan C at this point, but it should be entertained.”
[/i]
There is no alternative that doesn’t require increased rates.
“Because there has been much talk about public versus private operation of the surface water project, I thought this piece was of particular importance.”
ERM… I do not get your point here,IMO, supporting DG’s observation.
Public utility “overcharging” may occur due to accounting errors or even an actual attempt to increase operating revenue to maintain a NON-PROFIT entity, quite different from the “overcharging” that is necessary to pay the dividends that are demanded by coupon-clipping investors.
“There is no alternative that doesn’t require increased rates.”
The question is whether there is an alternative that includes a viable rate increase.
David:[i] “The question is whether there is an alternative that includes a viable rate increase.”[/i]
But that wasn’t what you posted. Dixon voters rescinded rate increases and put their city into a long-term cease-and-desist situation. Voters can, in fact, be irrational.
Voters can be irrational, they can also be short-sighted, they can also be wary and distrusting. Part of the problem here is something that really needs to be reconciled and that is the lack of trust in the city council by a sizable segment of the community and the fact that the errors of omission and commission really played right into that.
[quote]Has there been a meeting other than on December 8?[/quote]
No. The next meeting of the WAC will be Jan 12 and 26, 6:30-8:30 pm at the Davis Senior Center. Hope to see a rep from the Vanguard there!
“…includes a viable rate increase.”
As an “average” home owner, 3 in the household(with a pool) my current water bill with extrapolation to consider the 4-5 high water use months,if quadrupled(or more))would likely result in a decrease in my discretionary spending,mostly in Davis, of about $500/month.
[quote]It will be interesting to see how this ballot measure language is worded. A simple statement concerning the desire to pursue surface water does not speak to WHEN or AT WHAT COST which are the most important questions to be put to the voters. A majority of Davis voters would most likely vote YES to the simple statement,”desire to pursue surface water”.[/quote]
[quote]If the ballot measure doesn’t include the actual rates then they’re just wasting our time and should postpone the vote until more info can be gathered.[/quote]
This is a valid concern. My understanding is that the ballot measure has to have some sort of rate structure in it – I believe Council member Swanson insisted on it. At the WAC, we asked how long a proper rate study would take to complete. The answer we received was about 6-9 months, but it also depends on how in depth the rate study is supposed to be. So there was much discussion on how a proper rate structure could ever end up on a June ballot. It will be interesting to see what the staff report says…
[i]”…that is the lack of trust in the city council by a sizable segment of the community…”
[/i]
The same community that elected them.
[quote]ERM… I do not get your point here,IMO, supporting DG’s observation.
Public utility “overcharging” may occur due to accounting errors or even an actual attempt to increase operating revenue to maintain a NON-PROFIT entity, quite different from the “overcharging” that is necessary to pay the dividends that are demanded by coupon-clipping investors.[/quote]
From the article:
[quote]A local water utility will refund nearly $3.6 million to customers in Rancho Cordova and Arden Manor under a settlement with the California Public Utilities Commission.
Golden State Water Co. also will pay a $1 million fine to the state for overbilling customers for past plant improvement work conducted around the state…[/quote]
The point is there can be problems with public as well as private…
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”As an “average” home owner, 3 in the household (with a pool) my current water bill with extrapolation to consider the 4-5 high water use months, if quadrupled (or more) would likely result in a decrease in my discretionary spending, mostly in Davis, of about $500/month.”[/i]
That is hyperbole for the sake of effect.
First, you know that your rates aren’t going to quadruple. So lets be realistic and say double for the sake of discussion. So accepting your figures that means “a decrease in your discretionary spending, mostly in Davis, of about $250/month.”
Second, what water becomes is a discretionary expense just like any other discretionary expense in your budget. You can [u]choose[/u] not to spend that $250 per month on water . . . by following certain simple water conservation steps.
Bottom-line what you do with your own discretionary budget is squarely in your own hands.
Wrong on almost all counts… Matt. Sue has outlined her analysis that suggests that quadrupling is what the numbers suggest. With a pool, I probably fall into the group whose tier rates will be above the “average” during near 1/2 the year. There are NO significant conservation measures that I do not already have in place,e.g. low flow toilets, drip/microspray landscape watering closely monitored, no turf, less than daily showering in our household and only full-load washing machine operation. Of course, I could fill my pool with soil and make it into a giant planter but then I’d have to water its plants. Discretionary spending is obviously my decision. My point is that the Davis business community will likely be SEVERELY impacted by the decrease in discretionary spending of the “average” Davis homeowner.
Don: [i]The same community that elected them.[/i]
Once in the chair(s) there is no reason to question any of their actions? Right.
Neutral: did I say that?
Politicians often turn out to be something different than what we thought they would be. I think pretty much everyone here would agree that we’ve got to watch politicians – at all levels of government – like hawks.
BTW, we didn’t elect [i]all[/i] of the Davis City Council.
“in a decrease in my discretionary spending,mostly in Davis, of about $500/month.”
…forgot to subtract the current water cost of water.. so the decrease in discretionary spending would be about $400/month.
[quote]So lets be realistic and say double for the sake of discussion.-Matt W[/quote]
Matt, davisite has stated that s/he’s already implemented water conservation measures, so it’s reasonable to assume that his/her water use in future years will be similar to that today. S/he’s also stated that his/her water use is above average (and thus above the base tier) in the summer months.
Do I understand you to be asserting that his/her total annual water bill will no more than double after all rate increases are phased in?
E Roberts Musser wrote,
“Since we are on the subject of water, I saw a news article on the internet this morning, in which a PUBLIC utility was caught overcharging its customers. Because there has been much talk about public versus private operation of the surface water project, I thought this piece was of particular importance. You can read it at:”
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/…ounty News
“Verification that this is a public utility can be found at:”
http://www.linkedin.com/compan…er-company
Golden State Water Company, who got caught letting no-bid contracts for water treatment plant design, to a single provider who was caught overcharging, is only a “PUBLIC” utility in as much as they provide water to the public. [b]They are a publicly owned, for profit, corporation[/b] that provides water to communities in California. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of American States Water Company.
If you go to the American States Water Company web site, the first words you will read, in their mission statement are,
“American States Water Company is committed to maximizing shareholder value through a combination of capital appreciation and cash dividends.”
That means they are in business to make money for their shareholders. And they made so much that they got fined $1,000,000. By the PUC and are being required to refund an average of $65.00 per household in Rancho Cordova . That figure is in addition to another $6.5 million in fines for over billing and mismanagement elsewhere in the state. Oopps!
So the JPA needs to take a long hard look at turning over management our public water resource to a private, for profit, corporation whose sole motivation is profits for shareholders. Management of public water by for profit companies has a lousy track record wherever it has been tried.
Matt – My comment above is not meant as argument; just asking for clarification of your reply to davisite.
An interesting note about the conservation discussion is that the city is assuming 20% conservation will be achieved, with or without the rate increase.
I noticed something quite concerning to me last week. The WAC was apparently shown a chart, a copy of which I asked for, that showed the water revenues growing from $9,582,000 in FY 10/11 to $38,852,000 in FY 18/19.
Presumably, the FY 18/19 figures represent the revenues that will be needed at that time to pay for our water.
Since our rate increases didn’t go into affect this year, we can assume that FY 11/12 will collect about the same revenue as FY 10/11.
That means that revenues will have to quadruple. If revenues have to quadruple, then rates will have to quadruple. If anyone pays less than 4 times what they are paying now, someone else will have to pay more than 4 times what they are paying now.
Staff had no other explanation for this when I inquired, so I assume it is the case.
David Suder said . . .
[i]”Matt, davisite has stated that s/he’s already implemented water conservation measures, so it’s reasonable to assume that his/her water use in future years will be similar to that today. S/he’s also stated that his/her water use is above average (and thus above the base tier) in the summer months.
Do I understand you to be asserting that his/her total annual water bill will no more than double after all rate increases are phased in?” [/i]
David, drilling down into the scenario that davisite has laid out, he should be using something on the order of 150 gallons of water indoor per day (based on 3 people and his self-proclaimed aggressive water conservation measures already in place) which extends to 6.1 ccf per month. He has removed his turf, but for the sake of argument lets use the Irvine Ranch average monthly outdoor allotment of 4.22 ccf per month for a yard with 1,300 square feet of turf. So his monthly combined indoor/outdoor total should be 10.32 ccf.
So going to the water calculator page [url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/water-calculator.cfm[/url] with a 3/4 inch main his current bi-monthly bill should be $53.00. His 2012 bill will go to $67.60. His 2013 bill will go to $80.80. His 2014 bill will go to $94.60. His 2015 bill will go to $110.60 And finally his 2016 bill will go to $126.40.
That means his 2012 bill will have gone up 27.5% over his current bill. His 2013 bill will have gone up 52.5% over his current bill. His 2014 bill will have gone up 76.5% over his current bill. His 2015 bill will have gone up 108.7% over his current bill. And his 2016 bill will have gone up 138.5% over his current bill.
That means his monthly decrease in his discretionary spending will be $7.30 in 2012. His monthly decrease in his discretionary spending will be $13.90 in 2013. His monthly decrease in his discretionary spending will be $20.80 in 2014. His monthly decrease in his discretionary spending will be $28.80 in 2015. His monthly decrease in his discretionary spending will be $36.70 in 2016. All those decreases are cummulative (not additive).
If he has a 1 inch meter, all his bill numbers will go up by $11.40. His percentage increases will decrease slightly and his decreases in discretionary spending will be unchanged.
Does that answer your question?
davisite, are your bill values consistent with those outlined above?
David Suder said . . .
[i]”Matt – My comment above is not meant as argument; just asking for clarification of your reply to davisite.”[/i]
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”An interesting note about the conservation discussion is that the city is assuming 20% conservation will be achieved, with or without the rate increase.”[/i]
David, I saw no argument in your comment, and even if I had I’d have tried to make sure there was no argument in my response.
To Don and david and everyone, the numbers above assume no conservation on davisite2’s part because he portrayed himself as an already aggressive water conserver. I will follow up this post with another analysis of davisite’s water usage with a 20% cummulative conservation over 5 years (4% per year)
So if you factor in a 4% per year water conservation in each year (producing a running rate total of 20% in year 5), the current bi-monthly bill stays at $53.00. His 2012 bill will go to $65.82. His 2013 bill will go to $76.18. His 2014 bill will go to $86.01. His 2015 bill will go to $96.58 And finally his 2016 bill will go to $105.72.
That means his 2012 bill will have gone up 24.2% over his current bill. His 2013 bill will have gone up 43.7% over his current bill. His 2014 bill will have gone up 62.3% over his current bill. His 2015 bill will have gone up 82.2% over his current bill. And his 2016 bill will have gone up 99.5% over his current bill.
That means his monthly decrease in his discretionary spending will be $6.41 in 2012. His monthly decrease in his discretionary spending will be $11.59 in 2013. His monthly decrease in his discretionary spending will be $16.50 in 2014. His monthly decrease in his discretionary spending will be $21.80 in 2015. His monthly decrease in his discretionary spending will be $26.36 in 2016. Again, all those decreases are cummulative (not additive).
If he has a 1 inch meter, all his bill numbers will go up by $11.40. His percentage increases will decrease slightly and his decreases in discretionary spending will be unchanged.
Oops! I better correct an embarrassing grammatical error:
I noticed something quite concerning to me last week. The WAC was apparently shown a chart, a copy of which I asked for, that showed the water revenues growing from $9,582,000 in FY 10/11 to $38,852,000 in FY 18/19.
Presumably, the FY 18/19 figures represent the revenues that will be needed at that time to pay for our water.
Since our rate increases didn’t go into effect this year, we can assume that FY 11/12 will collect about the same revenue as FY 10/11.
That means that revenues will have to quadruple. If revenues have to quadruple, then rates will have to quadruple. If anyone pays less than 4 times what they are paying now, someone else will have to pay more than 4 times what they are paying now.
Staff had no other explanation for this when I inquired, so I assume it is the case.
Matt: Your numbers aren’t even in the same ballpark as what davisite2 says his current monthly rate is. He says he’s an average water user that spends 100/month on water in Davis.
BTW Matt: My household with grass spends pretty much exactly what you estimate on a [i]bimonthly[/i] basis.
I think davisite2 has some explaining to do. Is your pool leaking and recharging groundwater?
Matt said: [quote]So going to the water calculator page http://cityofdavis.org/pw/wate…ulator.cfm with a 3/4 inch main his current bi-monthly bill should be $53.00.[/quote]
Davisite said: [quote]”in a decrease in my discretionary spending,mostly in Davis, of about $500/month.”
…forgot to subtract the current water cost of water.. so the decrease in discretionary spending would be about $400/month.
[/quote]
@ Sue: based on a 14% increase annually from 2012, my water bill would roughly triple by 2019.
@Don Shor: If the average rate has to quadruple, we should work backwards from that. Whose rate is going to only triple, whose will increase five fold?
What will happen to our restaurant industry of their water/wastewater bills quadruple? I have heard that they are very, very big water/wastewater users.
Clearly, a lot more work has to be done on the actual rates and their impacts.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”@Don Shor: If the average rate has to quadruple, we should work backwards from that. Whose rate is going to only triple, whose will increase five fold?
What will happen to our restaurant industry of their water/wastewater bills quadruple? I have heard that they are very, very big water/wastewater users.
Clearly, a lot more work has to be done on the actual rates and their impacts.”[/i]
Sue, I completely agree with your closing statement. Until that work is done and a sense of what the actual revenue is that needs to be generated to cover understandable costs, then the statement “the average rate has to quadruple” really has no meaning other than as a scare tactic.
I would guess, since staff hasn’t elucidated, that the figure you saw was what water revenues would be in the out-years if the Sept 6 rates had remained in place. I think you may be misinterpreting those figures. Who provided them to the WAC?
I assume that decisions can be made about how long it would take to pay for the water project. Taking longer costs more, but is probably politically more palatable.
If you want the restaurant industry to have lower rates, someone else will have to pay higher rates. I believe commercial users already pay lower ccf rates than residential. There are, of course, restaurants in cities with higher water rates. If any restaurant owner would like to post his or her current monthly water bill, we could see how all of this might affect the restaurants in town. But I’m not sure why people keep mentioning restaurants without any actual comparative basis or information about their water use.
Sue Greenwald: [i]What will happen to our restaurant industry of their water/wastewater bills quadruple? I have heard that they are very, very big water/wastewater users. [/i]
It would depend on how large a percentage of their monthly expenses is due to the costs associated with water. I would guess that rent, payroll, food supplies and insurance account for most of their monthly costs and that the increment in water costs will be minor in comparison.
The local company that will likely be hit relatively hard is the brewery as water is a major component of their product as well as being used extensively for cleaning their equipment and facility.
[quote]I would guess, since staff hasn’t elucidated, that the figure you saw was what water revenues would be in the out-years if the Sept 6 rates had remained in place. I think you may be misinterpreting those figures. Who provided them to the WAC?-[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]This was the “Water Utility Fund Proforma” that staff presented to the WAC. I was looking at the line that said: Total Revenue, and listed the total revenue by year. It was clearly the revenue that staff felt would be needed to operate our water system in that year, assuming the project has been financed, since the revenue row extends well beyond the rate row.
@Mark West…
Yes, I have suggested that the WAC look at the actual situation of our restaurants.
Let me do this again. My bimonthly water bill is now $150($75/month) without significant landscape watering or pool “topping up”. The average monthly water bill to include the near 1/2 yr high water use months I can only guess at this time but it will be higher,let’s say to a 12 month average of $100/month ,just a guess. Quadrupling the rates would make it $400, an increase of $300/month.Any adjustment of the tier rates upward would add to the increase in addition to the quadrupling.
.” But I’m not sure why people keep mentioning restaurants without any actual comparative basis or information about their water use.”
The Davis downtown has been wonderfully transformed in the last 25 years and it is no longer necessary to venture beyond Davis to have a very good eating experience. For our family,a very large portion of the discretionary spending that we make in Davis goes to the restaurant businesses. The increased water bill that the restaurants will be burdened with is the very least of the negative impacts on Davis restaurants that will result from quadrupling residential water rates on Davis restaurants.
[quote]Sue, I completely agree with your closing statement. Until that work is done and a sense of what the actual revenue is that needs to be generated to cover understandable costs, then the statement “the average rate has to quadruple” really has no meaning other than as a scare tactic.–[b]Matt Williams[/b][/quote]Matt, this is no scare tactic unless staff is trying to scare us. I have presented staffs’ current estimate of the total revenue that needs to be generated seven years from now. If that estimate changes, it changes, but this is staffs’ current estimate, and it says that rates have to quadruple on the average since no one is going to be handing us scores of millions of dollars.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”Let me do this again. My bimonthly water bill is now $150($75/month) without significant landscape watering or pool “topping up”. The average monthly water bill to include the near 1/2 yr high water use months I can only guess at this time but it will be higher, let’s say to a 12 month average of $100/month, just a guess. Quadrupling the rates would make it $400, an increase of $300/month.Any adjustment of the tier rates upward would add to the increase in addition to the quadrupling.”[/i]
davisite, I could be wrong, but you appear to be a text book example of just how huge an impact that water conservation can have on individual households. At $150 for a 2-month period translates to 74 ccf (37 ccf per month). If you look at your actual water bill you will see (on the last line before the perforation) the following words “[i]Average water use for March/April for a single-family customer was 21 CCF (100 cubic feet).[/i]” where “March/April” and “21 CCF” are replaced by the actual city-wide average for the actual two-month period of your bill.
For those who would like instructions for how to step through their bill go to [url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/pdfs/utilityBillDetails.pdf[/url]
Bottom-line davisite, you appear to be using well over TRIPLE the average amount of water for a single family residence in Davis. It is almost a certainty that the 21 CCF average will be different in the month you are citing. It could be less or it could be more. The four-month monthly average for Nov.’05-Feb.’06. from City billing records was 8.34 CCF (16.68 CCF for each of the two bi-monthly periods). Even if it is more, you are more than likely more than double the average.
I am willing to bet you have a substantial leak somewhere on your property. Perhaps you should get that fixed. The City provides free on-site water audits. Either do that or call a plumber.
The water bill for my nursery, including hand-watering displays and irrigating front landscape, is less than $150 for a 2-month period. While I expect industrial dishwashers are fairly high water users, I’d be surprised if many restaurants have much higher water use than a garden center.
[i]”…negative impacts on Davis restaurants that will result from quadrupling residential water rates on Davis restaurants.”[/i]
Just to reiterate: businesses don’t pay the same water rates as residents.
My fellow surface water project opponents have done a terrific job stalling this appalling, staff and union labor-driven self-enrichment, for-profit DBO, Woodland-City-Council-scheming, developer-driven, urban sprawl inducing, lying, thieving, Wile E. Coyote / Acme, boondoggle. The community owes them a huge debt of gratitude. But I must say, they are playing a very dangerous game. For the life of me I cannot fathom why they haven’t pulled out the big gun to slay this hideous beast once and for all. They probably think they’re being clever waiting until we get closer to the initiative election, but I fear they are being too clever by half. They should whip out that bad boy right now and finish the project proponents off, once and for all.
The big gun I speak of, a stake to be driven through the heart of the beast, is the off-peak, off-season demand argument. My fellow project opponents used this same argument to stunning effect on the downtown retail/parking project. Bam! Lights out! It was sweet!!!!! watching them prove beyond doubt that enlightened communities, such as Redwood City, design public infrastructure capacity around off-peak, off-season demand. When are we going to start knocking Joe Krovoza, Stephen Souza et al upside the head with the same argument? We can get by with far less water capacity if we base it on off-peak, off-season demand. Why are we even looking at peak or summer demand? We need to design capacity around average hourly demand during the winter months. After all, we will be paying interest on the water bonds 24/7 for gods’ sake not just during peak demand! And what’s with the crazy notion that we need sufficient supply to meet daily peak demand during the summer months. Now, that is a truly antiquated, dinosaur-mentality, unenlightened, gas guzzling, idea. Shoot, I might be getting my infrastructure projects mixed up.
Anyway, using this proven argument, after all it was used to stunning success just 2 short months ago, bought hook, line and sinker by the Council I do recall (remember that one, David? High Five, backslap, showed-them, yeah!), we sure as heck don’t need the surface water project. We simply close down the wells producing too much salt, selenium, greenhouse gases, whatever the heck the goop is that the regulators and environmental wackos are hammering us over the head with. We still have plenty of higher-quality wells left over to meet our off-peak, off-season demand. Game, set, match! See ya! Wouldn’t want to be ya!
DT Businessman aka Michael Bisch
[i]I am willing to bet you have a substantial leak somewhere on your property. Perhaps you should get that fixed. The City provides free on-site water audits. Either do that or call a plumber. [/i]
Hey David – when you started the blog, you probably had some ideas/dreams about the good that could come out of a blog like this, but did you ever dream that it could become the equivalent of “this old house” for plumbing problems? You could start a whole new bulletin board – Home repair advice. Readers could post questions, and request advice. Maybe those answering the posts could receive a fee for a successful fix. The Vanguard could collect a cut of the fee. DTB could provide periodic riffs on various topics or posts. Endless possibilities !
[quote] We still have plenty of higher-quality wells left over to meet our off-peak, off-season demand. Game, set, match! See ya! Wouldn’t want to be ya!–[b]DT Businessman AKA Michael Bisch[/b] [/quote]Ignoring your flippant and sarcastic rhetoric, Michael, we probably will have enough high quality well water available to meet our peak demand.
The issue is whether our seniors on fixed incomes, our lower income residents, and the restaurants that you represent as president of the Davis Downtown Business Association can afford the tripling or quadrupling of their water rates, or whether we should phase in or mega-projects.
Have you asked them?
[quote]Just to reiterate: businesses don’t pay the same water rates as residents –[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]This brings up a very interesting question. A number of groups are currently subsidizing other groups in town. Bob Dunning brings up the point that larger families are subsidizing smaller families including many older seniors on fixed incomes. If I interpret Don’s comments correctly, he seems to be implying that homeowners are subsidizing businesses.
When costs triple or quadruple, those doing the subsidizing start to get upset. I know the apartment owners are concerned. When rates triple or quadruple, the groups that have been paying more than their share tend to stop accepting it.
If we don’t keep our cumulative water/wastewater costs under control, we will see increasing conflict over who is subsidizing whom, and all bets regarding “different rates” will be off.
Sue:[i] we probably will have enough high quality well water available to meet our peak demand. [/i]
Looking at the same data that is available to you, I disagree with this conclusion. And I believe staff will, also.
Hi Dianna,
I would appreciate your comments on these notes and conclusions.
In order to achieve acceptable selenium content in our effluent, we would replace most of the water from intermediate wells with water from deep wells. This would require essentially continuous running of the pumps in the deep wells and would reduce our total capacity to below what we need during average peak demand. In order to make up the difference during peak demand, we would increase the pumping from the intermediate wells.
We would have:
•a reduction of usage of the intermediate wells from 14 to 6.
•loss of capacity from intermediate wells of 78% (from 8500 gpm to 1842 gpm)
•Deficiency in capacity at peak demand: 4630 gpm
This would require that:
•we run the new deep wells continuously.**
•most of our water (87%) would be from the deep aquifer.
•we probably run old wells at nearly full capacity during peak hour demand (18 hours a day, instead of 6) to replace deficiency in capacity.
•we continue to use the oldest well, #20, which was drilled in 1976 (it is low Se).
Issues:
•It is not yet known whether the reduced number of wells would provide sufficient pressure and distribution for peak demand throughout the city; i.e., whether you could get the current level of service with a smaller number of wells.
•During peak hour, with heavier usage of the intermediate wells, we run the risk of violating selenium limits and facing fines.
Running wells 24/7/365 is not recommended for sustained use. We couldn’t do this for more than a few years at the most.
An additional issue is that boron in deep wells is higher than in intermediate wells. Current discharge is 1800 ppb; future discharge limit expected to be 700.
Sue: [i]Have you asked them?[/i]
Have you? You represent them.
@Don Shor: I certainly do talk with downtown merchants and restaurant owners.
[b]@Don Shor:[/b]The last time I talked to staff only weeks ago, staff who handle water quality didn’t know what our selenium effluent inflow was, and the staff who handle the effluent didn’t know what our latest well water plans were, and they were just getting the data together, so I would be surprised if you know more than they do.
@ Sue; I am talking to the same staff you are and have reviewed the data they are getting together.
Sue Greenwald: [i]@Don Shor: I certainly do talk with downtown merchants and restaurant owners.[/i]
Only the [b]downtown[/b] merchants and restaurant owners? Are they the only businesses in town that matter to you?
[quote]Golden State Water Company, who got caught letting no-bid contracts for water treatment plant design, to a single provider who was caught overcharging, is only a “PUBLIC” utility in as much as they provide water to the public. They are a publicly owned, for profit, corporation that provides water to communities in California. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of American States Water Company.
If you go to the American States Water Company web site, the first words you will read, in their mission statement are, [/quote]
One of the reasons I cited this article is that I found it confusing, in terms of whether Golden State was a “public” utility, and was hoping someone who was more in the know than I am on this sort of thing would have something to say. On their linked in site, Golden State calls themselves a “public utility”, yet I saw the reference to shareholders. I wonder if Golden State is being misleading to call themselves a “public utility”? (What is the true definition of “public utility”?) The problem is we don’t know exactly how things were set up…
[quote]I noticed something quite concerning to me last week. The WAC was apparently shown a chart, a copy of which I asked for, that showed the water revenues growing from $9,582,000 in FY 10/11 to $38,852,000 in FY 18/19. [/quote]
I am at a loss. The WAC was given 1) a copy of the CC resolution; 2) a huge binder about the DBO process, but I saw nothing in the binder like the chart you are talking about. Can you send me a copy?
Sue, asking downtown merchants and restaurant owners and listening to their responses has proven to be counterproductive, listening to business owners outside of the downtown even more so. Surveying business owners, business walks, focus groups, one-on-one interviews, hiring consultants, all of the foregoing has proven to be a complete waste of time and money. What has proven to be extremely effective is to simply make things up, made-up unnamed sources has been particularly effective, so much so that I’ve incorporated these practices into my modestly successful commercial real estate business. Although I have several hundred, locally-grown, small business clients, it has proven to be of little benefit to listen to their wants and needs. Instead, I simply lecture with my opinions. Presto magico we have a thriving downtown and I have happy clients! It’s a win, win, win, all around!
DT Businessman aka Michael Bisch
Invitation:
Time: Early morning
Place: The Heights of Weehawken
Portmanteau contents: two Wogdon pistols
Referee: Brent Lee
Be there or be square.
It seems clear that Michael is the burr under Sue’s bonnet.
Matt, I have longstanding disagreements with Michael Bisch’s policies regarding the downtown (as well has his nasty style) and I will explain them when I have a little time.
Sue, it is equally clear that Michael has longstanding disagreements with your policies regarding Davis.
[b@]Michael Bisch:[/b] I don’t think that your long-standing campaign to rezone downtown to make it easier to tear down existing buildings (with existing tenants) and to build large multi-story buildings in their place has the support of a majority of local merchants and restaurant owners.
I don’t think that your long-standing campaign to eliminate our surface parking lots and replace them with multi-story buildings has the support of a majority of Davis local merchants and restaurant owners.
This would make an excellent topic for the bulletin board. I’m sure the DDBA members would love a venue for discussing the various areas where they disagree with you. But for now, I will just say that it isn’t Michael Bisch’s campaign to build a multi-story parking/retail project downtown.
The positions of the DDBA are adopted by their board of directors. The board is elected from the membership. Here is the current board: [url]http://www.davisdowntown.com/about/board-staff[/url]
DDBA is on record as supporting the parking/retail project as a top priority.
If you and he are amenable, I would be happy to move this discussion to the bulletin board.
“Michael Bisch: I don’t think that your long-standing campaign to rezone downtown to make it easier to tear down existing buildings (with existing tenants) and to build large multi-story buildings in their place has the support of a majority of local merchants and restaurant owners.
I don’t think that your long-standing campaign to eliminate our surface parking lots and replace them with multi-story buildings has the support of a majority of Davis local merchants and restaurant owners.”
Well said Sue, I would also like to add that the citizens of Davis don’t support these ideas either.
[b]@Don Shor:[/b]If you want to declare a discussion off-topic, fair enough, but please don’t then put in the last word yourself.
You say: “I’m sure the DDBA members would love a venue for discussing the various areas where they disagree with you.” What I was saying, Don, is that I don’t think that the DDBA [b]MEMBERS[/b] disagree with me, from the many conversations I have had with them.
The whole point, Don, is that everyone who has a business or property downtown is a member of the DDBA, yet not everyone, by a long-shot, is involved. I think I am representing the view of most downtown merchants and restaurant owners when I say that they don’t want to eliminate the surface parking lots and replace them with buildings.
Yet Michael Bisch has been compaigning for years to do just that.
[i]Well said Sue, I would also like to add that the citizens of Davis don’t support these ideas either. [/i]
Many Davis citizens would love to see a more modern, thriving downtown, and would welcome the ideas that the DDBA has been supporting.
Sue: Since 2007 DDBA board members have been selected by a vote of the membership. If members don’t like their representation, they can change it. You are disregarding the stated position of the board. There is a parking committee, headed by Janis Lott. I know of no basis for your statement that you “are representing the view of most downtown merchants and restaurant owners.”
The disregard of the council for the DDBA board positions — which prioritize parking as their first, second, and third priorities — continues a pattern of poor representation of downtown interests on the council.
[b]Don Shor[/b]: I talk to downtown merchants and restaurant owners extensively. To say that the president of the DDBA represents their position on issues such as eliminating surface parking lots in order to develop them into buildings, or changing the zoning to encourage the replacement of affordable older buildings with new multistory buildings is not, in my opinion, accurate.
To say that the DDBA leadership represents the position of most merchants or restaurant owners is like saying the council necessarily represents the position of most citizens because they were elected.
For example, I was the sole vote on the council against both Covell Village and Wildhorse Ranch, yet it was proven in two elections that the citizens agreed with me on these issues.
Continued…
I would guess that most downtown merchants and restaurant owners would like to see another parking structure in addition to our existing surface lots. I agree with this position, if the right location can be found. I don’t believe that a five story, small footprint parking lot in the middle of town was the right project.
In fact, one of the downtown merchants who came to council and spoke in favor of the parking lot had second thought when I later explained that the lot was five stories high and of small footprint.
I may be a hick from the sticks, but I’m pretty sure my postings have been on topic. My first posting presented a powerful, unassailable, although illiterate, argument for cancelling the surface water project all together. My second posting, in response to a compellingly misguided question from Sue, addressed the extent to which the business community’s input on the water rates have been soliticited. The council quite rightly does not solicit input from the business community on issues affecting the local economy since we in Davis have proven beyond doubt that the business community doe not have a clue about business. My third posting, this one, is a response to a question from the moderator. My postings should remain on this thread since they’re all on topic.
Sue’s comments, however, have clearly veered off into subjects having very little to do with water rates or the surface water project. That said, her comments should remain on this thread since they are compellingly misguided, are therefore of great value to the health and welfare of the community, which trumps all other considerations. Furthermore, she once again provides a clear example of why it is so critical to not solicit, let alone heed input from the business community. First of all, they don’t know what they’re talking about. Secondly, it is far easier to simply make it all. Thirdly, when all else fails, cite unnamed sources to contradict overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For example, when 12 business leaders appear before the council representing the DDBA waiving letters of support from the Chamber and the YCVB, simply claim they expressed second thoughts, doubts, misgivings, and contrary positions in private, the videotaped testimony to the contrary notwithstanding. It is for this and any number of her other compellingly misguided traits, that I continue to be a strong Sue Greenwald supporter.
One phenomenon I have watched unfold over the years in city politics is as follows: those who have a pre-conceived agenda will go to various unnamed sources, and “ask” them what their view is on a particular issue. If the person asked disagrees, they are peppered with criticism from the poser of the question, with more questions and badgering to ensue until the person asked finally keeps quiet in frustration, not wanting to engage in any more ugly disagreement. The person asking the question takes the questioned person’s ultimate silence or “uh huh” statement as AGREEMENT on the issue in question! Then the person asking the question moves on to the next “unnamed” source and repeats this less than savory tactic. In that way a mistaken impression is built by the questioner that somehow “everyone” agrees with the questioner. This is why I have deep and abiding mistrust when someone makes claims that “unnamed” sources are in support of their position, or “everyone” “agrees” with them. Nothing may be further from the truth. Those questioned just may not want to engage in any more argument, and fall silent or nod in feigned “assent” to get rid of an uncomfortable situation…
I couldn’t disagree with Adam and ERM more. Sue and Rusty are absolutely correct. There is next to zero community support for a modern, thriving downtown. The DDBA and downtown businesses are off their rockers. Clearly, the improvements made to the Downtown these past 20 years or so have been massive failures. Central Park, Farmers Market, Davis Commons, Mishka’s Cafe, Varsity Theater, The Lofts, the Roe Bldg., the Crepeville Bldg., the Chen Bldg., the new YFCU Bldg., oh I and all of Sue’s unnamed sources yearn to reverse these projects. Fortunately, Ernie, Michael, Bob, David et al have pointed out a means to prove once and for all that the community utterly rejects innovation and creativity. We’re a college town for god’s sake, not a center of intellectual curiosity! The means to protect our community values and protect our Downtown from change is by initiative or referendum. If it’s good enough for water or Target, it’s certainly good enough for Downtown capital improvement projects. Let the community once and for all put these uppity creative/innovative types in their place! Let them go someplace else to explore the possible.
DT Businessman aka Michael Bisch
I do think that having a full discussion about the parking/retail project, as well as other downtown projects, would be useful. The problem is that these threads just disappear down the blog. On the bulletin board, they can continue and be accessed readily.
I believe the DDBA board has strongly endorsed the parking/retail project, and obviously that is a whole lot more people than just Michael Bisch. For example, Rosalie Paine as co-president co-signed a letter to the Enterprise on the topic. Perhaps Michael can find evidence of such board support for the project, and perhaps Sue can ask some of her sources to reply with their objections.
As it stands now, my opinion is that the parking/retail project is dead. Parking will be studied, but with one council-member conflicted out there is not IMO a majority to move forward. So if the DDBA wants to keep this going, they will need to keep discussing it. The bonds have been sold. Inaction is costing the city money. So this project should be front and center, and parking remains the top priority for downtown business interests — at least, those represented by the board of DDBA.