I was actually surprised but pleased to hear Councilmember Greenwald say this, because for several months she has said both privately and publicly that water was the most important issue the council was facing. I have never believed that to be the case.
I have made my views known that I have considered the water rate hikes a threat to our educational system in Davis – some of those concerns were alleviated in the last round of polls that showed education remains the priority among citizens, well outstripping spending in any other area, including public safety.
My new concern has been the impact on the budget, both in terms of staff time – where I had consistently heard that the new city manager was preoccupied with water above all else – and in terms of the community’s focus in the next campaign.
I consider the economy, rather than water, to be the most critical issue facing this community, and the reasons for that I will lay out in a moment.
People argue, what is more important than water? First of all, water is very important, for reasons that do not need to be stated, but the idea that we will not have water, at least in the next fifty years, does not really square with staff projections.
There are rightly concerns about discharge requirements, the age of the well system, subsidence and a whole host of other issues that we need to address. I agree those issues are there.
But the second point is that, really, this debate is not over the water supply project but over cost. We can work on costs and the rates and work to make the tier system equitable. It may not end up perfect, but at the end of the day, most people believe that we need to go to surface water at some point.
There are a lot of problems with this plan as I currently see it, and given our $155 million investment, it behooves us to address those.
My observations in recently weeks suggest that we do not need to address all of these issues by June. In fact, there are a lot of reasons why November increasingly seems to be soon enough.
First of all, having an election in November means we will have estimates that are much closer to real rates. I understand Sue Greenwald’s argument that, until we get bids on the project and take out bonds, we won’t know for sure. And we won’t. But we can make good estimates and then adjust as needed.
If we go ahead in June, we really are guessing, and the opposition can say that we have no way of knowing if these are the real rates.
That is not a small issue. I called the current rates phony. The 14% rate increase was a fiction. First of all, they did not call it a 14% increase in the water bill, which might have been defensible if you believe the majority of people can get to that 20% conservation rate.
But the rate itself goes from $1.50 per unit to $1.90 and that is a 27% rate increase. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying.
Mayor Joe Krovoza called it a “communication error,” but I call it a credibility issue. After getting hammered because of the 28% rate increases, they were trying to assuage the public, using phony numbers and failing to clearly articulate that the only way the water bill only increases 14% is for consumers to cut their usage.
When we look at gas prices, we look at the price per gallon. So if the cost of gas goes from $3 to $4 per gallon, that is a 33% increase in cost. Now we can mitigate that cost increase by driving less, but that does not mean that the cost of gas is only going up 20%.
The other enormous problem is that it is not clear to anyone how those rates were derived. The Vanguard learned in the course of several discussions that Jacques DeBra did not consult with anyone as to how to structure the rates. When the Vanguard met with city staff back in October, the Vanguard was told, by both Interim Public Works director Bob Clarke and Finance Director Paul Navazio, that they are not sure that the rates are ideal.
Had the city done a rate study, they would know. It was a huge oversight and I believe, as I said yesterday, largely attributable to inexperience of the city during this time.
Having an election in November would mean we could have completed the rate study and used that as a basis to create real rates. Having the election in June likely means that we would not have time to study the rate impacts fully and therefore would have to use very rough estimates as to what the rates will ultimately be.
The Vanguard is encouraged by early reports of the Water Advisory Committee, but the bottom line will be how hard the members are willing to push city staff to get the real answers, as opposed to the homespun answers we have received publicly.
City staff believes we can wait until November to have the election and still proceed with the project in a timely manner.
There are plenty of political considerations that make November a wiser move. The ability to keep the parks tax on the same ballot with the election will help the city get that tax renewed. It will keep the water issue further away from the school issue which comes forward in March.
It will avoid making the council election a referendum on water – which is important because, as we noted, water is only one of many critical issues right now.
We will find out in January what happens with all of this, but from our standpoint the council action was a good solid compromise where the council can still move forward with a better project and more realistic rates, while giving the public their opportunity to vote on it.
Let the public decide and let democracy take its course. As we mentioned, democracy is sometimes inconvenient, but we must remember that it is ultimately a process and not an outcome.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I respectfully disagree. With the referendum in June, and with the employee group negotiations supposedly well under way by that time, it would be perfect to force the council candidates into taking clear stands on the water project and/or alternatives, and budget issues.
David Greenwald said . . .
“While I have made my views known that I have considered the water rate hikes a threat to our educational system in Davis – some of those concerns were alleviated in the last round of polls that showed education remains the priority among citizens well outstripping spending on any other area including public safety.”
David, the biggest two-part threat to our educational system in Davis is 1) a failure to be realistic about the declining numbers of Davis student populations, and 2) the failure to “right size” the District to match that declining student population projection/trend.
If we do not recognize and accept the reality of 1) and reduce our system-wide costs by accomplishing 2), then the Revenue/Burden equation in the coming years will continue to be one of decreasing Revenues and increasing Burden . . . with the obvious result of annual budget deficits.
When a school district [u]reacts to[/u] immediate budget deficits, it almost always means the loss of the very programs that make the education system special. When a school district [u]proactively deals with[/u] anticipated budget deficits, it means the likelihood of the retention of the special programs that make the school district special.
We have to recognize that passing the upcoming School District ballot initiative is a band aid. Our “bleeding” needs much more medical care than a band aid can provide.
hpierce said . . .
[i]”I respectfully disagree. With the referendum in June, and with the employee group negotiations supposedly well under way by that time, it would be perfect to force the council candidates into taking clear stands on the water project and/or alternatives, and budget issues.”[/i]
I second hpierce’s disagreement.
What you appear to be saying David, is that both the candidates and the voters are not capable of multi-tasking . . . not capable of simultaneously processing information about both the budget and our water future. I think you are wrong about that. I think both the voters and the candidates are very capable of understanding/discussing/being clear about both these important issues.
Matt:
I very much disagree with you that this is the “biggest” threat is local declining enrollment. The biggest decline in funding is cuts from the state not local funding. The district largely resolved the local funding issue by contraction four years ago by closing Valley Oak. I disagree with their means, but that is what they were attempting to do.
“What you appear to be saying David, is that both the candidates and the voters are not capable of multi-tasking”
There are issues that dominate a political landscape and the water issue was one and could be one again if there is a live election.
David, if I understand the state funding algorithm correctly, it is based on the numbers of enrolled students. Fewer students = less state funding. If we don’t recognize that our funding (revenues) will be declining each year going forward, and reduce our costs (burden) to match that revenue decline, then the School District will be facing an annual budget crisis on a recurring basis.
Water is just such an issue. Balancing the City’s budget is just such an issue. They are like Tracy and Hepburn. They can very effectively share the stage . . . and we will all be better for it.
JMHO
[quote]While I have made my views known that I have considered the water rate hikes a threat to our educational system in Davis – some of those concerns were alleviated in the last round of polls that showed education remains the priority among citizens well outstripping spending on any other area including public safety.[/quote]
Exactly – you were wrong to think that each tax should not stand on its own merits. You exalted one tax at the expense of another – which could have terrible consequences in the future to the taxpayers and ultimately be the downfall of the tax you were trying to support.
Secondly, the use of pejorative terms as “phony”, “lying”, and essentially casting aspersions on the WAC (which you never even attended) by d_mning it w faint praise (“The Vanguard is encouraged by early reports on the Water Advisory Committee, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE THERE WILL BE HOW HARD THE MEMBERS ARE WILLING TO PUSH CITY STAFF TO GET THE REAL ANSWERS AS OPPOSED TO THE HOME SPUN ANSWERS WE HAD RECEIVED PUBLICLY.”)is nothing more than attempting to once more gin up hysteria and is not helpful to a reasoned discussion of the issues. And all because you are afraid the school parcel tax will not stand on its own merits, when in fact polls show otherwise…
[quote]City staff believes we can wait until November to have the election and still proceed with the project in a timely manner.[/quote]
However that delay may very well come at a high cost…
[quote]What you appear to be saying David, is that both the candidates and the voters are not capable of multi-tasking . . . not capable of simultaneously processing information about both the budget and our water future. I think you are wrong about that. I think both the voters and the candidates are very capable of understanding/discussing/being clear about both these important issues. [/quote]
More importantly what is really being said here by the Vanguard is the importance of hiding the pea from the voters – let’s not put out there all the taxes/fees/costs they will have to pay all at once for them to see what they are really going to have to shell out for. Let’s instead spoon feed them in dribbles so they won’t be fully aware of how much they are going to be taxed…
David… I agree with your analysis and suggestion that a citizen vote on the water project be put off until November. Your reasoning is unassailable
and,IMO ,disagreement really reflects the underlying poster water project advocacy position .
I thought MIke Harrington and his clients were planning an initiative for the June ballot.
Don: I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest Mike Harrington and his clients. I don’t think he has clients in this matter. And second, they were when there were water rates that had been implemented, but I don’t if they still are.
[quote]David… I agree with your analysis and suggestion that a citizen vote on the water project be put off until November. Your reasoning is unassailable and,IMO ,disagreement really reflects the underlying poster water project advocacy position .[/quote]
Well you would be wrong too, just as dmg was, in assuming you know what people think – since as it turns out I have definite reservations about putting the citizen vote on the water project on a June ballot. But my reasoning is not to hide the pea from the voters so they won’t know how much they are shelling out in taxes…
[b]@David Greenwald:[/b]David, you are misrepresenting my position. I am in favor of a November election, and I think we will be much closer to knowing the true cost of the project in November than we are today or than we will be in June.
I do not think that water is our most important issue although I do think that water, like the budget, could become the most important issue if we make the wrong decisions. I ran for council based on my desire to improve the downtown and make it an arts, dining, retail and entertainment destination. I wanted to slow peripheral subdivision growth and to assure a high standard of architecture and aesthetics for the housing that we do approve. I wanted to protect the quality of life in our neighborhoods.
I never would have run for council if the main issues were damage control of runaway costs. That is just something I was stuck with and am willing to face squarely. It is not the reason I ran for council, and it is not what I would like to see the campaigns have to focus on.
My experience in signature-gathering for the referendum suggests that what motivated the signers was that they wanted a voice on this project. The rate hike was what was being addressed but was a metaphor for what was understood/hoped for,i.e., that halting the rate hike would halt the progress of the project while a process would be put in place that would restore the credibility of the Council. The Swanson-Wolk proposal recognized that the voters would not be satisfied with another “adjustment” of the rate hike and offered a valuable list of issues that needed to be diligently pursued if the credibility of the Council was to be restored. Krovoza and Souza have made some unavoidable concessions to this political reality but, IMO, it is essentially “cosmetic”, both still arrogantly regarding citizen interest and desire to have meaningful input in this process as something that needs to be controlled and managed.
I’m not sure why anyone would want to de-couple the council race from the water issue.
Sue has said on a still-active thread: “[i]If we were serious about exploring a scenario for postponing the completion of the project while we pay off all or part of our new waste water plant, we could institute some form of tiered conservation rates…”[/i]
I would want every candidate to answer the question she alludes to in that statement.
[b]Do you favor raising water rates solely for the purpose of achieving water conservation?[/b]
I would want every candidate to demonstrate a mastery of the complex issues involved in pursuing or postponing the surface water project. The only non-incumbent has given answers on this blog that conflict with private comments made by his primary campaign supporters. That is a serious issue to me.
My experience with committees is that their work and schedule will expand to fill whatever time deadline they are given. If a rate study needs to be completed by May, a committee can schedule enough meetings to accomplish that. If you tell them it isn’t needed until October, that is how long it will take. Meetings can be scheduled weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly. They could have a reasonable rate study done by March if that is what they were told to do.
David: [i]Don: I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest Mike Harrington and his clients. I don’t think he has clients in this matter.[/i]
It would be nice to have a clear answer to that question.
David, can you arrange a “Meet the Press” type of interview with Harrington and Head to get their side of these questions out in public?
Ernie Head was very, very clear on Tuesday that until the voters get a full vote on water issues and/or water rates he will be bringing Referendum after Referendum and/or Initiative after Initiative until the voters get to vote. He couldn’t have been any clearer about that . . . and he very purposely waited to be the very last speaker in Public Comment so that his message would not be lost on either the Council or the Public.
Matt: Sorry but I’m not trying our case in the media. You’ll just have to wait to see what happens.
Well Mike, I’m not surprised. Confrontation at the expense of collaboration. Me at the expense of we.
Carry on.
“If a rate study needs to be completed by May, a committee can schedule enough meetings to accomplish that. If you tell them…
Again, TIME constraints are important as they were when our Planning Commission was “told” that time had run out and they had to make a decision on the Covell Village development that evening in spite of many still-unanswered questions. In that case, they refused to be intimidated and voted NO on the project. I am not aware that the Water Project Advisory Committee is charged with being actively engaged in creating the rate study and subsequent rates but rather to make an advisory decision by an arbitrary deadline.
[quote]I would want every candidate to answer the question she alludes to in that statement. Do you favor raising water rates solely for the purpose of achieving water conservation? –[b]-Don Shor[/b][/quote]
Don, the council has always considered rates that give incentive for conservation. You seem to imply that this concept involves raising costs for everyone. It does not. It only raises costs for people who use more than needed.
If we are talking about more affordable approaches to completing our major water/waste water infrastructure, I would suggest considering raising all rates moderately, and also instituting conservation rates.
By conservation rates, I mean that households, by some fair formula, who conserve twenty percent less than current average household use would still have affordable rates. Those who do not conserve to that degree could be charged more. The moderate rate increase plus the the surcharge on those who do not conserve could be put aside into a fund for the completion of the water project.
“If a rate study needs to be completed by May, a committee can schedule enough meetings to accomplish that. If you tell them…
So..under this scenerio, the voters will have a month to consider the rates and form an opposition campaign if necessary. Of course, over 50% of the mail-in voters will not even have this information available when they vote.
Sac Bee, 12/11/11: Portola mayor’s opponents seek recall over water rate increases ([url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/11/4115291/portola-mayors-opponents-seek.html[/url])
@ Sue: In one study, a [b]67% water rate increase achieved a 13% reduction[/b] in water use.
In another, a [b]10% increase in water rates achieved a 7% reduction[/b] in water use.
Your deep-water 20 – 25-year proposal includes a 20% reduction in water use. The reason you need that is that you would be drastically reducing our water capacity if we abandoned some or all of the high-selenium intermediate wells, and would have to reduce city water use in order to get by.
It is provable that education and information campaigns are not sufficient to achieve high levels of water conservation.
Let me ask again (don’t worry, I plan to ask all the candidates this question):
[i]Do you favor raising water rates solely for the purpose of achieving water conservation?[/i]
Re: water conservation via rate increases.
“What are the general findings of the statistical modeling?
Water price has a significant and negative impact on water use, but water demand is very price inelastic, more so than has been suggested in other studies. The highest elasticity estimate was for summer use (approximate1 -0.20).
With this degree of responsiveness, [b]water utilities could double their water rates and expect, at a maximum, only a 20 percent decrease in water use during the peak season.[/b] More likely, utilities should expect a water elasticity of -0.10 on an annual basis; a hefty 50 percent increase in rates will reduce use by 5 percent.
For a 10 percent increase in water rates (marginal water price), use would be expected to decline only 1.5 percent.”
— Michelsen et al., 1997
I doubt if any council candidates support doubling the water rates to achieve the necessary 20% conservation rate required to implement the deep-well proposal.
“I would want every candidate to answer the question she alludes to in that statement. Do you favor raising water rates solely for the purpose of achieving water conservation?”
….to be followed by the question: Do you favor proceeding with the current rate hikes and project NOW even if a variance is available that would allow us to phase-in this project and take the time to study all of the alternative proposals that would markedly reduce the proposed rate hike for Davis residents?
[quote]Your deep-water 20 – 25-year proposal includes a 20% reduction in water use.–Don Shor[/quote]Don, I don’t have a plan that includes a 20% reduction in water use. I don’t even know if it would take that much. It could be that one or two additional wells would be sufficient. I have been giving examples of possible approaches, which you tend to label “my plan”. I pointed out a number of factors that could lead to meeting our selenium limits absent surface water.
Staff is still working on the analysis of different scenarios. The point is that there are probably alternatives that would allow us to phase in the surface water project after all or much of our waste water treatment plant is paid off (thereby lowering the waste water bills in time to ramp up the water rates). Whether we want to is another matter, but we should have all options honestly on the table.
I will also repeat that conservation rates keep costs lower for those who conserve. That gives low income people options they can exercise. Obviously, that is not the same thing as raising rates across the board.
[i]Don, I don’t have a plan that includes a 20% reduction in water use.[/i]
In the absence of a 20% reduction in water use, we would not have sufficient water capacity.
[i]I don’t even know if it would take that much. [/i]
I’ve provide you with the data.
[i]It could be that one or two additional wells would be sufficient.[/i]
We’ve already drilled as many deep wells as we are allowed.
[i]I have been giving examples of possible approaches, which you tend to label “my plan”. [/i]
You have a plan which involves continuing to pump groundwater for the next 20 to 25 years instead of developing surface water. If that uses intermediate wells, subsidence continues. If it uses only deep wells, we don’t have enough water.
[i]I pointed out a number of factors that could lead to meeting our selenium limits absent surface water. [/i]
Your numbers don’t add up.
You really need to clarify exactly what you are proposing if you assert that you “don’t have a plan.” One way or another, you do. Any plan that doesn’t involve surface water has many, many problems.
davisite: [i]”Do you favor proceeding with the current rate hikes and project NOW even if a variance is available that would allow us to phase-in this project and take the time to study all of the alternative proposals that would markedly reduce the proposed rate hike for Davis residents?”[/i]
Please name an alternative proposal that you believe would markedly reduce the proposed rate hike?
[b]@Don Shor[/b]Don, staff is doing the analysis. It appears that we could meet selenium limits, but there is no reason to argue about it; we should just wait for the staff analysis.
” This debate is not over the water supply project, but over cost.”
I would respectfully disagree with this statement David. Mike Harrington has said again and again that he will not stop until he has stopped the surface water project. He has not limited his objections to the costs, but has referenced the Design, Build, Operate model as well as a collaborative project with Woodland as his targets and has, in perhaps the only reference he has ever made to his preferred alternative, that he does not feel there has been enough study to provide justification for the need for surface water.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Don, staff is doing the analysis. It appears that we could meet selenium limits, but there is no reason to argue about it; we should just wait for the staff analysis.”[/i]
I agree Sue, and in addition to the 4.4 level in the current permit Dianna should also run the model at Woodland’s 3.2 level in their current permit, as well as the 1.0 level being promulgated by the BayDelta Plan. With appropriately robust modeling we should be able to see what selenium permit levels will work and which ones will not work.
With that said, you have not answered the questions about your proposed scenario that I posed to you last night. For the record, here they are again.
No Sue, what we heard was you having tentative agreement with yourself.
At Tuesday’s Council meeting Dianna Jensen told you that she had gathered the [u]theoretical[/u] well pumping potential numbers in isolation, but had yet to put them into her system-wide model.
Why that is important is that your scenario breaks down if there is added pumping capacity at individual wells, but . . .
1) that production isn’t in the physical portions of the city-wide water distribution system where the demand is. Said another way, the city-wide system has to have the piping robustness to get the added well production from the well site to the usage site.
and
2) if the pumping capacity has no matching usage during the non-peak hours of the day, then the system has to have the piping robustness to get the added well production into a storage vessel. Until she puts the potential added pumping capacity into the system model Dianna does not know if the potential added pumping capacity is indeed real added production.
In addition to those two issues, there are two further points you need to remember.
A) when the deep aquifer wells are pumping, they must never exceed their EIR-constrained maximum pumping capacity. Said another way, no deep water aquifer well can [u]legally[/u] pump any more water during the same amount of time than the limit specified in the respective EIR. Currently, when any deep water aquifer well is actually pumping, it is doing so at its legal gallons per minute limit. Therefore, the only way to get more production out of the deep water aquifer wells is to have them pump during more hours of the day.
B) it is not clear what the added wear and tear factor on each pump is going to be if it is required to pump more hours of the day. If the system starts to have increased deep aquifer well pump breakdowns as a result of increased pump usage (overuse?) then the “delicate balance” you are striving to achieve will come crashing down, with skyrocketing Selenium values during the time that the deep water aquifer pump is being repaired and its production is being replaced by high selenium output intermediate aquifer wells.
With all the above said, I strongly believe that the spreadsheet and modeling work you are having Dianna do [u]is a very good idea[/u]. It does demonstrate that we more than likely can roll the dice on the likelihood of well pump breakdowns in the short run (1-3 years) and thereby reduce the short term prospect of SWRCB selenium fines, but trying to run flat-out like that for anything long term is more than likely playing Russian Roulette.
“Please name an alternative proposal that you believe would markedly reduce the proposed rate hike?”
Several of the proposals in the Wolk-Swanson proposal, if pursued diligently and conscientiously could result in a reduction in the rate hikes necessary. This would take TIME, hence the need for a variance.
As PW director Clark suggested, the strongest Davis position when seeking a variance would be if the Davis voters rejected the proposed rate hike.
There is no alternative proposal in what Dan and Rochelle proposed and the council passed. Both are very firmly committed to moving forward with the surface water project as expeditiously as possible.
[quote]” This debate is not over the water supply project, but over cost.”
I would respectfully disagree with this statement David. Mike Harrington has said again and again that he will not stop until he has stopped the surface water project. He has not limited his objections to the costs, but has referenced the Design, Build, Operate model as well as a collaborative project with Woodland as his targets and has, in perhaps the only reference he has ever made to his preferred alternative, that he does not feel there has been enough study to provide justification for the need for surface water.[/quote]
Good point!
[quote]Several of the proposals in the Wolk-Swanson proposal, if pursued diligently and conscientiously could result in a reduction in the rate hikes necessary. This would take TIME, hence the need for a variance. [/quote]
Nothing like rewriting history!
[quote]Several of the proposals in the Wolk-Swanson proposal, if pursued diligently and conscientiously could result in a reduction in the rate hikes necessary. This would take TIME, hence the need for a variance. [/quote]
If there are several, it shouldn’t be difficult to clearly explain one in detail. Please do so.