Staff Recommends Against a One-Year Water Rate Increase
When the city council met on December 6 – three months after the fateful September 6 water meeting – and passed their compromise, staff was directed to return by January with recommendations about a ballot initiative and a rate study.
City staff is now recommending that Council direct them to return with proposed language for an advisory measure to be placed before the voters at the November 2012 General Election, adopting a resolution to ask Bartle Wells Associates to undertake a comprehensive water rate study, and direct the Water Advisory Committee to return to Council by July 1 “with a recommendation for the appropriate rate structure and multi-year rate requirements in support of the City’s water utility.”
There are costs associated with doing the water rates and plans in the right manner. There is a cost to the voters for a ballot measure – though staff reports that placing the measure on the General Election ballot in November would avoid the costs associated with a Special Election, which would add between $125,000 to $150,000 to costs to the city.
In addition, the proposed water rate study is expected to cost an additional $125,000 “in contract costs, plus additional staff time and potential billable hours from the City Attorney and Fiscal Advisor that will be needed to support the water rate study.”
Writes city staff, “While staff time is largely covered by the existing budget, the proposed budget adjustment includes funding for anticipated costs over-and-above the strict professional services contract. The additional legal and professional services costs are estimated to total $15,000.”
“Long-term, the rate study will assess the fair and equitable means to establish water utility rates necessary to support approximately $8-10 million per year in ongoing operations, maintenance and capital improvement costs in support of the City’s existing water utility, as well as the potential for an additional $3.6 million in operating costs and approximately $11 million in annual debt service costs, should the City proceed with implementing the Surface Water Project within the time-frame of the pending water rate study” the staff report continues.
One of the biggest failures in the original Proposition 218 process was the creation of water rates without a rate study and the creation of water rates that largely had no real bearing on what the consumer’s bottom line rate increase would be.
While the original motion projected a June election date, almost immediately most people recognized that to base the advisory vote on real rates, the city would have to wait until the rate study was complete, and a rate study was not likely to be completed before a June election date.
This has the added advantage of pushing the water issue away from the city council election.
Staff is therefore recommending that the council target the November 2012 General Election for a possible ballot measure, with the new Prop 218 rate-setting process to be undertaken this summer or fall.
The staff continues, arguing that “there is little advantage to establishing a one-year water rate increase prior to the City Council’s consideration of an updated multi-year rate plan. Rather, at the time that the Council considers a new multi-year rate plan in support of the City’s water utility, the City Council could choose to proceed with a one-year rate increase in lieu of any multi-year approach.”
Staff argues that delaying the action on the water rate increase is “not expected to materially impact current operations of the water utility.”
Moreover, Dennis Diemer, the General Manager for the Clean Water Agency, reassured council last week that delaying matters to the fall will not throw off the CWA’s ultimate start-up date, and therefore will not have a significant impact on costs.
In the meantime, the city could move forward with their long-awaited rate study, to be completed by July 1.
One area that will almost certainly generate discussion is the election options.
City staff is suggesting an advisory vote, which would not be binding to the city, however it would “provide direction City Council as to whether the voters want to pursue the Surface Water Project.”
Writes city staff, “To provide meaningful information, staff believes that the voters should have the scope of the Project, its estimated total cost and the cost per water customer. For this reason, staff recommends that a measure be scheduled for November 2012 as this would allow time to complete the review by the Water Advisory Committee and to complete the water rate study, which will provide the proposed water rates by customer class.”
Sample language could be: “Shall the City proceed with the Surface Water Project in light of the proposed rates set forth in the 2012 Rate Study (Prepared by Bartle Wells Associates) required to pay for the Project?”
The obvious downside of the advisory nature of the vote is that there is nothing to stop the city council from simply ignoring it – though realistically that approach would not be advisable.
Another option, the staff reports, would be a city-sponsored initiative, authorized by Elections Code section 9222. According to the staff, this is the same authorization used for Measure J.
Writes staff: “With respect to the Surface Water Project, the Council could direct staff to draft an ordinance that amends the Municipal Code or General Plan to include the Surface Water Project and place that ordinance before the voters and ask whether it should be adopted. This measure would then be adopted, if the voters so directed.”
In many ways, this might be seen as preferable, as it would be a binding measure.
Regardless of the election, the water rates must be established through a 218 process that would require all ratepayers to receive a 218 Notice and the city council to hold a public hearing on the rates with the ratepayers having a majority protest right.
Writes city staff, “In Davis, the ratepayers are the property owners on each property that receives water service. Although the matter is not absolutely resolved, based on Proposition 218 and existing case law, we believe that the Council cannot set water rates by election of the voters without first going through the Prop 218 notice and hearing process.”
The city believes that establishing the rates themselves through a voter election would require a 2/3rds vote.
Staff does report that the council could consider other revenue raising measures such as a special tax, including a sales and use tax – however, all of this would also require a 2/3rds vote.
Staff concludes: “An advisory measure is likely [the] most streamlined option at this point for re-evaluating the Surface Water Project. This measure could be before the voters at either the June or the November 2012 election.”
They add: “However, if the Council wants to have accurate water rates available when the voters consider a ballot measure, then the vote should be held at the November 2012 election to give the City the time to prepare a new rate study.”
An advisory vote would have the added advantage of utilizing two distinct processes – first the election in November and second the Prop 218 process.
Our primary concern is that the Prop 218 process is overly onerous, as it requires the ratepayers to mail in their protests. Even with the streamlined city process of last fall, it is difficult to get the required majority of all ratepayers to submit. And it excludes stakeholders who are not ratepayers – which is 55% of the population of Davis.
The rate study is a no-brainer and is one of our chief procedural complaints about the last process. It is also a no-brainer to hold the matter in November.
That sets up the following: March: School Parcel tax; June: Parks Tax; and November: Water Rate hikes. That puts the matters in the correct order of operation and the voters can then make the decision as to whether or not to approve all of these matters separately.
This process is now set up the way it should have been from the start. Unfortunately, it took 3800 citizens to sign a petition to force the council to get it right. Hopefully they have learned from their mistakes, and will get it right on the first try next time.
The Vanguard’s hope is that the Water Advisory Committee can find ways to further reduce costs. Unfortunately, with the meetings not televised and held when they are going to be, it is unlikely that the Vanguard will be able to extensively cover these meetings.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Unfortunately with the meetings not televised and held when they are, it is unlikely that the Vanguard will be able to extensively cover these meetings.”
It baffles me that the meetings won’t be televised, this is too important for it not to be accessible through that medium. Wasn’t it reported that some of the WAC felt intimidated to be on TV? If that’s true then maybe they shouldn’t be on the committee.
Totally agree Rusty. I have asked several times for them to be televised and that is how Elaine, the Chair, responded. Seems fishy that they aren’t and a very weird answer for someone who addresses the CC on camera routinely.
[quote]This has added advantages of pushing the water issue away from the city council election.[/quote]I [u][b]strongly[/b][/u] disagree… since it seems inevitable, I intend to force the candidates to unequivocally state whether they are for or against the surface water project… we either need it, or we don’t… strategies to fund it are secondary… it’s time to “fish, or cut bait”… the upcoming CC election should be a clear choice on the water project and budgetary direction, particularly related to the General Fund.
Open, transparent and accountable government should include all advisory commissions and committees, including the Water Advisory Committee – all these meetings should be televised. Or, at least available on the city website in video form for later viewing by the public. This is a service that our city government should provide to keep residents informed and engaged in important issues. It is not acceptable that only the few who can attend in person on the day/time when these meetings are held attend.
Those Council members who support an advisory rather than a binding citizen vote are putting in place the opportunity for the Council to ignore a negative majority vote as the narrative will be played out as follows: A variance application, which will most probably be given lip-service in the ballot measure,will be denied without a binding vote rejecting the proposed project and rate structure(according the Davis Public Works Director Clark). The threat of penalties that this variance rejection allows will then be the explanation that the Council Majority offers when they ignore the citizen advisory vote.
[quote]…Davis Public Works Director Clark…[/quote]That would be [b]Clark[u]e[/u][/b] davisit2 (pun intended)
[quote]Totally agree Rusty. I have asked several times for them to be televised and that is how Elaine, the Chair, responded. Seems fishy that they aren’t and a very weird answer for someone who addresses the CC on camera routinely.[/quote]
I personally would have had no difficulties appearing on camera. As you point out, I do it all the time. However, the decision to not televise these meetings was a consensus decision at our very first WAC meeting by the entire WAC membership with no particular reasons given. I merely surmised that perhaps some might not have felt comfortable speaking in front of a television camera, but that was mere guesswork on my part. I cannot read the minds of the individuals making up the entire group. And of course the public is free to attend any of the meetings at any time. Meetings are held the second and fourth Thursdays of each month, from 6:30 to 8:30 pm at the Davis Senior Center. However, all minutes (which are very thorough) of the meetings and accompanying documentation are now posted on the city’s website. All anyone has to do to follow along with exactly what the WAC has done is to:
1. Go to the city’s website;
2. Click on City Council and Commissions tab;
3. Scroll down to Committees, and click on the Water Advisory Committee link;
4. The links to the agendas are in the upper left hand corner; click on Documents link that will take you to the list of accessible documents that are suggested reading for each meeting. Also documents that the WAC itself demands to see or wants created are also posted.
The Vanguard is always free to send someone they trust to cover the meetings. The WAC is always happy to see members of the public observing our meetings; we invite public comment from the audience at the beginning of the meeting; and the WAC was insistent that the very complete minutes and documentation be posted on the city’s website in a manner that was highly accessible to the public.
ERM… one of the possible reasons not to televise may have been the commitment of city human resources (cost)…there is always at least one (and, generally only one) to manage the video system… those folks have to be there for PC & CC meetings, and they have other “day” duties, as I understand it. I have mixed feelings… I’m of the opinion that when you’re ‘playing to the camera’, there may be too much pontificating, etc. If the public work of the group is important to nprice, then she can damn well show up, or put her money where her mouth is, and find a way to pay for the costs to televise. (IMHO)
We televise many different facets of the government in Davis and being that the water project is the most important item to come along in many years it should also be televised so the public has more options to see the dealings.
So… to pay for the increased cost, Rusty, are you willing to pay more in fees/taxes, or should those costs come out of emloyee salaries and/or benefits?
Elaine: I feel very strongly that it is inappropriate for the WAC not to televise their meetings. I may use my Sunday Commentary for that purpose. I will also put a full court press on the council at this point.
The fact is you called me out at least twice on this site for failing to attend, but offer little but excuses in terms of allowing for fuller transparency.
Hpierce: I’m not following you here, what increased costs are you looking at? And how much?
Hpierce, I don’t see the costs of televising the WAC meetings as being that onerous for something that is so important to virtually everyone in Davis. But if you are so concerned maybe we can use some of that $300,000 public outreach money that was supposed to be used to educate the public about the project. I can’t think of a better use than this plus they’ll get a big bang for the buck as far as getting the word out to more of the public.
Bookmark this for updates:
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/[/url]
David & Rusty… let’s say it’s a media services specialist @ $28/hr, plus retirement, benefits. etc… between PERS, Med/Dental, etc., call it $45/hr. That doesn’t cover “internal services”, etc. Probably $50.00 hour, but suspect that’s on the low side. Chump change, in some respects… if it constitutes ‘overtime’, add 50% to the base hourly rate. If it isn’t overtime, what isn’t being done by the employee? I’m just saying that whatever the cost, it has to come from somewhere. For a 3 hr. meeting, figure ~ 4.5 hours per meeting to set-up, film, and create the streaming video… yeah, I know, I’m probably low-balling the hours. The “full transparency” has a cost. If folks are willing to pay it, fine. David’s PRA requests cost as much, or more, but by law, he can only be charged for “hard costs” (copying documents, etc.)… that doesn’t cover staff time to research, etc. Yet, David and Rusty regularly rail against employee costs (too high/too generous), yet, you seem to want more service for less costs… fine… just “man-up” and say it.
Forgot to respond to Rusty’s last comment… yes, I think the $300k budget would be appropriate.
Even if the “budget” is used, it still comes from somewhere… ~ $10 per rate payer…
You’re talking about maybe $3000 a year, if those are really added costs on a project that has $300,000 set aside just for PR. I’m not sure exactly why this is even an issue.
“David’s PRA requests cost as much, or more, but by law, he can only be charged for “hard costs” (copying documents, etc.)… that doesn’t cover staff time to research, etc.”
That’s a curious statement to make from somebody who claims not to be a city employee.
Hpierce, chill 🙂
[quote]I intend to force the candidates to unequivocally state whether they are for or against the surface water project… we either need it, or we don’t..[b].hpierce[/b][/quote]Whether we “need it” or “don’t” in this particular configuration at this particular time is one of the contested issues that the WAC discussion will help flesh out. You seem to assume that there is a clear answer to this, when actually there is not.
[quote]I actually did a public records request on who much money I was costing the city in public records requests. [/quote]And the answer was?….
hpierce
I intend to force the candidates to unequivocally state whether they are for or against the surface water project… we either need it, or we don’t…hpierce
And will you take into account when judging their responses, that their opinions could be contingent upon factors such as growth, university plans, changes in regulations ? It would seem to me that this is quite a complex issue in and of itself, let alone the means of funding.
What a non-issue. If you have a digital camcorder, or even an I-phone, anyone can make a recording of the meeting and post it on youtube or anywhere else–even on the Vanguard. I’ve done it for audio many times using a $45 Sony audio recorder. If the committee is covered by the Brown Act, they can’t refuse to let you record. If it isn’t, they would be crazy to try to stop you. You don’t have to rely on the city to do everything for you.
“the WAC was insistent that the very complete minutes and documentation…”
“Minutes”, even “very complete”(which is, of course, a subjective opinion),does not capture the arguments made,the tone of the interactions, the “receptivity” to consideration of ideas, revealed by both verbal and body-language, all important indicators of how “open-minded” are the WAC members. Since the WAC members were appointed by the Council members,4 of 5 being deeply politically enmeshed in furthering this project in the face of growing voter concern and potential opposition, close visual scrutiny rather than minutes and documentation should be the order of the day. There is a history of these Davis citizen commissions, appointed by Council members,being surrogates for those who appoint them.
[quote]Elaine: I feel very strongly that it is inappropriate for the WAC not to televise their meetings. I may use my Sunday Commentary for that purpose. I will also put a full court press on the council at this point.
The fact is you called me out at least twice on this site for failing to attend, but offer little but excuses in terms of allowing for fuller transparency.[/quote]
I encourage anyone who feels strongly about the issue of televising the WAC meetings to voice their concerns during public comment at the next WAC meeting, either in person or in writing…
[quote]Since the WAC members were appointed by the Council members,4 of 5 being deeply politically enmeshed in furthering this project in the face of growing voter concern and potential opposition, close visual scrutiny rather than minutes and documentation should be the order of the day. There is a history of these Davis citizen commissions, appointed by Council members,being surrogates for those who appoint them.[/quote]
[quote]Elaine: I feel very strongly that it is inappropriate for the WAC not to televise their meetings. I may use my Sunday Commentary for that purpose. I will also put a full court press on the council at this point.The fact is you called me out at least twice on this site for failing to attend,but offer little but excuses in terms of allowing for fuller transparency.[/quote]
With such open hostility shown to WAC members, as expressed in the above two comments, is it any wonder the WAC members made the decision they did? Perhaps if some of you toned it down and asked nicely…
[quote]What a non-issue. If you have a digital camcorder, or even an I-phone, anyone can make a recording of the meeting and post it on youtube or anywhere else–even on the Vanguard. I’ve done it for audio many times using a $45 Sony audio recorder. If the committee is covered by the Brown Act, they can’t refuse to let you record. If it isn’t, they would be crazy to try to stop you. You don’t have to rely on the city to do everything for you.[/quote]
The WAC is indeed covered by the Brown Act…
“And the answer was?…. “
I can’t remember and I couldn’t find it, it was several years ago. It was not enough to concern me and I actually do quite a bit fewer these days than I used to (after I got wind that staff was complaining about it).
“What a non-issue. If you have a digital camcorder, or even an I-phone, anyone can make a recording of the meeting and post it on youtube or anywhere else–even on the Vanguard. I’ve done it for audio many times using a $45 Sony audio recorder.”
I very strongly disagree, the onus should not be a on a citizen to have to record and post every meeting.
“With such open hostility shown to WAC members, as expressed in the above two comments, is it any wonder the WAC members made the decision they did? Perhaps if some of you toned it down and asked nicely… “
If that’s how they feel, perhaps they should not be serving on the committee.
“Perhaps if some of you toned it down and asked nicely… ”
Oh please, please, please. Throw us peasants a bone.
I am in favor of televising the Water Advisory Committee meetings. Having said that, I think that some who are criticizing a possible reluctance to be filmed may have short memories. Have you forgotten the extreme vitriol in some of the postings calling people liars, making accusations of fraud and bullying? To David and others critical of the committee before it even got going, do you really believe that the only options should be
Open yourself up even more to this type of abuse or step down ?
[quote]ERM: “With such open hostility shown to WAC members, as expressed in the above two comments, is it any wonder the WAC members made the decision they did? Perhaps if some of you toned it down and asked nicely… ”
DMG: If that’s how they feel, perhaps they should not be serving on the committee.[/quote]
Medwoman summed it up nicely:
[quote]I think that some who are criticizing a possible reluctance to be filmed may have short memories. Have you forgotten the extreme vitriol in some of the postings calling people liars, making accusations of fraud and bullying? To David and others critical of the committee before it even got going, do you really believe that the only options should be open yourself up even more to this type of abuse or step down ?[/quote]
It has gotten to the point in this town than many citizens will not serve on public committees/commissions bc of the nasty blowback that occurs from various sources. My suggestion/opinion is that citizens need to tone it down and try and remain civil. It seems to me the Vanguard was supposed to strive for greater civility bc the incivility was driving people away…
[quote]ERM: “Perhaps if some of you toned it down and asked nicely… ”
rusty49: Oh please, please, please. Throw us peasants a bone.[/quote]
LOL