Question: On September 6, the City Council passed water rates that some believed to be flawed. As a result, there was a referendum drive that ultimately obtained enough signatures to put the matter to a vote. The council then on December 6 rescinded the rate increase and set forth the current process. The question: Absent the referendum drive, would these changes have occurred and therefore do you believe that as a result of the referendum drive, we will get a better water project and fairer rates, why or why not?
Dan Wolk
Dan WolkThe thousands of residents who signed the referendum petition brought up numerous concerns about the proposed water project and attendant rate hikes. I share many of those concerns. Although on September 6 I was not able to muster enough votes for a motion that would have gone a long way toward addressing them, we eventually got there.
Because of the landmark Clean Water Act and our place on the northern watershed of the Delta, continuing to rely solely on groundwater for our water supply is not a viable option. That’s why I support obtaining surface water. I know it will be challenging – but this is a stark example of an “unfunded liability” I do not want to leave to my children and their generation.
However, this must be done in a smart and affordable manner. And while there is much to appreciate about the current conjunctive use proposal, it is by no means perfect. Among other things, we need to:
- Provide more transparency.
- Make sure any project is publicly-operated.
- Match any project with a robust conservation program.
- Explore the West Sacramento intake/treatment alternative.
- Make sure any rate schedule is fair and affordable and matched with a subsidy program
- Explore creating a rate-payer advocate.
- Actively engage with those at the state and federal levels to maximize funding and regulatory flexibility.
I look forward to continuing to work diligently with the Water Advisory Committee – an entity created by my motion – and the community on this.
Brett Lee
Brett LeeI supported the referendum even though I support accessing surface water.
I believed and still do, that a tax/utility increase of this magnitude should be voted on by the community.
We were talking about households paying something like an extra $400-$600/year for the next 20 years. We get to vote on the $49/year parks tax, and yet asking to vote on a $400/year increase was somehow controversial?
When I was gathering signatures for the referendum, some people would come up and say “You are just trying to stop the project. People are just going to vote with their pocketbooks and vote no.” I answered that we as a community have time and again shown we are willing to pay for things that we think are important – Open Space, Parks, Schools, Libraries, etc. And those votes required 2/3rds majorities. The referendum would have been a simple 50% vote.
I absolutely think that the success of the referendum drive will accomplish two things: we will get to vote on a revised project and rate structure, and the revised project and rate structure will be far superior to the one initially proposed.
The Water Advisory Committee, formed as a result of the referendum drive, is made up of high caliber individuals from a variety of backgrounds. I believe they are doing a great job researching the best way to move forward with the water challenges Davis faces. I am confident that their proposals will result in a superior and more affordable plan.
Stephen Souza
Stephen Souza
The entire referendum process was based on misinforming and misleading the referendum signors. I appreciate the concerns of each person who did sign. There can be no doubt that we must address the community’s long term water needs. The project that we have before us is the best of a limited number of alternatives. There is no question that we have always intended to to work at improving the project, reducing the costs, and refining the rate structure.
Absent a referendum, the Council’s direction and my desire was always to create a rate payer committee to conduct an annual review of the rates. I welcome the value that our Water Advisory Committee provides to the project. I advocated for the creation of a committee prior to the referendum.
Over the last 19 months, and well before any referendum, I lobbied Federal and State representatives and officials for grant funding for the intake facility and other components of the surface water project to lessen the impact to ratepayers. I will continue to seek grant funding, low interest State revolving loans, and through an infrastructure loan bank program continue driving down the cost of the project. I have always been cognizant and committed to the least costly and environmentally superior project for the rate payers. This was exemplified today at the WDCWA board meeting where value engineering and design changes have lowered the overall project cost by $37.5 million in 2012 dollars.
Lucas Frerichs
Lucas Frerichs
“In California, whiskey is for drinkin’ and water is for fightin’.” – Mark Twain
Even in Davis, we’ve seen this scenario play out.
The referendum drive precipitated a number of positive changes to occur, including the formation of the Water Advisory Committee (WAC).
By forming the WAC, the Council made a move in the right direction, because city councils over the years have often turned to citizen advisory groups, such as the General Plan Housing Element Update Steering Committee, (which I served on for two years); and these committees are able to navigate complex issues, and provide great assistance to the Council, and service to the public.
I respect the WAC, and look forward to their report back to the Council. I would like to see a build out model of the innovative/green features that could be implemented and the associated costs/benefits; this hasn’t yet been done.
I do believe we need a diversity of options when it comes to water supply. We need to provide affordable and wisely managed water for Davis, and I believe we should pursue access to surface water.
There is no doubt that the proposed rate increases are startling for most and unaffordable for many- especially in these unprecedented economic times. I also believe the proposed rate structure can be further improved to more strongly reward conservation, and I believe the rate structure can be tweaked to assure fairness, particularly for those who are actively conserving water – they shouldn’t see such large rate increases.
Sue Greenwald
Sue GreenwaldI don’t think that the citizens who sponsored the referendum were predominantly concerned that the “rates were flawed.” I think that their primary concern was that the rates were too high, and I think that the referendum gave us breathing room to reexamine the project. I hope we will get a much less costly project or a delayed and phased-in project because of the referendum.
According to the last pro-forma that I saw, water bill revenues were expected to triple between now and 2018. This means that water rates would almost triple on the average, at least according to the last pro-forma.
The only thing that changing the rates can do is to shift costs from one group to another. Thus if one groups’ rates less than almost triple, another groups’ rate will more than triple. It is a zero sum game. There is absolutely no way around this, other than dramatically reducing the costs of the project or phasing in the project. Conservation rates will not change this fact noticeably (conservation might change the energy costs a tiny bit, but this would barely show up in the total rates).
For example, higher fixed rates will hurt seniors and small families as they will end up paying more per gallon. Water budgets, if they take into account number of people or size of lawns, will hurt seniors and smaller families and people with small yards as they will cause seniors and people in small families to pay more per gallon because rental groups and large families would be paying less per gallon. If business pays less, residential will pay more. If apartments pay less, then single families will pay more. It’s not about fair rates; it is about lower costs.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]The only thing that changing the rates can do is to shift costs from one group to another. Thus if one groups’ rates less than almost triple, another groups’ rate will more than triple. It is a zero sum game.[/quote]
This is an important point. If we have an expensive project ultimately we have to pay. Since a lot of the costs are fixed, conservation also doesn’t work for the entire City–we have to pay the fixed costs.
If we want lower rates, we need lower costs. Thanks Sue for pointing this out. (It should be obvious but apparently is not to some of our leaders.)
[quote]Water budgets, if they take into account number of people or size of lawns, will hurt seniors and smaller families and people with small yards as they will cause seniors and people in small families to pay more per gallon because rental groups and large families would be paying less per gallon.[/quote]
This is a basic misunderstanding of water budgets. Please tune in to the WAC discussion on water budgets…
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”For example, higher fixed rates will hurt seniors and small families as they will end up paying more per gallon. Water budgets, if they take into account number of people or size of lawns, will hurt seniors and smaller families and people with small yards as they will cause seniors and people in small families to pay more per gallon because rental groups and large families would be paying less per gallon. If business pays less, residential will pay more. If apartments pay less, then single families will pay more. It’s not about fair rates; it is about lower costs.”[/i]
From the above statement it is clear that Sue Greenwald has not been watching the WAC meetings on the City website. I strongly encourage her to click on this link [url]http://cityofdavis.org/media/wac-2012-04-12.ram[/url] and listen to the presentation by the Rates consultant, and especially the questions posed to the consultant by Frank Loge and Michael Bartolic.
Dr. Wu said . . .
[i]”The only thing that changing the rates can do is to shift costs from one group to another. Thus if one groups’ rates less than almost triple, another groups’ rate will more than triple. It is a zero sum game.
This is an important point. If we have an expensive project ultimately we have to pay. Since a lot of the costs are fixed, conservation also doesn’t work for the entire City–we have to pay the fixed costs.
If we want lower rates, we need lower costs. Thanks Sue for pointing this out. (It should be obvious but apparently is not to some of our leaders.)” [/i]
Dr. Wu, I believe that you would very much enjoy attending/watching the Water Advisory Committee meetings. There is absolutely no shortage of awareness that lower costs will produce lower rates. All 15 members of the WAC get that, and are doing their level best to choose the best possible solution.
I also know from personal conversations with the candidates that (in alphabetical order) Lucas Frerichs, Brett Lee and Dan Wolk also get that, and support the WAC’s efforts 100%. Brett and Lucas attend virtually every WAC meeting in order to be as informed as possible. Sue does not hold a unique position in any way shape or form.
Okay, Elaine Musser. Then please give us a clear and succinct definition of water budgets, and explain how they disagree with the description that I gave.
[b]@Matt Williams:[/b]Please give a clear and concise explanation of how my definition of water budgets and their effects differ from what you learned at the WAC.
[quote]I also know from personal conversations with the candidates that (in alphabetical order) Lucas Frerichs, Brett Lee and Dan Wolk also get that, and support the WAC’s efforts 100%. Brett and Lucas attend virtually every WAC meeting in order to be as informed as possible. Sue does not hold a unique position in any way shape or form.–[b]Matt Williams[/b][/quote]I am happy to hear that Frerichs, Lee and Wolk agree with me on the water issue.
I do believe that Brett Lee is underestimating the increase in cost that the average single family will face if we proceed with the project as planned. I would not be concerned about this project if I could be assured that the rate increases would be limited to 400 dollars a year for the average single family by he time the rates fully reflect the cost of the project and our other water infrastructure and water O&M in today’s dollars.
[quote]Okay, Elaine Musser. Then please give us a clear and succinct definition of water budgets, and explain how they disagree with the description that I gave.[/quote]
From consultant Doug Dove:
Water Budgets
Each customer provided a water budget “based on needs”
– Indoor budget (based on # of people); lowest rate
– Outdoor budget (based on lot size & weather); middle rate
– Use over budget; highest rate
Price per unit increases as water use exceeds budget
Often applied to landscape irrigation customers only
Pros
* Each customer pays lower rates for water used within their budget
* Provides strong conservation incentive and clear price signals
* Budgets may be tailored to each property type
* Can be structured to provide reliable revenue stream
Cons
* Cost, time, and effort to implement & maintain/most staff intensive
* Needs a billiing application that can support the rate structure
* Provides customers with large lots more water at lower rates
– Less incentive to reduce outdoor demand with drought-tolerant
plants, etc.j
– Higher water costs for all others (zero sum game)
* Process for managing variances needed
– More people in households
– Large animals
– Pools
– Special needs/cases
It depends on how the water budget is set up as to whether a senior is disadvantaged or not. As an example, if the senior is living in a large house with large lawn, they might be advantaged over a young family of 4 living in a small home with a small lot – if lot size is taken into account when setting a water budget. Then the question becomes one of whether large lot users should be subsidized over smaller lot users, something the WAC will be discussing. Water budgets are infinitely varied, and can be made to fit a particular city’s needs. However, the down side is they can also be difficult to administer. Like any other system, there are pros and cons. I would prefer not to dismiss any possibility out of hand, but keep all options on the table. Whether water budgets will fit the needs of Davis is as yet uncertain…
Elaine Musser and Matt Williams: This is exactly what I said, and would have exactly the same effect that I described.
One additional problem with the water budget concept: Fixed rates greatly advantage rental groups and large families and people with large lots at the expense of seniors, people with small families and people with small lots. Staff is talking about raising the fixed rates. Water budgets pertain to the variable rates. Water budgets would further advantage that same group, i.e., rental groups, large families and people with large lots at the expense of the same group, i.e., seniors, people with small families and people with small lots.
At least under today’s structure, the variable rate gives seniors, small families and people with small lots a way to compensate for the disadvantage that they suffer from fixed rates. Fixed rates with water budgets would be a total killer for seniors, small families and people with small lots. These groups would likely see their average costs far, far more than triple.
And do you really want to see the government decide whether or not people with large lots deserve to pay less per gallon than people with small lots, or whether landlords who rent to large groups be charged less per gallon than landlords who rent to small groups?
[quote]Elaine Musser and Matt Williams: This is exactly what I said, and would have exactly the same effect that I described.[/quote]
No, it is not exactly what you said – please read more closely. You clearly need to tune into the WAC meeting, so you get a better understanding of water budgets. From your discussion above, let me clear up some misunderstandings:
[quote]Water budgets would further advantage that same group, i.e., rental groups, large families and people with large lots at the expense of the same group, i.e., seniors, people with small families and people with small lots. [/quote]
This is just not true. It is entirely dependent on how the water budget is set up. I gave you an example of how a senior could be advantaged over a large family. Water budgets are very flexible, and there are as many variations as there are permutations and combinations of variables – lot size, family size, type of house, type of landscaping, type of user, etc. It can be tweaked in any way the city so chooses. One possibility is to leave lot size out of the equation altogether, in which case a senior in a small house would be advantaged over someone in a large house with a large lot. The advantage of a water budget in that case is that it could be set up to take into account family size, so that a single senior is not overly subsidized by a young family of 4. As I said, the permutations and combinations are endless, to suit the specific needs to the city.
[quote]And do you really want to see the government decide whether or not people with large lots deserve to pay less per gallon than people with small lots, or whether landlords who rent to large groups be charged less per gallon than landlords who rent to small groups?[/quote]
I want to see a fair and equitable rate system developed and implemented. The CC (gov’t) will be deciding on and approving whatever rate structure is put in place…
Elaine, go back and read the description of water rates that you cut and pasted in above, and then reread my comments. You will see that I have accurately described the effects of water budgets.
“[i]Absent the referendum drive, would these changes have occurred and therefore do you believe that as a result of the referendum drive, we will get a better water project and fairer rates, why or why not?”[/i]
I really hope this isn’t going to be the only question put to the candidates about the water project. The referendum is an interesting aspect of the water issue, but not the central one.
“I really hope this isn’t going to be the only question put to the candidates about the water project. The referendum is an interesting aspect of the water issue, but not the central one.”
I am trying to ask questions that won’t be asked at forums and this is an interesting point that a lot of people are trying to side swipe. The answer is that we will end up with a far far better project than we would have without the referendum.
[b]@David Greenwald:[/b]I am hopeful, but is this is merely speculation at this point.
I think the best hope for a less expensive project is the Sacramento option. Years ago, we were looking at partnering with West Sacramento. Then we were told by staff that West Sacramento had pulled out.
When Steve Pinkerton arrived, I told him that I had heard that someone working in West Sacramento at the time had said that this wasn’t true — that Davis had abruptly ended the discussion.
Steve Pinkerton said he would talk to the West Sac City manager and West Sacramento is in fact interested in partnering with Davis and Woodland. That option is now being explored again. Hopefully, it can result in major cost savings.
Thanks from the Water Referendum Committee to everyone for continuing to pay attention to this important subject.
Our goal was to push the project back for further study/refinement/even elimination as unneeded at this time, and to ensure that if there was a needed project, that the fiscal structure produced the most value to the public with the least amount of dollars coming out of our wallets.
[quote]Elaine, go back and read the description of water rates that you cut and pasted in above, and then reread my comments. You will see that I have accurately described the effects of water budgets.[/quote]
Your description is NOT accurate. Please take the time to review the WAC discussion Matt referred you to. There will be more discussion at the WAC in the future on water budgets. The part you seem to be missing is that the city can choose what variables it wants to take into consideration when setting up water budgets. That means that when using water budgets the city can build in basic “fairness” to the rate structure…
[quote]I am trying to ask questions that won’t be asked at forums and this is an interesting point that a lot of people are trying to side swipe. The answer is that we will end up with a far far better project than we would have without the referendum.[/quote]
I certainly hope so 😉
[quote]Your description is NOT accurate. Please take the time to review the WAC discussion Matt referred you to. There will be more discussion at the WAC in the future on water budgets. The part you seem to be missing is that the city can choose what variables it wants to take into consideration when setting up water budgets. That means that when using water budgets the city can build in basic “fairness” to the rate structure..[b].E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]Elaine, you cut and pasted the standard variables presented at the WAC meeting that cities use in water budgets. I showed that they favor some people and help hurt others.
You keep accusing me of being “NOT accurate”, without substantiating your claim.
Repeating the refrain: “Watch the water advisory committee meeting” is not adding to the conversation. If you were there and you understand it, you should be able to describe how a Davis water budget could be constructed that “fair to everyone”.
[i]The answer is that we will end up with a far far better project than we would have without the referendum.[/i]
My guess is we’ll end up with the same project, with a different rate structure.
I have not been following the goings-on of the WAC, but I will now. I am appalled to hear that they are considering recommending that the city bill at lower rates for property owners with larger properties than for property owners with smaller properties. Water is a commodity that is easily measured and metered. Charge everybody the same amount for the same amount used. If a family of four uses four gallons of water for every one gallon of water a single person uses, they should pay four times as much for that water. Why should this be any different from any other commodity? If this is some sort of attempt to placate seniors, as appears to be the case from the discussion, this is entirely unacceptable. Most property-owning seniors in Davis already have substantially lower tax rates than the non-seniors in Davis due to Prop 13, school district parcel tax exemptions, and additional federal and state tax incentives available only to seniors. According to the Census Bureau, as a group, the age group in Davis least likely to be in poverty is the age group 65 and up. We should not be bending over backwards to provide yet another regressive system of taxation/fees that allows those with the most to pay the least. If two people both use a gallon of water, one should not have to pay more than the other for that same amount of water.
Downtown resident : exactly right Our rates violate the California proportionality rule. We shall see if the rate consultant comes up wih a better plan
[quote]I have not been following the goings-on of the WAC, but I will now. I am appalled to hear that they are considering recommending that the city bill at lower rates for property owners with larger properties than for property owners with smaller properties. Water is a commodity that is easily measured and metered. Charge everybody the same amount for the same amount used.–[b]Downtown Resident[/b][/quote]I agree with Downtown Resident. Charging a flat rate per gallon used seems most fair to most everyone. Bob Dunning is satisfied, seniors are satisfied. Conservation is still rewarded. I think we should do away with the fixed rate. Charging a fixed rate is customary, but it isn’t necessary. Rates have to be adjusted frequently anyway according to use, and prop 218 rates have to be set a bit higher than needed anyway. An $11 million dollar reserve is already planned to cover fluctuations in use.
There is no compelling reason not to pay for the fixed costs according to use, charged on a per gallon basis. I have never bought the argument that “fixed costs” have to be paid for by a “fixed” per unit rate. It is people and their water usage that cause the need for larger infrastructure, not buildings per se.
“Charge everybody the same amount for the same amount used.”
If we did that there would be no agriculture in California. Additionally there would be stunted economic development in Davis. Of course this fits in nicely with Sue’s opposition to most economic development.
If I’m a large user of water the cost of delivery to me per gallon might be less than the cost of delivery to a home with smaller connections. Where Davis is missing the point, as Mike Harrington points out, is that the real savings to the city would come from hookups for new development. The developers don’t want to volunteer for additional costs and the anti growth people don’t want to admit that existing owners could get a break from additional development. Local politicians are too afraid of the anti-development vote to bring this up either in a public discussion. While I agree with Mike up to a point I think he misses the mark with his shameless attacks on developers. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to participate in the political process without being demonized. Mike’s rhetoric seems to present this weird perspective that development is inherently evil. On that I disagree.
I recently read an article about how contrary to the fearful ruminations of Malthus and Ehrlich the thing that has allowed human population to grow is our intellectual capacity for tool making and problem solving. The more educated human minds the greater our capacity to adapt. The article went on to argue that immigration has been a great benefit to the USA allowing us to bring the best minds from the world here. Therefore we should welcome and make room for the educated people who want to live here. Sue’s self defeating vision that development doesn’t pay for itself neglects the capital provided to the community through an educated capitate. Davis has it all so wrong.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”@Matt Williams:Please give a clear and concise explanation of how my definition of water budgets and their effects differ from what you learned at the WAC.”[/i]
Okay Sue. A Water Budget-based rate structure is one of several variations on an Inclining Block rate structure, with A) the first component of the rate being a Fixed Fee and B) the second portion of the rate being a Consumption-based Fee (a water budget).
The Water Budget is an individualized allocation of water based on specific customer characteristics, typically composed of two parts . . . an indoor allocation and an outdoor allocation.
Characteristics for setting the indoor portion of the water allocations may include the number of household members.
Characteristics for setting the outdoor portion of the water allocations typically include a set amount of water to support an agreed upon amount of landscaped land area. In the simplest water budgets every single family residence gets the same budget amount regardless of lot size or landscaping decisions the lot owner may have made. In the Irvine Ranch Water District, the base outdoor allocation is the amount of water it takes to irrigate 1,300 square feet of turf grass. In Irvine, that outdoor allocation is approximately 4.22 CCF per month.
To translate all of the above into a real life example, my household has two people in it so we would get an indoor allocation of approximately 6 CCF per month (3 CCF per person) plus 4.22 CCF for our outdoor allocation. Then when our actual consumption is measured, it is compared to our total monthly allocation of 10.22 CCF. In Irvine for that consumption that is from 0% to 40% of your budget you pay a base per CCF rate (for this example lets say it is $1.00 per CCF). From 41% to 100% you pay 133% of the base rate (or $1.33 per CCF). From 101% to 150% you pay 275% of the base rate (or $2.75 per CCF). From 151% to 200% you pay 475% of the base rate (or $4.75 per CCF). Over 200% you pay 1050% of the base rate (or $10.50 per CCF).
Your seniors and small families are not hurt under that water budget structure at all because 1) their consumption of water will be very low, and 2) the amount they pay in the consumption portion of the overall rate will be measured against their budget.
Bob Dunning’s large families won’t be hurt under that water budget because a family of 6 (two parents and four children) will get 18 CCF per month as their indoor allocation, and therefore an overall water budget of 22.22 (18.0 plus 4.22), and their actual consumption will be measured against that total to calculate the fee.
Water budget rates address both conservation and equity goals by giving an effective price signal through the designation of efficient water use for individual accounts. Water budgets also have the added benefit of being well-suited for drought condition pricing. By making simple modifications to water allocations, a water agency can effectively and equitably target excessive consumption with higher rates.
Bottom-line, water budgets support both mandates of the California Constitution, 1) responsible use of our scarce water resources and 2) the proportionality provisions of Proposition 218.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”@Matt Williams:Please give a clear and concise explanation of how my definition of water budgets and their effects differ from what you learned at the WAC.”[/i]
Since you have been arguing hard and long for a 100% Variable Rate Structure, I honestly don’t know what your definition is of a Water Budget. I look forward to hearing how you define it.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I am happy to hear that Frerichs, Lee and Wolk agree with me on the water issue.”[/i]
Sue, you misread what I said. I said that Frerichs, Lee and Wolk all support the WAC process and in Brett and Lucas’ case are attending every WAC meeting. You, on the other hand, appear to be doing everything you can to put forth and aggressively advocate for your own solutions as if the WAC doesn’t even exist . . . and with the clear implication that if the WAC by consensus comes up with any solution other than yours, then they are wrong. Why don’t you allow the WAC to do the work the Council asked it to do?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”One additional problem with the water budget concept: Fixed rates greatly advantage rental groups and large families and people with large lots at the expense of seniors, people with small families and people with small lots. Staff is talking about raising the fixed rates. Water budgets pertain to the variable rates. Water budgets would further advantage that same group, i.e., rental groups, large families and people with large lots at the expense of the same group, i.e., seniors, people with small families and people with small lots.
At least under today’s structure, the variable rate gives seniors, small families and people with small lots a way to compensate for the disadvantage that they suffer from fixed rates. Fixed rates with water budgets would be a total killer for seniors, small families and people with small lots. These groups would likely see their average costs far, far more than triple.”[/i]
The fact that you posted the comment above means you didn’t watch and/or listen to last Thursday’s WAC meeting, especially the first item where the Doug Dove, the Bartle Wells rate consultant, made his presentation and fileded questions from the WAC members. As I have done earlier, I point you to the questions that Frank Loge and Michael Bartolic asked Doug. Once you stop, look and listen you will see how misinformed your comments above are.
[quote]I have not been following the goings-on of the WAC, but I will now. I am appalled to hear that they are considering recommending that the city bill at lower rates for property owners with larger properties than for property owners with smaller properties. Water is a commodity that is easily measured and metered. Charge everybody the same amount for the same amount used. If a family of four uses four gallons of water for every one gallon of water a single person uses, they should pay four times as much for that water. Why should this be any different from any other commodity? If this is some sort of attempt to placate seniors, as appears to be the case from the discussion, this is entirely unacceptable. Most property-owning seniors in Davis already have substantially lower tax rates than the non-seniors in Davis due to Prop 13, school district parcel tax exemptions, and additional federal and state tax incentives available only to seniors. According to the Census Bureau, as a group, the age group in Davis least likely to be in poverty is the age group 65 and up. We should not be bending over backwards to provide yet another regressive system of taxation/fees that allows those with the most to pay the least. If two people both use a gallon of water, one should not have to pay more than the other for that same amount of water.[/quote]
In the WAC, we talked about water budgets and how they would work. See Matt’s explanation above. I was talking to a consultant today about water budgets. He said his brother has them in the city where the brother lives, and loves it. It it seen as probably one of the fairest and most equitable systems around by consumers once they have them. But there are two downsides to water budgets. It is hard for some to understand at first, and it is harder to administer.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”[b]And do you really want to see the government decide whether or not people with large lots deserve to pay less per gallon than people with small lots,[/b] or whether landlords who rent to large groups be charged less per gallon than landlords who rent to small groups?”[/i]
With respect to your [b][i]bolded[/i][/b] question above, my answer is “absolutely not.” The decision whether to give a lot size bonus is purely discretionary. Irvine Ranch’s rate structure gives no such lot size bonus.
Regarding your non-bolded question, what makes you think that landlords who rent to large groups be charged less per gallon than landlords who rent to small groups? Where did you get that crazy idea?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”I really hope this isn’t going to be the only question put to the candidates about the water project. The referendum is an interesting aspect of the water issue, but not the central one.”[/i]
David M. Greenwald responded . . .
[i]”I am trying to ask questions that won’t be asked at forums and this is an interesting point that a lot of people are trying to side swipe. The answer is that we will end up with a far far better project than we would have without the referendum.”[/i]
Don, I actually agree with David, the referendum process clearly sent a signal, and to his credit, Dan Wolk picked up the ball and worked with Rochelle to make this WAC process the transparent, inclusive, thorough process that it is.
I agree with that, Matt. And I’ll be very surprised if the WAC comes up with another water project proposal significantly different from the surface water project via the JPA.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Elaine, you cut and pasted the standard variables presented at the WAC meeting that cities use in water budgets. I showed that they favor some people and help hurt others.
You keep accusing me of being “NOT accurate”, without substantiating your claim.
Repeating the refrain: “Watch the water advisory committee meeting” is not adding to the conversation. If you were there and you understand it, you should be able to describe how a Davis water budget could be constructed that ‘fair to everyone’.”[/i]
Sue, read Elaine’s post again. She said, [i]”It depends on how the water budget is set up as to whether a senior is disadvantaged or not.”[/i] The successful implementation of a water budget rate structure is dependent on how a community handles the details. Get down into those details instead of flying over at 20,000 feet and passing judgment. Your comments to Elaine show that once again you aren’t interested in collaboration or consensus-building, only in passing judgment.
[quote]Charging a flat rate per gallon used seems most fair to most everyone. Bob Dunning is satisfied, seniors are satisfied. [/quote]
This senior is not satisfied with a flat rate per gallon. It may not be fair at all. Here are some examples –
If everyone conserves too much water, which is highly likely once higher rates kick in, the city will not have enough revenue to pay to maintain/pay for whatever alternative project is chosen. Then what? This has actually happened in some communities according to an expert I consulted today.
What happens to businesses who must consume large amounts of water? If they have to pay the same flat rate per gallon as everyone else, and it drives them out of business, then what? Less tax revenue for the city and one less business in Davis. How is this helpful to anyone?
W the flat rate per gallon, the wealthy can consume water willy nilly no matter how wasteful, bc it doesn’t cost any more to waste 100 gallons per day than 1 gallon per day. So a family of 4 will pay the same for an equal amount water, even tho they are frugal w usage, as a little old lady who uses the same amount of water to irrigate her lush and lovely rose garden. How is that “fair”?
Downtown Resident said . . .
[i]”I have not been following the goings-on of the WAC, but I will now. I am appalled to hear that they are considering recommending that the city bill at lower rates for property owners with larger properties than for property owners with smaller properties.”[/i]
DR, to date Bartle Wells has been educating the WAC members on the many rate structure possibilities. The WAC has not gotten to the consideration stage at all as yet. Some cities do give larger lots a larger allocation; however, I agree with you that lot size is the result of a discretionary decision by the property owner. As I explained above, Irvine Ranch Water District, which has been using a water budget-based rate structure since 1991 gives the same standard outdoor allocation to every lot. They do have a variance submission process, but I tend to think that simple lot size is not sufficient justification for a variance.
Downtown Resident said . . .
[i]”Water is a commodity that is easily measured and metered. Charge everybody the same amount for the same amount used. If a family of four uses four gallons of water for every one gallon of water a single person uses, they should pay four times as much for that water. Why should this be any different from any other commodity?” [/i]
You just did a very good job of describing a water budget-based system. Well done.
Downtown Resident said . . .
[i]”If this is some sort of attempt to placate seniors, as appears to be the case from the discussion, this is entirely unacceptable. Most property-owning seniors in Davis already have substantially lower tax rates than the non-seniors in Davis due to Prop 13, school district parcel tax exemptions, and additional federal and state tax incentives available only to seniors. According to the Census Bureau, as a group, the age group in Davis least likely to be in poverty is the age group 65 and up. We should not be bending over backwards to provide yet another regressive system of taxation/fees that allows those with the most to pay the least. If two people both use a gallon of water, one should not have to pay more than the other for that same amount of water.”[/i]
Well said.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Downtown resident : exactly right Our rates violate the California proportionality rule. We shall see if the rate consultant comes up wih a better plan.”[/i]
Michael . . . “there you go again.”
Our current water rate structure [u]does not violate the California proportionality rule[/u]. Period. End of story.
Sue Greenwald
[i]”I agree with Downtown Resident. Charging a flat rate per gallon used seems most fair to most everyone. Bob Dunning is satisfied, seniors are satisfied. Conservation is still rewarded. I think we should do away with the fixed rate. Charging a fixed rate is customary, but it isn’t necessary. Rates have to be adjusted frequently anyway according to use, and prop 218 rates have to be set a bit higher than needed anyway.”[/i]
Sue, your failure to understand basic accounting is showing again. If you use a 100% Variable Rate Structure, then for every gallon of conservation the Revenues are reduced by the amount per gallon you are charging. On the other hand since the costs for that gallon of water are a blend of fixed and variable costs, the reduction of a gallon of usage only reduces your costs by a certain number of cents on the dollar.
If you had watched the video of last Thursday’s WAC meeting you would know that the current proportion of fixed costs per gallon is 82% and variable costs is 18%. That means for every $1.00 of revenue lost there is only 18 cents of costs saved. The remaining 82 cents is budget deficit pure and simple.
The per capita usage of water has fallen from 199 in 2006 to 189 in 2007 to 170 in 2008 to 158 in 2009 and to 152 in 2010. That’s a 25% decrease in 4 years. The Natural Resources Commission is on the cusp of setting 134 as the target for 3 years from now. Monterey is at 70. How quickly will will water consumption put the City Budget for Water into a deficit at that rate?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”An $11 million dollar reserve is already planned to cover fluctuations in use.”[/i]
So what I hear you saying is that you want the City to set the burden on the rate payers of their water rates artificially high. Why do you want such a burden?
There is no compelling reason not to pay for the fixed costs according to use, charged on a per gallon basis. I have never bought the argument that “fixed costs” have to be paid for by a “fixed” per unit rate. It is people and their water usage that cause the need for larger infrastructure, not buildings per se.
[quote][quote]This senior is not satisfied with a flat rate per gallon. It may not be fair at all. Here are some examples -[b] E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]Elaine, you are confusing “rates” with average monthly or yearly cost. Seniors are better off with a straight per gallon rate than either a fixed rate or a water budget that forces them to pay a greater amount per gallon at lower usage rates. I explained all this already.
[b]@Matt Williams:[/b] You make such outlandish statements that I can’t take the time to address them one by one. For starters, your claim that we have already payed off 1/3 of the wastewater treatment plant and will have paid off 2/3 by the time the plant is one line is utter nonsense.
You are confusing our fund balance with money available to pay for the new wastewater treatment plant. The fund balance goes for operations and maintenance, reserve, and massive capitol replacement costs (think of all those sewer lines constantly being dug up).
I confirmed this obvious error of yours with Paul this afternoon.
Sue,
I will be very glad to sit down with you and Paul at any time to review the balances in Fund Number 532 – Sewer Capital Replacement Reserve. I did that with Paul Navazio and Bob Clarke on February 3, 2012
On page 3-10 of the Final Budget 2011-2012 Summary of Fund Balances, Revenues and Expenditures/Encumbrances By Fund you will find the June 30, 2011 Balance equal to $28,005,946. The net increase to that account in the Fiscal Year was $6,864,991 and $3,232,288 was drawn down in order to fund activities associated with the Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade (WWTP).
$28,005,946 is 29.5% of $95 million. Six years (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017) of $6,864,991 is $41.2 million, which is 43.3% of $95 Million. Together they add up to 72.8% paid at the time the WWTP Upgrade comes live. At that pace the WWTP Upgrade will be fully paid for by 2021.
BTW Sue, the Sewer Operations and Maintenance dollars come out of Fund 531, the summary of which also appears on page 3-10 of the Final Budget 2011-2012 Summary of Fund Balances, Revenues and Expenditures/Encumbrances By Fund.
[quote]Elaine, you are confusing “rates” with average monthly or yearly cost. Seniors are better off with a straight per gallon rate than either a fixed rate or a water budget that forces them to pay a greater amount per gallon at lower usage rates. I explained all this already. [/quote]
Seniors are not necessarily better off with a straight per gallon rate than on a water budget. It depends on their individual circumstances and how the city sets up the water budget. You most definitely need to get educated on the subject of water budgets.
From [url]http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=716 – -[/url]
[quote]Water budget-based water rates have been implemented in communities like Irvine, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Santa Barbara, and Capistrano Valley, California facing limited water supplies or shortages. Field evidence from their implementation sheds some insight on the
advantages and disadvantages of water budget-based rates. On the plus side, these rates have been considered an equitable way to share limited water supplies while preserving some amount of customer choice. Indeed, the largest strength identified with water budget-based rates—by
both customers and water utility staff—is their perceived fairness (Pekelney and Chesnutt, 1997). If the basis of the water budget-based rate and the supply constraint situation are communicated well, then the rate is seen as an intrinsically more equitable way of charging water rates than rate structures that do not include individual customer characteristics. Water utilities that have implemented water budget-based rate structures have developed closer working relationships with their customers while coping with water supply constraints. [/quote]
Please note above quote:
[quote]On the plus side, these rates have been considered an equitable way to share limited water supplies while preserving some amount of customer choice. Indeed, the largest strength identified with water budget-based rates—by both customers and water utility staff—is their perceived fairness [/quote]
From [url]http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe756[/url]
[quote]”Although customers’ total monthly payments increase with the amount of water they use, uniform and declining water rate structures provide weaker incentives for water conservation in comparison with inverted block water rates, for which not only the total payment, but also the unit payment increases with the volume of water used. In 1998, of the sixteen Florida utility companies surveyed by Whitcomb (2005a), seven used uniform rate structures and nine used inverted block rate structures. The analysis of water rates of these utilities in October of 2008 showed that only three companies relied on uniform rates while the rest of the sample employed the inverted block rate structure.”
“Water price elasticity is usually negative, indicating that the price and the quantity demanded move in opposite directions such that an increase in price results in a decrease in quantity demanded.”
“Conservation pricing promotes efficient use of water resources, allows utilities to postpone costly development of new water sources, and reduces incremental facility capacity and peak demand (specifically, seasonal or time-of-use rates).”
“Water Budget – Inverted block rate structure in which the blocks are defined uniquely for each customer, based on an efficient level of water use for that customer”[/quote]
Please note the following quote:
[quote]”Conservation pricing promotes efficient use of water resources, allows utilities to postpone costly development of new water sources, and reduces incremental facility capacity and peak demand (specifically, seasonal or time-of-use rates).” [/quote]
From [url]http://www.mnwd.com/customer-service/budget-based-rates.aspx [/url]
Here is one city’s particular ideas for water budgeting:
[quote]”Those who are efficient use the lowest-cost water and pay the lowest rates. Customers who are inefficient pay more for the increasing cost of the water they waste, which gives them the incentive to do their part to help manage our region’s limited water resources. The District’s rate structure rewards efficient water use and helps reduce water waste.”
Water-Budget-Based Rates at a Glance
1Designed to Meet Your Needs
Every MNWD customer receives a personalized water budget each month designed to meet their specific indoor and outdoor water needs, which means that no matter the size of your household or yard, you should be able to remain within your water budget and pay the lowest available price. (Learn more)
2Efficiency Rewarded with Low Bills
Customers whose water use remains within their water budgets are billed at the lowest available rates, and customers who exceed their water budgets are billed at higher rates for the amount of water they use above their water budget. (Learn more)
3Freedom to Use Water as You Choose
The rate structure means the end to three-day-per-week watering restrictions. (Learn more)
4Flexibility Ensured
We’re committed to making sure everyone has a personalized water budget that provides the water necessary to meet their efficient needs. The Water-Budget-Based Rate Structure includes simple steps to adjust the water budget established for your home or business, should there be a legitimate need for more water. (Learn more)
Who determines what an efficient level of use is?
Decades of local and national studies have determined how much water the average individual uses each day and the irrigation needs of various types of landscapes. We want to make sure everyone’s water budget accurately meets their needs. We’re not asking our already water-efficient customers to use less water. [/quote]
Again note the following quote:
[quote]Those who are efficient use the lowest-cost water and pay the lowest rates. Customers who are inefficient pay more for the increasing cost of the water they waste, which gives them the incentive to do their part to help manage our region’s limited water resources. The District’s rate structure rewards efficient water use and helps reduce water waste.” [/quote]
Everyone, I googled MNWD and got the info Elaine has been posting from the Moulton Nigel California Water District website. As you can see from the tier information they have decided that the rate per unit of water for irrigation should be a little bit more expensive than the rate per unit of water for inside usage. They must have dual meters at each account. One for inside and one for outside. Regardless, this shows how you can tailor the water budget rate structure to meet the community’s needs.
[i]Residential Water Budget
Tier 5 = Based on exceeding your total water budget by more than 50%.
Cost: $11.02 per unit
Tier 4 = Based on exceeding your total water budget by up to 50%.
Cost: $5.51 per unit
Tier 3 = Based on exceeding your total water budget by up to 25%.
Cost: $2.75 per unit
Tier 2 = Based on the total irrigated landscape area for your property and staying within your outdoor water budget.
Cost: $1.54 per unit
Tier 1 = Based on the number of people in your household and staying within your indoor water budget.
Cost: $1.38 per unit[/i]
I am concerned about the effect of employing conservation rates over and above the strong conservation incentive inherent in high per gallon costs, which we will have in any case.
Our total water costs will remain the same whether or not we have conservation rates. Most people will pay the same. Conservation will not lower the cost per household because if everyone conserves, we will just have to adjust the rates higher to pay for out infrastructure. If we have conservation rates more extreme than the very high per gallon rates that we will have, virtually everyone will stop watering. But when everyone stops watering, per household costs will stay as high as if everyone were watering in the absence of strict conservation rates. The only difference is that the city will turn brown, and many street trees will probably die.
We will see greatly reduced irrigation when costs almost triple, even with a flat per gallon rate. We have to think long and hard about the value of having a green city versus the value of conservation. Remember, vegetation removes carbon from the atmosphere.
When a sustainability expert visited the Yolo Water Resources Association a few years ago, I asked him the following question: In our climate, which was more important for achieving sustainability — irrigating in order to keep the city green and remove carbon from the air, or extreme water conservation?
He answered that this was a very good question, and it really needed to be examined.
No, you won’t see “greatly reduced irrigation when costs almost triple.”
NO, street trees won’t die.
No, the city won’t turn brown.
You have absolutely no basis for these statements.
“What are the general findings of the statistical modeling?
Water price has a significant and negative impact on water use, but [b]water demand is very price inelastic[/b], 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
“The answer is that we will end up with a far far better project than we would have without the referendum.”
Bureaucratic proclivity to avoid difficult decisions and take the “easiest path” along with the self-interest, both political and economic, of players when not held up to close scrutiny will most often result in a project plan that is less favorable to voter interests than one that responds to the threat of referendum.
Sue, if we achieve the 134 gallons per day average by 2014 that the Natural Resources Commission is setting as a target, and then continue to reduce our per capita consumption by 1/2 of 1% each year thereafter, then a new housing growth rate of half of the 1% Growth Cap will generate new revenue for the system that fully replaces the revenue lost by continued incremental conservation. That will mean a stream of per capita water consumption as follows . . . and no rates increase for any of the existing water customers.
152.0 – 2010
147.5 – 2011
143.0 – 2012
138.5 – 2013
134.0 – 2014
133.3 – 2015
132.7 – 2016
132.0 – 2017
131.3 – 2018
130.7 – 2019
130.0 – 2020
129.4 – 2021
For those interested in the relationship between rates and water use, among other things, here is a comprehensive study (warning! 7.5 MB pdf!):
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/waterconservationrateincreasesstudy.pdf[/url]
[quote]Charge everybody the same amount for the same amount used.[/quote]
I agree. And “everybody” includes businesses.
It’s a zero-sum game. The costs must be covered by the ratepayers. If you charge ratepayer A less than the average rate for gallon of water (whether it be a “base,” “tier,” “under budget,” inside use, outside use, commercial use, marginal gallon, or any other category) you [b]must[/b] charge all other ratepayers a higher average rate. Any attempt at social engineering with water budgets or variable rates will benefit one group at the expense of another.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”Bureaucratic proclivity to avoid difficult decisions and take the “easiest path” along with the self-interest, both political and economic, of players when not held up to close scrutiny will most often result in a project plan that is less favorable to voter interests than one that responds to the threat of referendum.”[/i]
davisite, after reading your mistrustful post above, I thought it might be useful to share two excerpts from Robert Kelley’s [i]Battling The Inland Sea[/i]. I think the first excerpt does a reasonable job of describing the different approaches that you and I take when we look at a lot of issues, while the second does a good job of putting that first description into the context that we both find ourselves in with respect to water and wastewater in Davis.
[b][i]”Before the turn of the twentieth century a classic debate took place. Lord Acton argued that the historian’s task is to sit in moral judgment on the past, while his mentor, Father Johan Dollinger, responded that our responsibility is rather to search for an understanding of the past, so that we may explain it soundly and thereby enable them to make their own judgments.”[/i][/b]
I think you are a lot more like Lord Acton than Father Dollinger, and I am much more like Father Dollinger than Lord Acton, and as such we probably look at the following assessment by Kelley just as differently as we look at the time line of events associated with the City of Davis water and wastewater policy decisions.
[i][b]”To watch the policy-making process; however, is to observe an untidy and complicated scene filled with movement, personalities, multiple encounters, and powerful crisscrossing human urges and needs. Focusing on the human equation as the central influence in any situation and not simply on economic motives [Brewer and deLeon] urge those who set out to understand and explain a policy controversy to work out:
• Who the players are, and specifically their values and ideas,
• Their definitions of the specific situation at hand (always a fertile source of differences),
• How the various participants image each other,
• The role of the time dimension, which introduces a continual flow of shifts and changes in the total scene,
• How the information system is working (what do people know in a factual sense about the issue?),
• The specific structures of governing that are in operation, and
• The particular ways in which formal decisions are reached and implemented.
The personal element, ever powerful, ever elusive — in short, the unique qualities and contributions of key individuals — and even the impact of sovereign chance, both of these are an anathema to the numbers-oriented, yet these elements are given an important place in this pluralistic ‘policy sciences’ approach”[/b][/i]
In the end, we probably are left with the counsel given to many people over the years . . . reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably. You will reasonably be the pessimist looking to punish people for their perceived wrongdoings, and I will be the optimist looking to understand the effect of “human frailties” on our individual and collective efforts.
David Suder said . . .
[i]”I agree. And ‘everybody’ includes businesses.
It’s a zero-sum game. The costs must be covered by the ratepayers. If you charge ratepayer A less than the average rate for gallon of water (whether it be a “base,” “tier,” “under budget,” inside use, outside use, commercial use, marginal gallon, or any other category) you must charge all other ratepayers a higher average rate. Any attempt at social engineering with water budgets or variable rates will benefit one group at the expense of another.”[/i]
I completely agree David. However, the California Constitution makes us go a step further and do our best as a community to reduce wasteful use of our precious water resources. The March 8th WAC meeting video ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/media/wac-2012-03-08.ram[/url]) has a superb presentation by the water rates expert attorney Kelly Salt on the dynamic tension that exists between different provisions of the California Constitution vis-a-vis water. It is a great watch. Five stars and two thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert.
Attempting to predict future changes in Davis water use habits based on results from other municipalities is, IMO, somewhat speculative given the very high level of public awareness here – long before the rates go into effect. I suspect there are few communities that have had water rates on the “public radar” for as long before the rate changes as we will have had by the time they go into effect. How many other communities have qualified a referendum petition to overturn an adopted rate structure? Very few, I’d wager. Whatever level of conservation Davis could have achieved when figured on ([i]e.g.[/i]) a 2010 base year, I expect it will be harder to achieve that same level of conservation if calculated on a 2012 base year.
Regarding the likely reduction in water use resulting from increased rates, I suspect that much of whatever reduction will occur has already begun as a result of the very public discussion of this subject here in Davis and the anticipation of increased rates. Consequently, we may find that [i]additional[/i] conservation and other means of reducing water use won’t materialize as much as has been projected when the rates increase because much of the low-hanging fruit has already been harvested. If that is the case, the additional 20% conservation assumption that was built into the rescinded “14% increase” may very well not be realized (if measured as a before/after) when the increased rates go into effect.
This comment is not intended to argue that anyone’s estimates or predictions are right or wrong, but merely to point out that predictions here may be more complicated than in other locations.
Good point David.
Bottom line – water budgets make for a more fair and equitable system; discourage the wasteful use of water; which may result in a decrease in capital costs/operation & maintenance costs. From above:
[quote]…the largest strength identified with water budget-based rates—by both customers and water utility staff—is their perceived fairness…[/quote]
[quote]Customers who are inefficient pay more for the increasing cost of the water they waste, which gives them the incentive to do their part to help manage our region’s limited water resources. The District’s [water budget] rate structure rewards efficient water use and helps reduce water waste.[/quote]
[quote]Conservation pricing promotes efficient use of water resources, allows utilities to postpone costly development of new water sources, and reduces incremental facility capacity and peak demand (specifically, seasonal or time-of-use rates)[/quote]
Thus to arbitrarily rule out water budgets as a possible rate structure for Davis seems very short-sighted to me…
Bottom line – water budgets make for a more fair and equitable system; discourage the wasteful use of water; which may result in a decrease in capital costs/operation & maintenance costs. From above:
[quote]…the largest strength identified with water budget-based rates—by both customers and water utility staff—is their perceived fairness…[/quote]
[quote]Customers who are inefficient pay more for the increasing cost of the water they waste, which gives them the incentive to do their part to help manage our region’s limited water resources. The District’s [water budget] rate structure rewards efficient water use and helps reduce water waste.[/quote]
[quote]Conservation pricing promotes efficient use of water resources, allows utilities to postpone costly development of new water sources, and reduces incremental facility capacity and peak demand (specifically, seasonal or time-of-use rates)[/quote]
Thus to arbitrarily rule out water budgets as a possible rate structure for Davis seems very short-sighted to me…
I have two lots together: residential, and commercial. They pay the same for Tier One, but Tier Two residential begins at a lower number of gallons. Therefore, residential is subsidizing my commercial next door. It’s easy.
David Suder, I agree with your statements.
I have two lots together: residential, and commercial. They pay the same for Tier One, but Tier Two residential begins at a lower number of gallons. Therefore, residential is subsidizing my commercial next door. It’s easy.
David Suder, I agree with your statements.
[quote]Bottom line – water budgets make for a more fair and equitable system; discourage the wasteful use of water; which may result in a decrease in capital costs/operation & maintenance costs.-[b]-Elaine Musser[/b][/quote]Wow! I couldn’t disagree more strongly with that. Water budgets will mean that seniors, people with small families and/or people with small lots will pay more per gallon. If you add fixed rates to that, seniors, people with small families and/or people with small lots will pay far more per gallon.
And to what end? There will already be plenty of conservation when rates triple.
[quote]Bottom line – water budgets make for a more fair and equitable system; discourage the wasteful use of water; which may result in a decrease in capital costs/operation & maintenance costs.-[b]-Elaine Musser[/b][/quote]Wow! I couldn’t disagree more strongly with that. Water budgets will mean that seniors, people with small families and/or people with small lots will pay more per gallon. If you add fixed rates to that, seniors, people with small families and/or people with small lots will pay far more per gallon.
And to what end? There will already be plenty of conservation when rates triple.
“Water budgets will mean that seniors, people with small families and/or people with small lots will pay more per gallon. “
Can you show your source on this?
“Water budgets will mean that seniors, people with small families and/or people with small lots will pay more per gallon. “
Can you show your source on this?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”I have two lots together: residential, and commercial. They pay the same for Tier One, but Tier Two residential begins at a lower number of gallons. Therefore, residential is subsidizing my commercial next door. It’s easy.”[/i]
There you go again Michael . . . doing your best Paul Harvey imitation, but stopping without telling “the rest of the story.” On your post above, you have only included the consumption rate portion of your two bills. The rest of the story is told by what the Base rate is for each of your properties. The following image shows that graphically. Base is on the line just above Tier 1 Consumption, which is just above Tier 2 Consumption. Added together the three of them make up your rate. And that is the rest of the story.
[IMG]http://davismerchants.org/water/Closerlookatyourutilitybill.jpg[/IMG]
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”I have two lots together: residential, and commercial. They pay the same for Tier One, but Tier Two residential begins at a lower number of gallons. Therefore, residential is subsidizing my commercial next door. It’s easy.”[/i]
There you go again Michael . . . doing your best Paul Harvey imitation, but stopping without telling “the rest of the story.” On your post above, you have only included the consumption rate portion of your two bills. The rest of the story is told by what the Base rate is for each of your properties. The following image shows that graphically. Base is on the line just above Tier 1 Consumption, which is just above Tier 2 Consumption. Added together the three of them make up your rate. And that is the rest of the story.
[IMG]http://davismerchants.org/water/Closerlookatyourutilitybill.jpg[/IMG]
The link for the Utility Bill example is [url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/pdfs/utilityBillDetails.pdf[/url]
The link for the Utility Bill example is [url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/pdfs/utilityBillDetails.pdf[/url]
Here is the image link: [url]http://davismerchants.org/water/Closerlookatyourutilitybill.jpg[/url]
Here is the image link: [url]http://davismerchants.org/water/Closerlookatyourutilitybill.jpg[/url]
Matt, I stand by my comments. My home subsidizes the office usage next door. I see it in the bills. You can waive around whatever mumbo that you want from the water consultants and staff that gave us the bogus Sept 6 rates that you heavily supported until recently, but I see my bills, and my home usage is more expensive per gallon in Tier 2 and above than the next door commercial/office usage. There is absolutely no reason for the different rate structures. If the water rates that are coming up soon to the CC continue to violate the California rule against disproportional rates and charges, I would expect a group of Davis residents will sue the City.
The dilemma for the surface water plant proponents is that unless the water structure continues to soak the residentail users to subsidize the commercial, a new, legal and constitutional rate structure would be rejected by the commercial users as too expensive, thereby killing the surface water plant. This dilemma does not bode well for your project, Matt.
Also, Matt, your surface water project will have to be financed by tax-exempt bonds. These require a 2/3rds majority of the Davis voters. Therefore, you will need a solid, community wide buy-in to the project which it sorely lacks right now.
Tough to hear these basic facts, I know, but it’s the way the law and political flow is going these days.
Matt, I stand by my comments. My home subsidizes the office usage next door. I see it in the bills. You can waive around whatever mumbo that you want from the water consultants and staff that gave us the bogus Sept 6 rates that you heavily supported until recently, but I see my bills, and my home usage is more expensive per gallon in Tier 2 and above than the next door commercial/office usage. There is absolutely no reason for the different rate structures. If the water rates that are coming up soon to the CC continue to violate the California rule against disproportional rates and charges, I would expect a group of Davis residents will sue the City.
The dilemma for the surface water plant proponents is that unless the water structure continues to soak the residentail users to subsidize the commercial, a new, legal and constitutional rate structure would be rejected by the commercial users as too expensive, thereby killing the surface water plant. This dilemma does not bode well for your project, Matt.
Also, Matt, your surface water project will have to be financed by tax-exempt bonds. These require a 2/3rds majority of the Davis voters. Therefore, you will need a solid, community wide buy-in to the project which it sorely lacks right now.
Tough to hear these basic facts, I know, but it’s the way the law and political flow is going these days.
Mike: what is the meter size on your commercial property? The base rate for most commercial properties is higher than for residential. The meter retrofit for most commercial properties is higher than for residential. But residential users get to Tier 2 rates sooner than commercial users do.
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/finance/Utility-Rates/2010-2011.cfm[/url]
Rates could be adjusted so that everyone pays the same per gallon, and so that everyone gets to Tier 2 at the same ccf. Then each commercial and residential user would have to assess the impact on his or her individual situation. Some would be higher, some lower. Any change in the rates to make them “fairer” will have winners and losers.
Mike: what is the meter size on your commercial property? The base rate for most commercial properties is higher than for residential. The meter retrofit for most commercial properties is higher than for residential. But residential users get to Tier 2 rates sooner than commercial users do.
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/finance/Utility-Rates/2010-2011.cfm[/url]
Rates could be adjusted so that everyone pays the same per gallon, and so that everyone gets to Tier 2 at the same ccf. Then each commercial and residential user would have to assess the impact on his or her individual situation. Some would be higher, some lower. Any change in the rates to make them “fairer” will have winners and losers.
If you look at the image Matt posted, which I also linked, you will see that your utility bill has several parts.
Mike’s commercial lot probably has a larger meter.
Residential meter rate is $23.00 bimonthly in most cases.
Mike’s commercial meter size is probably 1 1/2″, making a bimonthly charge of $55.80; 2x higher than his residential meter charge.
Storm sewer rate for his residential property is about half of his commercial property per square foot.
Drainage rate for his residential is probably about 58% or the rate for his commercial property.
Municipal service tax rate is the same per square foot for both properties.
So you could readily assert that his commercial property is subsidizing his residential on various of the base rates, while his residential property is subsidizing his commercial property on the tiered rates. How that all pencils out depends on his usage on each property. If fairness is your goal, you can make the base rates all the same, and make the tiered rates all the same. As I said above, some people will end up relatively higher, others relatively lower.
If you look at the image Matt posted, which I also linked, you will see that your utility bill has several parts.
Mike’s commercial lot probably has a larger meter.
Residential meter rate is $23.00 bimonthly in most cases.
Mike’s commercial meter size is probably 1 1/2″, making a bimonthly charge of $55.80; 2x higher than his residential meter charge.
Storm sewer rate for his residential property is about half of his commercial property per square foot.
Drainage rate for his residential is probably about 58% or the rate for his commercial property.
Municipal service tax rate is the same per square foot for both properties.
So you could readily assert that his commercial property is subsidizing his residential on various of the base rates, while his residential property is subsidizing his commercial property on the tiered rates. How that all pencils out depends on his usage on each property. If fairness is your goal, you can make the base rates all the same, and make the tiered rates all the same. As I said above, some people will end up relatively higher, others relatively lower.
[quote]Wow! I couldn’t disagree more strongly with that. Water budgets will mean that seniors, people with small families and/or people with small lots will pay more per gallon. If you add fixed rates to that, seniors, people with small families and/or people with small lots will pay far more per gallon.
And to what end? There will already be plenty of conservation when rates triple. [/quote]
Again, you need to get educated on water budgets – your view does not comport with the facts and research that have been done. I have given you at least three researched examples to prove water budgets are much more fair and equitable system that a fixer per gallone rate. Please cite references to research that verifies your contention…
[quote]I have given you at least three researched examples to prove water budgets are much more fair and equitable system that a fixer per gallone (sic) rate. [b]- Elaine[/b] [/quote]How does one “prove” that one system is more “fair” than another? Any rate schedule that charges more for one gallon than for another requires [i]de facto[/i] value judgments about the uses of those gallons in order to justify a particular notion of fairness. Is a gallon of water used in the shower more or less deserving of a lower price than a gallon used to water a tree, to wash dishes at a restaurant, or to make iced tea? It is fairer to charge a resident more for his/her 1000th gallon than a business pays for its 5000th gallon?
As they say, “it all depends on whose ox is being gored.”
To David Suder: Your same argument would apply to a fixed rate per gallon as well…
To David Suder: In thinking about your argument further, what the fixed rate per gallon does not address is the wastage of water, which is an extremely important factor. If there is an incentive against wasting water, then the need for a bigger plant; operation and maintenance costs may very well decrease, which is fairer for everyone!
David Suder said . . .
[i]”How does one “prove” that one system is more “fair” than another? Any rate schedule that charges more for one gallon than for another requires de facto value judgments about the uses of those gallons in order to justify a particular notion of fairness. Is a gallon of water used in the shower more or less deserving of a lower price than a gallon used to water a tree, to wash dishes at a restaurant, or to make iced tea? It is fairer to charge a resident more for his/her 1000th gallon than a business pays for its 5000th gallon?”[/i]
Excellent questions David. Lets start with your last question first, for which the answer from my own personal view is, “That is impossible to say, because the 1000th gallon is a figurative apple and the 5000th gallon is a figurative orange.” Was there a reason you didn’t choose to compare the 1000th to the 1000th, or the 5000th to the 5000th?
Looking at your second to last question, the answer to that question is that the answer to that question literally varies from household to household AND that each household is free to decide its own priorities on how to use water. With that said, the California Constitution contains provisions that prioritize water conservation, so the State has clearly said that the total amount of gallons that different users consume needs to be “reasonable” and that there should be incentives to make sure we decrease our water usage that is above “reasonable.” Constitutions, whether Federal or State, do indeed impose value judgments on us all.