It is quite clear there are still critical details of the water project that need to be decided. However, if the council wishes to place a measure on next March’s ballot, then it must finalize wording for that measure on Tuesday in order to be able to send it to the county for approval and ballot preparation.
With questions such as rate structure and even ballot measure type (advisory or binding) still up in the air, the real question may be why are we dead set on a March election?
Delaying the election to May or June might be advisable. Many will argue that this is simply a delay tactic, but we would argue that there is no real reason to rush some final details of a decision.
A reasonable point can be made that a three-month further delay is not going to matter one bit. Observe that the city council has already essentially agreed to go the Woodland route.
While Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson have worked hard to negotiate possible modifications to the cost-sharing allocations within the JPA agreement, those agreements have not been finalized yet.
As the staff report for Tuesday’s council notes, “While there is an understanding that mutual benefits may be derived through these options, additional analysis is needed before such scenarios can be advanced and any recommendations presented to the respective City Councils. As discussions with Woodland progress, staff will work with JPA staff to have specific modifications brought to the individual City’s Councils and WDCWA Board for inclusion in necessary amendments to the JPA agreement.”
Getting that agreement prior to the finalization of the ballot measure would strengthen the ballot language.
Furthermore, as the Vanguard has previously reported, the bidding is not going to come in until March anyway, so the delay there would be quite small and the project is not going to proceed until Davis is either on board or off board.
The most critical open questions are the ballot type and the rate structure. At the last council meeting, the Davis City Council approved, in concept, staff developing language for an advisory measure.
However, since that time there has been a good amount of blowback from various segments of the community, including the Water Advisory Committee, which by a 6-4 vote recommended that council go forward with a binding measure.
The Vanguard was quite critical of the legal advice that the council seemed to follow at their last meeting, and there seems to be a real effort on the part of at least some council members to reconsider their October 23 vote.
Staff continues to push for an advisory vote, recommending council adopt the following language for the March 5, 2013 advisory ballot measure: “Should Davis proceed with participation in the Davis Woodland Water Supply Project, to provide 12 million gallons per day of surface water to Davis water customers and use groundwater as necessary, at an estimated construction cost to Davis of approximately $120,000,000 and subject to approval of increased water rates by the water customers of Davis following a full Proposition 218 process?”
Staff argues, “In order for the measure to be binding, careful thought would need to be given to just how ‘binding’ the requirement to move forward with a surface water project was.”
The Vanguard disagrees, believing council could craft language that sets the basic parameters but leaves open the possibility of the council determining the details of some of the principles at a later point in time.
Matt Williams argued for a binding ballot measure, noting that a number of critical questions go away.
He believes a simple yes or no question would suffice, recommending language such as: “Should Council implement, as an Ordinance of the City of Davis, the most recently noticed Proposition 218 rate structure that was approved by the ratepayers to generate revenue to cover the costs of the Water Advisory Committee and Davis City Council recommended conjunctive use water system including the Davis Woodland Water Supply Project?”
There are also critical questions about the rate structure. Matt Williams and Frank Loge have proposed an innovative rate structure that city staff apparently believes is untested and therefore too risky.
The WAC took up the issue on Thursday, but failed to make a final recommendation to council.
Doug Dove of Bartle Wells Associates recommended a more typical rate structure utilized throughout the state, which would include a tier structure with fixed rate based on water size, much as we have today with three tiers for single-family residences.
Under their model, fixed fees would more than double and increase by about $3 or $4 per month on an annual basis for the following five years.
The problem becomes evident when you look at what happens to the fixed charges, which would theoretically move from $11.50 per month to $23.25 next year and $47.24 by 2017.
Variable rates, however, would move more slowly, increasing from $28.50 to $50.70.
However, overall, if you are paying $40 per month now, you would pay $97.94 by 2017. Rates would thus be 2.44 times more expensive under this structure.
Others, however, see value to the Williams-Loge proposal, which attempts to charge rate payers based on their actual usage within the system.
The WAC tentatively made a motion recommending one form of this structure, but staff and legal counsel seem clearly against such a proposal.
According to the staff report for Tuesday, “The WAC has been working with the rate consultant, Bartle Wells, to design a rate that meets the rate equity and cost of service issues inherent in Proposition 218 as well as meet the financial objectives necessary for continued operation of the water utility and fund the surface water project.”
Staff believes that they will be ready to finalize a rate design by early December.
Bartle Wells should publish findings and conclusions of the rate study and staff will bring it to council soon thereafter, with staff returning in January 2013 with details on the current rates and proposed rates.
Right now, the plan for the Prop 218 process would appear to be after the advisory vote.
The public hearing would be no later than January 2013, and “the first of two public hearings will be conducted immediately following the results of the ballot measure of March 5, 2013 with the anticipated adoption of new rates by May 1, 2013.”
That means that the council cannot adopt the rates until May anyway. So why not run the Prop 218 process first, and then have your binding vote in late May or early June? There is no way the bidders are going to go through an expensive bid process while the ratepayers can still kill the project through the 218 process.
The timetable will not be thrown off by this, the policy questions will be better resolved by waiting another two months, and a binding vote is what many in this community wants. It seems rather obvious that the project is not quite ready for the final ballot language on Tuesday, so if it doesn’t alter the timeline – why rush it?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
From the Staff Report for Item 5 of this Tuesday’s Staff Report
[i]Outreach/Water Rates Prop 218 Process
Per the schedule tabulated below (this schedule was discussed during the October 23rd Council meeting and subsequently amended) the ballot measure would proceed concurrently with the Proposition 218 process necessary to adopt new rates. Proposition 218 requires specific procedures for increasing the utility service charges administered by the City. Its provisions call for formal written notification to each affected property owner of current and proposed charges and the opportunity for a property owner to file a formal, written protest of the proposed fees. Proposition 218 specifies that the proposed increases may not be implemented if 50 percent of Davis customers file a written protest. A public hearing on the proposed fees is required to be held not sooner than 45 days after the notices are received.
Date________________ Milestone/Required Action
October 23, 2012___ City Council: Receive WAC recommendation on the Design- Build-Operate process and preferred Surface Water Project. Consider ballot measure language and provide final direction to staff.
November 8, 2012__ Water Advisory Committee: Deliberate recommendation on Water Rates.
November 13, 2012_ City Council: Approve final ballot measure language and resolutions to call and consolidate election with Yolo County. Appoint a Council Subcommittee to draft Argument/Rebuttal.
December 4, 2012___ (last regular meeting prior to Winter recess) Yolo County Board of Supervisors: Consider/Approve request to consolidate election. (Staff must submit request to Yolo County, including approved and executed resolutions, at least 3 weeks prior to meeting and no later than November 14, 2012.)
December 7, 2012___ City Attorney: Impartial Analysis Due. Council Subcommittee: Argument Due.
December 13, 2012__ Water Advisory Committee: Finalize recommendation on 5-year Water Rates
December 17, 2012__ Council Subcommittee: Rebuttal to Argument Due (if Argument Against Measure is submitted).
January 15, 2013_____ City Council: Receive WAC recommendation on Water Rate Structure. Consider/Approve language for Prop 218 Notice on Water Rates to be mailed to utility users.
January 22, 2013_____ Mail out Prop 218 Notices on Water Rates
March 5, 2013_______ Election Day
March 12, 2013______ City Council: Prop 218 Public Hearing on Water Rates. Introduce Ordinance Establishing Water Rates.
March 26, 2013______ City Council: Adoption of Ordinance Establishing Water Rates.
May 1, 2013_________ Proposed Water Rates Effective[/i]
David, based on the calendar of dates in the Staff Report, the first Tuesday in April would also work as a ballot date.
The history of Davis voter referendums that potentially challenge Council majority decisions is that in each instance, there has been a vigorous attempt by that Council majority to cut short further consideration/analysis by trying to set the a vote date sooner rather than later. The explanation has/is obvious. The longer the time available to delve more deeply into the issues, the less convincing(often just revealed as outright false)the foundation of their arguments became.
“The Woodland train is leaving the station” is what the Davis proponents of the JPA love to say.
Good riddance.
….and of course, in this instance, including the rate structure could be considered a full voter referendum on the rates. Rather,the Council majority(is the Council going to be unanimous?) plans to use the flawed Prop 18 rules(only property owners and an assumed Yes vote if no written protest vote is submitted in writing)to get their rate approval. They are hoping that the voters will then be too “exhausted” to quickly organize/campaign for a citizen-initiated referendum which includes the rates.
Woodland’s demands that Davis comply with Woodlands timing problems and subsidize Woodland’s bad planning is direct interference with our city governance.
Maybe we will send a team of Davis referendum guerillas up to Woodland to teach the Woodland CC to leave us alone?
Those elected leaders are completely cheating the poor and middle class ratepayers who are not represented by the business and upper class elites who own and paid for that CC makeup.
If our Mayor shoots and misses on the March ballot, as is likely, That’s the end of the JPA and its unnecessary expensive bureaucracy and overpaid staff positions for retirees from our city
Mr H… you forgot to mention 3-person fire crews….
Hpirece: Ha! One Excedrin headache at a time , to quote a famous local friend of mine.
Also, if I were Woodland’s Mayor, I would not be so cocky as to the certainty they are over the pipe and on the home stretch to finish their project, with or without Davis. They know for sure that their rate system is disproportional and illegal.
As chair of the Woodland Water Utility Advisory Committee, I’d like to clarify a few comments made in this post and its comments in regard to Woodland.
“There is no way the bidders are going to go through an expensive bid process while the ratepayers can still kill the project through the 218 process.”
Woodland must have the plant online in late 2016 or face substantial fines, so we must continue to move forward on the project. The RFP will be issued within another month or so and will include a request for bids on both a 30 mgd Woodland-Davis project and an 18 mgd Woodland-only project. While our committee is optimistic about a joint Woodland-Davis project, we have made it clear to our Council that we support a Woodland-only project if necessary.
“Woodland’s demands that Davis comply with Woodlands timing problems and subsidize Woodland’s bad planning….”
Our committee has been satisfied with the work of both our City Council and City staff on this project. We appreciate that our Council has secured reliable, high-quality water for decades to come, and have been especially impressed by the hard work of our staff to reduce project costs and conduct public outreach.
“Maybe we will send a team of Davis referendum guerillas up to Woodland to teach the Woodland CC to leave us alone?”
Our committee meets the first and third Thursday of each month at 6pm at the Woodland Community Center at 2001 East Street. We welcome comments from the public.
“Those elected leaders are completely cheating the poor and middle class ratepayers who are not represented by the business and upper class elites who own and paid for that CC makeup.”
Our committee membership was selected to represent a cross-section of the Woodland community. I can definitely say that all voices were heard during our evaluation of the surface water project, which we supported with 16 of 18 committee members voting in the affirmative. We then worked closely with our rate study consultant to provide substantial input into the rates that our Council approved to provide the revenue needed for the project.
Casey: how was your membership selected? Did each CC member select some of them ? If so, it’s a reflection of the CC
You know, then, that Woodland is exempt from fsome of the threatened fines because the socioeconomic study showed increasing the bills too much would be an extreme hardship on your ratepayers? I’ve read your documents. Send me your email and let me show you.
The use of state fines as a threat against your ratepayers is city fraud on its residents.
Someone really should challenge your project. It would be easy.
Casey: since you have worked closely with your rate study consultants, you must know that your new rates are disproportional and unconstitutional?
Your project and its rates are a direct fiscal attack on the poor and middle class of Woodland.
Mr H… you lie, via innuendo.
Hpierce: i respectfully disagree, but why don’t you go research how staff and the CC and City Attorney came up with those bogus water rates on Sept 6, 2011, and write an article for us?
The CC has refused to investigate and release a report.
Talk about what matters …
You should read the Woodland technical documents like we have. Those poor people up there,
Mike would like to see residential users of the lowest tiers to pay more – pay higher rates to offset the lowering of commercial rates. This is what he means by disproportional rates.
If this plan to adjust the proportion of rates for the lowest level of consumers is approved, then Mike can rally these voters to protest and quash the whole project, which is what he wants really. He is a liar.
I am really tired of Mike Harrington’s baiting of others on this blog. When asked for specifics, his response is invariably vague or a direction for others to research the topic or to find the documents or to “just wait and see.” I suggest that we boycott Mike – give him no attention.
“Mike would like to see residential users of the lowest tiers to pay more – pay higher rates to offset the lowering of commercial rates. This is what he means by disproportional rates.”
I would like to see the quote from Harrington that you think even remotely demonstrates the accuracy here.
Look back at when he first brought this up. He complained that his residential property, which used low water, paid disproportionately less than his commercial property. He cited his own personal water bills. He has been harping on the “fraudulent and unconstitutional” rates ever since. He has made it clear that he will fight any form of this project. Raising the rates disproportionately for the lowest level of consumers to correct what he sees as fraudulent rates will only help his cause. He has yet to suggest a solution and I believe he really doesn’t want one. Bill Kopper , whom I have deep respect for, has suggested a correction to the rates that would address the proportionality, but the effect would indeed be that it would cost more for water at the lowest levels of use. But Mike keeps pushing for this correction, despite the effect on lower income consumers. Either way he wins and has something that he can use to fight the project – rates that are disproportionate or rates that proportionately are higher for the low consumers (aka lower income ).
Hi Ryan, been missing your comments. Your wish is our command. The Water Referendum Committee will write an article this week to try and address your concerns.
I can say that if the CC business elite majority is going to try and dump these huge new monthly expenses unnecessarily on the poor and middle class of Davis, shame on them.
The rate system is unconstitutional. See WAC. See also the 2011 City of Palmdale decision (2nd DCA).
Ryan, call me or stop by my office anytime. Love to chat. I will keep your ID confidential
Christine, you clearly are a dupe of your CC otherwise why would you be posting such reasonable comments? Furthermore, reasonable or not, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, afterall, you are from Woodland, are you not? And finally, please be so kind as to stop interfering in our joint project.
-Michael Bisch