In his Thursday column, his tenth on the subject of water since November 13, Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning argued that “we’re much closer to [a] workable plan.”
He announced that “Dandy Dan” rescued us all. Writes the venerable columnist: “Just as it appeared his council colleagues might go over Niagara Falls in a barrel and actually institute a water rate plan where people were billed, without warning, based on the water they used last summer, Councilman Dan Wolk turned on his microphone and said it was time to head in a different direction … acknowledging the unfairness of blindsiding Davis citizens with a rate system they never agreed to, Wolk steered the conversation back into familiar waters and won the day.”
“Scrapped, at least for now, was the onerous requirement of the so-called ‘CBFR’ (consumption-based fixed rate model) that water rates for 2013 would be based on summer usage from 2012 or even 2011, before anyone knew this was coming,” he continues.
The key point from Mr. Dunning’s perspective is this: “We don’t have a final verdict yet, but compared to what was on the table at the start of Tuesday’s meeting, we’re 10 steps closer to a workable solution.”
It is telling that Bob Dunning is not throwing out real numbers here. We had plenty of real numbers here.
The real numbers suggest that Mr. Dunning is wrong – dead wrong on this issue.
Let us look at how this impacts real people in the city of Davis. As the result of the decision that the council made on Tuesday night, city statistics show that roughly 9,000 households with over 23,000 residents in the city of Davis end up with higher rates than they would have under CBFR.
Think about that for a moment. Over three-quarters of the ratepayers, again according to the city statistics, are advantaged by the CBFR system.
Matt Williams on Thursday night, in arguing against the Bartle Wells proposal, argued, “I can’t support the motion for the following reason, $27.48 is what the person in the tenth percentile is going to pay as opposed to $17.91.”
“I don’t see how anyone,” he said, “and you think about who is going to be in that group, it’s going be senior citizens, it’s going to be people who have lost their jobs, it’s going to be people who are disadvantaged and don’t have a lot of income, it’s going to be people who acted responsibly and implemented low flow toilets and low flow shower heads.”
“Why should those people be paying $10 a month more for five years and it will become $20 a month in 2018?” he asked.
What becomes clear is that this is not some fight against the water project for Bob Dunning. Instead, this is a very narrow fight – for Bob Dunning’s water bill.
There are two arguments that Bob Dunning has with the proposal. The first is that the punitive tier is set too low for his family and his purposes. Never mind that three-quarters of the ratepayers in this town are advantaged by it – Bob Dunning’s family isn’t and therefore it is not fair.
The ordinary citizen, we might sympathize with. But the ordinary citizen doesn’t get five columns a week to hit council over the head with and threaten the water project.
The WAC made the decision to expand the first tier to 18 ccf. The analysis on Tuesday suggested that a family of four would use about 10 ccf in indoor use and a family of 8 could be accommodated with about 18 ccf. That seems to be a fair compromise and it should alleviate Mr. Dunning’s concern here.
Everyone I have spoken with understands there is somewhat an inequity in terms of charging people for past usage when they had no idea that this would reflect future charges.
I get that. But I think you still have to look at the overall system which suggests, on the contrary, that the public will be as a whole advantaged by this kind of consumptive-based approach.
Still, in the past day I have heard of some innovative approaches where people can argue that the past usage was not a typical usage and they can have their rates reset to what they believe they can use and after a few months their expected use can then be compared to actual use. If they come in over that use, they can make up the difference.
There may be other approaches that could also be worked in to fix this problem.
However, we should not lose sight of the big picture here, with regard to the rates: Bartle Wells is completely unfair to the low-end user.
As Matt Williams noted on Thursday night, “I think that saying to a little old lady who’s on a respirator who’s using 5 ccf per month that she’s going to go $27 or $29 per month rather than $17 or $18, is going to cause turmoil as well.”
An individual who uses 5 ccf per month is likely a senior with limited vegetation requirements. Such an individual may well live on a fixed income.
Currently these individuals pay $19 per month. Under the Bartle Wells Inclining Block Rate system (which is the more fair of the two that the council has asked the WAC to consider), by 2018 their rates will be $60 – for almost no water use. At 8 ccf, the cost only increases another $8. In other words, for the first 5 ccf the cost is $60, but for the next 3 ccf, the additional cost is only $8.
These are people who are not only on the lowest end of use, but likely seniors and on fixed incomes. And for almost no usage of water they will be paying more than $60.
That is the system that Bob Dunning is applauding Dan Wolk for reinstituting. It is not a more workable system, it’s a patently unfair system where the low-end users are actually subsidizing the larger users.
When you have a system that leads to the majority of rate users paying a higher rate, you cannot call it more workable and still be credible.
Will the council looking at these numbers and finally understanding the problem, or have they been blinded by the repeated attacks from Mr. Dunning? That is the biggest question moving forward.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
One has to wonder whether Dan Wolk and some of his fellow CC understood that the rate system they proposed would disadvantage over 75% of the ratepayers? Did they do their homework?
That’s a good question in my mind. They had the numbers in front of them but seemed to make the odd calculation that simplicity was more important than equity. And that doesn’t make sense because you can hammer them on the rates issue and the chart is crystal clear.
Well, one side had the talking points up to now but with Wolk’s ill advised proposal now the other side only has to point out that 75% will pay higher bills and that will rule the day.
Completely agree. With CBFR, this is a close call. With BW, this is dead. Not even sure you would get a majority on the WAC to support it.
I think CBFR seems kinda odd and complicated ? But it’s up to the CC. They just put the rate structure on next Tuesdays agenda
And let me state the obvious: we are a university town that welcomes large numbers of students every year. students move in and out every year. They are going to be stuck with the fiscal consequences of the usage habits of last years occupants. Is this fair ?
Is it fair? No. Is that an insurmountable hurdle? No and I think there are several ways that they can avoid that problem one of which was laid out here
Michael, I would think students are also low water users as they most likely don’t need outside water so they also are going to be unfairly subsidizing the higher users.
With all of the talk about fairness of using previous rates no discussion as to how out of balance one must be to be disadvantaged by this system over BW
Michael H: “[i]They are going to be stuck with the fiscal consequences of the usage habits of last years occupants. Is this fair ?[/i]”
Waste water fees have been calculated this way for years. Why do you think it is a problem now? On average, an equal number of new tenants will benefit from the ‘low’ usage of the previous tenant so I think this is much ado about nothing.
Mark: in the aggragate does not meet Prop 218?
Anyway, I’m not endorsing one system or the other. Im still trying to figure out CBFR. Politically, seems like the students and gardners might disfavor it ?
But Alf and Dan have to make those calculations.
“Why should those people be paying $10 a month more for five years and it will become $20 a month in 2018?” he asked.”
This is what I was saying the other day that this is all about a $20/month differential five years out and I still say this is much ado about nothing. Yes there might be some seniors on the edge but it is more likely that person has a UC pension and $500,000 or more in equity in a home. Without being indifferent to those truly in need i question all these machinations over trying to figure out a system that is optimal for everyone when the differences seem relatively small. How big a problem is this $20/month or is it just another red herring being brought up by those who oppose any project? Most of these opponents are not low income so why do they want to beat this drum? Could it be as John Steinbeck once wrote “A good organizer uses whatever he has.”
Has there been discussion about exemptions for low income senior users?
“Has there been discussion about exemptions for low income senior users?”
yes, there have been extensive discussions. exemptions are not legal. and the city has looked into using cdbg grants and found them extremely limited.
for someone who claims to care for lower socio-economic people you have a remarkably callous attitude here. the $20 more a month is on top of the doubling of the rate (which just about triples it).
and sorry i add, for using 5 ccf of water.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”Has there been discussion about exemptions for low income senior users?”[/i]
Toad, Prop 218 expressly prohibits such exemptions on fees like water. The money equivalent of the exemption would have to come from the General Fund in the form of a subsidy.
David should have fun with this. Dunning is a selfish SOB that only cares about himself.
Run with it David, the wind is at your back.
Davis E: Dunning is a kind man and father, and your comments are untrue and unnecessary and out of line here
Actually, the truth about Bob Dunning in relation to this very important and long-term project is actually somewhere in between Davis Enophile’s and Michael Harrington’s comments. Bob’s personal life as a man and father is completely irrelevant, kind and caring as he no doubt is toward his wife and children. As David has pointed out, we in the community only should care what Dunning has to say because many people in the community read his column. Dunning, the man, is hired to be entertaining and over the years has adopted an editorial stance that can only be described as a dual personality. There is the sober, engaging and even insightful Bob who writes about his family and sports. The other Bob is a cynical smart aleck who writes about local politics. The Enterprise loves both Bobs and it is obvious why each of the Bobs is successful. Many people take what Dunning writes seriously because they are drawn in by one of the two Bobs and, when you think about it, it’s a great device. Since Dunning is no Herb Caen who can really pull off being a singular persona on a daily basis, the Enterprise gets two columnists for the price of one to bring in the eyeballs of a wider audience for local advertisers. So, let’s not fixate on either Bob, Bob or Dunning the man.
I suggest we should fixate on the CBFR and its inherent strengths and how to communicate it to the voters. Constructive criticism means asking questions or making suggestions that make it easier to understand.
Yolo DA investigation yields $1.4 million from Walgreens illegal dumping from its stores and distribution centers in a settlement reported yesterday in the Enterprise.
One of the arguments against surface water from the Sac River is that it is polluted with hormone disrupters but it turns out our groundwater may be contaminated as well!