A week ago, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk pushed through the motion that moved the Consumption Based Fixed Rate (CBFR) structure of Loge-Williams off the table, due to concerns that the new proposal might be confusing to voters.
When Councilmember Brett Lee offered a compromise that would allow the WAC to at least reconsider CBFR, Mayor Pro Tem Wolk was firm. Two days later however, the WAC reiterated their support for Loge-Williams on a 6-3 vote.
That set up a potential showdown, where a week ago there were two councilmembers supporting Loge-Williams and three with concerns.
What has become clear, at least in the last week, is just how big an advantage Loge-Williams is, advantaging at least 75% of ratepayers. The question was whether the council had the will to find a way to move past some of the concerns.
This morning, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson appear to have done just that, announcing a compromise proposal that would move the city quickly toward the innovative and ultimately fair CBFR.
“The recent rate structure discussion has provided our community with a valuable opportunity to study and discuss an important aspect of the clean water project,” the councilmembers said in a joint statement to the Vanguard. “We have taken this opportunity to thoroughly evaluate the proposed rate structures and consider changes, when necessary, in order to address some of our concerns.”
“Specifically, with regard to the Consumption-Based Fixed Rate (CBFR) proposal, we are aware of the many benefits it offers. The WAC recommended this model as the fairest and best option that was put before them. It is truly innovative and equitable for our water rate payers,” they write.
“But we had our concerns,” they argue. As they noted last week, “The rate structure is unfamiliar to many members of our community, having only recently been invented in Davis by WAC members Frank Loge and Matt Williams. We were also concerned about an aspect of that structure that would have tied Davis water consumers to rates based on past summer usage without having the opportunity to warn people ahead of time.”
In recent days, however, a compromise option has emerged.
This compromise, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson believe, “addresses the concerns we have expressed, while maintaining the benefits, equity, and innovative nature of CBFR. We call this compromise the ‘heads-up.’ “
“In essence, it allows for a grace period or phase-in of the CBFR rate structure,” they write. “For the first two years, we will continue with a rate structure very similar to the one we currently use. Starting in year three, after our community has been sufficiently prepared for CBFR, we transition to that structure.”
Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson state, “We believe this compromise plan is the best of both worlds; taking advantage of the WAC-recommended rate structure, while allowing the community time to prepare.”
The councilmembers state they will make the following motion this evening: “Move that we adopt the WAC-recommended CBFR rate structure following a period of two years, in which we will implement the Bartle-Wells inclining block rate model modified to come nearest to our current rate structure. During the two-year period, the city will ‘shadow’ the CBFR rate on water bills and will provide sufficient outreach to the community regarding the impending change. The Council will also check-in at the two-year mark.”
The councilmember add, “While we believe the rate structure dialogue to be an important one, it is crucial to note that this is only a piece of a much more important issue: the need for a clean, sustainable supply of drinking water for our community. Our support for the proposed surface water project is unwavering no matter what rate structure we adopt. Obtaining a safe, reliable source of clean water is essential for the future of our community.”
At last week’s city council meeting, Mayor Joe Krovoza floated the idea of a Prop 218 that had two years of Bartle Wells and three years of Loge-Williams as a potential compromise.
Staff was concerned that this would be more tricky and the motion never received a second.
However, it appears at this point that this 2-3 compromise will end up being the way forward.
Vanguard Commentary
The analysis is overwhelming. I think that the Mayor Pro Tem and Councilmember looked at the bill comparisons and realized that whatever confusion might ensue pales in comparison to the ultimate problematic structure of the Bartle Wells rate system.
As the Vanguard reported last week, the fundamental problem with these rates that would be imposed under Bartle Wells are that they are unfair – unfair to the low-end users, the people who use the least water and tax the system the least. They are heavily subsidizing the high-end users – those with large hopes, expansive irrigation systems and swimming pools.
If you want to understand the nature of the problem, look at the lowest-end users in 2018 under the Bartle Wells system. An individual who uses 5 ccf per month is likely a senior with limited vegetation requirements. They 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 are likely seniors and on fixed incomes. And for almost no usage of water they will be paying more than $60.
As Matt Williams argued at the WAC, “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 said.
The compromise is a way to avoid the worst rates in 2018, but the 2013 and 2014 rates are still problematic. It is by no means a perfect system, but it is better than the other proposal to do a five-year Bartle Wells rate structure and examine the issue in two years.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
So two years of BWA because of Woodland’s assumed rush ?
Combo confusion.
What will the base year be under this structure?
If the CC thinks CBFR is best, why are they using BWA? And vice versa in some sort of Confusion Combo Plan.
I am totally amazed, again.
Saw the list of signers yesterday for the Yes on I rebuttal. Reads like the Covell Village coalition. Wonder why? Maybe because that big potable water pipeline runs along the length of Poleline, next to Covell Village property ? Easy to stick a spigot in it.
Back to the future.
“Reads like the Covell Village coalition. Wonder why?”
Perhaps because the local conservatives don’t want Davis to ever have any growth.
Since this site has a Reisig Watch component I think it’s time to start a Water Watch side too.
The opponents of this plan are going to bash any rate structure that emerges. That much is clear.
Toad:
“Perhaps because the local conservatives don’t want Davis to ever have any growth.”
LOL, this comment is so naive on many fronts. This is a very liberal town as 81% of Davis voted for Obama and the last two Measure R,J votes went down to big defeats. So obviously Toad, a majority of liberals in this town don’t want overblown growth.
I get you Rusty but that was my point, they think they are progressives, but, demographically they look like Republicans. They are older, white, anti-tax and no growth. The no growth position is akin to the conservatives trying to hang on to their privilege and keep all those newcomers out.
What will the base year be under this structure?
The base year for the first CBFR I assume will be summer of 2014 where they shift to CBFR in January 2015 using summer 2014 as the cbfr.
Will: not true. We want fair, lawful rates on the ballot.
So far, the CC violated the “rates on the ballot.”
The jury is out on whether what they choose is fair.
“The opponents of this plan are going to bash any rate structure that emerges. That much is clear. “
That may or may not be true. However, that should not preclude the chance to fix what is on the ballot and I would argue that it is very clear to me that the LW rate structure is defensible while the BW rate structure is probably not.
Toad, if you are asking what the base year will be initially, if I understand correctly the BW structure does not use a base year, it only has the fixed component and the use component. I am sure someone will correct me if I’m confused.
David: Dec 12th was the last day to change the ballot, without a court order. The CC split the rates from the ballot measure, by choice, so we shall see how it goes. The die are cast.
Mr. Toad: my comment on the ballot argument signers was about the Yes of Measure I signers who submitted the rebuttal yesterday.
The CC signed their first one, 12/7.
These people signed the rebuttal yesterday:
Elaine Roberts-Musser
Chair, WAC &Senior Citizen Commission
Helen Thomson
WAC Member & Former Yolo County Supervisor
Susan Lovenburg
President, Davis School Board
Rose Cholewinski
President, Davis Chamber of Commerce
Bob Schneider
Conservation Leader
And mine was in response to the same old No on X coalition being the same OLD people as the no on I coalition.
Toad:
“They are older, white, anti-tax and no growth. The no growth position is akin to the conservatives trying to hang on to their privilege and keep all those newcomers out.”
Being that the last Measure R vote lost by 75% of Davis voting against growth there sure must be a lot of older, white, anti-tax and no growth people in Davis. I think you’re way off your rocker saying that anti-growth is a conservative value. If anything I would say that since most conservatives love capitalism that they would be more in the pro-growth camp.
[i]”Reads like the Covell Village coalition. “
[/i]
Really?
Mike: [i]”If the CC thinks CBFR is best, why are they using BWA? And vice versa in some sort of Confusion Combo Plan.”[/i]
Being responsive to public opinion, and to try to reduce the confusion, they’ve suggested a reasonable compromise phasing it in. You don’t support either rate structure, so far as I know. Do you?
[i]”Saw the list of signers yesterday for the Yes on I rebuttal. Reads like the Covell Village coalition. Wonder why? Maybe because that big potable water pipeline runs along the length of Poleline, next to Covell Village property ? Easy to stick a spigot in it.”[/i]
See, Herman, this is what I’m talking about regarding Mike Harrington’s tactics. Please look at the list of people who signed and tell me if his comments here have any validity. I suppose I could look up their public positions on the 2005 Covell Village proposal. But why bother? None is a developer. None, to my knowledge, has a financial interest in development. Some have records of public service that far exceed the rest of us.
It’s all the same with Mike. The tactics haven’t changed in well over a year here. Tie them to a false assertion that the water project is linked to growth, insinuate the connection. Repeat as needed.
At least one has been a developer but so what? A surface water system benefits everyone.
Interesting that Susan Lovenburg signed the rebutall as President, School Board. If this huge expensive water project kicks in the bill increases while we are still paying for the sewer plant upgrades, I seriously doubt there is much money left in community wallets for yet more parcel taxes, at least until the economy recovers. It is completely crazy for her to sign that argument, listing President. She could have done it just under her name.
Just goes to show that the surface water project proponents will try to win at any costs, including use of the name of our schools even if the project would seriously impact their ability to successfully prosecute another parcel tax.
[i]I seriously doubt there is much money left in community wallets for yet more parcel taxes
[/i]
Would you personally stop voting for parcel taxes due to your water rate increase?
[i]Just goes to show that the surface water project proponents will try to win at any costs[/i]
Stop this stuff, Mike. Seriously.
Don: actually, are you out of touch? Everyone is talking about this project unnecessarily sucking huge amounts of family household and business money out of the community, leaving little for other things. This includes, and is frequently mentioned, school parcel taxes.
Let’s try it this way for you: you have a bucket of water for 50 plants in the sales yard. You take and throw 25% of the bucket over the fence, leaving you 75% of the water left. That barely waters those 50 plants, and you have to ration it more.
Clear?
Would you personally stop voting for parcel taxes due to your water rate increase?
[quote]”…my comment on the ballot argument signers was about the Yes of Measure I signers who submitted the rebuttal yesterday.”[/quote]Who are the “No on 1” signers, and how are they identified?
[i]”…sucking huge amounts of family household and business money out of the community, leaving little for other things…”[/i]
Just for the sake of comparison, actual figures will vary…
Median income in Davis per Wikipedia, 2000:
The median income for a family was $74,051 = $6171/month
Average water bill per Davis Enterprise (2011): $34.75/month = 0.56% of income.
Average water bill, 2016 (same article): $97/month = 1.6% of income.
Not to minimize the impact on lower-income residents, but I think you’re guilty of hyperbole again.
“Average water bill per Davis Enterprise (2011): $34.75/month = 0.56% of income.
Average water bill, 2016 (same article): $97/month = 1.6% of income.”
Don: That’s $60 a month or $700 a year, do you think most people on a fixed income or lower socio-economic could afford that?
Presumably people making $30,000 a year will use less water and have lower average water bills.
Again: I’m not trying to minimize the impact of increased water rates on lower income residents.
Water rates are going to go up, regardless of whether the surface project is approved or some undetermined approach yet-to-be-identified by the project opponents. Project opponents focusing on the water rates are using a diversion, since they refuse to identify their alternative.
If the council had passed a true 14% increase in 2011, we’d already be used to it. As it is, we’re that much further behind in getting something done.
Don: My only point is not to minimize the impact on people on the low end. When you say, well it’s only x amount a month, to someone on a fixed or limited income, that is crushing.
[i]My only point is not to minimize the impact on people on the low end. [/i]
Which I said. Twice.
Your rationale applies to everything. Including parcel taxes and the price of gas.
Davis water rates are presently very low. Low income people live lots of places where water costs a lot more.
Mike Harrington was making a vast overstatement about the impact of these rates on the [i]average[/i] (or, if you prefer, median) Davis resident.
Davis water rates are presently very low, but cost is a relative problem for people on fixed incomes. For example let’s say the average rate is 90 and ours goes from 30 to 70. Even though $70 is still below average on an absolute basis, the adjustment will cause a lot of hardship for people who plan for $30.
What’s your solution to that, David?
There you go again Don playing the same fast and loose with the facts that you claim Mike H. does. To suit your convenience you cite “ median family income” from the 2000 census citing Wikipedia, and neglect to point out that in the same sentence the “median household income” was $42,454. I’d argue that the latter figure is much more relevant to this argument. I’d further argue that even if someone did make $71K that is not a huge sum of money for many families who have a mortgage, car payment, and kids to put through college.
If there is one thing that has distinguished your contributions on the water issue, Don, it is your apparent insensitivity to the economic plight that individuals may face from steep increases in the price of water, and phrases like “not to minimize the impact on low income residents,” are just throwaways or token nods.
Not much time to answer your challenge earlier in the day about the Mike being totally off base when he states that some of the signers on the Measure I were pro Covell Village. Well, like you I have not researched this extensively but Helen Thomson was an ardent pro Covell Village advocate; ERM has at least flirted with a reincarnation of Covell Village plans; it’s not implausible to believe that the Prez. of the Davis Chamber of Commerce is very pro-growth; I know from personal contact that Susan Lovenburg was on both sides of Covell Village though she claims she ultimately voted against it, and I can’t speak for Bob Scneider.
But there is a larger point that you miss, Don. The signatories do not have to be developers or to stand to gain financially from a Yes vote on I as wittingly or unwittingly they can serve these interests. Pol Sci 101 tells us that one doesn’t measure how much power General Motors has, or has not, by how many members it has in the cabinet.
In your comment earlier in the day you stated that we should defer to people with records of longstanding public service. For myself I judge people by what they do in office not how long they have been there. By your criterion Strom Thurmond’s 48 years of service in the Senate make him an American hero.
“What’s your solution to that, David?”
I’m not sure there is one.
Herman – Mike H. claims that an increase in water rates would result in making it more difficult to “prosecute” (his word) a future school bond and implied that it is irresponsible for someone on the School Board to endorse Measure I. Low income people and seniors (who can claim an exemption) are not likely paying property taxes, so this is not an issue. Also, this water project has absolutely nothing to do with Covell Village, despite Mike’s attempts to make it so.
[i] I’d argue that the latter figure is much more relevant to this argument. [/i]
No, actually, it’s not, because more than 50% of Davis households are renters. Which is a very high percentage.
[i]If there is one thing that has distinguished your contributions on the water issue, Don, it is your apparent insensitivity to the economic plight that individuals may face from steep increases in the price of water, and phrases like “not to minimize the impact on low income residents,” are just throwaways or token nods. [/i]
You have made this absurd charge several times over the last few years, Herman. And every time I have repeated:
we should do whatever we can to minimize the impact of the water rates for this necessary water project on the lower income residents.
I urged that lifeline rates be considered, and gave a link years ago to a similar program in Dixon.
I strongly support tiered rates that allow lower-income residents to conserve and have lower bills.
But none of that means we should fail to proceed. Water rates are a side issue, and Michael Harrington is vastly overstating the impact on the average Davis resident.
[i]The signatories do not have to be developers or to stand to gain financially from a Yes vote on I as wittingly or unwittingly they can serve these interests. [/i]
That’s very different from “Reads like the Covell Village coalition.”
Mike Harrington has been using the growth issue to oppose the surface water project from the start. The reason it is complete nonsense, and you and Mike Harrington know that it is complete nonsense, is that
[b]Davis voters completely, uniquely control the growth of the city[/b]. So it is a fallacious argument. So Mike continuously links it, talking about ‘elites’ and trying to demonize — directly or by insinuation — anybody who had anything to do with Covell Village.
[i]In your comment earlier in the day you stated that we should defer to people with records of longstanding public service. For myself I judge people by what they do in office not how long they have been there.[/i]
Defer to them? No. But we shouldn’t trivialize the service of Helen Thomson or Susan Lovenburg. Nor should Mike Harrington imply, or you indirectly, that they are in the service of developers.
Another point I would make, Herman, is that Mike Harrington has chosen to attack two individuals who have worked to put parcel taxes before the voters, and have worked to get them passed. I don’t know if Mike has participated in those campaigns — making the calls, stuffing the envelopes, sitting at the tables and doing the forums and media work. I know they have. Davis schools owe a debt of gratitude to Helen and Susan.
He keeps implying that he saved the schools, saved the parcel tax, and that he and his committee are guarding the school tax measures by opposing the water project. But that ignores the reality: rates are going to go up no matter what. Any impact he is claiming might occur, will occur regardless. There’s no free ride on the discharge issues and there is no cheap or easy solution. And he’s not the one who’s been getting school measures passed in Davis. It’s particularly egregious for him to attack Susan Lovenburg for identifying herself by her elected role as school board president. But it’s, unfortunately, not surprising.