When the Vanguard interviewed the Measure I proponents recently, Elaine Roberts Musser, who chaired the WAC, said, “It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when. We’re going to have to go to a conjunctive use project at some point and we’ve delayed already. We could have tapped into Lake Berryessa at some point and never did, we missed that opportunity.”
Her claim about the missed opportunity of Lake Berryessa water is not an isolated claim and has become part of the lore involving the surface water project – a warning, if you will, that if we miss this opportunity with the current surface water project, we will have made the same mistake that was made 50 years ago.
As Alan Pryor told the Vanguard, “We have to plan for our future, not just five or ten years into the future, but 30 to 40 years into the future. That’s really what we’re doing here, we’re taking a very long range view of a very pressing problem that has been kicked down the road for the last 50 years.”
But as UC Davis Professor Emeritus John Lofland, a sociologist by training who is one of the preeminent experts on Davis history, wrote recently in blog Davis History Today, “In publications and in chit-chat on Davis water in the recent period, a number of people have claimed that the Davis City Council once had an opportunity to obtain Putah/Berryessa utility water rights but decided against it.”
What he found was that this critical event “was not among standard items in Davis histories,” and so he decided to explore the matter further. The critical question, “Did the Council decide against acquiring Putah water or not?”
“I found no evidence of the Council dealing with the matter,” he wrote. He then addressed the question to 12 people who he thought would be familiar with local water and/or City Council historical matters, three of whom had published that Davis once had that opportunity.
However, none of those 12 offered evidence of such an event.
“I therefore tentatively conclude that the Davis City Council never addressed the question of Putah Creek water rights,” Professor Lofland writes.
He does find evidence that Solano County had tried to organize a multi-county water project, in which Yolo County did not participate.
One historical account he cites reports, “During the planning of the Solano Project, Napa County and Yolo County were asked if they wished to participate in a larger Solano Project. Napa and Yolo declined, so the Solano Project was sized to meet only the projected water needs of Solano County.”
Professor Lofland writes, “At the time in the 1940s when the fate of the waters flowing in Putah Creek were being decided, the ‘players’ were the governments of Lake, Napa, Yolo and Solano counties, the state of California, and the federal government.”
He continues, “In the jockeying that went on, Solano was the lead player in seeking Putah Creek water. Part of both its motivation and power came from pleas for fresh water from the Navy at Vallejo and the Air Force at Fairfield, which gave the matter national security seriousness and priority.”
Professor Lofland cites at least one explanation as contained within the Solano Water Story account. Napa and Yolo County fought the efforts to create a dam with Cache Creek as the supply of water for Yolo County.
Why?
“In Yolo County, a few influential people were the controlling factors in the Clear Lake Water Company. The last thing they wanted was competition from a federally subsidized dam.”
Professor Lofland discounts another popular claim that, because UC Davis was able to obtain Putah water rights, Davis must have had similar access.
He notes that a large portion of UC Davis’ land is in Solano County and this would have conferred Solano Project water rights. But the city of Davis is not in Solano County.
Professor Lofland notes, “Since the original Putah channel was sealed in 1948 or before, Davis has been many miles away from Putah water. A transport structure of significant scale and length between the creek and Davis would be required for Davis to have Putah water. If an offer of access that Davis declined ever existed, at least preliminary visions of such a transport plan would likely have been drawn up. No one has reported one.”
One of Professor Lofland’s concerns was that the story was being recast in a number of key accounts by people, who when questioned about it, acknowledged they had no direct knowledge.
In a Vanguard article in September 2011, Alan Pryor wrote, “Decades ago, Davis had the chance to acquire surface water rights from Putah Creek and our City Council at that time balked because of the cost. That decision to kick the can down the road was very shortsighted and clearly shortchanged the next generation of Davis citizens.”
But when John Lofland questioned Mr. Pryor he was only able to ask the question of David Okita, the General Manager of the Solano Water Agency.
Mr. Okita replied that he was only able to find testimony from 1947 from the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, “stating that they did not want a joint Yolo/Solano project considered that would merge Cache Creek supply with Putah Creek supplies as was studied by USBR in the late 1940s.”
Mr. Okita continued, “Yolo was fearful that there were complications with the Cache creek water rights and they did not really need much more water.”
“I think the basic message from Yolo County was: leave us alone,” he wrote. “The only reference to City of Davis I could find was that city was participating in Yolo County committees studying the Solano Project.”
He adds, “I would guess that in (the) 1940’s Davis was fine with their existing groundwater supplies so as not to have an interest in Solano Project supplies, and probably let UCD take lead on recharge issue.”
Edward Schroeder and George Tchobanoglous in drafting their “Review of City of Davis Water Resources Master Plan,” wrote, “Fifty years ago, the City made a decision to stay with groundwater sources rather than obtain Solano Project water on the basis of relative cost, the apparently abundant and high quality groundwater supply, and the expected growth of the community and region.”
However, when Professor Lofland inquired about the source of that information, Professor Schroeder responded that he did not have the information requested and suggested another contact point.
It is perhaps stunning that UC Davis professors, in a professional document, would publish a claim for which the evidence was at best unclear.
The fact that these claims have been repeated without question suggests perhaps we need to take a more skeptical view of information until we can verify its accuracy.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Very interesting . Nice to read you and Dr. Lofland are exploring the basis for the water lore
Thanks David – It is good to get the history right on this. I would suggest the following for the title of your next article:
“Is City Council Creating a Huge Slush Fund by Setting Rates Too High?”
This is based on repeated comments by at least one opponent of Measure I who continues to repeat variations on this theme:
“I have known for some time that the upcoming rates are way higher than what is needed for the project itself, so nice to see the confirmation.
That extra money is one huge slush fund. Why do they need it? No one knows, and staff and the CC are not telling. They generally describe some uses, but nothing concrete that the public can rely upon.”
So, please point your investigative eye at this claim in the same way you pointed it at the question of Berryessa.
Thanks
Robb: I’m working on the story, but the city is slow getting back to me with the numbers.
The City is approving huge increases in rates tonight and have not justified the increases that far exceed what the surface project needs
These extra increases where never given to the WAC for review and recommendations
Again, sounds like August 2011
That Davis (not necessarily council, possibly the issue never got past the staff level) decided not to join the Berryessa project was related to me when I was a student sometime 1974 – 6 or so. It was, if I recall, in Plant Science 2. The professor was Dr. Flocker, who is deceased.
Scottish Proverb
“If you can’t see the bottom, don’t wade.”
I did a google search on this a while ago and found out the the decision not to participate occurred at the county level. i couldn’t find out why but i think a more thorough search of the records would be of interest. Still for whatever reason and at whatever level the mistake was made 60 years ago and we, the people of Woodland and Davis, two of the largest population centers in the county now face the consequences of that mistaken decision. History does not repeat itself in the same way that science does and this is why we say those that do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its failures.
“During the planning of the Solano Project, Napa County and Yolo County were asked if they wished to participate in a larger Solano Project. Napa and Yolo declined, so the Solano Project was sized to meet only the projected water needs of Solano County. Congressional authorization was granted for the construction of the Solano Project and the first water was delivered in 1959. The total construction cost for the Solano Project was $38 million. For a more detailed history of the Solano Project, see the book by the Solano Irrigation District entitled “The Solano Water Story: A History of the Solano Irrigation District and the Solano Project.”
[url]http://www.scwa2.com/Projects_Solano.aspx[/url]
I also recall considerable discussion of water sources and quality of the different aquifers in an upper division Soil Science class taught by Dr. Reisenauer (deceased), in which the story was related. So it was common lore in the late 1970’s.
Dunning, DE, last Sun., calculated that the proposed rate increases are about a factor of 3.5 over what we pay now. The City now receives close to $12 million/yr in water revenue. Under the proposed rates this will increase to about $40 million/yr – enriching the city and depts with extra funds. This violates Prop.218. The $40 million is about equal to the general fund which pays for police, fire, pools, parks, recreation programs, etc. This $40 million averages $2500/yr for the 16,500 water accounts. Many cannot afford several hundred dollars a month for water and parts of the city will go brown and pools, etc., shutdown.
There appears to be close to 100% pork in these rates. A Fidelity bond expert told me that a 30-year, $120 million water-revenue muni bond would cost [in interest and principal] about $240 million or $8 million/yr, not the extra $20+ million/yr proposed. Compare this $8 million facility bond cost to the current expected water revenue of $10-12 million/yr. So rates should rise at most a factor of two. [This would also fund the Conaway water -44 million over 24 years.]
Paul B.
“Did the Council decide against acquiring Putah water or not?”
I’m having difficulty following the reasoning of this column. David and John, are you saying that the council failing to pursue an opportunity is not a failure to act? Maybe the council in those days did not control their own meeting agendas, I don’t know. Or perhaps they had no ability to direct staff.
On the other hand, perhaps there were project barriers that made it pointless for the Davis City Council to even entertain participating in the project. Perhaps municipalities were precluded from participating in the project, only counties, state agencies, and the federal govt. Anyway, I fail to see where the pro Measure I statement has been debunked. There’s not enough info in this piece. That said, I’d encourage the two of you to keep digging. I’d be interested in hearing the truth of the matter. Perhaps contact the Chamber for info?
-Michael Bisch
The story of Davis and Yolo County failing to seize the opportunity to secure Lake Berryessa water rights is a lesson that should prevent us from making that same mistake again… right.
[quote]”I’d rather regret the things I have done than the things that I haven’t.”
[b]Lucille Ball[/b][/quote]
Great article. Good research, interesting topic. Answering questions like these are where the Vanguard excels.
Thanks for getting this information. So it looks like the city did NOT have a direct involvement in this, it was a county decision, a bit different. Also means the Berryessa project would have been bigger, not just split more ways, a bigger environmental impact not just for delivery but probably lake size too (I’m speculating).
And we all know hindsight is often 20/20, as expressed by Jeff’s quote of LB, but I’m not sure that’s even the case here.
I wonder if this debate/discussion was recorded in articles in the Davis Enterprise or Woodland Democrat at the time. My hunch is that the Woodland Democrat might be the better source. But that means wading through lots of back issues to research.
Davis was a very small town, with lots of clean water available for the drilling. Why on earth would the City go to the expense of paying for a huge water project? Our town’s economy was limited to small local businesses, and salaries from the university, and a little farming. No one in their right mind would have voted to stretch for that Berryessa water. Not needed, and too expensive.
I always thought the story of Berryessa water made no sense.
Paul B: thanks for your post. Why dont you explain to the readers how you are qualified to comment on this project and its rates?
Mr Toad: I don’t think the town made a mistake in not pushing for that expensive water. Davis did not need it, and it was too expensive.
Maybe you can second guess it now, with 20-20 hindsight, but it’s not fair to put that into the decision making mix back in the 1940s and 50s
DG: [i]”What (Lofland) found was that this critical event “was not among standard items in Davis histories,” and so he decided to explore the matter further. The critical question, “Did the Council decide against acquiring Putah water or not?”[/i]
I have a little backstory to elucidate how this inquiry came about in late December.
John Lofland and I, moments earlier, had been in a meeting with Ken Hiatt and Eric Lee at City Hall, discussing a memorial project we are working on.
After we left Hiatt’s office, John asked me to sit down with him to further discuss some aspects of the memorial project he was interested in. As we were talking, Councilman Brett Lee came by and said hi to both of us. Brett then posed the question to John, asking specifically what Davis’s history was in relation to the Berryessa water 60 years earlier.
John told Brett that he was unsure, but he would look into it.
My own theory is that the different approaches taken by Solano and Yolo Counties was due to farmer interests, not the interests of urban residents.
I am not exactly sure when Yolo County farmers won rights to Clear Lake water and Indian Valley Reservoir water (by way of Cache Creek). I do know that when Davisville was chosen as the site of the University Farm in 1905, one of the conditions* for its selection was that it had to have water rights, and those water rights back in 1905 were that very same Cache Creek water. I also know that for the next 50 years not all Yolo County farm concerns had Cache Creek water. But the county was working on it.
In 1951, the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District was formed. Its primary purpose was to secure more water rights for Yolo County farmers (and secondarily to make sure Cache Creek would not flood urban residents). In short order, the YCFCWCD was successful in supplying the water needed by the county’s farms.
But Solano County farmers did not have access to that water. They needed the Monticello Dam to secure their futures. Yolo did not.
So my suspicion is the reason Yolo County did not participate in the Lake Berryessa project was its focus was on Clear Lake and Indian Valley Reservoir, and that history had been building for 50 or more years.
If Yolo County had bought in to Lake Berryessa, I also suspect Davis, Winters and Woodland would have as well. They didn’t need surface water at that time. But “buying in” for the future would have been basically free. However, with the county sticking with its historical source, even a city like Winters, so close to the new dam at Monticello, probably had no real way to join up with that source of surface water.
—————————
*The legislation which created the university farm was written in such a way to bias the selection in favor of the Davisville site. Peter J. Shields penned the bill, but he had input from Davis people, including former Assemblyman George Washington Pierce, Jr., Jacob LaRue and Hugh LaRue. The input of the Davis crowd was to require that the place selected had features that Davis had–water rights, soil types, proximity to Berkeley, train access, etc.
By the way, one of the posters on this blog, Mike Harrington, also stopped by to say hi to me and John Lofland when we were at City Hall. I think Mike came by about 3-4 minutes before Brett did. He mentioned that he was there to file his argument against Measure I. John told Mike that they were on opposite sides of the surface water question.
I am not sure that it matters whether the decision was made at the County level, or by the leaders of our City. In either case, the people making the decision lacked the foresight to imagine the needs of a community with a much greater population then what existed at the time. Back in 1940 our leaders did not have the same level of knowledge that we have today on the impact that increasing populations have on the availability of natural resources and the extent of environmental degradation. With this in mind, we may choose to forgive our 1940’s leaders for their lack of vision, however we do not have that same excuse or luxury today.
We know that clean water is a scarce resource, one that will become scarcer still in the near term as the regional population grows and the full impact of our collective environmental neglect comes to fruition. Even if Davis stays the same size in perpetuity, groundwater will not be sufficient to supply our needs. Failure to act today is tantamount to sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring reality. We should be smarter than that.
“Maybe you can second guess it now, with 20-20 hindsight, but it’s not fair to put that into the decision making mix back in the 1940s and 50s”
But UC Davis has limited water rights from Berryessa so some people had reason to act then just as some will have foresight to act now for a secure diversified water future.
mark writes: “I am not sure that it matters whether the decision was made at the County level, or by the leaders of our City.”
he is correct, it does not matter EXCEPT for one critical point, the accounts, including by Schroeder and Tchobanoglous, are all inaccurate. in the case of schroeder, he did not even know the origin of the claim despite the fact that he wrote them. it is their job to verify the claims and they wrote them without doing so. so the question i think everyone needs to ask, is how many other claims have simply been accepted as gospel without enough research.
And would one of those claims include the pure assertion by Woodland city fathers, and almost all the leading supporters of Measure I, that Woodland is in sound financial shape? This is some of what Moody’s said in downgrading Woodland’s bond rating on January 10, 2013:
RATIONALE
“The A2 rating for the 2002 Lease Revenue Bonds reflects the continued external support of debt service payments from the Sewer Development Fund and Sewer Enterprise Fund. The A3 rating for the 2005 lease revenue bonds reflects diminished external support of debt service burden payments from fire and park facilities fees, resulting in a moderately elevated General Fund burden. The rating also incorporate the city’s below average assessed (AV) and resident; continued AV contraction; demonstrated management of fiscal challenges despite ongoing pressures relating to fixed-cost budget constraints and long term liabilities; and lagging economic recovery.
CHALLENGES
Exposure to weak local economy
Ongoing financial imbalances in certain enterprise and government funds
Pressures relating to other post employment benefits (OPEB) and pension liabilities.”
[i]”… the pure assertion by Woodland city fathers, and almost all the leading supporters of Measure I, that Woodland is in sound financial shape?”[/i]
Where has anyone made any claims about the fiscal stability of Woodland?
More important:
Can you cite any impact the Moody’s decision would have on their ability to pay for their share of the water project?
GI: [i]”the question i think everyone needs to ask, is how many other claims have simply been accepted as gospel without enough research.”[/i]
Such as? You’ve just engaged in innuendo. So please be specific about what you think hasn’t been sufficiently researched.
Also, why does this issue of the history of the Solano Water Project matter even a whit as to whether the surface water project is a good option for Davis?
Per John Lofland, above: [i]”The only reference to City of Davis I could find was that [b]city was participating[/b] in Yolo County committees studying the Solano Project.”[/i]
And those committees apparently decided to forgo Solano Project water. So, according to John Lofland, there is evidence that the city was participating in the decision that ultimately rejected Berryessa water.
David: [i]It is perhaps stunning that UC Davis professors, in a professional document, would publish a claim for which the evidence was at best unclear.[/i]
Except that John Lofland did find some evidence. ‘Stunning’ seems like hyperbole, at best.
Elaine said, [i]”We could have tapped into Lake Berryessa at some point and never did, we missed that opportunity.”[/i]
Accurate.
Alan Pryor said, [i]”Decades ago, Davis had the chance to acquire surface water rights from Putah Creek and our City Council at that time balked because of the cost.”[/i]
Apparently inaccurate. Other public officials made the decision, for reasons that are not part of the public record.
Schroeder and Tchobanoglous wrote, [i]”Fifty years ago, the City made a decision to stay with groundwater sources rather than obtain Solano Project water on the basis of relative cost, the apparently abundant and high quality groundwater supply, and the expected growth of the community and region.”[/i]
Accurate that the decision was made to stay with groundwater. Reasons not a matter of public record. Cost is what was cited to me in the 1970’s.
Professor Lofland writes, “I therefore tentatively conclude that the Davis City Council never addressed the question of Putah Creek water rights.”
I tentatively agree.
GI: “so the question i think everyone needs to ask, is how many other claims have simply been accepted as gospel without enough research.”
You are questioning the validity of their technical analysis of our problem today because they failed to verify the accuracy of a historical anecdote with no bearing on the problem? Really?
DS: [i]”Where has anyone made any claims about the fiscal stability of Woodland? More important: Can you cite any impact the Moody’s decision would have on their ability to pay for their share of the water project?”[/i]
I think this is a very important distinction which may be lost on Herman. The City of Woodland will not be paying for the Woodland share of the water project: the ratepayers of Woodland will be on the hook for that bill.
Perhaps an argument can be made that the residents and businesses of Woodland are in such dire fiscal straits that they will stop paying their bills. That sounds quite unlikely to me.
But arguing against the project because the City of Woodland as a corporation has poor credit or even may be going bankrupt is not, as far as I can see, relevant. The fact of the matter is that the City of Davis may well become insolvent at some point, as well. And the County of Yolo is in the worst financial mess of all three entities. I don’t know the particulars of any other governmental agencies in Yolo County. But I am well aware that almost every city and county in California (and the state government, too) is in terrible shape financially. They have been increasing their labor costs at unsustainable rates for 10-15 years, and the result is not only near-term deficits, but massive future liabilities that none of them can pay off without crippling service cuts.
RR: [i]”… arguing against the project because the City of Woodland as a corporation has poor credit or even may be going bankrupt is not, as far as I can see, relevant. The fact of the matter is that the City of Davis may well become insolvent at some point, as well. And the County of Yolo is in the worst financial mess of all three entities.”[/i]
Setting aside the most important debt of all–unfunded retiree medical–here is what CalPERS says is the pension underfunding for Davis, Woodland and Yolo County. The reports were presented in October of last year. However, the indebted amounts were as of June 30, 2011.
Davis Safety — $27,422,570
[u]Davis Misc. — $49,906,212[/u]
Davis Total — $77,328,782
Woodland Safety — $34,448,664
[u]Woodland Misc. — $30,309,606[/u]
Woodland Total — $64,758,270
Yolo County Safety — $44,254,807
[u]Yolo County Misc. — $146,920,994 [/u]
Yolo County Total — $191,175,801
There are other Yolo County-related agencies with additional pension debts:
YC Housing Authority Misc — $2,053,557
YC Federal Credit Union Misc — $1,643,324
YC In-home Support Services Misc — $62,643
YC PARIA* Misc — $705,014
[u]YC CESA Misc — $2,086,925[/u]
Total — $6,551,464
*PUBLIC AGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT INSURANCE AUTHORITY
**COMMUNICATIONS EMERGENCY SERVICES AGENCY
And for what it’s worth, I looked up Winters and West Sacramento:
Winters Safety — $1,734,588
[u]Winters Misc. — $1,524,883[/u]
Winters Total — $3,259,421
West Sacramento Fire Safety — $17,665,524
West Sacramento Police Safety — $13,409,863
[u]West Sacramento Misc. — $26,335,794[/u]
West Sacramento Total — $57,411,181
Most important point: the great crisis all these agencies face is their built up retiree medical liabilities. They swamp pension debts. The two keys to solving the retiree medical crisis are 1) to incentivize employees to stay on the job much longer by not paying for their retiree medical until they are Medicare eligible and 2) to cap the total amount the agency pays for each retiree’s medical premium and to cap the growth of that expense year over year, particularly for retirees with substantial pensions.
I would not disagree with Rifkin as to the seriousness of the long term debt problem though probably I’d differ somewhat as to causes and esp. solutions. But in partial response to my original point, Rifkin says this:
“Perhaps an argument can be made that the residents and businesses of Woodland are in such dire fiscal straits that they will stop paying their bills. That sounds quite unlikely to me.”
Here, I have to flatly disagree and say that it is not at all unlikely that a time may come, even in the next few years, when businesses and residents in many city’s such as Woodland cannot pay their bills and property values and therefore revenues on this and other taxes decline significantly, even drastically. I mean does anyone really believe that a per household increase in all utility bills of say $2,000 (maybe more) per year on each household by 2018 will not have serious economic downside multiplier effects?
Don: It’s innuendo to infer that because one piece of information was taken for granted, the analysts/ researchers may have taken other issues for granted?
“Except that John Lofland did find some evidence. “
As I see it Lofland may have found some evidence but Schroeder did not know the basis of what he wrote, that’s a problem in my book.
Wouldn’t that be a divider effect.
If Schroeder did not know the origin of the reason we don’t get our water from Solano irrigation District then we should accept that as an error. This alone does not disqualify everything he contributed. If you want to search for other errors by all means do so. After all, in science we keep what you are right about and throw the rest away. Have at it. Don’t forget he was Sue Greenwald’s pick to study the issue.
What is the point of trying to determine whether the city council did or didn’t actively dismiss an opportunity? We’re not bound to make the same mistake, either way.
In my view, the WAC has provided a very good fact base for the citizens to determine whether a different source of water is needed or wanted. It has also helped make clear, that regardless of the water source, we are going to be paying more for water than before – it’s just a matter of whether we are paying fines or for the acquisition of a new water source.
Thank you WAC.
“You are questioning the validity of their technical analysis of our problem today because they failed to verify the accuracy of a historical anecdote with no bearing on the problem? Really?”
no, i’m not questioning the validity of anything. i am questioning their diligence in checking what they believe they know. you argue it has no bearing – but all the more reason to make sure it’s true particularly since it was part of their story that they use to urge us to act now.
“This alone does not disqualify everything he contributed.”
I agree, but the question becomes, if he made that error, did he make other errors that were more pivotal?
“We’re not bound to make the same mistake, either way.”
if it’s not important, why is it part of the narrative every time the issue arises?
[i] i am questioning their diligence
… did he make other errors that were more pivotal?
[/i]
So now you’re using it to question Dr. Schroeder’s professional performance.
So what? An anonymous poster can challenge anything. I know I’m one myself. It will take more than that to discredit Sue Greenwald’s hand picked independent investigator. Feel free to look for other errors in his work. Who knows maybe you can find something less trivial than confusing the city for the county 60 years ago.
Oh, brother. Once again failing to focus on the consequential. The indisputable fact is the city leaders have failed over many decades to take consequential action to address a challenge to our community sustainability by relying exclusively on well water. A prudent course of action would have been to build a reserve. Instead equivocate, study, talk, and bicker. The community will be paying the price for this failure of leadership for many years. Now, 2 successive councils have said, “Not on our watch.” I applaud them.
-Michael Bisch
pbradyus said . . .
[i]”Dunning, DE, last Sun., calculated that the proposed rate increases are about a factor of 3.5 over what we pay now. The City now receives close to $12 million/yr in water revenue.”[/i]
Paul, the information you have provided is inaccurate. The data provided to the WAC by Bartle Wells on 4/2/2012 verified the fact that Revenues to the City were $9,978,000. On the other hand, annual Costs (excluding any JPA contributions) were $12,956,163. The result was a $3 million draw down of the Water Enterprise Fund’s reserves.
Please try and report accurate numbers if you are going to report numbers.
It is important that you
pbradyus said . . .
[i]”Under the proposed rates this will increase to about $40 million/yr – enriching the city and depts with extra funds.”[/i]
Again you are reporting a fictitious number. The correct maximum annual revenue requirement as of 5:00 PM yesterday is $28,269,000.
In the Bartle Wells model that is the maximum revenue requirement for all years from FY 2017/2018 onward. What is the source for your “about $40 million /yr” number?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Paul B: thanks for your post. Why dont you explain to the readers how you are qualified to comment on this project and its rates?”[/i]
Good point Michael. I look forward to Paul’s answer.