Count me as skeptical. It is not that I think the Measure I folks are intentionally blowing smoke here, but I just view their poll, showing Measure I having a 63-11 percent lead, with a good deal of skepticism.
In the political world, campaign internal polls are notoriously skewed. That seems like a strange thing, especially given the fact that most of the polling is conducted for strategic purposes like this one.
However, we know, from the recently concluded Presidential campaign, that Mitt Romney’s polls had that campaign convinced that they were going to win on election day. And it is only in hindsight, looking at their assumptions, that we understand not only why the polls ended up so flawed, but why the campaign had a false sense of confidence.
It is not that I find it far-fetched to believe that Measure I might be winning and even winning handily – after all, I have no comparison point as to this poll. But the two numbers that really fly in the face of common sense are the 11% opposition and the 85% familiarity.
Let us discuss both of these issues.
On November 6, 2012, Measure E was passed by the voters of Davis by a 69-31% margin. Now, given the fact that the school district includes unincorporated areas that the city does not, and given the fact that those areas did not pass it by the two-thirds vote, let us suppose for simplicity’s sake that Measure E passed the city proper at 70-30.
Here is what we know about the schools issue that might be comparable to the water issue.
The poll is a bit dated now, taken in November of 2011, but at the time, the school district took a poll asking voters on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 is strong support for a tax and 1 is strong opposition to a tax, how likely the voters would be to vote for taxes for local programs, and they listed schools, roads, public safety, parks and then water.
The result was schools faired the best, with nearly half rating support for a schools tax a “7,” over 60% a “6” or higher, and over 70% were somewhat supportive. On this poll, water rated the lowest, with barely 50% somewhat supportive of taxes for water.
That is part one.
The second point is the parcel tax for schools was in November 2012, to be renewed at about $200 a year, with the possibility of an additional $240 had Proposition 30 not passed.
The last time there was going to be a certain parcel tax increase was Measure A in early 2011. That was the closest election we had, with Measure A barely passing – though in fairness it still received 67% of the vote. That was also the election where the parcel tax had the strongest opposition.
In contrast to the parcel tax, the water issue has organized opposition that figures to push the issue. Moreover, while the parcel tax figured to increase taxes perhaps $200 per year, the water measure figures to increase water rates by over $1000 a year within five years.
I am not suggesting that this is good or bad, but I would suggest that we would expect more and not less opposition to a larger increase.
Add to that the ongoing campaign being waged by Bob Dunning in the Davis Enterprise.
In his column earlier this week, he ran through a number of calculations and concluded, “Like the Bartle Wells plan, the CBFR rates spike considerably over the final three years of the five-year plan, sending that $71.80 bill to $118.74 in year five.”
He adds, “Under our current rate structure, using identical comparisons (20 ccf in summer, 10 ccf in winter), the monthly summer bill would be $42.30, dropping to $26.50 in winter.”
While there has been some discussion, at times heated, about the accuracy of his analysis, given the readership and the extent of confusion and uncertainty about the rates, the 11% opposition is a bit mystifying.
If schools, which were clearly in crisis and a higher priority, still produced a 30% opposition, we find it difficult to believe that even a starting figure on the water rates would be just 11% opposition.
Unfortunately, the campaign, as was their right, did not provide us with enough numbers to really analyze and figure out what was going on here. As I mentioned yesterday, I would have liked to have seen the polling regarding the rates.
But one partial number is the 85% familiarity with the issue. I find that number unusually high. Yes, the issue has been around and it gained a lot of traction last fall when there was a petition drive. But let us drill down a bit here.
Davis is a highly-educated population for sure, and they vote at a very high rate, but 85% still seems rather high. Consider that the Davis Enterprise only is received in about one-third of the households. The Sacramento Bee has a bit larger circulation, but there have been perhaps a handful of articles on the water issue.
It is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of that figure, but my instinct here is that 85% seems a bit high.
The other point I think we need to look at, as cited in the letter by the pollsters to the campaign, is that “improving local water supplies is a top priority (90%) issue.”
I do not know what that means, they do not provide the question there, but that number seems to contrast with the figures we had just over a year ago that rated water well below that of education.
The bottom line is this – they polled 300 likely mail ballot special election voters. How they determined who was a likely voter is an interesting mystery. What the results of simply polling registered voters would have been is likewise a mystery.
But from my limited standpoint, I would suggest this: the universe of those 300 voters would seem to be people who are very aware of the project, who seem to place a high value on improving the local water supplies, and it might be that those numbers simply oversampled the highly-engaged portion of the population.
One commenter yesterday stated, “No question that this spurious polling is designed to create the aura of inevitability about the ballot measure passing and thus stifle contributions and on-the-ground volunteers to do door-to-door canvassing.”
We will not go that far.
Again, I am not going to argue that Measure I is not ahead – I just do not know. I am not going to argue that it will not prevail and maybe even by large margins. What I will argue is that 11% opposition is too low and that we should take these results with a healthy degree of skepticism. Because of the limited release, we only have circumstantial evidence here, but we have the school tax election results and the 2011 polling by the district on voter priorities that suggest that number is far too low.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Add to that, the ongoing campaign being waged by Bob Dunning in the Davis Enterprise.
In his column earlier this week, he ran through a number of calculations and concluded, “like the Bartle Wells plan, the CBFR rates spike considerably over the final three years of the five-year plan, sending that $71.80 bill to $118.74 in year five.”
He adds, “Under our current rate structure, using identical comparisons (20 ccf in summer, 10 ccf in winter), the monthly summer bill would be $42.30, dropping to $26.50 in winter.”
While there has been some discussion, at times heated, about the accuracy of his analysis . . . “[/i]
David, there isn’t any problem with the accuracy of Bob’s analysis. His $118.74 number for a July 2018 bill is correct. The problem with Bob;s analysis is its completeness. Here is a more complete picture.
Under our current rate structure at 20 ccf in summer, 10 ccf in winter), the monthly summer bill would be $42.30, dropping to $26.50 in winter.
If Measure I passes, under the new rate structure the monthly summer bill would be $118.74, dropping to $103.74 in winter.
If Measure I fails, to cover the well documented groundwater system costs the monthly summer bill would be $89.66, dropping to $78.34 in winter.
11% opposition? Well, that fits. Fits with the bogus rates in Sept 2011 and the sudden drop in plant size from 18 to 12 mgd when challenged.
Whom are you going to believe? The Yes on I crowd with a bad track record, or people like Pam Nieberg, Nancy Price, and others whom you all know have volunteered for years to keep our community nice and affordable for all of us ?
The referendum saved ratepayers over $120 million in project costs, and trust us, there is still a lot of pork in the project the Yes on I people want to sell you.
That 11% figure they represent as truthful should tell voters all they need to know.
For those who are interested in seeing the well documented groundwater system costs, Section 5 of the City of Davis Water Distribution System Optimization Plan produced by a team from Kennedy Jenks Consultants and Brown and Caldwell in May 2011. Here is a link to that document. [url]http://public-works.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF/PW/Water/Documents/Davis-Water-Distribution-System-Optimization-Plan-Report.pdf[/url]
“If Measure I fails, to cover the well documented groundwater system costs the monthly summer bill would be $89.66, dropping to $78.34 in winter.”
I remember reading that if Measure I failed we could expect to see our rates go up only 50% by 2018 under the current rate structure instead of tripling under Measure I.
Michael:
“The referendum saved ratepayers over $120 million in project costs”
Matt, I have yet to see anyone refute Michael’s claim that delaying this project has saved us much money. Would you like to put your two cents in on this?
rusty, the 50% rate increase is only for the first two years.
The data provided to the WAC by Bartle Wells on 4/2/2012 verified the fact that annual Water 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
The immediate 50% increase in rates will simply take us out of a deficit situation. Then we have to begin paying for the $37 million in capital expenses for repair and remediation of our current system. One of our deep aquifer wells (Well 29) recently failed. So in addition to all the other R&R and water main work, we have to drill a deep aquifer replacement well.
David (and others) – Would you be more willing to accept the figure of 57% support for Measure I (I know Michael will not, but others)? Because that is what the margin of error that the press release (given by Will Arnold in a comment yesterday) suggests would be the lower bound of the population parameter estimate from this particular sample. Further, if is as common in such polls (I am not an expert but this is what I have read) this is margin is based on a 90% confidence interval calculation, then there is a 10 percent chance that the true population parameter is outside the bounds of the +/-5.7% margin around the point estimate in this sample’s result.
Contrary to what Michael wrote above, publishing the results is not making a “truth” statement, the uncertainty is given by the standard statistical calculations they employ, which are, however, based on the premise that the sample they took was random. David, you are suggesting, however, that their sample is biased towards more informed voters. That may be true. I assume this was a phone poll (rusty49 seems to confirm this) and if they used land lines only then the demographic surveyed is most likely older and, perhaps, more likely to read the Enterprise/Sac Bee. Did the polling firm adjust for this (as is done these days–though I do not know how) or take other steps to minimize this eventuality? I have no idea. However, if older, more informed voters are likely to vote on this Measure (this is NOT a presidential election after all) then perhaps the “bias” you suggest is a wash.
So, yes, skepticism is warranted concerning the results if a bias (not necessarily nefariously intended) was introduced because of the polling method. Rusty49 implies this was a “push” poll–framing or sequencing the questions in such a way as to lead to a certain answer in this case (not sure that is the correct definition of a push poll but you get my meaning). At this point I have no way to counter that claim since I have not seen the survey instrument. Given rusty49’s lack of support for the project I am skeptical of his claim too.
Correction: …if older, more informed voters are MORE likely than younger or less informed voters to actually vote in this election…
I’m sure the No on I folks have done their own polls, so now all they have to do is release their results and we can compare.
Some significant distortion of Rusty’s first hand account has gone on the past couple of days. Here is Rusty’s initial account:
“I received a call and was polled, it was quite lengthy. I was asked a lot more than just water questions, for ex. they asked you to rate all the council members individually. I felt the way the questions were asked kind of led one in a direction to support the project though I don’t think that was the plan. Being that really not that much has changed in regards to the rates and that 5000 sent in 218 protest letters and about the same amount signed the referendum I find it hard to believe that only 11% are against the project.” -rusty49
Rusty used qualifiers such as “I felt” and “kind of lend one”. He further states that he didn’t think a push poll was the intent. And finally, he was quite forthright in stating that the poll results did not square with his prior beliefs. This is all a far cry from an unbiased, unqualified declaration that it was a push poll.
If Rusty, upon further reflection, has more to add to his survey experience account, I for one would be interested to hear it.
-Michael Bisch
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Michael: “The referendum saved ratepayers over $120 million in project costs”
Matt, I have yet to see anyone refute Michael’s claim that delaying this project has saved us much money. Would you like to put your two cents in on this?”[/i]
I’ll give it a shot rusty. The combined Woodland/Davis 40 mgd plant cost estimates were $215.9 million. The combined Woodland/Davis 30 mgd plant cost estimates are currently $182.5 million. Mathematics says that plant costs came down $33.4 million. Add in Debt Service costs and you get a savings of just under $70 million for Woodland and Davis combined.
The Davis portion numbers are $22.3 million cost savings which translates to between $45 million and $50 million saved if you include debt service costs.
Neither treated water pipeline costs, nor local infrastructure costs were affected by the referendum.
Some of the posts in reaction to the survey press release and aspects of David’s commentary remind me very much of the reaction to the results of the state-by-state polling in the run up to the last presidential election. The state-by-state polling clearly indicated that Obama was going to handily win the electoral contest, yet some individuals would have none of it. From Wikipedia:
“Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality.”
-Michael Bisch
Whoops! I failed to cut-and-paste all of the relevant Wikipedia quote. 2nd try:
“Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed “dissonance reduction”, which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors. This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior.”
-Michael Bisch
Matt:
“The Davis portion numbers are $22.3 million cost savings which translates to between $45 million and $50 million saved if you include debt service costs.”
So Matt, would you agree that what Michael Harrington and the referendum has achieved in drastically cutting costs has been good for the people of Davis?
Any credit for reducing the costs goes to the members of the WAC, Staff and Council, all of whom have worked for the benefit of the City. That said, they didn’t make the project better, just smaller. 50 years out I expect that the region will have to rebuilt this system to fit their needs, and in the process will be cursing our short-sighted approach to infrastructure development.
Robb: The margin of error is the random measurement error of the survey, it says that 85% the sample will be within +/- 5.7 of the actual result. But what I’m talking about here is not random error of survey to survey differentials, but rather a more fundamental sampling error. You ask if I’m more willing to accept a given number – I don’t know what the given number should be. Again, I don’t know if measure is ahead, it may well be, but I am skeptical about the 11% far more so than the top number.
West Sacramento never believed that Davis’ attempt to reopen “negotiations” was anything more than expedient political theater. I agree with this assessment. As far as we know, Brett Lee brought back West Sac’s INITIAL position that was summarily rejected by Council and staff. We have have no information as to the details of any give and take counter Davis offer. There are many reasons why the West Sac option is superior to the JPA Woodland/Davis path,i.e., cost, a better fit with Davis’ populist political ethos(public municipal water system rather than privatized), more political transparency with regard to future water use and residential growth, intake location of Sacramento river water. A NO vote on the ballot measure is the only way to pressure the Council to SERIOUSLY attempt to make a deal with West Sacramento.
I agree with Mark West. This is just a smaller system, not a better system.
In the end, the referendum has cost the city tens of thousands of dollars (maybe more) to reprove and restate what was already clear to most people who took the time to read and understand the studies completed in the previous 15 years. It has cost the council and the city a tremendous amount of intellectual and emotional energy which could have been used on matters which deserved the attention.
On the other hand, the WAC has provided a significant amount of fact based information for the public to absorb. That fact based information has clearly refuted the histrionics of Harrington, Dunning, et al, and in the end, allows the Davis voters to vote with better knowledge and confidence about this project.
Thanks Elaine and other members of the WAC.
“Some of the posts in reaction to the survey press release and aspects of David’s commentary remind me very much of the reaction to the results of the state-by-state polling in the run up to the last presidential election. The state-by-state polling clearly indicated that Obama was going to handily win the electoral contest, yet some individuals would have none of it. “
Good point Michael, but a very flawed comparison.
We had MANY polls that showed the same result from a variety of different polling outlets that were independent of the campaign. We have one poll, conducted by one of the campaigns and the campaign has released only selected data from it whereas the major polling firms in the campaign released their full results and were very transparent in their methodology.
rusty49 asked . . .
[i]”So Matt, would you agree that what Michael Harrington and the referendum has achieved in drastically cutting costs has been good for the people of Davis?”[/i]
rusty, I said that that was the case long ago, and have reiterated that point numerous times since. I’m not sure why you are asking me that. Care to elaborate?
[i]So Matt, would you agree that[s] what Michael Harrington and the referendum has achieved in drastically cutting costs has been good for the people of Davis?[/s] the end justifies the means?[/i]
No to the actual question, and no to its implicit argument as amended.
Sorry I dont have time to go and hunt it down, but I am certain I remember staff acknowledging at least $45 million savings. (I also remember the figure of $60 million, but it’s less prominent in my brain this morning after going to the cold market to check on things.)
I have heard the financing costs can run between 2 and 2.5 times the principal, so call it 2.0.
$45 million plus $90 million equals $135 million saved by the referendum forcing the CC to repeal those Sept 2011 rates, and take stock of what was going on.
I posted “over $120 million” because I am conservative with these things.
But I will take $135 million too.
To the readers: trust me: this pig needs some slimming down before it’s ready for the animal show at the fairgrounds.
“Good point Michael, but a very flawed comparison.”
Not really. Both instances reflect an unwillingness to factor in new data into ones thinking and beliefs. In both instances, the new data is summarily rejected by some instead of leading them to, at a minimum, pause to reflect.
-Michael Bisch
Michael: In one instance it is a single result. A single result can be flawed or wrong. The other instance it was a consistent and repeated result.
I can’t see you discounting the idea of replicability – the notion that you can repeatedly produce the same result. There were literally hundreds of polls in November showing the same result, the only way they could all be wrong would have been that everyone misjudged the voting population.
In this case, we have one poll, one result, and we have no idea how it was derived.
This is a very different issue.
With that said, I do believe that the current 12 mgd plant size is the correct sizing for Davis.
Michael and others have argued that a further delay of 5 years would be better. They have also argued for a 6 mgd plant. Lets look at both those alternatives. The water demand requirements of the City plus Willowbank and El Macero (based on an annual population growth of 0.5% and continued increased conservation toward the NRC goal of 134 gpcd in 2020) show that we could make it through the end of 2016 without any surface water. However, in 2017 our current capacity falls short and we would begin experiencing the water equivalent of brownouts in the summer. The shortfall is 3 mgd and that shortfall lasts from 2017 through 2019. In 2020 the shortfall jumps up to just under 8 mgd and in 2024 it exceeds 10 mgd.
Given the time it takes to build a surface water treatment plant, the 3 mgd shortfall we will experience in 2017 requires a construction schedule that begins late in 2013 so that the capacity is available late in 2016. The same issue applies to the 8 mgd requirement in 2020. We have to start construction by 2017 to have the added capacity.
One could take that kind of piecemeal approach, but the inefficiencies would be very real, and the likelihood that the interest rate market and the construction costs market would be as low as they are now is highly remote. Bottom-line, building a 12 mgd plant now at the very low interest rates and very low construction costs that exist today is the wise and prudent decision.
JMHO
Did the Yes on I poll also ask if the respondent would knowingly vote for a project where the rate system violates Prop 218’s proportionality requirement: all ratepayers are treated equally, and no one is charge more per unit of water than other ratepayers?
Anyone follow the CC meeting on Jan 15, when CC Member Swanson had a letter to the CC from the Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services alleging the current and proposed rate structures violate the law?
Swanson asked the City Attorney if that was true, and the CA said no, that the rate systems have held up in court.
Right. Like her memo that concluded the referendum was illegal?? Anyone remember that one?
Matt, in your cost savings calculation, whether the savings were $5M, $20M, or $200M, you seem to buy into the notion that the referendum is responsible for the cost savings. Perhaps I’m suffering from my own cognitive dissonance, but my recollection is that it was always the plan, long before the referendum, to continue to seek project cost savings, federal subsidies, and to right-size the project. Indeed, those efforts are ongoing and will continue even after March. I know the Chambers GRC will continue to examine and press for reductions. I recall sitting in the council chambers a number of times in the 1st quarter 2010 on RDA/downtown issues only to have to wait for the water project agenda item to finish before my item came up. I’m fairly certain, in each of those discussions, talk of seeking cost reductions was front and center. Did not city staff and our electeds seek and successfully obtain a federal grant somewhere in the neighborhood of $20M? So how is the referendum responsible for any of that?
-Michael Bisch
Matt, how far behind is our water fund now due to delaying the rate increases? Also, how will the proportional mixing of surface and ground water change due to the smaller size of the surface supply?
[i]”…based on an annual population growth of 0.5% “
[/i]
The opponents of the water project have made it very clear that they don’t think Davis should grow at 0.5%, or even at 0.0005%.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”West Sacramento never believed that Davis’ attempt to reopen “negotiations” was anything more than expedient political theater. I agree with this assessment. As far as we know, Brett Lee brought back West Sac’s INITIAL position that was summarily rejected by Council and staff. We have have no information as to the details of any give and take counter Davis offer. There are many reasons why the West Sac option is superior to the JPA Woodland/Davis path,i.e., cost, a better fit with Davis’ populist political ethos(public municipal water system rather than privatized), more political transparency with regard to future water use and residential growth, intake location of Sacramento river water. A NO vote on the ballot measure is the only way to pressure the Council to SERIOUSLY attempt to make a deal with West Sacramento.”[/i]
That is 100% speculation on your part. Have you talked directly to any of the following . . . West Sac Staff, West Sac Council members, West Sac’s Mayor? I have, and the near unanimous opinion on their part is that Davis has a culture that is 180 degrees opposite to West Sac’s, and that if there was going to be any joining of the two cities on the issues of water it was not going to be as peers (or spouses) but rather as master and slave. Do you really think that the culture of Davis is willing to be the slave to anyone?
All of your assessments of the superiority of the West Sac option are couched from a peer-to-peer perspective. Take the time to look at those same “advantages” from the perspective of a slave, and then report back your observations.
As much as I personally wanted a Regional Water facility in West Sac that served all three Yolo County cities, even I came to realize that that was only a Don Quixote dream after I had face-to-face conversations with key people in West Sac.
“Michael: In one instance it is a single result. A single result can be flawed or wrong.”
David, you’re making my point. Yes, certainly, it could be inaccurate (I’m guessing “inaccurate” is the term you meant to use). And it could certainly be accurate. It’s difficult to weigh the single result one way or the other. Yet you jump to this conclusion:
“What I will argue is that 11% opposition is too low”
Perhaps a healthier approach would be to say, “Hm, what to make of this?”
PS: The reasoning based on the comparison to the school parcel tax survey seems pretty stretched to me by the way.
-Michael Bisch
Michael: The basic point I make here is skepticism for the result. I do think the 11% opposition is too low. Even Parks, which had no opposition, was only $46 per year, received 16% no votes. It boggles my mind that water has less opposition than the parks parcel tax.
David, those survey results that were published do not state that 11% of voters will vote “no”. They only state that 11% of the respondents said “no”. In fact, I’m not even sure they said that because I don’t recall the exact wording of the question. You ascribe a false meaning/power to a survey. The takeaway for me, from that aspect of the survey, if the survey is an accurate reflection of the opinions of likely voters, is that the opposition to the surface water project is far weaker than the opponents would have you believe.
I need to figure out a way to insert more “ifs” and qualifiers in my comments. 🙂
-Michael Bisch
[quote]Whom are you going to believe? The Yes on I crowd with a bad track record, or people like Pam Nieberg, Nancy Price,[/quote]
Now that it’s put that way, I’m leaning toward the Yes on I crowd.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Sorry I dont have time to go and hunt it down, but I am certain I remember staff acknowledging at least $45 million savings. (I also remember the figure of $60 million, but it’s less prominent in my brain this morning after going to the cold market to check on things.)”[/i]
Michael, the reason that $45 million sticks in your brain is that Woodland reduced the 10-year costs associated with adjusting their local system down from $29.92 million to $16.38 million. They achieved that savings all by themselves through steps regarding an above ground storage tank that had nothing to do with the referendum.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”I have heard the financing costs can run between 2 and 2.5 times the principal, so call it 2.0.”[/i]
Regarding interest costs, all you have to do is look at a 30 year amortization table. The total interest costs for a 4.75% loan of $1 million are $896,284. Since we are likely to be getting SRF funding at 2.2% the interest costs drop to $376,614.
At 7.0% interest rate the interest costs would be $1,417,592 . . . very close to your 2.5 times when you cover the $1 million principal amount.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Matt, in your cost savings calculation, whether the savings were $5M, $20M, or $200M, you seem to buy into the notion that the referendum is responsible for the cost savings. Perhaps I’m suffering from my own cognitive dissonance, but my recollection is that it was always the plan, long before the referendum, to continue to seek project cost savings, federal subsidies, and to right-size the project.”[/i]
Your point is well taken Michael, but only up to a point. The savings and subsidies, yes. Right-size the project, I’ve seen no evidence of that.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Indeed, those efforts are ongoing and will continue even after March. I know the Chambers GRC will continue to examine and press for reductions. I recall sitting in the council chambers a number of times in the 1st quarter 2010 on RDA/downtown issues only to have to wait for the water project agenda item to finish before my item came up. I’m fairly certain, in each of those discussions, talk of seeking cost reductions was front and center. Did not city staff and our electeds seek and successfully obtain a federal grant somewhere in the neighborhood of $20M? So how is the referendum responsible for any of that?
-Michael Bisch”[/i]
All true . . . and all those efforts are ones I whole-heartedly support.
Don Shor asked . . .
[i]”Matt, how far behind is our water fund now due to delaying the rate increases? Also, how will the proportional mixing of surface and ground water change due to the smaller size of the surface supply?”[/i]
Don, as I have noted several times over the past few days, the annual Water 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. Since the rate delay is going to in the end cover a 24-month period, it isn’t unreasonable to estimate the cummulative number as $6 million or more.
So, bottom line: due to the referendum and the delay in implementing rate hikes, we are running a $3 million annual deficit in our water fund.
“So, bottom line: due to the referendum and the delay in implementing rate hikes, we are running a $3 million annual deficit in our water fund.”
So let’s do the math, a $3 million deficit vrs. $120 million savings because of Mike Harrington and the referendum. THANKS MIKE !
rusty, regardless of what the actual number is, whether $120 million or $45-50 million, lets agree that the referendum had a hand in that savings. The WAC did the heavy lifting, but it is easy to see the referendum as a catalyst.
With that said, what is your projection regarding any further money that can be saved now that we have the plant sized at 12 mgd?
My own personal opinion is that there really isn’t any more money to be saved (as I explained above in my demand post). Do you disagree with me on that, and if you do, how do you disagree?
Just to be clear, my request for clarification (thanks Matt!), which Rusty has ignored, has no bearing on the pending vote. It was merely a point of interest for me. The fact is, the surface water project is a necessity, and whoever or whatever produces cost savings, please continue the good work. However, producing cost savings for a project that never gets approved/built, are no savings at all.
-Michael Bisch
A separate point of clarification, did not Harrington and his supporters propose an initiative that would have capped future water rate increases to the rate of inflation? And had such an initiative passed, would it have precluded the construction of a conjunctive water use project, either with Woodland or with West Sac, with or without project cost savings, any project of any kind? Would the initiative rate caps have precluded replacing the failing wells with new wells? Would the initiative rate caps have even precluded raising rates sufficiently to correct the annual $3M operating deficit?
I look forward to any responses that can set the record straight.
-Michael Bisch
Don: Unlike what the Chamber GRC told the CC last week, the No on I is not flush with buckets of money. We are all volunteers. We have not done a poll, and won’t. We know our little town and its ratepayers, and believe that the truth shall prevail if we can get it out to enough voters.
DT: we never proposed a water rate initiative that would have capped rates. Ernie Head put out an initiative for signatures that required a vote if the rate increase hit a certain percentage threshhold, but it was not completed, and not active at this time.
I am working on an initiative that will be a Measure J/R for larger public utility projects, requiring specific process, details, costs, and the rates to be on the ballot as a package. (Measure I was deliberately put on the ballot without the rates.)
If a specific project gains a majority vote, then the City can do the Prop 218 rates notice, and everything is done in an orderly fashion.
Our initiative will set up a Public Utilities Commission, will require transparent public audits of our money, will require larger projects be vetted by appropriate commissions. (Example: the pending JPA water project was deliberately kept away from analysis by the city Finance and Budget Commission; staff and the rate consultants did not want our “citizen experts” to double check the project costs or rates.)
It will set up a process where the city has to justify its proposed larger projects, which never happened here.
I am sure the Chamber of Commerce will support the upcoming initiative, as it will help to keep the costs of projects down, and ensure community wide support. All of this is good for local business, of which I am a member and have always supported.
I am very confident our new initiative will qualify, and will be on the June 2014 ballot, with the CC elections.
To DT, JR, Ryan, Don, WIll Arnold: may I ask for your frank opinions, comments on something? Doesn’t it negatively concern you, just a little, that Measure I lacks the rates?
Do you all support direct democracy, where we get to vote on the direct costs and rates of the big projects that drain money out of our community?
The directly democratic referendum savings all of you buckets of money so far. That’s all good, right?
These are the process things that drive me forward.
Aha, found it, from Vanguard 10/29/11, initiative drafted by Ernie Head and Jim Stevens:
“According to the initiative, this rate increase cap to the change in the CPI would apply to all future water rate increases. The rate cap applies to increases for all water system costs, including capital infrastructure, debt service, and operations and maintenance costs. The initiative also provides that any changes or increases to water rates be “across the board” and equally or proportionally apply to all rate types.”
For the record, Harrington was cheering the initiative on:
“The double freight trains are moving. Business as usual With 3 am rate hikes is over.”
Whatever happened to that 2nd freight train, the initiative train? Did it get derailed, is it sitting on a side spur, or is it gathering speed and heading for a head-on collision with the residents of Davis?
Also, how did the referendum backers save the community $10M,$20M, $200M, whatever the number, on a surface water project if they were simultaneously precluding ANY KIND OF WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT AT ALL with their initiative CPI rate cap?
Finally, how can one logically claim credit for project cost savings if one is in all out opposition to the project? At best, and this is a huge stretch, one can claim the unintended consequence of the opposition was further effort by the project proponents to find additional project cost savings.
-Michael Bisch
The unintended consequence thing reminds me of Ronald Reagan admirers’ historical revision. My recollection, which granted, could be faulty, is that Reagan successfully advocated for a massive increase in US military spending financed through an equally massive increase in national debt. Reagan advocated for these increases saying the USSR had a significant lead over the US in military capability.
As it turns out, the USSR did not have such a lead, but they destroyed their economy and national finances trying to keep pace with the US. This was an unintended consequence, yet Reagan admirers give him credit for winning the cold war. Another consequence of Reagan’s military/deficit policies was to create massive social, economic, and financial dislocations in the US with which we are still struggling today. It’s as if a soccer team wins a match 2:1 by scoring only 1 own-goal while the opponents scores 2 own-goals.
Alright, alright, way off topic!
-Michael Bisch
Bottom line, without Michael Harrington and the referendum the larger bloated project would’ve went forward unabated and we would’ve been stuck with the costs, Ronald Reagan or not.
Michael (Harrington): To me this is a substantive question you are asking (at least the first part):
“Do you all support direct democracy, where we get to vote on the direct costs and rates of the big projects that drain money out of our community?”
A few points: I don’t see the connection between “big projects” and “draining money out of our community”. Infrastructure improvements do not drain anything, they lay the groundwork for a more sustainable community. As a city, state and nation we are, arguably, falling behind on infrastructure improvements. Supporters of Measure I say that this project is an improvement in the many respects that have been outlined by the hydrologists and other water experts who have spoken into it over the years. So… no money “draining” anywhere. This money is helping us be a better community.
As to the main part of the question (you did not ask me but…), I do not support, a priori, that direct democracy is critical or necessary for a “big” project. Let us look at what has happened in this case: for the sake of argument I will say that the referendum was (as Matt put it) a “catalyst” for action. Then the WAC was formed and a VERY public, nearly year-long process was undertaken in a wholly transparent and rigorous way. Citizens of this city developed an innovative rate structure and the WAC bucked City Council several times. In the end the CC did not blindly follow staff’s recommendation about funding the improvement. I would challenge you to provide a better example of how local democracy should work and can’t imagine that direct democracy would do any better. Indeed, I think there is ample evidence in our state, that direct democracy has failed due to the power of special interest groups.
Finally, in Davis, I, as a voter get to vote on every local proposed tax increase AND I get to vote on what for me is the most critical issue: whether or not we will allow peripheral farm land to be turned into houses. These place a tremendous amount of power in our hands and I simply do not see direct democracy as offering more. Our opinions about this likely differ.
DT: Ernie Head did his own thing on that initiative. I was busy on the referendum. You need to call him (in phone book) if you want to find out more.
My initiative is ground breaking in California, like Meausre J was in 2000 on land use planning, and will most likely be copied across the state by ratepayer advocates.
Measure J/R gives voters a direct democratic voice on major land use planning issues, and the new utilities initiative is the other half of the dime: large public utilities projects. They will be a great pair locally.
Rusty, I disagree. The project would have been far more bloated with Reagan. A few short and medium range missiles would have been rolled into the project. 🙂
-Michael Bisch
What Robb said.
-Michael Bisch
Robb: I really appreciate hearing your comments. When my initiative is out on the streets for signatures, I look forward to more discussion on these basic process issues. It’s all good, very good, that people are talking about these big ticket policies and projects and land use decisions. If you want to stop by and look at a draft of the initiative before it gets to the clerk’s office, please let me know. I would truly welcome your frank comments.
My law firm web site has my email, if you dont already have it.
We are one community here, and it’s better from the discussions that Davis is famous for having.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Bottom line, without Michael Harrington and the referendum the larger bloated project would’ve went forward unabated and we would’ve been stuck with the costs, Ronald Reagan or not.”[/i]
rusty, that is the historical perspective on what happened (past) and is currently happening (present). What is your perspective on the future with respect to the project. Do you believe there is more bloat that needs to be removed? If yes, how much and what kind of bloat? If no, then what is your sense of what our next steps should be?
“I have, and the near unanimous opinion on their part is that Davis has a culture that is 180 degrees opposite to West Sac’s…”
Remember that Woodland voted against joining SMUD while Davis voted strongly in favor. West Sac’s public municipal water system is a much better cultural fit for Davis than a private, for-profit run system. Davis has a culture of voters being strongly involved in their local government’s decisions.. Woodland can be characterized as quite the opposite. The political affiliation of Woodland’s mayor as compared to our City Council(and West Sac) is illustrative. The residential development planned and in progress for West Sacramento is attracting young professional families with affordable first home-buyer prices… not unlike how Davis sees its future. As to your hyperbolic “master and slave” comment, legally binding contracts are,of course, the controlling factor.
davsite2: In reference to this:
“As far as we know, Brett Lee brought back West Sac’s INITIAL position that was summarily rejected by Council and staff.”
I would encourage you to talk to Brett about this. He is very accessible, takes his position on the CC very seriously, attended nearly all the WAC meetings and came to his position on the water issue by doing the hard work of listening and learning. In other words, Brett did not come onto the CC as some kind of rubber stamp for the project. Knowing Brett a bit (and respecting him a great deal), I don’t think he would roll over if he truly felt that the West Sac option was genuinely do-able and held out hopes of providing Davis with an affordable, secure and sustainable water supply. I just don’t see it. But I would encourage you to talk to him about it.
Thanks Michael Harrington. I will take you up on your offer in the coming weeks. What is your timeline on this?
“The political affiliation of Woodland’s mayor as compared to our City Council(and West Sac) is illustrative. The residential development planned and in progress for West Sacramento is attracting young professional families with affordable first home-buyer prices… not unlike how Davis sees its future.” -davisite2
Based on this comment, it looks like high density, affordable, residential housing is a slam dunk on the ConAgra and Nishi properties. Redevelopment in and around downtown is assured. And a significant increase in city funding for economic development and entitlement of additional commercially zoned land is also right around the corner.
-Michael Bisch
West Sacramento population.
2000 32053
2010 48809
52% increase over the decade. 5.2% per year.
So, the problem is that Woodland’s politicians are Republicans?
Robb asked about timing: “Soon,” my favorite word learned from contractors and experts.
I would have really hoped that the CC would have taken on this job, like they did Measure J in 1999, but the current CC is hell-bent to marry Woodland in this shotgun marriage. So we, the ratepayers, will have to carry this water bucket for now.
Robb commented on Brett Lee: I know he went to many WAC meetings and says he studied all about the project and the rates, but the fact of the matter is he went along with the City Attorney (same one who said the 9/6/11 rates were constitutional) and the other 4 CC members, and voted to approve rate systems that violate Prop 218. I’m not picking on Lee; he is 20% of the vote up there on the dais.
The project is obviously too big, too soon, and too expensive. And now it has rate structures that violate the State Constitution.
What a mess.
“So, the problem is that Woodland’s politicians are Republicans?”
Don, that’s not helping the cause. 🙂
-Michael Bisch
Political party has nothing to do with this project
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”The project is obviously too big, too soon, and too expensive.”[/i]
I respectfully disagree on all three counts Michael.
Too big . . . as noted in my page 1 post in this thread, based on 1) 0.5% annual population growth (Mr. Katehi’s enrollment growth plan will exceed that in renters alone), and 2) 20% incremental consumption reduction due to conservation, our “dripout” exposure (the water equivalent of an electrical brownout will be 8 mgd in 2020, and rising further in the years beyond 2020
Too soon . . . in 2017 our “dripout” shortfall is 3 mgd. Given the fact that it takes 3 years to build a plant, covering the 2017 shortfall requires the three years of 2014, 2015, 2016 for construction. Making a decision in mid-2013 to start that three year process in six months is anything but too soon
Too expensive . . . where are the additional savings you see happening? One possibility is interest costs, but those are going to happen regardless. We are clearly going to be working hard to get the lowest interest rates possible. Pipeline costs? Water treatment costs? Raw water pipeline costs? Local Davis distribution system costs? Where is the fat? By going down from 40 mgd to 30 mgd we identified all the low hanging fruit and effected savings on them. Where do your engineers say there is any additional meaningful savings?
Development projects in the planning process in West Sacramento: [url]http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/city/depts/comdev/mpa.asp[/url]
I count over 8000 residence units there. Wonder how fast they’re planning to add this additional 16% to their population?