By Sue Greenwald
I strongly believe that approving the Woodland-Davis water project is the most risky and potentially harmful decision that has been made by a City Council during the 12 years that I served as a council member.
We do not need this particular project at this time. We can’t afford this uniquely expensive approach to our long-term water infrastructure upgrades, and the consequences of proceeding with it are likely to be devastating.
We don’t need the project to meet discharge requirements or drinking water quality standards. Our water is clean and healthy, it meets all state and federal drinking water and discharge requirements, and it will be much softer and better-tasting once our two new deep wells are online. Our deep wells, with their high water quality, are in great condition and do replenish. The consultant the city hired to assess the deep wells reported that he finds no sustainability problems at “current usage levels.”
We will not lose our Sacramento River water rights. They are secure for at least the next 40 years. We need to focus on paying off our expensive new wastewater treatment plant. We have time to pursue rational regional options.
Two small rural towns cannot afford to build an entirely separate water system. Staff did not level with the council about regional options back in 2002 – we were told they didn’t exist when, in fact, they did. Recently, West Sacramento made us a far less expensive offer for the same quantity of permanent surface water that we would be getting from the Woodland project, but the Davis City Council then denigrated the quality of West Sacramento water and demanded ozone treatment.
West Sacramento uses the same water treatment system used by the vast majority of Americans and by every other city in the northern Central Valley. Publicly impugning the quality of their water was, understandably, death to the current round of negotiations for a sensible regional solution.
If you want to use scare tactics about West Sacramento’s perfectly safe water, let’s talk about the risk that the state Department of Public Health is actually concerned about, i.e., the fact that the Woodland wastewater treatment plant with its airborne pathogens is too close to the planned Woodland drinking water treatment plant. We can mitigate the risk of this foolish planning error, but we cannot eliminate it.
We need to change course and negotiate in good faith for a long-term regional infrastructure plan. Again, there is no urgency and we have the time.
Costs Higher Than Stated
Costs to the homeowner of the Woodland/Davis project will be far, far higher than council and staff have acknowledged. We will have among the very highest sewer/water/garbage costs in the state when rates are ramped up to reflect full project costs in seven or eight years. Current projections, which vastly underestimate costs to the homeowner, also only cover the first five years of the needed increases. Costs will end up much higher. Two of the three companies in the bidding process dropped out after hearing the new “lower” project cost projections. (One has since rejoined the process.) That should tell us something about the promised costs of the project.
To make matters worse, the council has shifted costs dramatically to existing homeowners by basing the rates on summer usage. In other words, people who must irrigate their lawns will pay much more per gallon year-round, and large apartment owners and businesses will pay less per gallon year-round.
This shift of costs to the homeowner has not been fully accounted for in the homeowner rate projections. The council has promised that our water/sewer rates will be “about average” for the state after this project is completed. Again, that is not true; our rates will be among the highest in the state.
I can’t address the stunning amount of misinformation that has been disseminated by the city within the space constraints of this short piece, so I would like to focus briefly on a few of the aspects of the inevitable cascade of deleterious consequences that likely will follow if the Woodland/Davis project proceeds.
Down The Road
The city of Davis cannot afford to pay its municipal irrigation bills if this project goes through. Legally, the city must pay for its water out of our deficit-ridden general fund. So the city is planning to opt out of the system and rely on its own shallower wells for municipal irrigation.
When the city opts out, the overwhelming burden of the costs of paying for the project and the existing city water structure will shift even more heavily to existing homeowners due to the summer-based water usage rate structure that penalizes the use of water for landscape irrigation.
In response to the punishing rates for those who must irrigate, El Macero is also talking about opting out and using its own wells for irrigation. The university has opted out, as has its West Village housing project. Just as the city has the legal right to opt out and use private wells for irrigation, so do private landowners. This will further shrink our customer base and throw more of the cost back on existing homeowners.
And it will get worse. New subdivision developers are likely to separately pipe for irrigation and use their own shallow wells and gray water systems. This is feasible for large new subdivisions, but not for existing homeowners. The Hunt/Wesson site’s Cannery Park planned subdivision has a working well. Doubtless they, too, will opt out.
Additionally, I expect that aspiring large subdivision developers in the county, such as Angelo Tsakopoulos, who owns a huge tract of land between Davis and the Yolo Bypass, will not only use their own shallow/intermediate well irrigation systems, but could even push to join West Sacramento’s system instead of ours, since it is so much less expensive.
Ironically, this replumbing of irrigation from private shallower wells will increase subsidence risk, since the subsidence threat from shallow wells is greater than subsidence risk of deep aquifer wells.
As a result of our extraordinarily high water costs, our customer base that must pay for the new project will contract rather than grow, and new development on the periphery and in the county will be lush and green with affordable water for irrigation while existing Davis will become exorbitantly expensive, brown and dry.
The Train We Want To Miss
We have heard that we must proceed because “the train is leaving the station” and we will have to pay more in the future if we don’t jump on the train now. This is silly. If we miss this train, we will thank our lucky stars because this train destined to crash.
If we pull the plug on this ill-conceived project, chances are that Woodland will join us in working with West Sacramento to build a sensible regional project with economies of scale and with rational utilization of existing facilities that have excess capacity.
And if Woodland is foolish enough to “go it alone,” then the city of Davis will be in an extraordinarily strong negotiating position down the road. We will be flanked by two cities with excess capacity competing to incorporate us in order to bring down their own costs.
Sue Greenwald was a member of the Davis City Council from 2000 to 2012. She served as mayor from 2006-08.
“We have heard that we must proceed because “the train is leaving the station”
Another boondoggle like the California bullet train?
“If we pull the plug on this ill-conceived project, chances are that Woodland will join us in working with West Sacramento to build a sensible regional project.” Sue Greenwald
“Opponents of Measure I fear the cost of the Woodland-Davis project and urge Davis to reconsider a plan to purchase treated water from West Sacramento. They argue that Woodland will not be able to build its plant alone and will come running back to us for help, and that a deal with West Sac will work itself out somehow. Both of these are dangerous conjectures with no proof. Based on these and many other reasons, the WAC and the council discarded the West Sac option as not viable, even though it’s less expensive. We agree.” The Davis Enterprise endorsement of Measure I
Sue has sounded the alarm that this project was coming and it would be expensive for decades. However, she did nothing to set aside reserves to pay for it and make it less of an impact on citizens. Delay, defer, delay, has been her only strategy as it is now.
Is waiting for Woodland and West Sac to build their excess capacity, figuring they’ll then underbid each other to dump their surplus on Davis, really a responsible strategy? What would we do if one or both decide that we’re not worthy to be rewarded for our uncooperative behavior? Then, we’re stuck with high priced water or no water and the need to build our own system.
As Sue and many No on I people rightly argue the project is too expensive for the cities of Davis and Woodland, and particularly for the latter. As a few have dared to argue, it would be dangerous for Davis to enter into a partnership with a city that, as the recent Moody’s downgrade put it with polite understatement, has “below average assessed value and resident wealth.” Still this was dismissed by all on the Measure I side as a scare tactic and at best providing a very general and notional assessment of Woodland’s financial weakness.
Recently members of the No on Measure I team have acquired data that show compellingly the burden the financial stress that Woodland ratepayers are under. The data below was obtained by a member of our team from a Finance Specialist with the City of Woodland (If he so wants I will forward the email sent by the Woodland staff person to David). The data reveals a dramatic increase in the number water utility shutoffs in Woodland since the 2007-08 financial year.
NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL WATER SHUT OFFS IN WOODLAND IN THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS
(Except for the fiscal year July 08-July 09 there is no shut off data for the month of December)
July 07 to June 08 871 Shutoffs [Commercial shutoffs, 58]
July 08 to June 09 1077 Shutoffs [Commercial Shutoffs, 102]
July 09 to June 10 1789 Shutoffs (No data for two months) [Commercial shutoffs, 87]
July 10 to June 11 1702 shutoffs (No data for two months) [Commercial Shutoffs, 110]
July 11 to June 12 1624 shutoffs [Commercial Shutoffs, 110]
There are most likely three reasons for the skyrocketing rate of shutoffs: 1) The lingering, or not so lingering, effects of the 2007-08 recession/depression; 2) The fact that during this period water meters were installed in Woodland for the first time, and hence those who had been using water liberally and paying an “average rate” were hit with a rate based on their personal use and circumstances; 3) Increases that have taken place in Woodland water rates over the last few years, though of course these increases do not reflect anything like the extent of water increases Woodland ratepayers will have to bear in the near future.
But what matters is not why there has been a dramatic increase in Woodland’s water utility rate shutoffs, but the simple fact that there has been a very alarming increase. I ask any and all proponents of Measure I to tell us why these statistics do not constitute grounds for alarm, if not downright panic.
Does Davis really want to enter into a partnership with a city that has such a very fragile ratepayer income base? In my view, whatever the need for surface water, this would be, in the light of the above data, an act of almost unparalleled fiscal/financial irresponsibility.
Someone tell me if I am wrong: If Woodland was forced to default on all or part of its project payments Davis would truly face Hobson’s choice: 1) To cover Woodland’s payments for as long as necessary, and that might be an eternity 2) To abandon the project entirely after incurring huge costs.
Citizens of Davis you are on the cusp of making a very momentous and dangerous decision, and none more so than in your choice of partners for this project with all due respect to my friends in Woodland who anecdotally already feel great concern about the burden of their water rates and the decision of their city fathers.
Like Sue Greenwald, I would very much like to see a collaborative comprehensive conjunctive water use project that involves all of the major water users in our immediate vicinity including UCD, Davis, Woodland, and West Sacramento. Now Sue has assured me that this is possible. The problem is, she has not offered any specific suggestion on how this might come to pass. And this is after, as she points out, 12 years on our city council.
What is troubling to me is that this is typical of the opponents of Measure I. They are very definite about ” we don’t need and can’t afford it, but extremely vague on “what do you propose instead ( with numbers please)?’.
So let’s look at her letter for assertions with actual evidence vs merely suggestions based on her wishes:
1) We do not need this particular project at this time.
True if you are limiting your conversation only to 2013.
Not true if your timeline extends to future years and you do not like the idea of just passing the costs of
more expensive water on to our children.
2) Our water is clean and healthy.
True, but not an issue, since no one is suggesting otherwise. Nice distraction, Sue.
3) The expert the city hired to assess the deep wells reported that he finds no sustainability problems at
“current usage levels”.
True as far as it goes. And maybe one of the most telling of Sue’s comments. It is a huge assumption as
Don has pointed out that all wells will be able to maintain full functioning capacity indefinitely or that
there will not be increased usage levels at some unknown time in the future. Nice way to block growth by
limiting water availability though.
4) Staff did not level with the council about regional options back in 2002.
A curious statement that Sue has made again and again.
Reworded, we might interpret this to mean that city council members in 2002,
( when both Sue and Mike Harrington were on the council) did not diligently investigate options available to
them. If they feel that options were not fully pursued at that time, might not this be coloring their
view of the efforts and actions of the current council who can hardly be blamed for not examining all
options both through their own efforts and those of the WAC ? Might we not be seeing a little projection of
their own perceived failures on to the current council ?
5) Costs higher than stated.
I await your projected costs for your suggested alternative.
6) Down the Road
Again and again you have made a point in this paragraph that homeowners “have to” irrigate their lawns.
As a previously relatively oblivious homeowner who did over water her lawn ( I am sorry, I have stopped)
I can tell you that homeowners do not “have to irrigate their lawns”. Most lawns will survive with much less
water than the owner applies. There are many other attractive options
for landscaping that are far more responsible in terms of water usage. This is a choice, not a necessity and
anyone can choose to water less which will be far better ultimately for our environment for many reasons
all of which Don has pointed out specifically in past postings. Bottom line for me on this is, if you choose to
use water for discretionary uses, you should pay for it.
So despite the fact that 8 of 10 of the members of the WAC, and all of our elected council members, as well as many, many of the best informed members of our community favor this project, Sue has decided that on the basis of her personal preferences, bereft of any specific suggestions backed by even projected costs we should just trust her and Mike Harrington on this issue which should have been being actively addressed by them
11 years ago. From my point of view, the time Sue and Mike should have been rigorously addressing all of these issues has come and gone. I feel you two had your chance, squandered it , and now are attempting to confuse, frighten, demean and smear your way into blocking a much needed project. If you have a specific
alternative, please, please put it forward since I am well aware that this option is not perfect. If you have a better option, now is the time to put it forward for consideration. If you don’t, please stop obstructing what our currently elected folks unanimously,after putting in all of the effort you requested, think is best, through what are at best vague, devious, and in some cases reprehensible and unsubstantiated claims about the motives of others.
“Just as the city has the legal right to opt out and use private wells for irrigation, so do private landowners. This will further shrink our customer base and throw more of the cost back on existing homeowners.”
Sure ’nuff. Don’t know that I understand how the city would have “private wells” or that using city wells for park irrigation is “oping out” of the city water system. But, I like the idea of exercising my legal right. Will drilling my own well, treating my own water supply, etc. be a practical, cost-effective way to compete with the city system? Any special rules to follow or permits needed? But, my neighbors and i wouldn’t want to jeopardize the aquifer with our wells.
“Both of these are dangerous conjectures with no proof.”
The mutually contradictory public statements that came out of the Woodland Council that they have more than enough projected revenue under the current rate plan to pay for the plant themselves and then later, in a different argument context, that they would need to return to the Woodland taxpayer with another Prop 18 vote demonstrates that Woodland is hoping that the strategy of throwing “scare tactic” arguments against the wall and seeing what sticks(a colorful description of desperate courtroom legal arguments when holding a weak hand) will intimidate the Davis voters. You can be sure that if they had amble funds to build the plant themselves, they would be doing so.
[quote]the recent Moody’s downgrade[/quote]
Woodland’s bond rating is AA-, which is investment grade.
[quote]The data reveals a dramatic increase in the number water utility shutoffs in Woodland[/quote]
The information presented on water service disconnections is not especially helpful without context. How does this compare to other cities, for example? How many new connections were made over the same period? The shut-offs in this data include my house and three of my neighbors…we all purchased foreclosures during that time and have been busy restoring and improving our houses since we bought them. My neighborhood is currently experiencing a mini real estate boom, with many houses now selling for prices 30 to 40 percent higher than at the bottom of the housing bust. This does not seem like a city in decline.
[quote]…increases that have taken place in Woodland water rates over the last few years, though of course these increases do not reflect anything like the extent of water increases Woodland ratepayers will have to bear in the near future. [/quote]
As has been pointed out many times on this blog, in the Enterprise, and at the Davis water forum, Woodland has been fiscally responsible by starting to increase rates in 2009. As a result, the “sticker shock” to our rate payers has been lessened, and our rate increases will level out to about the rate of inflation after the project comes online.
[quote]…my friends in Woodland who anecdotally already feel great concern about the burden of their water rates and the decision of their city fathers. [/quote]
While our City Council is ultimately responsible for approving water rate changes, the Woodland Water Utility Advisory Committee had substantial input into the amount, structure, and timing of our most recently-approved water rates. Our committee membership is representative of the community and we welcome public input. BTW, Martie Dote was on the council when the last rates were approved, so the decision was made by our city fathers and mothers…..
Herman wrote:
[quote]I ask any and all proponents of Measure I to tell us why these statistics do not constitute grounds for alarm, if not downright panic. [/quote]
Before I resort to panic (or even alarm), I would like to understand better what these numbers mean. Are you suggesting that people are simply unable to pay their bills and having their water shut off while they remain in their homes? How does this data track with foreclosures (or other processes by which people simply leave their homes)? For the commercial shutoffs (fairly constant) how do these numbers differ from the normal business churn that leads to businesses closing (and thus, having the water shut off)?
I see nothing here that suggests that your assertion that Davis is about to enter into a partnership with “a city that has such a very fragile ratepayer income base”. We know that Davis has been shielded, like very few central valley cities, from the worst of the foreclosure mess. Woodland has not bee so lucky. So in order to evaluate your call to be alarmed, I would like to see data from comparable towns throughout the valley during this period. Also, it looks like the shutoffs are trending down slightly in recent years.
Also, while Woodlands rates will continue to rise, it is also true that Woodland, unlike Davis, has already started raising rates over each of the past three years if I am not mistaken. So, the future increases, relative to Davis’ are likely to be less.
On a different note–is El Macero really considering developing its own water system (-)rilling wells, constructing a water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant):-? Would the city approve the Cannery project if the developer proposed using the site’s wells (again, creating their own water treatment facilities)? I find that hard to believe but perhaps someone can help me out. I have a hard time believing the City would allow such a project to go forward.
Due to inflation isn’t it a fair assumption that the most recently completed system in the state should have near the highest unit cost? When Berryessa was built it was expensive now after 50 years that water is cheap.
I spoke with Brett Lee the other day and my interpretation of what he told me was that in an ideal world we would have raised our rates a number of years ago in anticipation of doing the project to reduce the borrowing costs and even out the economic impacts over time. By doing nothing to plan for surface water and opposing every proposal every inch of the way Sue will have no one but herself to blame for any increases she considers onerous.
Sue claims our water is safe but I wonder if she drinks it unfiltered from the tap?
I would like to know the simple facts comparing the fixed costs of building the Woodland-Davis plant and infrastucture compared to the fixed costs of the pipe connection from West Sac to Davis. My guess is that, while the bottom line cost of both projects are claimed to be near the same, the percentage of fixed cost vs cost of water differs significantly. The West Sac Option is still cheaper; probably significantly cheaper since the calculations are based upon the non-negotiated West Sac FIRST-OFFER compared to the “low-ball” Davis-Woodland project estimates proposed by the Woodland-Davis project proponents. The reluctance to go ahead with a contract based upon those Woodland-Davis project numbers , by the for-profit international water corporations(too great a risk was their position), clearly demonstrates the “inaccurate” low-ball nature of these estimates.The need to set homeowner water rates based upon maximim summer water use is not a strong argument when you are trying to pay off the relatively small fixed costs of a conduit pipe from the West Sac plant to Davis.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”We will have among the very highest sewer/water/garbage costs in the state when rates are ramped up to reflect full project costs in seven or eight years.”[/i]
To put this highly speculative point into perspective, go to the 2011 CA-NV Rate Water Rate Survey ([url]”http://joekrovoza.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CA-NV-2011-Water-Rate-Survey.pdf”[/url]) Page 12 shows the 2011 water rates rankings. Yolo County is at $34.00, which is exactly the Davis value. Yolo County is 18th lowest out of 51 counties. Said another way, in 2011 we were in the bottom 35%.
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/CA-NV-2011-Water-Rate-Survey_zpsffc3e6af.jpg[/IMG]
Let’s put the table at the bottom of Page 10 that shows the two year 2009-2011 increases into perspective.
1) The 5-year cost increase for Davis if Measure I fails will be 88% (about 15% per year given the half year from 5/1/13 to 12/31/13).
2) Virtually all water districts will be experiencing similar cost increases because of the issues covered in the Kennedy-Jenks 2010 System Optimization plan (see [url]http://public-works.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF/PW/Water/Documents/Davis-Water-Distribution-System-Optimization-Plan-Report.pdf[/url]
3) One final factor that will be putting upward pressure on rates at all California agencies is depicted in the chart below — revenue erosion due to: A) conservation, and B) the economic downturn. [u]All agencies need to raise their rates to eliminate the deficits they are currently incurring[/u].
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/OWASAWaterSales_zps89c232d1.jpg[/IMG] Experts who can confirm the budgetary crisis for water agencies in California can be contacted at the Department of Water Resources’ Office of Statewide Water Resource Planning.
Finally it is worth noting that Davis had a 0.0% water rate increase from 2011 to present. We probably will drop to #15 in the 2013 survey when it comes out.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”We will not lose our Sacramento River water rights. They are secure for at least the next 40 years.”[/i]
Based on my personal meeting at the State Water Resources Control Board last year (thanks to Sue’s very good suggestion), I agree with this statement. The Yes On I message should drop this issue from their arguments . . . if they haven’t already done so.
” By doing nothing to plan for surface water and opposing every proposal every inch of the way Sue will have no one but herself to blame for any increases she considers onerous.”
It is quite amazing how the name of “Sue Greenwald” sets some into a frenzy. The above statement is totally without foundation. Anyone who had followed Council meetings witnessed, again and again, Councilperson Greenwald attempting to get hard facts about the plans for the Woodland-Davis project. ALL attempts were stonewalled by Mr. Weir, then Public Works Director, when he appeared to give “informational” material to the Council. The Saylor Council Majority was adamant and often abusive in their attempts to silence Councilerson Greenwald’s public questioning of Mr. Weir. At each attempt to get facts on the record, the voters were reassured that this was all just “information” and no decisions had been made. Then, of course, over the Xmas vacation, the Council voted(Saylor’s vote carrying the day) to proceed and we were told that “the horse had already left the barn” and there was no way to stop it.
Herman said . . .
[i]”Someone tell me if I am wrong: If Woodland was forced to default on all or part of its project payments Davis would truly face Hobson’s choice: 1) To cover Woodland’s payments for as long as necessary, and that might be an eternity 2) To abandon the project entirely after incurring huge costs.”[/i]
Actually Herman you are 100% wrong. California law is written to 100% prevent the scenario you describe. The finances of “Enterprise Funds” like water must be isolated from and insulated from the General Fund. Anything that goes on in Woodland’s General Fund can not and will not affect the revenues that flow into their water department and then on to the bond issuers as debt service payments.
California passed those Enterprise Fund laws to ensure that life sustaining services like the provision of water could not be interrupted.
Davesite 2
I feel that your comment is probably representative of Sue Greenwald’s most recent efforts to obtain more information. However, you have made no comment dating back to 2002 when both she and MIke Harrington were on the city council and were still somehow “unable to get accurate information” or influence a responsible policy of raising rates gradually to lessen the impact of costs that I am sure they were aware would be rising to acquire water, regardless of the source.
I agree the horse left the barn in the 1990’s Sue could have worked to make the plan better, cheaper and financed partially in advance. Instead she chose the path of belligerent obstruction she is the last person who should be complaining because of the failure to prepare for the future.
Wouldn’t we be paying- as-you-go for the water volume purchased from West Sac and the amount of debt incurred to pay for plant/infrastructure cost much less? While the bogus comparison project numbers still favor the West Sac option, when taking into consideration, the debt service which raises the Woodland-Davis project cost to near 1/4 BILLION dollars, the West Sac option appears to be overwhelmingly the less expensive option.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”And if Woodland is foolish enough to “go it alone,” then the city of Davis will be in an extraordinarily strong negotiating position down the road. We will be flanked by two cities with excess capacity competing to incorporate us in order to bring down their own costs.”[/i]
This too is at best a [u]highly speculative[/u] point.
Since Woodland does not have a deep aquifer under its geography they are faced with the daunting prospect that the only alternative they have that will allow them to comply with their looming 2016 “Permit Cliff” is to come up with a water source for potable water that is different from their intermediate aquifer wells. Therefore, if Davis says no to Measure I, Woodland will have only two alternatives:
A) Pay the $3,000 mandatory minimum fine for each wastewater discharge violation beginning in 2016. That will probably start at $9,000 to $12,000 per day, and escalate upward from there, or
B) Proceed with an 18 mgd surface water plant. The only way that they can afford to do that is to scale back the size of the River Intake to 18 mgd, the raw water pipes to 18 mgd, the treatment plant to 18 mgd and the treated water pipes to 18 mgd.
What does that “permit cliff” reality do to Davis’ negotiating position with Woodland after they have built and come live on their scaled down 18 mgd intake, raw water pipeline, treatment plant solution. Where will the excess capacity that Sue refers to be? Woodland simply won’t have any capacity other than the capacity they are using themselves.
If Davis has no Woodland alternative that leaves us with the prospects of negotiating with West Sac. Will we be in an extraordinarily strong negotiating position? Do you think that West Sac will be eager to make a Davis-friendly deal if they know that Davis has no alternative other than West Sac? I won’t even answer that rhetorical question.
Restating the words of Sue’s statement, “If Woodland is foolish enough to ‘go it alone,’ then the city of Davis will be in an extraordinarily weak negotiating position down the road. We will be flanked by two cities, one with no excess capacity and the other with a ton of negotiating leverage over us. No one will be competing to incorporate us in order to bring down their own costs.”
Sue Greenwald
[quote]We will have among the very highest sewer/water/garbage costs in the state when rates are ramped up to reflect full project costs in seven or eight years.” [/quote]
You have made this statement repeatedly. However, what you have not ever stated is what you believe is a reasonable cost for delivery of these services given the unique circumstances that apply to providing these services to our particular community. Could it be that there are unique situations that pertain to our community and it’s previous choices that mean that we “should” now have amongst the highest costs because of previous failures to plan ahead ? Or are their other contributing factors that contribute to making our services cost more for implementation, maintenance….?
As a twelve year city council member ( and I sincerely thank you for your time in this thankless position) I feel that you are in a very good position to have assessed these issues over time. So what I am asking for is data,
not speculation and comparison with other communities whose circumstances may or may not bear any likeness to our own.
Specifically, how much do you think would be an acceptable amount of money over all to provide water for
Davis through conjunctive use ( which you have stated will eventually be necessary) ? How do you think that rates should be increased to cover this cost ? Do you see other sources of revenue to cover these costs as an option ? Please specify how much if any of these costs would be born by the other entities that you state will be happy to partner with us in the future ( UCD, Woodland, West Sac.)
Again, if you have a proposal you consider better, please, state the specifics.
Or as a fellow poster would say ” Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” I am sorry for taking your saying fellow poster, but this seemed to be a very appropriate place for your frequently posted comment.
[quote]”We will have among the very highest sewer/water/garbage costs in the state when rates are ramped up to reflect full project costs in seven or eight years.”[/quote]Sue, what are you using for figures to compare? Do you use the same types of assumptions that Davis is using to get to 2020??
We, apparently, know what our projections are for eight years out either with our project or with no project. (Although Matt’s charts and graphs are so exhaustive they exhaust me before I can get to comfortable conclusions.)
With respect to Davis Waste Removal’s contract, I’ve tended to think for years the apparent lack of competition might have us paying higher rates than other cities have. But, I could be wrong. Maybe our past councils have kept these rates lower by comparison to other cities.
Herman said . . .
[i]”But what matters is not why there has been a dramatic increase in Woodland’s water utility rate shutoffs, but the simple fact that there has been a very alarming increase. I ask any and all proponents of Measure I to tell us why these statistics do not constitute grounds for alarm, if not downright panic. “[/i]
Excellent question Herman, and I thank you for digging in and getting that objective data and sharing it with everyone.
My own personal thoughts are that the number of shutoffs is a useful piece of data, but it isn’t anywhere near as meaningful as the loss of revenue that those shutoffs represent for the water agency. During that same 2007 through 2012 time period, Davis has seen the following annual erosion of its variable revenue
2007 to 2008 = 4.1%
2008 to 2009 = 10.6%
2009 to 2010 = 6.5%
2010 to 2011 = 3.8%
Extrapolating those declines Davis would effectively have the following shutoff numbers
2007 to 2008 = 667 shutoffs
2008 to 2009 = 1739 shutoffs
2009 to 2010 = 1069 shutoffs
2010 to 2011 = 624 shutoffs
The other question we have to ask is “What was the reason for each shutoff?” Woodland has clearly been hit much harder by the housing collapse than Davis has been. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a huge proportion of the Woodland shutoffs are in upside down houses. When you walk away from your home, you also walk away from its water supply. So until we know what the effect is of Woodland’s shutoffs on their revenue stream, then I am not inclined to draw too many conclusions.
To David, Matt and Robb (and other DV advisory committee group):
I respectfully ask that you consider a DV policy requiring any author on the DV of an article agree to be ‘on alert’ the day of the article to post replies to the often many posters who pose questions of the author. David does but few of the non-Davids do. Today is just one example of the author not wishing or not available to address the many posters’ questions. I am not singling out Sue,it is common with all and think it damages the DV.
A blog should be a vehicle for thoughts and opinions, a safe place to pose questions and focused disagreements to what has been said.
I think our DV achieves this, BUT would be much stronger if the above were adopted. Thanks for listening.
SODA: like some of the other articles in the last few weeks, this is a copy of an op-ed which will also appear in the Enterprise tomorrow. I think it is very unlikely that Sue will reply to any of the comments here.
Sue, Why and even how would West Sac become part of a 3 way regional water project partnership when they already have there own but it is not large enough to accommodate the needs of itself, Davis and Woodland?
sorry Don, am sure you are a member also….
Well, another of my earlier suggestions was to cite an article when it was published elsewhere….still not happening. Would make things clearer.
And still do not see why it couldn’t be a request or requirement. Not to have the author respond, to me, defeats the purpose of a blog (or at least one important purpose). You don’t agree?
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”I would like to know the simple facts comparing the fixed costs of building the Woodland-Davis plant and infrastucture compared to the fixed costs of the pipe connection from West Sac to Davis. My guess is that, while the bottom line cost of both projects are claimed to be near the same, the percentage of fixed cost vs cost of water differs significantly. The West Sac Option is still cheaper; probably significantly cheaper since the calculations are based upon the non-negotiated West Sac FIRST-OFFER compared to the “low-ball” Davis-Woodland project estimates proposed by the Woodland-Davis project proponents.”[/i]
Good question d2. Here are the simple facts that were presented to the WAC.
[b]Alternative 2c: 12 mgd Davis-Only West Sacramento Alternative [/b]
$___ 309,000 — Agency Administration
$___ 000,000 — Program Management
$_2,258,000 — Environmental and Permitting
$_1,506,000 — Land/RW Acquisitions
$____ 37,000 — Capital Contingency
$13,499,000 — Engineering, Legal and Administrative
____________ — Construction
$___417,000 — Intake (includes 30% contingency)
$__ 000,000 — Raw Water Pipeline
$14,053,000 — Water Treatment Plant (includes 30% contingency)
$43,790,000 — Davis Treated Water Pipeline (includes 35% contingency)
___________ — In-Line Booster Pump Station (includes 40% contingency)
$_3,476,000 — Costs Expended (Sept. 2009 – June 2011)
$14,656,000 — Local Facility Costs
[u]$19,400,000 — West Sacramento Connection Fee [/u]
$113,401,000 — Total
[b]DWWSP Option A, WAC Alternative 4b: 30 mgd DWWSP Project w/ozone; Woodland: 18 mgd, Davis: 12 mgd [/b]
$_1,710,000 — Agency Administration
$_1,650,000 — Program Management
$_2,850,000 — Pre-Design
$__ 380,000 — Water Supply
$__ 770,000 — Environmental & Permitting
$2,000,000 — Land/RW Acquisitions
$3,510,000 — Capital Contingency
$1,450,000 — Permit Fees & Construction Counsel
___________ — Construction
___________ — Design, CM, Eng. Services During Const., etc.4
$_5,760,000 — Intake Facility Construction
$10,470,000 — Raw Water Pipelines Construction
$42,860,000 — Regional Water Treatment Facility Construction
$22,240,000 — Davis Treated Water Pipeline Construction
$_3,476,000 — Costs Expended (Sept 2009 – June 2011)
[u]$14,655,000 — Local Facility Costs [/u]
$113,781,000 — Total
Note: the total amount of Risk Contingency in the West Sac total is $12,879,248. The total amount of Risk Contingency in the Woodland/Davis total is $16,525,333.
In addition to those capital cost numbers (which fall into the fixed cost category), the annual variable costs as presented to the WAC on October 18th by Carollo Engineers and Bartle Wells (totaled over the 2012 through 2021 period) were $44,558,000 for the West Sac option and $46,746,000. At that time I believe the Woodland/Davis split was still 54/46. If it was the $46,746,000 would come down to $41,993,000.
So the fixed costs of the two most recent “deals” are virtually identical . . . as are the variable costs.
Sue, why do you believe apartments are subsidized by the current proposed CBFR rate structure? They are set to be charged a hefty fixed rate by meter/pipe size, they are set to pay the same amount per ccf in the variable consumption category, and their supply charge rates are based on the same criteria and cost per ccf?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”To make matters worse, the council has shifted costs dramatically to existing homeowners by basing the rates on summer usage. In other words, people who must irrigate their lawns will pay much more per gallon year-round, and large apartment owners and businesses will pay less per gallon year-round.”[/i]
This statement isn’t speculative, it is [u]flat out inaccurate[/u].
Here’s a calculation that will no doubt make some people’s eyes glaze over . . . but it clearly shows how wrong Sue’s assertion is. NOTE: For those who do want to step through the numbers I have adjusted the actual cost numbers to hypothetical levels in order to make them easy to follow (and multiply and divide). 8>)
If the water system’s annual mortgage payment for the whole system’s supply components (all the wells, the two storage tanks and the 12 mgd of surface water) is $3 million. What proportion of that $3 million is paid for by Single Family Residences if you use the summer peak values to allocate the $3 million?
The answer is $1,692,135. The way you get that is to divide the Single Family Residence peak consumption by the total system peak consumption and then multiply that by the $3 million. (1,723,219 ccf divided by 3,055,110 ccf times $3 million)
If you use annual consumption to calculate your proportions the answer is $1,692,135. The way you get that is to divide the Single Family Residence annual consumption by the total system consumption and then multiply that by the $3 million. (2,530,612 ccf divided by 4,549,938 ccf times $3 million)
So the assertion that using summer peak makes all the homeowners’ bill go up is simply wrong. The $25,576 difference ($1,692,135 minus $1,692,135) represents a 1.4% increase for the Single Family Residences as a group . . . and I can guarantee you that virtually 100% of that $25,576 comes from homes that are outside the City limits.
So as I said above [u]Sue is flat out wrong[/u] when she asserts that “the council has shifted costs dramatically to existing homeowners.”
As John Adams once said “Facts are Stubborn Things.” I am amazed that some people on this list can so lightly dismiss the Woodland utility water shutoff statistics that I provided on this blog earlier today. No, I don’t have comparative data. Attempts to get similar data from the City of Davis have been ignored for over a month. To get this data from Woodland took a lot of work, and I am not going to spend umpteen hours trying to get comparable data from other Central Valley cities especially when this data would be of very limited use.
The fact remains that in most years since 2007-08 the number of residential water utility shutoffs has doubled or almost doubled. According to the 2010 Census there were 18,721 households in Woodland. During the most recent year for which we have data July 2011 to June 2012 there were 1,624 water utility shutoffs in Woodland. While allowance must be made for some duplication THAT MEANS THAT WATER WAS SHUT OFF AT ALMOST 9% OF WOODLAND HOUSEHOLDS DURING THAT YEAR.
If you do not find that sobering then wait till prospective contractors and lenders see this data when they examine their options.
As I stated previously, what matters is that this has happened and not why it has happened. But, if indeed as a couple of my critics suggest, the main reason for this doubling in water utility shutoffs is the increases in Woodland water rates 2009-12 then indeed my very point is made: increases in water rates place ALREADY burdensome demands on Woodland residents leading to what I would consider a high rate of non-payment of water bills.
Furthermore, are these critics seriously suggesting, as at least one of them seems to be, that Woodland has more or less inflicted all the pain that it is going to have to inflict on its water ratepayers? Of course not, there are much more substantial increases in the pipeline.
One critic of mine suggests that all will be well because housing prices have risen recently in some areas of Woodland by 30-40%. ALL THE MORE REASON TO BE ALARMED. Is this critics seriously suggesting that this reflects underlying and long lasting improvements in the real economy of Woodland? Has he or she ever heard of housing bubbles? Can he or she remember them? There is a lot of data statewide to show that the housing revival is due to very very low interest rates which will not continue indefinitely (as proponents of Measure I keep on telling us), and a significant proportion of the buyers are cash buyers—for that read speculators. I even know some in Woodland.
To my critic who says that in making its decision to support the JPA Woodland was an exemplar of participatory democracy, or words to that effect, I would only point out what a majority of Davis residents know: that regrettably, and for whatever reason, Woodland is not a city (as with many other, or most other, cities in California) where there is a history of serious citizen participatory democracy on any issue.
To Matt Williams: Please explain with a little data and a few citations how the California Enterprise Fund Law would let both Woodland and Davis off the hook if the burden of increased water rates was such on Woodland and its ratepayers that serious consideration had to be given to ceasing payments to the JPA project. Furthermore, even if this law guarantees, like an FDIC water for all, do we really want to go there Matt? And what about the suffering of Woodland ratepayers before we get to that point?
SODA: I do agree that it would be desirable if authors would participate in the followup discussions. Sue has been an active participant in discussions on the Vanguard in the past, but not since leaving office. Incidentally, I only know it’s going to be in the Enterprise tomorrow because I follow the Enterprise on Facebook. Note: I am not a member of the editorial board of the Vanguard; I’m just the moderator here.
I have suddenly begun receiving ‘vanblogs’ emails every time someone posts on DV. How do I stop them. I do not want them!
SODA, perhaps you checked the “Subscribe via email” box be mistake? If so, hope that this story dies out soon.
Don, SODA and David: I concur that author identifications and other basic information (whether a reprinted article or excerpts or submitted for another publication and cc’ed in the DV, etc.) should be routinely included. Plus, links to every report, column, judgment and so on to which the Vanguard article refers. I’ve noticed this is being handled better and better recently.
SODA
I completely agree with you that it would be quite valuable for authors to be willing to back up their articles by answering posted questions. Because of people’s personal time constraints, to say nothing of personal preferences, I doubt there would be an effective means to make this mandatory ( except for the interns) but I do think it is a very good idea, and feel that discussing effective means of stressing the importance to contributors of being willing to engage in conversation with those who have posted questions or comments would be a legitimate issue for the advisory board to take up.
Herman,
It’s difficult to assess the importance of your statistics because we have nothing to compare them to. But I can tell you that a year or so ago there were about 1000 homes in Woodland in foreclosure, and presumably water had been shut off to many of those. Right now there are 274 in foreclosure (compared to 54 in Davis, which is about the same ratio I’ve observed over the last few years as I monitor Trulia.com). A foreclosed home gets the water shut off. Actually, any real estate agent can weigh in here, but I imagine in some cases water is shut off during escrow in a normal real estate transaction. I’ve seen that often enough that I call it ‘escrow blight’ — a gap in ownership where the lawn doesn’t get watered.
Herman – One does not become “one’s critics” for questioning one’s data. All that is going on here is an attempt by several of us to understand, in context, what these numbers mean. Without context it is difficult to judge the importance of a statistic or series of statistics. The questions posed here are attempts to understand what we are really seeing and whether or not that should cause us to be alarmed.
Here is an example: according to a study conducted by UC Davis, total trips into the downtown after Target was built dropped by 9% compared to before. Alone that would appear to be a sobering statistic but put next to the further statistic that visits out of town for shopping and to neighborhood shopping centers in Davis dropped by over 20% each in the same period provides context that might make me think differently about the initial one. I am NOT saying that the subsequent information means that the first is not alarming but context makes me think about it differently.
Further, you have already assumed some causal relationship between increases in water rates and the number of shut offs. However, your data provides no information on cause and actually tells me very little about the overall ability of Woodlanders to pay their water bills.
For these reasons I cannot agree with you that there is “REASON TO BE ALARMED”. You simply have not given me any evidence that these numbers should cause me concern. I am not your “critic” for raising these questions. I am merely trying to understand what they mean.
Herman said . . .
[i]”To Matt Williams: Please explain with a little data and a few citations how the California Enterprise Fund Law would let both Woodland and Davis off the hook if the burden of increased water rates was such on Woodland and its ratepayers that serious consideration had to be given to ceasing payments to the JPA project.”[/i]
Good question Herman. Enterprise Funds are not restricted to California. The mandate for creation of an Enterprise Funds is defined under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) as:
— budget and accounting units created for particular purposes, such as water and sewer or other self-sustaining operations, to separate the revenue and financial control of such operations from the municipality’s General Fund.
— independent fiscal and accounting entities with a self-balancing set of accounts for recording cash and other resources together with all related liabilities, obligations, reserves and equities that are segregated for the purpose of carrying on specific activities or attaining certain objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions or limitations.
— the operations of an Enterprise Fund are financed and conducted in a manner similar to operations of private business enterprises, where the intent of the governing body (the council) is to have the expenses (including depreciation) of providing goods or services on a continuing basis to the general public, financed or recovered primarily through charges to the user.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fund_accounting[/url]
[url]http://budget.dc.gov/glossary-of-terms[/url]
[url]http://www.fernleynews.com/submitted/EnterpriseFundDefined122307.html[/url]
[url]http://www.glendalewaterandpower.com/pdf/annual_reports/03-04/17.pdf[/url]
Herman said . . .
[i]”Furthermore, even if this law guarantees, like an FDIC water for all, do we really want to go there Matt? And what about the suffering of Woodland ratepayers before we get to that point?”[/i]
Herman, you asked these last two questions for a reason. Can you help me understand what that reason is? I’m not sure how or why the protections that enterprise fund accounting provides will cause “suffering of Woodland ratepayers.”
Hey there Yes on I People: Sue has not been posting today because she has need down at the Farmers Market all morning getting NO votes. So while you folks have been circling, waiting, posting, hoping she was going to show up so you could pounce, she was down there winning the election.
The FM was crazy busy this morning, all the way past 1 pm. Lots of voters seeking information.
This election is different than any I have seen before, and after the election, I would be happy to sit down for an interview with the DV and the Yes on I Campaign leadership and debrief, if you all would find that interesting.
Is DC TV going to do an Election Night show where the campaigns appear for the interview?
Maybe we could do a forum at DCTV on Election Night, with two from each campaign, and the DCTV moderator, and David Greenwald as hosts?
Just an idea …
Will Arnold, Campaign Manager for the Yes on I, and I had a good chat at the FM, and we both agree that March 6th is thankfully getting closer now.
The phone call poll had the No on Measure I at 11%. By looking around town and seeing all of the No signs on resident’s yards I’ve got to believe that they are way off.
Rusty: Yes was drinking the Koolaid when they did that poll.
Robb, you seem to think I was using the word “critic” as some pejorative term. No, I was simply trying to come up with a general or neutral term for those people who had posted views contrary to mine. So please don’t make so much of it.
I suggest three reasons why the Woodland water utility shut-off rate is high and do not think it is entirely due to the water rate increases there.. No, I do not have the comparative data which would be very hard to obtain—as I said Davis would not even give out its data when requested by us. Yes, it may be that not all utility shut-offs were due to financial hardship—foreclosures and non payment of utilities by renters, but to dismiss so cavalierly the notion that when 9% of households in a single year in one community is not suggestive of a weak economy and a weak ratepayer income base is I think absurd. Even Matt Williams concedes in an earlier post that this data could be at least suggestive of my case when he writes: “My own personal thoughts are that the number of shutoffs is a useful piece of data…”
Matt, thank you for the citations and information. I am aware that water bills are not paid by a city’s general funds. However, it is perfectly possibly to imagine, and it has happened before (Think the Great Depresion), a situation whereby a low to modest income community is so stretched by expenditures of one kind and another, and not just their water bills, that the revenue stream on which the general fund depends is deeply affected.
Hence, I assume this was part of the reason for the Moody’s downgrade. Indeed, the report rationale for the downgrade says as much. This scenario is all the more likely should we enter another recession/depression as serious as the 2007-08 one which were are still suffering from on many fronts. I know it is terribly un-American not to think in terms of “onwards and upwards” but you don’t have to read far into the financial literature or follow politics and the world economy closely to know that there are plenty of politicians, economists, and bankers on both sides of the political fence, and in countries on both sides of the Pacific and Atlantic that fret about this every day.
This is not an abstraction, this is something that happened a few years ago and is ongoing in countries like Greece and Ireland not to mention countries in the third world. Robb you sound like Herbert Hoover reincarnated. Don’t believe or argue something can’t happen because it does not suit your argument.
Matt you misunderstand my point made at the end of my last post through two questions. My point is quite simply that if huge increases in water rates could cause significant and widespread economic hardship to residents of Woodland (as I suggest they already are) and Davis, then we need to think in terms of a cheaper regional alternative project at such time as it is really necessary.
[i]Our water is clean and healthy, it meets all state and federal drinking water and discharge requirements…[/i]
At the moment.
[i]Our deep wells, with their high water quality, are in great condition and do replenish. [/i]
This has been contradicted by experts.
[i]West Sacramento made us a far less expensive offer … but the Davis City Council then denigrated the quality of West Sacramento water and demanded ozone treatment. … Publicly impugning the quality of their water was, understandably, death to the current round of negotiations for a sensible regional solution. [/i]
You have some evidence that West Sacramento declined our offer due to some kind of offensive comments by our councilmembers? My guess is the numbers just didn’t add up. That’s what the mayor of West Sac said.
[i]We need to change course and negotiate in good faith for a long-term regional infrastructure plan. [/i]
I was disappointed that Sue decided on three occasions during the forum to denigrate Joe and Brett. They did negotiate in good faith. There is no basis for a “regional infrastructure plan” because West Sac already has the capacity they need. The only regional plan will be with Woodland.
[i]… our rates will be among the highest in the state. [/i]
Probably not.
[i]The university has opted out, as has its West Village housing project. [/i]
No. The university is not participating in the construction as a partner. They will be customers of the project in a decade. They are bringing in surface water from Solano, using it for potable water, using the deep water for irrigation, and selling a small amount of excess capacity to the city. In order to protect the deep aquifer from over-use, their intention is to buy surface water from WDCWA.
[i]New subdivision developers are likely to separately pipe for irrigation and use their own shallow wells and gray water systems. [/i]
How will that be allowed? The city council controls the terms of development. Where would their salt-laden effluent go?
[i]Davis will become exorbitantly expensive, brown and dry. [/i]
Oh, nonsense. Just stop this ridiculous argument. Mark did this during the forum debate. You both know better, or you should, and I certainly do.
[i]We have heard that we must proceed because “the train is leaving the station” …[/i]
Only if we want to save money by partnering with Woodland. They are under the gun to get something operational by 2016. You know that.
[i]… chances are that Woodland will join us in working with West Sacramento to build a sensible regional project…[/i]
This is a complete fantasy.
[i]… the city of Davis will be in an extraordinarily strong negotiating position down the road. [/i]
The city of Davis will be in an incredibly weak negotiating position down the road. I cannot fathom where this argument comes from.
[quote] My guess is the numbers just didn’t add up. That’s what the mayor of West Sac said. [/quote]
Of all the data points on this question, Mr. Cabaldon’s statements hold the least water (so to speak) for me. The community of regional elected officials is a small one, and mutual backscratching is de rigueur. The recent Cabaldon statements strike me more as political favor than factual statement.
I still haven’t decided how I’ll vote on Measure I. I see potent arguments on both sides, as well as a lot of unhelpful political theater. The issues are complex and the ramifications profound, but so far I’m not compelled by either side. I’m in an unhappy quandary.
.
Jim, I’m sure Brett Lee or Joe Krovoza can tell you what the sticking points were with West Sac. They’re both quite approachable.
I keep wondering, as I read about ‘seriously negotiating’ and putting together a ‘regional project’ who exactly the opponents of Measure I think will do this. Every civic leader is supporting Measure I. Support for this surface water project is broader among public officials than I can remember for anything that’s gone before the voters.
So let’s say, for a moment, that the voters reject Measure I. Who is going to go over and sit down with West Sac and “seriously” negotiate? Are Mike Harrington and Sue Greenwald going to call together the leaders of Woodland and West Sac to discuss building a water project together? What kind of water project, where would the water come from, and with which city staff and elected officials would this be achieved?
Because I have watched as opponents of Measure I have denigrated staff, ridiculed elected leaders, and made insulting comments about the leadership of Woodland. If Measure I fails, what is our path forward, and who would be leading us on that path?
Herman said . . .
[i]”Matt you misunderstand my point made at the end of my last post through two questions. My point is quite simply that if huge increases in water rates could cause significant and widespread economic hardship to residents of Woodland (as I suggest they already are) and Davis, then we need to think in terms of a cheaper regional alternative project at such time as it is really necessary.”[/i]
Herman, my question about your last point wasn’t a case of my misunderstanding. I hadn’t even gotten that far. I was in a state of no understanding whatsoever. Thank you for clarifying.
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”I still haven’t decided how I’ll vote on Measure I. I see potent arguments on both sides, as well as a lot of unhelpful political theater. The issues are complex and the ramifications profound, but so far I’m not compelled by either side. I’m in an unhappy quandary.”[/i]
Welcome to the world of Decision-making Under Uncertainty Jim. I have felt like I was in that state during all 13 months of my WAC service.
The really frustrating part about it is that there appear to be substantial portions of the desired data points that will never be available, because in many cases they simply can not be determined.
It seems to be a Pascal’s Wager situation.
“I see potent arguments on both sides…” -Jim Frame
This is an odd comment from a guy making a living measuring things within inches. Everyone of the No On I campaign arguments has been debunked except for the argument that the Woodland/Davis project is going to be very expensive. Truth is, IT WILL BE VERY EXPENSIVE and so will any feasible alternative. As medwoman has rightly pointed out, Harrington and Greenwald have had a decade to show us a bettter alternative yet they have failed to do so. Their arguments all boil down to “trust me”. Well, guess what? Based on your last election results, we don’t trust you.
-Michael Bisch
Sorry I couldn’t follow all the discussion topics about the project. But I found an old question that was not answered. [Ref] ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6076:argument-for-the-woodland-davis-water-project-yes-on-measure-i&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83&cpage=30#comment-175474[/url]). I summarize in the following:
On page 16 of this ppt ([url]http://archive.cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-07-12-item4-draft-water-rates-presentation.pdf[/url]), on the row Ending Fund Balance, there is an increase from -3.9 to 26.0. That is an increase of 29.9 millions.
Q: Is this the design goal of the proposed rates?
Q: What is the purpose of this sum of money?
[img]http://skylet.net/docs/2013-02-17-2247-PresentationP16.png[/img]
Edgar Wai asked . . .
[i]Q: Is this the design goal of the proposed rates?
Q: What is the purpose of this sum of money? [/i]
Good questions Edgar. The answer to the first question is yes that is the design goal. The answer to the second question is that the bond holders require an agency to hold a certain amount of money in reserve so that you can pay the annual debt service from those reserves if the agency experiences an extended period of revenue erosion (like in the three year drought in the 1970’s when consumption was reduced to 33% of normal. The reason that the fund balance rises over time is that the amount of borrowing increases over time, and the bond holdrs requirement is a certain percentage of annual debt service.
BTW, that must be an old slide. The annual revenue requirements stream that you see in the top line first moved to the following at the 12/18/2012 Council meeting in what was later dubbed the “pay as you go” scenario.
2011/12 — $9,978,000
2012/13 — $9,978,000
2013/14 — $14,169,000
2014/15 — $17,711,000
2015/16 — $22,316,000
2016/17 — $25,017,000
2017/18 — $29,002,000
2018/19 — $29,002,000
2019/20 — $29,002,000
2020/21 — $29,002,000
2021/22 — $29,002,000
2022/23 — $29,002,000
2023/24 — $29,002,000
2024/25 — $29,002,000
2025/26 — $29,002,000
2026/27 — $29,872,000
2027/28 — $30,768,000
2028/29 — $31,691,000
2029/30 — $32,642,000
2030/31 — $33,621,000
2031/32 — $34,630,000
2032/33 — $35,669,000
2033/34 — $36,739,000
2034/35 — $37,841,000
2035/36 — $38,976,000
2036/37 — $40,145,000
2037/38 — $40,145,000
2038/39 — $40,145,000
2039/40 — $40,145,000
2040/41 — $40,145,000
2041/42 — $40,145,000
2042/43 — $40,145,000
2043/44 — $40,145,000
2044/45 — $40,145,000
2045/46 — $40,145,000
2046/47 — $40,145,000
2047/48 — $40,145,000
2048/49 — $40,145,000
2049/50 — $40,145,000
And then were changed to these numbers in the “All Debt” scenario approved by Council on 1/15/2013
2011/12 — $9,978,000
2012/13 — $9,978,000
2013/14 — $12,971,000
2014/15 — $16,214,000
2015/16 — $20,268,000
2016/17 — $21,889,000
2017/18 — $23,640,000
2018/19 — $24,822,000
2019/20 — $26,063,000
2020/21 — $27,366,000
2021/22 — $28,734,000
2022/23 — $29,596,000
2023/24 — $30,484,000
2024/25 — $31,399,000
2025/26 — $32,341,000
2026/27 — $33,311,000
2027/28 — $34,310,000
2028/29 — $35,339,000
2029/30 — $36,399,000
2030/31 — $37,491,000
2031/32 — $38,616,000
2032/33 — $39,388,000
2033/34 — $40,176,000
2034/35 — $40,980,000
2035/36 — $40,980,000
2036/37 — $40,980,000
2037/38 — $40,980,000
2038/39 — $40,980,000
2039/40 — $40,980,000
2040/41 — $41,800,000
2041/42 — $41,800,000
2042/43 — $41,800,000
2043/44 — $41,800,000
2044/45 — $41,800,000
2045/46 — $41,800,000
2046/47 — $41,800,000
2047/48 — $41,800,000
2048/49 — $41,800,000
2049/50 — $41,800,000