Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby told the Vanguard late Thursday that he does not understand the accusation made by Michael Harrington, in the Yolo Ratepayers press release, that the school district is not paying its water bills.
The press release stated: “Yolo Ratepayers reports that the rates proposed in the Proposition 218 notices will end up higher because the City and the Davis Joint Unified School District will find ways not to pay their share, which is assumed in the City’s proposed rate structure to be very substantial.”
That charge did not make it into the lawsuit itself, which charges, “The City of Davis knowingly helps itself to the value of 100% of the water used, which effectively illegally subsidizes the City’s General Fund and other departments within the City, to the detriment of the City’s ratepayers, including Plaintiffs.”
They add, “Senior representatives from the City of Davis candidly confirmed today in an email that ‘presently the City does not separately account for water used at City facilities,’ effectively admitting that the City is getting a free ride from ratepayers, including Plaintiffs, in contravention of Proposition 218.”
Late Thursday, city officials confirmed “it is absolutely untrue that the school district doesn’t pay.”
They did not know if it was lawful to release that information backing up that claim, because they had not determined whether or not they could release such information on a commercial account.
While they believed that information would be released Friday, as of press time on Saturday, the Vanguard has received no information substantiating the claim.
Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby told the Vanguard in a voicemail late on Thursday that he is unsure where Mr. Harrington got his information from.
“We get no special treatment as the school district,” Mr. Colby stated. “We’re just a commercial user of water. We have a rate schedule just like any other business in town.”
“We will be effected by the increased rates just like anybody else,” he said.
If Measure I passes, Mr. Colby told the Vanguard in a follow-up call on Friday, it is true that they will likely pay up to $160,000 in additional costs. However, Mr. Colby does not believe that will result in the loss of teachers or other personnel.
He said that they have projected those rate increases for several years now, and it would get factored in with other projected cost increases such as inflation. In the scheme of their multimillion dollar budget, it represents a small increase in the cost of doing business.
The city, perhaps, gets hit harder in this lawsuit.
City Attorney Harriet Steiner appears to acknowledge that the city does not track its use to the penny, but it does attempt to “offset its water usage costs by forfeiting costs the water division would owe to the general fund.”
“Presently the city does not separately account for water used at city facilities,” the city’s statement said. “[But] the city also does not charge the water division rent for its use of city park space where some wells are located, and the reimbursement of other city services and facilities is overdue for reconciliation and an update.”
“Over the past few years, the City Council has considered how to fund water used at city facilities in order to pay into the water enterprise fund and what is reasonable to charge for water division use of city park space and other city services and facilities.”
“Among other relief, the Yolo Ratepayers’ suit seeks a refund to Davis ratepayers of the funds that the City failed to pay for its own water use,” the press release charged. “Yolo Ratepayers reports that the City’s illegal conduct in overcharging Davis ratepayers for its own water use shows that the City cannot be trusted about any of the City’s claimed water needs and the validity of the proposed water rates. It was only through great effort that Yolo Ratepayers uncovered the City’s illegal overcharges to Davis ratepayers.”
As Bob Dunning writes, “We’re subsidizing the city’s water use.”
On the other hand, given the fact that the city operates from either taxpayer or ratepayer money, it is unclear how the taxpayers and ratepayers could do anything but that.
Columnist Bob Dunning wrote, “The lawsuit alleges that the city of Davis has for years not paid for its own water, which is indeed a clear violation of Prop. 218.”
“The charge is valid,” he proclaims. He writes, “The city admitted Wednesday that ‘presently the city does not separately account for water used at city facilities’ … the city further admitted that it doesn’t even know how much water is used annually.”
Mr. Dunning continues that a city official answered his question, stating, “The city recognizes the need to transition to a more formal accounting of revenues and expenses between the water enterprise and the city. Staff are installing and repairing water meters at all city facilities to measure the amount of water being used in order to accurately calculate the water bill to allow payment with the proper city funds.”
Mr. Dunning adds, “In other words, at this point nothing is in place to tell the city how much water it is using and very clearly ‘proper’ payment is not being made…”
As of the end of the day Friday, two days after the release of the press release and the filing of the lawsuit, no response was forthcoming from the city.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby told the Vanguard late Thursday that he does not understand the accusation made by Michael Harrington, in the Yolo Ratepayers press release that the school district is not paying its water bills.[/quote]
Mr Colby, meet Mr Harrington. Many of us cannot understand the many (unfounded) accusations made publicly by Mr Harrington. His modus operandi appears to consist of the following:
1. Launch a barrage (I use military language advisedly) of accusation and innuendo. Then, when countered with fact…
2. Choose silence, then repeat the barrage (or elements of it) and/or further accuse those of countering the barrage of personally attacking him. Then…
3. “Stand by” his initial barrage.
I suspect that in this case Mr Harrington will choose silence on his accusation about the School District but I cannot be sure.
Mr Colby, I want to be be clear that the little I know of Mr Harrington he is a nice man. He seems to care, like we do, about the City of Davis. He is approachable. His concerns for the city in which he lives are genuine. I have nothing against him personally.
But his approach to dealing with conflict and disagreement with others–his behavior–is destructive to community dialogue and to furthering the understanding and decision making with respect to complex issues.
I know for a fact that the school district pays for its water. It is in the district’s budget. But don’t expect an apology.
Mike Harrington may appear nice, but he turns on people if he suspects any disloyalty or disagreement, founded or not. What you observe in his public life is how he is. He really doesn’t care about the city. The political contests he involves himself in are just vehicles that provide him the attention and feeling of importance he craves.
Silence as a response to his attacks seems to be the best response. Anything else will only prompt more of the same from him.
“….rates proposed in the Proposition 218 notices
WILL end up higher because the City and the Davis Joint Unified School District WILL find ways not to pay their SHARE….”
The foundation for this article is a press release that does not appear to say that DJUSD is not paying for its water but rather about possible potential future ramifications. It also speaks about potential future SHARE OF rather than NO payment as the article title suggests.
It is still wrong.
For an allegedly “educated” electorate, seems like you guys give way too much credence and print space to some suede shoe salesman over there. Of course, it could be the arsenic and chromium VI in the water .
davisite2: correct. We have caught the city dead-on square in the headlights with taking over 10% of total city water supply without paying for it. And the City did this and certified its rate structure and implementation FOUR TIMES since the Sacramento case was file in Jan 2010. The City can spin this all kinds of ways, and they are, but we caught them using our ratepayer money in the water fund to subsidize their general fund.
As to the school district, they are looking at huge increases in their water bills until they get off the city potable water system.
When the Schools and the City irrigation systems are off the Davis potable water supply system, all of the rest of us are going to be paying for that gap.
But you know: the City TOLD all of us that it was paying for its water. It’s in the calculations, it’s in the WAC data.
Knowing this, the Yes on I people are going to trust the City to tell us the rest of it: the project is needed, it has to be this large, it has to be NOW, etc etc? If you vote Yes on I after what we learned about the city’s fraud on the water payments, I really have some sweet real estate to sell you … 10 miles due west of San Francisco.
Mike, seriously: who cares? You want the city to write itself a check for the water that the city produces and uses? What sense does that make? This lawsuit is just a stunt.
Michael, two days ago: [quote] “…the rate litigation is not about Measure I, or even specifically this project….”[/quote]Michael, today: [quote] “…the Yes on I people are going to trust the City to tell us the rest of it: the project is needed, it has to be this large, it has to be NOW, etc etc? If you vote Yes on I after what we learned about the city’s fraud on the water payments….”[/quote]Now that that is settled, please answer this long-pending question (sixth request): [quote]”MH: But, why do you say the things you do? For example, you still haven’t answered this old question: ‘Michael, given the evidence provided by Don Shor re. Sacramento River water quality and Davis Enophile’s geography lesson, why do you keep insisting that: ‘We believe strongly it’s (‘that dirty river water’ is) an issue, and will remain an issue’. ??????”[/quote]
And, (since John Munn doesn’t respond): [quote]”1.) Why did you file your lawsuit now rather than after the measure has been resolved? 2.) Who is in the “Yolo Ratepayers” organization and what is its purpose? 3.) Who is financing the suit? and 4) Will the new group be attempting to influence voting on the election?” [/quote]
Mike, The school district is a commercial customer and pays for its water. I know this to be a fact.
This lawsuit is 100% Mike. The other attorney he has roped into this is an attorney from So. Cal who specializes in aviation law, i suspect to help with expenses until the anticipated big settlement comes in.
This has gone too far.
I wonder how much water the City wastes. No working meters, no water bills, I’ll bet water has been flowing rather more freely at City sites than at other locations where someone has to pay the bill.
That brings to mind the mud field that is often the Community Park dog park, frequently over-watered.
eagle eye
[quote]I wonder how much water the City wastes. No working meters, no water bills, I’ll bet water has been flowing rather more freely at City sites than at other locations where someone has to pay the bill.[/quote]
Someone always has to “pay the bill”. The entity called “the City” both provides and uses water. Those of us who are local ratepayers and taxpayers pay this bill as individuals who benefit from our individual and “the
City’s” use of water. If we are aware of waste in the City, that should be directed to City officials to remedy just as we should point out non functioning street lights and road hazards. I do not see a bearing of this issue on
Measure I other than as David has pointed out, a political stunt with hopes of influencing people’s vote, not based on merit of the facts and issues, but rather on the supposed inadequacies of “the City”, of which by the way anyone who lives or owns a business here is a part either through our participation, our vote, or indirectly by our choice not to participate.
[b]On the need of meters:[/b]
I think if the City wants to pay for its water use, they don’t need to install meters at their sites, because the City should be paying for leakages also, so there only needs to be a meter as water leaves the treatment plant. If the City wants to install meters, I think the reason is to monitor issues of leakages and to monitor and reduce wasteful use. For the sake of paying the water use, the meters are not needed.
[b]On the effect of City paying the bills:[/b]
When the City pays for its water use, the source are mainly Property Tax and Sales Tax. If the City does not increase taxes, then the households and the firms will benefit.
Property Tax includes those paid by the businesses that don’t have water service, and those that were specifically designed to be water efficient in their irrigation. It would seem unfair to ask a business that does not irrigate to pay for the City’s irrigation. However, when the City spends money, whatever it spends on should be a common good. The City is not an entity that drinks the water for its own benefit, it is using the water for the betterment of the community. For this reason, it is fair to use the general city revenue to pay for the water.
A ratepayer would pay for his water use through the water bill, and cover a fraction of the water used by the city through property tax, sales tax, and others. A non-ratepayer does not have a water bill to pay, but still covers a fraction of the water used by the city through property tax, sales tax, and others.
When City pays for its water use, there are two effects:
1) It creates a void of funding to other programs
2) It allows the ratepayers to keep the money they would have paid
The amount in (2) is exactly the same amount in (1). If the ratepayers just decide that they want to fund the programs directly, but they don’t want to pay for the water bill of the City, then there would be no net effect. But in practical reality, the ratepayers won’t do so. To react to the void, the City might do these:
a) Reduce water consumption to lower its bill
b) Cut service
c) Cut payroll
d) Increase tax
e) Increase fees
When the City does any of these, someone will be paid less. There is at least one stakeholder that will be less well-off.
When the City reduces water consumption to lower its bill, the entity that would have received the money is not making a sale. Entities that will receive less payment, and thus less profit are probably: PG&E and Firms that sell Chemicals to treat the water. The benefactor in this case is the Environment.
When the City cuts services, the stakeholders that would get the short straw are the people who needed the service, and the Firms that sell commodities related to those services. If the service is medical, the Firms might be medical providers or pharmaceutical firms.
When the City cuts payroll, the stakeholders harmed are the city employees. When their payroll is reduce, the City might also reduce its property tax revenue and sales tax revenue.
When the City increase tax, the stakeholders harmed are the those being taxed. In this case, the City could tax something general, so that everyone would pay a fair share. Alternatively, the City could tax a stakeholder who is hurting the city or the environment.
When we want the City to save [b]money[/b], it is equivalent to deciding which stakeholder should get less money. While it is true that whoever gets less money might pass on that deficit to another stakeholder, but the [b]power[/b] of making decisions using money decreases. Depending on which stakeholder we target, we are also deciding which externalities to keep or reduce, and which natural resource to conserve.
If the City simply does not pay and no stakeholder is affected, it means that the water could have been free of charge to the ratepayers because the actual monetary expenses of the water system is zero, but the City is using pricing as a mean to increase revenue, or to control the impact to the environment. To tell whether the City prices the water just to control the use of water, we could check what expenses the water system has.
[i]On the effect of City paying the bills:
[/i]
This keeps raising the question, one which is really central to this whole lawsuit. To whom do you think the city should be paying the bill? To whom should they write the check? Should the city’s finance department write a check to the city’s public works department? How will that have any net effect on what everyone else pays?
Re: Don
I thought I explained that in my post. It is not just a matter of internal change on “to whom to write the check” or what to assign for the budget of each department. But that the revenue to the City decreases.
Demonstration by numbers:
Before City pays its own water:
o Water System uses $100
o Social Services uses $100
o Taxpayers pay $100
o Ratepayers pay $100
NET Revenue to City = $200
NET Balance of City = $0
After City pays its own water:
o Water System uses $100
o Social Services uses $100
o Taxpayers pay $100
o Ratepayers pay $50
NET Revenue to City = $150
NET Balance of City = [b]-$50[/b]
Revenue to the city doesn’t decrease if the city fails to pay the city. It’s an accounting issue, not a revenue issue. The only valid issue is whether ratepayers are paying what taxpayers should be paying. And I’m guessing that accounting between the different departments will reveal that isn’t happening. In terms of net balance, it’s a wash.
The point of this lawsuit is strictly a political tactic, to sow confusion. If Mike Harrington had a valid concern about the city’s accounting practices, he could raise that with councilmembers who would request a full accounting from the city manager.
On who to increase revenue:
How about a local tax for pesticide use? Pesticide pollutes the water so we tax it. Do we already have a tax like this?
[b]On the lawsuit:[/b]
On the scale of escalation, a lawsuit is a more intrusive action than simply informing, or having a discussion. In the principle of constructive resolution, it should not be used unless less intrusive actions were attempted, but failed, and when the cost of not escalating outweighs the benefits of escalating. The entity filing the lawsuit should have done these before doing so:
1) Simply raising the question whether the City is paying its own water.
2) Inform the public and the City that the does not pay its own water, and the costs is bore by ratepayers, which is unfair.
3) Have a discussion with the City and other related stakeholders on who should bear the cost of City’s water use.
4) Request the City to let the voters decide who should pay
5) File a lawsuit against the City for overcharging the ratepayers
6) …
Personally, I was not aware that the ratepayers pays for the water uses of the City until this lawsuit. From my perspective, (1) to (4) are missing. Someone else who had been following this issue might be able to prove that (1) to (4) had been attempted but failed. But from my perspective, I would not know that, and I think it would be unfair for me to say that [i]If they had done so, I would have listened[/i] because that is after the fact.
Therefore I can only assert that if not for this lawsuit, I would not have known it. And this information affects my decision and perspective regarding the water project, because I did not distinguish revenue from tax and revenue from water bills paid by ratepayer. This information let me see that they are distinct.
It is possible to find out whether (1) to (4) had been attempted, but that people did not pay attention.
Evaluating whether the cost of lawsuit is less than the benefits of lawsuit is an separate consideration. But I don’t know the figures so I do not know how to comment on this. We need to know how much water the City is using, how much the ratepayers are charged for that each year to tell if a lawsuit could “pay for itself” in a reasonable foreseeable future. For this analysis, there is a necessary question of acceptance level:
At what return period would you accept an action against a City, if we are only considering monetary cost and benefits?
a) The action should pay for itself instantly
b) The action should pay for itself in 1 year
c) The action should pay for itself in 5 years
d) The action should pay for itself in 10 years
e) The action should pay for itself in 50 years
f) The action should pay for itself in 100 years
g) The action should pay for itself in 1000 years
How long do you think it will take for the water project to pay for itself? If Action A pays for itself in 1 year and we reject it, while Action B pays for itself in 50 years but we accept it, we being [b]discriminatory[/b] of the action. If so on what basis do we justify the discrimination? What [b]non-monetary costs[/b] did we not factor in the comparison?
Re: Don
[b]On whether this is a revenue issue:[/b]
[i]”Revenue to the city doesn’t decrease if the city fails to pay the city. It’s an accounting issue, not a revenue issue.”[/i]
This statement is true, but it is [b]not[/b] the situation. When we say the City should pay for its water, it necessarily means that the ratepayers should be charged less, thus revenue is decreased.
[i]”The only valid issue is whether ratepayers are paying what taxpayers should be paying.”[/i]
I think this is what we are talking about. To be complete, technically we aren’t just talking about revenue from taxpayers, but also other revenue sources such as fees. For example, when the public reserve a park for an event, there could be a fee to help cover the cost water bill. That revenue is not through tax, but through specific uses of reserving public spaces.
[i]”And I’m guessing that accounting between the different departments will reveal that isn’t happening. In terms of net balance, it’s a wash.”[/i]
I think this is a weird assumption because this statement means that if we let ratepayers pay less, somehow there will be enough money to refill that reduced revenue. At what discrepancy would you accept that it is an issue that needs to be looked at:
a) The City water bill is $1000, and is currently paid by ratepayers. Some ratepayers find that unfair and want the City to pay for it.
b) The City water bill is $10,000, and … (same as above)
c) The City water bill is $1 Million and … (same as above)
d) The City water bill is $10 Millions and …
e) The City water bill is $100 Millions and …
f) The City water bill is $X and …
It is true that accounting will tell what X is. But regardless what it is, we could figure out independently at what level of X should the People care.
And what if accounting can’t tell us what X is? What should the People do? What data would a ratepayer need to know if they have overpaid?
o The total output of the water system in a period
o The total cost of the water system in that period
o The amount a ratepayer used in that period
o The billing that the ratepayer pays in that period
A law of [b]Proportionality[/b] is a mechanism to protect the ratepayers against the City. When proportionality is followed, there is this simple method to calculate if the ratepayers are being overcharged, [b]even if accounting does not tell us how much they collected.[/b]
[b]On the Acceptance of unfairness[/b]
Let’s see how much each of us considers the tolerance of overcharge of water bill. We could analyze this in two ways, either by percentage of your bill, or by the monetary amount. Each person has a different level of affordability and would have a difference tolerance. In the following I am showing the equivalent monthly overcharge in dollars.
a) Overcharge of 1 cent per month ($0.12 per year)
b) Overcharge of $1 per month ($12 per year)
c) Overcharge of $10 per month ($120 per year)
d) Overcharge of $100 per month ($1200 per year)
e) Overcharge of $1000 per month ($12000 per year)
f) …
I think for most people, the line is drawn at $10 per month or less. But this I mean the tolerance a ratepayer has for “unfairness”. They know they are being overcharged to pay for City’s water use, and if the City collects more than they needed to cover the expenses of the water system, the City is free to spend that in other ways, but they are OKAY with it because the overcharge is insignificant or affordable to them. They are OKAY with giving the City a $120 per year donation.
The only problem is when the billing statement is written like that, it could make the City and other taxpayers take this donation for granted.
When a ratepayer says, “I have been forced to donate $X each year through my water bill. I don’t want to be forced to donate. I want to donate when I can, to whomever I want.”…
I think a logical resolution is this:
“Okay, we will reduce your bill so that it is clear which part you are paying for your own use. But at the same time, we will also tell you the water bill the City has, and you may [b]voluntarily[/b] donate to an account that specifically pays for the water bills of the City. The total amount of donation received will be published on our website for each billing period, so that we could recognize how much of the City’s water bill is covered by voluntary donations. Do you have a concern with this resolution?”
Ratepayer: “Yes, what if we donate more than needed? Who gets that extra money?”
City: “The extra would go to the water bill bin for the paying future water bills of the City. Do you still have a concern?”
Ratepayer: “Yes, how much is the cost of having such donation system?”
City: “The cost involves changing the form on the water bill to show City usage, City bill, and a box for the ratepayer to assign donation. It also involves updating the website so that it automatically shows updated donation amount. All of these changes can be done by the City’s IT department as a task assigned to IT. There is no extra cost to the City. Do you still have a concern?”
Ratepayer: “Yes, how would we know if the City manipulates the numbers and under report the amount donated, or overstate the expense of City water use, and use the donation collected for other uses?”
City: “You mean how the City prevent someone working in the City stealing money from a bin for their own use?”
Ratepayer: “Yes.”
City: “For the accounting of City water use, we could as IT to show the instantaneous water output from the water plants, so that everyone can just see the number on the website. We don’t know what to do about the accounting of donation. Do you have a suggestion?”
Ratepayer: “How about the City publish the list of people who make donations?”
City: “I think that might violate privacy laws.”
Ratepayer: “Then how about each ratepayer can choose to have their names or a Pseudonym on the website? So that a ratepayer can see at least see their donation is counted.”
City: “I think that will be okay. Do you have other concerns?”
Ratepayer: “When will these changes be implemented?”
City: “We will first inform everyone about these proposed changes in two weeks, and see if anyone has a concern with it. If no one has any concern, then we will ask IT to schedule and give us a schedule. Do you have a concern?”
Ratepayer: “I think that the City’s IT is not competent in doing so, may I suggest my own company, which is an IT company that will do it for the City?”
City: “What is the rate you will charge the City?”
Ratepayer: “A one-time fee of $1000.”
City: “We would include that in the proposal so that the people can discuss whether they are okay with City taking $1000 from IT budget to contract your company for the work, or that IT will just do it itself. Could you clarify whether you accept City IT to implement it if people do not want to pay your company?”
Ratepayer: “Yes, it would be nice if they let me do it for the City, but they don’t want me to do, I am okay with the City to do it alone.”
City: “Ok. Do you have other concerns?”
…
This type of resolution should come before a lawsuit.
(For the sake of context, I do not have a company, and I am not look for any work with the City. The above example is only to illustrate the process of coming to a solution without a lawsuit.)
I think Mr. Wai is touching on this point, among several others:
The true costs of programs in the Parks and Rec Dept, for example, are unknown because the costs of water usage are unknown. It might be that some programs are too expensive, if water costs were factored in, and should be eliminated, or, the fees charged should be seriously increased. Instead, all along, ratepayers may have been subsidizing overly expensive or wasteful programs used by a select few.
Lemongello pointed out the waste of water at the dog park. Better accounting would probably have rectified the failure to conserve water.