The Vanguard remains concerned about the election process itself. Measure I would authorize the Davis City Council to move forward with the Woodland-Davis water project. At the same time, the Prop 218 process is completely independent of that vote.
That means that, ostensibly though perhaps not in reality, the rates could go up even if the voters did not approve a project and we know with reasonable certainly that the city will have to double the rates over the next five years regardless of the outcome of Measure I.
That should focus our attention more on the Prop 218 process itself.
As Bob Dunning correctly pointed out on Tuesday, “After much prodding, the last time the city of Davis sent out a Prop. 218 rate notice in the summer of 2011, it included a return postcard for those ratepayers who wished to formally protest the rates. Which was clearly the right thing to do, even if the city didn’t initially plan to do so.”
As Mr. Dunning notes, “While Prop. 218 does not require the city to send out a return postcard in case a ratepayer wishes to protest, it doesn’t prohibit the city from doing so either.
“The last time around, city officials were prevailed upon to include a protest postcard in an effort to truly ascertain the ‘will’ of the people.”
“By including the protest postcard, the city got an earful from disgruntled citizens. It was not enough in raw numbers to actually halt the rates, but enough for the council to pause and rethink the whole thing,” Mr. Dunning writes.
However, in this Prop 218 process, the city is going about it in a more conventional way, forcing protesters to actually write in their complaints, which likely will greatly reduce the number and possibility of a successful protest.
Bob Dunning interprets this decision as follows, “This time, however, the city apparently doesn’t care who is happy with the rates and who isn’t. With the latest batch of ‘Rate and Fee Increases’ that landed in our mailboxes last week, the City Council opted not to include protest postcards, which tells me the city no longer wishes to make it easy for those who wish to protest. In other words, we’ve already made up our mind and making it easy for folks to protest might throw a monkey wrench into our plans.”
Mr. Dunning’s later explanation makes more sense and gibes with what the Vanguard has heard, “The postcard wasn’t included this time because the whole city gets to vote anyway, and what could be fairer?”
As Mr. Dunning notes however, “He apparently hasn’t looked at the ballot, where the rates are noticeably absent. Leaving rates off the ballot also was a council decision.”
This is the same problem we have with the process. In short, the council is saying that the two processes are different – the voters will get to vote on the project while the rate payers get to vote on the rates. Because the rates might take effect absent any project, by making the Prop 218 process more difficult, albeit still lawful, the council is in effect trying to have it both ways.
Mr. Dunning adds, “If you think the lack of a postcard is no big deal, let me detail for you the process necessary to file a formal protest.”
He quotes from the Prop 218 notice: “Any property owner whose property will be subject to the proposed new rates and fees may submit a written protest to the proposed rate and fee increases and/or come to the hearing and provide oral testimony. Protests must be submitted in writing, not delivered electronically or verbally, in order to be counted.
“Any written protest must: 1) state that the identified property owner is in opposition to the proposed rate increases; 2) provide the location of the identified parcel (by assessor’s parcel number, street address, or customer account; 3) include the name and signature of the property owner submitting the protest; and 4) if the person protesting was not shown on Yolo County’s last equalized assessment roll as the property owner of record, provide written evidence that the person is the property owner.”
In our view this is a rather simple problem. The council is representing that, by law, there need to be separate processes. As we have noted in the past, the Prop 218 process is un-democratic and needlessly onerous.
Only homeowners can participate in the process of establishing rates, even though a good many renters actually pay their water bills.
Moreover, in order for the protest to be successful you must get 50% plus one of the ratepayers to send in the complicated written protest as described above.
While the city has no power to change any of those onerous requirements, they can simplify the process, as they did last year.
Their reason for not doing so makes little sense, because they have made the decision to separate the project vote (Measure I) from the rate process (Prop 218).
They cannot have it both ways here. They cannot claim that the rates are separate and then claim at the same time that the Measure I vote is sufficient to allow the whole city to vote.
Once again, if Measure I goes down, it still seems likely that the rate hikes will be implemented. Council has stated that they would not implement the full rate hike, but council is likely to implement at least part of those rate hikes and, if that’s the case, then a large number of people will have their rates go up and will have absolutely no say in it.
At least by implementing the postcards again, the city would alleviate some of that issue.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“They cannot have it both ways here. They cannot claim that the rates are separate and then claim at the same time that the Measure I vote is sufficient to allow the whole city to vote.”
Is this really what the city is claiming?
Basically
[quote]”Any written protest must: 1) state that the identified property owner is in opposition to the proposed rate increases; 2) provide the location of the identified parcel (by assessor’s parcel number, street address, or customer account; 3) include the name and signature of the property owner submitting the protest; and 4) if the person protesting was not shown on Yolo County’s last equalized assessment roll as the property owner of record, provide written evidence that the person is the property owner.”
[/quote]
While I think the postcards are a lovely idea and certainly warmer and fuzzier than making an individual write up their own protest, let’s look at this a little more.
For a person living in Davis, not an extreme rural location, or an inner city, is it really so burdensome to:
1) Write down what it is that you object to
2) Write down your address
3) Write down and sign your name
4) Get said communication to the city by mail, on foot, by bicycle or car ?
I really do not see, when worded this way, that this requirement is so onerous as to preclude anyone who really objects to the proposal ( not someone who is simply temporarily irritated by anything the city does)
from presenting their objection.
medwoman:
Let me put your view to a test: would you be in favor of changing the requirements for voting in general to those?
If the city felt that because of the contentious nature of the rate hike including a return postcard was the right thing to do last time why not this time too? What’s changed?
Glad you asked.
We do have those requirements…you just don’t have to provide your own paper and stamp to vote.
All the rest of the required information is the same.
Do you David, really see providing your own paper and stamp ( if you decide to mail it) as prohibitive for someone who actually cares about the issue ?
Rusty
You do realize that mailing out those post cards costs money…right ?
So why should I as a taxpayer and rate payer within the city subsidize someone else’s right to protest ?
Being that Davis is a very progressive town and I’m sure that most that live here are all for making it as easy to vote as possible how can anyone say that the demamds of the 218 process are not onerous. Just put a return postcard in the dang envelope like last time and be done with it. I can’t believe the many on here that harped about voter suppression are now okay with this.
Medwoman: I suspect using this method over the postcard method will reduce participation drastically perhaps by 25 or 50 percent. We know from voter studies that even small changes in requirements produce large changes in voter turnout. The question is whether you believe Prop 218 should reflect the number “who really objects to the proposal” or whether it should reflect those who have an objection to the proposal.
Medwoman: why is more expensive to have a postcard attached to the Prop 218 notice that already went out?
“Medwoman: why is more expensive to have a postcard attached to the Prop 218 notice that already went out?”
Thanks David, that’s exactly what I was going to post. They had to make up the 218 notice anyway and I’m sure the extra cost of attaching a postcard was minimal. The voter could’ve supplied the postage. I think we all know why the city didn’t want attach the the return vote card.
Of course, you can’t have it both ways if one of the listed ways can’t be true. Since claiming that the 218 process is one that allows all citizens to participate would be ridiculous on the face of it, I’m still curious which city officials are claiming that “the Measure I vote is sufficient to allow the whole city to vote.” The law calls for a limited process, right?
Rusty
While I agree that the cost of the postcard is “minimal” it is not zero.
I was writing partially tongue in cheek, but partially not, about the Vangard’s choice to make what is in my mind such a small issue into a major article.
Is it the city’s fault that those who choose not to put their own piece of paper in an envelope or deliver it themselves to the city ? This is hardly requiring someone who lives at an extreme distance or does not have the money involved to get to a place to have an official government issued ID made as I was alluding to and I am sure was clear from my statement about us not being rural dwellers or inner city. Nor is it requiring anyone to do something that has not been required of them previously as is the case in voter ID. As David pointed out “However, in this Prop 218 process, the city is going about it in a more conventional way”.
This is the standard, not some nefarious way of supressing a vote or in this case a protest but “the conventional way”.
I cannot help but feel that this is a needless slap at “the city”.
The 218 process is dictated by State law.
David, has the City violated the law?
Medwoman, then why did the city feel it needed to include a postcard last time? What has changed?
[quote] What has changed?[/quote]
I have no idea. However, let me pose the question a different way.
If someone does you a favor by going above and beyond the usual standard of behavior one time, would you expect them to go above and beyond every time ?
Most of us would accept the that we had been extended an unexpected courtesy and appreciate it, not denigrate the individual for not extending it every time.
I think the 218 noticing process is fatally flawed. The city could send out a 218 notice that says “Your water rates will henceforth be $1,000.00 per month unless you file a formal protest” and *still* not get 50% + 1 against. I’d be surprised if 50% + 1 even read the notice.
In spite of this, I think the city’s decision not to include a postcard was a cynical vote-suppression tactic. The incremental cost of including a postcard would have been insignificant; I think they just didn’t want to see an increase in no votes in response to the heightened awareness of the whole water issue. It wouldn’t have been anywhere near 50% + 1, but it likely would have been much higher than last time.
It’s like when Congress forbade the CDC from collecting data on gun violence injuries, or when the City Council voted not to receive the firefighter compensation report. Evidence? What evidence?
.
I may be dense but this whole argument really escapes me.
1. The City is not required to have the entire eligible voting population vote on this project but they offered this option and have chosen to be bound by it.
2. No matter what happens in the Measure I vote, the cost of treating and delivering water is going to go up. The 218 process, as mandated by law, is being followed in this case and if Measure I fails and 218 does not receive enough protest votes then the CC will have the ability to begin to raise rates as it must (does anyone disagree that rates are going to have to go up merely to maintain the aging infrastructure we have?). The CC is not required to keep rates as high as laid out in the 218 process and they will likely be lower if Measure I fails.
3. The entire process since the formation of the WAC has been transparent and, as I have argued before, has become a great example of how democracy can work in a small city.
4. Just yesterday the Vanguard complained of the inability of past CCs to come to grips with the enormous costs associated with fixing our roads. Through the entire water process over the past year plus the current CC has done just the opposite and laid out what they believe, given the evidence, is the way forward. Now we are casting aspersions on them for failing to send out a postcard?
Do we want them to lead or don’t we? My answer is that certain citizens DON’T want them to lead. Rather than think of the good of the city in the long term some seek to score narrow “populist” points by questioning an, arguably, inconsequential part of the entire process. It seems that some people in this town are more concerned about winning small silly victories than examining the big picture. If our CC had acted differently over the past year by hiding things or making decisions without examining the evidence I would join my voice to use any means possible to stop the charade. But they have NOT done this. This whole thing is ridiculous. If you don’t like 218 then go to Sacramento and try to change it, but don’t condemn our CC for allowing us to have a direct say in the project which is what opponents and “democracy watchers” asked for.
Robb
Thanks once again for articulating so clearly what I was trying to convey.
Mark West, I wrote: “Because the rates might take effect absent any project, by making the Prop 218 process more difficult, [u][b]albeit still lawful[/b][/u], the council is in effect trying to have it both ways.”
Robb:
You are forgetting a couple of critical details.
1. There was a qualified referendum on the rates in the fall of 2011
2. The city chose to deal with that qualified referendum by pulling back and then putting the project on the ballot
3. But, by putting the project on the ballot, the rates themselves, the subject of the referendum are still not on the ballot
I’m not sure what we could expect another postcard would do–solicit new information beyond what the first one did, provide a 50+% “no” vote from those eligible to protest, what? The charge that the city is “making the Prop 218 process more difficult” is odd. “More difficult” than what?
“Medwoman: I suspect using this method over the postcard method will reduce participation drastically perhaps by 25 or 50 percent.”
That would almost certainly result in a smoother and more important to Davisites, cheaper process, but deprive this observer of some small amusement .
Just dropped my three Prop 218 protests in the mail, two for my rentals and one for my residence. Sure hope I will be able to hang on to those rentals should Measure I pass. They just barely pay their own way now. With a tippled or quadrupled water bill it’ll be touch and go. With sewer, garbage, and water bills all sky rocketing, it feels like the City of Davis owns my rentals and I’m just renting them from the City.
While the 218 process is a joke all I, as a property owner, can do is play by the rules and send in my protests.
If we don’t vote we have no right to complain.
Now it’s time to go fill in my Measure I ballot and get it in the mail.
The City is obligated to give residences notice when raising the rates. It has done this. The process allows people to protest it. There is a process to protest it that is pretty simple. If people want to organize a protest, why don’t they print and either mail or hand out postcards to make it easier for people. But I don’t think that you can say that the City is making it more difficult for people.
[i]Just dropped my three Prop 218 protests in the mail, two for my rentals and one for my residence.
[/i]
Roger gets three votes, and I only get one! Thank you, Howard Jarvis, for this quaint and curious system.
No David, I am not forgetting any critical details.
I remember clearly the CC rescinding the rate increases in the face of the qualified referendum. Was that prudent? Arguably no. The current infrastructure continued to follow the laws of entropy and here we are 18 months later with the need to start making changes but without the money to do so. The referendum supporters won a pyrrhic victory but, hey, they WON (and that is all that really matters doesn’t it?)
Your call (and Dunning’s and “No” peoples’ call) for the rate increases to be put on the ballot is a red herring. You know that ballot measures have word limits–75 I believe. How is the City supposed to achieve what you want? In the voter guide? Yes, they could and maybe they could have done a better job but, once again, democracy trumps and the rebuttal to the City’s case for the measure states that rates will double or triple. So, if I am a voter and get my ballot which says:
[quote]…subjet to the adoption of water rates in accordance with the California Consitution[/quote]
as a voter I have LOTS of transparently available options for learning about these rates.
I can call the City or go to its website and be instructed in the use of the rate calculator.
I can go to the voter guide and read in general terms that my rates will double or triple.
And so, I go back to what I said–this whole thing is ridiculous. We are going to be paying more for water. Period. We can pretend that we won’t have to. We can stir up fear and continue to question the integrity of our elected officials (and then turn around and decry the loss of public trust) or we can roll up our sleeves and start figuring out how we are going to live differently with the changes that are coming, including how we are going to help those for whom the increased rates will represent a true financial burden.
” You know that ballot measures have word limits–75 I believe. “
This is not accurate. The wording on the actual ballot is limited to 75 words, but the actual text of the ballot measure has no such limitation.
Robb: On Dec 6, 2011, the CC dumped the bogus 9/6 rates, because CC members Wolk and Souza did not want to run for election/re-election in June 2012 on the same ballot as those illegal rates. Everything they have done since is to ram this project through.
The only reason any money was saved was due to the reduction in the supply from 18 mgd to 12, and a little fiddling with the sharing with Woodland.
The reduction to 12 came about only because it became public knowledge that the 18 mgd was propped up by a false 1% population growth figure (remember the Asmudson/Pontillo/Boyd 1% growth target?), and because staff has not reduced the water demand figures to reflect the huge drop in per capita consumption that happened several years ago.
So Wolk got rid of the ballot measure, and since then, it’s been all about pushing the project that was first conceived in 1988 to accommodate the 1988 General Plan target of doubling the population of Davis.
It’s all in the city historical records …
Here in Old Willowbank and El Macero we do not get to vote on Measure I, altho we do on Prop. 218, and will be charged the full rate, even though we in OW do not send anything to the wastewater plant. UNfortunately the latter, Prop. 218, has never been overturned: not voting counts as a YES. Because of our large lots we are more impacted by the new rates: Our average monthly will go from 82 to 373 dollars, according to the City’s water calculator. We have no grass, but clearly we will have to conserve a lot!
BTW, at the Montgomery School water forum someone asked if it was true that the city was not paying for the water it uses in its buildings, parks, pools, etc. The city via Herb N.[?] flatly denied it – there were a few gasps and muffled gaffaws. But then later he admitted the Community Gardens and other facilities were not all properly metered or charged!
Paul Brady
[quote]Mike Harrington: “Robb: On Dec 6, 2011, the CC dumped the bogus 9/6 rates, because CC members Wolk and Souza did not want to run for election/re-election in June 2012 on the same ballot as those illegal rates. Everything they have done since is to ram this project through.” [/quote]
This is a completely false statement. In every way. Amazing how wrong. I think that this is how Mike thinks politically – that this is what he would do, so it must be true for others.
Paul, I think the answer to the City’s water use is that some areas of the City property are not metered so they don’t exactly know how much water is used, and that the City does not charge the water department for use of City land and property. There is a reconciliation of costs done from time to time between the City and the water department. A yes answer is correct, but also a no answer. An explanation would be a better answer.
My point David is that the information is readily available but also, if the project fails then rates will not go up to the extent indicated in the 218. So, the issue to me on the ballot IS the project and whether we need it or not because no matter what, rates are going up. The City says this in the ballot measure:
[quote]The Project will require water rate increases to Davis water customers, which will require compliance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution, also known as Proposition 218[/quote]
and further on…
[quote]If a majority of the water customers file timely written protests, the water rates increases required to support the funding of the project will not be approved, and Davis would not move forward with the Project. Proposed water rate information is available from the City and at www. cityofdavis.org.[/quote]
I actually think this is better than laying out general information like “doubling” or “tripling” because it allows people to go to the rate calculators that they can use to get exact information. I guess that is not enough for some. But they certainly are not hiding that fact that rates are going to increase and that you can find more about that by contacting the city.
Michael – The historical record is there. What is NOT there is a full understanding of the motivations of the people involved. This is where I have consistently disagreed with your approach. You attributed motives to Wolk and Souza (“because CC members Wolk and Souza did not want to run for election/re-election in June 2012 on the same ballot as those illegal rates”) and I am suggesting that unless you are God, you cannot know the complex factors that lead any person to make the decisions we make. You persist in assigning clear, unambiguous (and always nefarious) motivations to those with whom you disagree and I find that objectionable. I find this destructive and wish you would stop it.
Robb: I stand by my comments.
Okay Michael – One more “push back” and then I will cease. You are telling me, and the readers of the Vanguard that you know, for a fact, that
[quote]the CC dumped the bogus 9/6 rates, because CC members Wolk and Souza did not want to run for election/re-election in June 2012 on the same ballot as those illegal rates.[/quote]
You know this, for a fact, because Wolk and Souza both admitted this to you? You know this for a fact because they admitted this to someone else who told you? You know this for a fact because they both stated this publicly?
My point is that human motivations are complex and multi-variate. For you to “stand by” your statement as factual when you cannot know the full range of factors that motivated Souza and Wolk is what I find objectionable.
I have said it before and I will repeat here that I do not question your genuine concern for this city and its well being but I find your methods of denigrating opponents of your views and of ongoing ad hominem attacks to be destructive and I wish you would change your approach.
[quote]MH: “I stand by my comments.” [/quote]
To stand by something just means that the person is loyal to a person or thing. Mike says this when challenged or shown the error of his statements or beliefs, and all it means is that he will keep making his statements, regardless of the facts or the truth, and refuses to change them in any way.
Mike Harrington: “[i]it’s been all about pushing the project that was first conceived in 1988 to accommodate the 1988 General Plan target of doubling the population of Davis.
It’s all in the city historical records …”[/i]
Source: Davis General Plan Section II: Planning Context Adopted May 2001/Amended Through January 2007
“In 1964, the General Plan was amended because it was assumed the student population at UC Davis would grow to 15,000. The plan then assumed Davis would grow from 11,750 people in 1964 to 75,000 people by 1985. An additional objective was added to discourage leap frog development.
In 1969, the Davis General Plan was amended to allow Davis to grow from 23,450 (1970) people to 90,000 by 1990 with a holding capacity of 110,000 people. The objectives were the same as the 1964 plan. However, the 1969 plan assumed UC Davis would grow to 17,000 students.
As a result of the 1969 plan, the community became alarmed by how large the community could grow and the Council appointed a 110-person committee which developed the 1974 plan. The 1974 General Plan assumed Davis would grow to 50,000 by 1990.
…
In 1975, the City enacted its own building code sections that included energy conservation standards for new construction. Many of the code provisions were subsequently incorporated into State requirements.
In 1977, the plan was amended because the City Council thought the City would not exceed 50,000 people by the year 2000.
In 1984, a new plan was adopted, still assuming 50,000 people by the year 2000. This plan expanded some of the concepts found in the 1974 plan, such as a detailed growth management program. This plan included an urban limit line concept with an agricultural buffer, phasing and an urban reserve designation. It also said commercial land outside of the Core area was possible and allowed mixed use developments. It also contained special policies for the Core area, University Avenue and Olive Drive; and a fiscal element.
[b]In December 1987, the City Council adopted a new General Plan. The plan was in response to concerns about potential developments in the unincorporated portions of the Davis area. The plan assumed that Davis would grow from 50,666 people in 1987 in the Planning Area to about 75,000 people, which is an increase of about 50 percent. [/b]
The plan assumed that approximately 9,700 new residential units would need to be built to accommodate the additional 25,000 people. It assumed that the total number of residential units in Davis would increase from 19,523 to 29,249 units.”
There has never been a “target” of doubling the population of Davis. There has never been an “elitist” goal of a population of 150,000 for the city of Davis. Even the hotly contested 1% growth rate, had it been enacted in 1987, would have taken seventy years to double the population, and over a hundred years to get to a population of 150,000.
Nevertheless, Mike Harrington has been making this claim back as far as 2011, if not earlier. I frankly don’t care how many times he says “I stand by my comment.” It is provably false, has now been proven false, and if he repeats a proven falsehood he is lying.
[quote]to ram this project through.
[/quote]
This statement completely ignores the fact, as demonstrated by these posts that there are a fair number of us who are in favor of the project. From this side of the controversy, it does not look like much “ramming” is occurring……but plenty of obstruction. So I guess it is all a matter of perspective.
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”I think the 218 noticing process is fatally flawed. The city could send out a 218 notice that says “Your water rates will henceforth be $1,000.00 per month unless you file a formal protest” and *still* not get 50% + 1 against. I’d be surprised if 50% + 1 even read the notice. “[/i]
While I agree with the principle of your comment Jim, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We voted in Prop 218 when it was placed on the ballot. If we want to improve the process, all we have to do is draft a better Proposition and put it on the ballot.
I am confused.
Are we supposed to be “voting” on two things:
1) Measure I, that we vote YES or NO by returning the ballot
2) Rate Increase, that would pass by default if I don’t return a written protest
So there are four actions:
a) I vote YES and do not protest
b) I vote YES and protest
c) I vote NO and do not protest
d) I vote NO and protest
If you are a ratepayer, you may return a written protest. That is the Prop. 218 requirement. You have the right to file a protest for each property you own. As noted, for example, Roger Bockrath can protest for multiple separate properties.
Since renters are not ratepayers, they do not have the option of filing a protest. Only property owners can do that.
If you are a Davis resident, you are voting in Measure I.
There are lots of ratepayers who can’t vote on Measure I. People who own business property but aren’t residents. People who live in El Macero or Willowbank, which are county areas served by city water.
I can’t vote on Measure I.
I also can’t protest the Prop 218.
Oh the burdens of living in El Macero. 8>)