The Consumption Based Fixed Rate system has been attacked mercilessly in the last few weeks, by voters who are uncertain as to what it means and how it is derived, and by columnists who have concocted, at times, wild scenarios to show how on the margins it might be unfair.
Last week Bob Dunning used it to show how much more people will be paying for summer water than they will for winter water.
Just yesterday, Michael Harrington, leading the opposition to the water project, argued that we return to the Bartle Wells rates.
He writes, “Yes, please, go back to BWA and show the voters how the City can be trusted to get it right.”
It is a strange argument and demonstrates why opponents of projects are probably not the best advisers on how to fix problems. For if the city were to suddenly change up their rate structure, you can with no doubt bet that Michael Harrington will be leading the way to show how they bent in the face of pressure.
Lost in this debate, however, is the fact that the Loge-Williams CBFR water rate system actually attempts to remedy a problem. The problem is that currently $10 million are generated by water rates, and of that, $2.9 million of it was essentially a subsidy by low-end users – seniors, low-income people and even conservationists- to high-end water users in this community.
There are, in fact, fixed costs to the system – costs that would exist even if magically no one drew any water at all. In December the city’s bond consultant, Mark Northcross, explained that the city would not be able to get bonding for a project without a showing that they could produce a certain amount of venue even with no water usage. In other words, financiers would frown and effectively disallow a system that is based only on variable usage.
Under a traditional rate structure, where the fixed rate is approximated strictly by meter size, the people who end up with the unfairness are the low-end users. Under the Bartle Wells Fixed Rate with an inclining block rate proposal – the more fair of the two – a user who only uses 5 ccf per month would have had to pay $60 by 2018 – for using almost no water.
In fact, the chart shows that up to about 70% of the ratepayers are advantaged by CBFR over Bartle Wells.
No wonder Michael Harrington wants this change so much, as he can show the voters that not only did the city cave, but that most of them will be worse off – some far worse off having the Bartle Wells system.
This chart is really the most telling of the charts. It shows the extent to which under the current rate structure, the low-end users are subsidizing the high-end users. Low-end users under the current rate system are paying $3.80 per ccf. At the midrange that number drops to $2.46 and by the top 75% of users at 18 ccf, the number plummets to just over $2 per ccf, nearly half the cost that the bottom end pays.
The system becomes even worse under Bartle Wells, where at the low end you are looking at $5.50 per ccf compared to $2 at the highest usage. And in five years, that number flies to $12 per ccf compared to just under $5 at the top.
Is this really the system that Michael Harrington is offering as fair?
CBFR still favors the top-end users, but the number flattens considerably. In year one, the low-end users – almost half of them – actually pay less than they do now.  Unfortunately, in years one and two, council made the political compromise of adopting Bartle Wells. Most people, except at the top 25% of water users, are disadvantaged by the political compromise.
In five years, the rates go up, as they will under any scenario, but they only go up to $8 per ccf at the bottom (compare that to the Bartle Wells figure of $12/per ccf). And the top-end users are at $5.82 per ccf – still a lower per unit rate than at the bottom but instead of nearly a 3 to 1 advantage, they have about a 25% advantage.
Michael Harrington and Bob Dunning seem to want to argue that this is a fairness issue. The fact of the matter is that the most fair way to go about this is by going to CBFR.
If the top-end users are disadvantaged under this system it is only because this system moves the rate structure closer to an equitable split.
What I want to know is how do Michael Harrington and Bob Dunning justify keeping the current inequities in place?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The current rate system is deficient So is the two year BWA
I was pulling their leg yesterday
David, did you ask Michael if he was being sarcastic with his sarcastic comment before you spent time calling him out? As you’ve observed, a lot of this election revolves around trust. Spreading distrust and confusion apparently trumps education as a tactic in this election. Political genius, you’ve said before. Another “No” coup!
So, why don’t we each pay our share of the cost of the system plus a per gallon (or per ccf) charge? No tiers. No rates based on past usage.
The way I see it is that those of us with vegetable gardens are being priced out of our gardens.
Keithvb
I think that you totally have it right with your statement ” the way I see it….”
I encourage your gardening efforts. I see this is a wonderful way to spend time, grow food and generally live a healthier life. I highly recommend it, and…..
Another perspective might be, is it “fair” to expect a now disabled senior ( perhaps even a past gardner) on a fixed income to continue to subsidize your irrigation needs, or should we all be expected to contribute, knowing that no system is perfect, as close as we can come to our own usage needs ?
medwoman
Perhaps you can explain to me what is unfair about paying for the water we use.
When I go to the market I buy apples by the pound. If my family eats more apples than yours I simply buy more apples. The cost of the apples plus costs of the store, delivery, etc are all included.
keithvb – Your response is similar to many I have heard. I agree with you. CBFR is absolutely not fair in this respect.
The Vanguard’s analysis of fairness is incomplete and biased here. First, it fails to address the point you are making. I detect a level of economic classism in the focus of this piece. It is a strange one too because water use and household income do not correlate. Who pays for all that water used at Village Homes for all their grassy common areas and the large garden area? Are those people wealthy water wasters?
Second, it fails to incorporate the added benefits derived by the surface water project. If low income residents are most hurt by rate increases then they also most gain from the benefits (as a percentage of their discretionary income). No more bottled water. No more water softeners and expensive salt pellets. No more expensive plumbing repairs and appliance replacements. No more expensive harsh cleaning chemicals. Less soap is required. The environment is protected.
Keithvb
Yes, and the full, hidden costs of delivery are not covered. For example the costs of the roadway maintenance,
regulations and enforcement for transport of goods, inspectors, and any number of other components of our extremely complicated delivery system are not covered. It is much more complicated than a simple I will pay for each gallon of water I use.
Frankly
[quote]Who pays for all that water used at Village Homes for all their grassy common areas and the large garden area? Are those people wealthy water wasters?[/quote]
As a frequent former visitor to Village Homes, I agree that these people should not be considered “wealthy water wasters”. However, just because they are not wealthy does not mean that they could not identify areas of more responsible water usage. For example, as a group they might choose to decide that they value their gardens over the grassy areas and they might choose to convert at least some of the grassy common areas to areas landscaped with less thirsty plantings. I think perhaps you are seeing “classism” where it does not exist. One does not have to be wealthy to reconsider whether one is optimally using what is likely to become and increasingly expensive commodity. Just because we have enjoyed relatively inexpensive water for a long, long time, does not mean that we should not address this usage responsibly regardless of our income.
medwoman
It’s obvious to me that we need a complicated, difficult to understand system of paying for our water. That way we will all be hoodwinked together.
Non-transparent, complex systems pushed by government are designed to hide the truth. This is just another example.
CBFR is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire water project is a collection of hidden or undisclosed or unexplained pieces.
One of the reasons the rate system is all screwed up is the City was falsely implying, if not reporting, throughout the WAC process that city water usage was part of the income calculations to the water fund, when we now know that the City has been — basically — stealing our rate money to subsidize city water usage.
I have heard that the city water should have cost about $550,000 per year, and now the city admitted it’s about $775,000 per year. However, the city also admitted that it has not yet installed meters on some “larger” sites (parks, greenbelts), so I think the $775,000 is way way too low.
The lawsuit includes legal causes of action challenging the current, proposed BWA, and proposed CBFR systems. City staff have already admitted, on tape, at the WAC that the current system violates Prop 218.
The evidence in front of the WAC and the CC clearly shows that the current and the BWA two year structure violate Prop 218.
The CBFR, as currently written, clearly violated Prop 218. Have any doubts? Read Dunning’s columns on the vast differences between each half year usage.
Also, the look-back feature of the CBFR, where your current bills are set by water usage conduct on the same parcel up to 22 months ago, in my mind violates Prop 218, if not some sort of due process. What if I did not live in that house two years ago, or last year? Why am I stuck with their usage? We haven’t directly put a cause of action in the complaint on this public entity rip-off of the current house dweller due to conduct by past dwellers, but I think it has merit.
The CBFR proponents like to talk about the city setting up a complaint process, so you can have your bill adjusted to be based upon current residents and conduct, but to me that seems like a rate structure that basically steals money from our wallets, and we have to go down to the police station and complain, then get an adjustment at the counter. It’s not right or fair.
In any event, I am looking forward to the Yolo County Superior Court helping all parties sort this out so we have a sound, lawful, and fair rate system for the current well supply system, and whatever additional project might be approved by the voters.
Keithvb,
You say above it would be more fair to simply pay by the gallon because all the rate systems above charge more total if you use more water. But the point of the article is that in all the rating systems above, the more water you use the less you pay per gallon. It’s the low water users who should be complaining. It is the low water users who do not pay as much more per gallon under CBFR, but even under CBFR they still pay more per gallon.
As for a garden, mulch, mulch, mulch will lower your water usage tremendously.
Frankly,
I do not use water softeners, harsh chemicals, a lot of soap or need new plumbing fixtures. I do buy drinking water for some uses. I am not suffering. Under CBFR I would “suffer” from even more fair water rates.
Mike Harrington:[i] “[b]The lawsuit[/b] includes legal causes of action challenging the current, proposed BWA, and proposed CBFR systems. City staff have already admitted, on tape, at the WAC that the current system violates Prop 218.”[/i]
Have you served the city yet?
We had between 7-10 volunteers staffing our No on I booth on Saturday at the Farmers Market, and all of them were busy with voters stopping by for information. Many grabbed signs.
Sue’s hat was fabulous, as usual.
The tide is turning, and it is not exactly headed towards Woodland.
Have you served the city yet?
One more thing before I go back to work. I have heard rumors that the Yes on I Committee is seriously looking into seeing if they can charge Dunning with providing “in kind services” to No on I for his publishing columns that criticize the rate structures.
“Yes, please, go ahead and formally make those allegations.”
Don: no, the Complaint is not yet served. “Strategic reasons.”
[quote]The CBFR, as currently written, clearly violated Prop 218. Have any doubts? Read Dunning’s columns on the vast differences between each half year usage. [/quote]
Now this is interesting. On an earlier thread, a poster had cited Dunning’s down to earth nature and use of humor. I do not dispute either of these opinions. Dunning is a gifted humorist and should be recognized as such. What he is not is an expert on aquifers, conjunctive use, water quality, environmental regulations, or utility rates. And yet what we have here is Michael Harrington urging that those in doubt use Dunning’s column as their source of information. A very apt illustration of a previously made point about favoring the views of a humorist whose opinions are aligned with one’s own over a variety of experts, members of the WAC, city council members and others who have spent a great deal of time researching and analyzing all aspects of this project. To me this is a classic case of “don’t confuse me with the facts”. After all snarky, amusing, if baseless comments are much easier and more fun to read than is dry evidence and data.
[quote]Don: no, the Complaint is not yet served. “Strategic reasons.” [/quote]
Was this ever in doubt ?
If you have not served the lawsuit to the City, please stop talking to the media and posting on blogs about your lawsuit in the context of your campaign. Just filing a lawsuit does’t count. It just adds to your ugly, reprehensible campaign behavior, Mike. Doesn’t the news about Parrish’s campaign give you any pause?
I know that the campaign is feeding your narcism and you are having a good time with this. I know that this is filling a hole left when you lost your election for City Council, when you were discovered taking campaign contributions from Guidaro and other developers. I do believe that you have no real intention running for office, despite hints that you are dropping around town. Your behavior in public life alone precludes this, without any scrutiny of your personal irresponsibility.
Unlike others here, I do not think that you care one iota about this community. You love the chase, but the day to day aspects of taking care of the community put you to sleep or your attention wanders and you seek another stage where you can be the center of attention, the most important person in the room.
Ryan: sorry you are so angry. Guess I am doing something effective to stop the water project rip off of our little community.
If you want to know why the suit is not served, go talk to a civil litigator and he or she will tell you.
Maybe an attorney here can help me out. If a complaint, or whatever it is called, has been filed with the court, but not served on the other party, is there actually a lawsuit? Has there been a process of setting a court date? Is any part of the actual court proceeding underway?
Someone said: Who pays for all that water used at Village Homes for all their grassy common areas and the large garden area? Are those people wealthy water wasters?
Having lived in Village Homes for almost ten years, I can say that the monthly homeowner’s association fee pays for water for the common areas (the greens, the landscaping, and the ag strips) as well as the upkeep of the orchards, the pool and community building, as well as other costs associated with the development. Village Homes owners also agree to the upkeep of their common areas in lieu of additional fees tacked on to the homeowners. Fees have risen in recent years to cover costs such as replacing the fence along Arlington, replacement of a tractor (if I remember correctly) and other “fixed costs” – sort of the same as paying for fixed costs of infrastructure improvements like water and wastewater plants.
[quote]”go talk to a civil litigator and he or she will tell you.”
“You’re here. You could tell us.”[/quote]The true “strategic reasons” are apparent to non-litigator observers. Rate-setting charges and counter charges have pretty well taken center stage in campaign strategy after Michael filed his politically genius law suit.
David’s longtime battle about the early-year rate steepness had about exhausted itself and arguments about the project itself were getting resolved for most of us.
Then the lawsuit rejuvenated the weak “No” side. What better way sow distrust about our elected leaders? What better way to kill a project than to charge official malfeasance on a somewhat related matter?
The suit already has done its primary job. David reads the landscape as having gone from the poll’s 89-11 to 45-55. Michael’s lawsuit is going nowhere if he’s correct that the “No” side has overwhelming support now.
Justsaying”
“the poll’s 89-11”
I seriously doubt those poll numbers were ever a true indication of reality. I actually took the poll and felt it was set up in a way to lead the person being polled to say that they were voting yes on Measure I.
JS: “[i]David reads the landscape as having gone from the poll’s 89-11 to 45-55.[/i]”
You have a professionally performed poll, which undoubtedly had some bias that may or may not have been controlled in the design, and you have David’s finger in the wind. Now I’m certain that David chose a very nice finger to use, but is anyone surprised by the results of his ‘poll’ considering his commentary over the past two years?
It is not the non-filing of the lawsuit that is ticking me off here. It is Mike talking about the lawsuit here and in other media as though a lawsuit exists, though he hasn’t had it served yet. He is using this as part of his campaign against Measure I – that a lawsuit has been filed. This has nothing to do with litigation strategy. It has everything to do with campaign strategy. And it stinks.
[quote]Ryan: sorry you are so angry. Guess I am doing something effective to stop the water project rip off of our little community.
[/quote]
I find it a little sick that Mike measures the anger he incites as a measurement for his success.
Excuse me… non-serving of the lawsuit…not non-filing.
keithvb
A brief disclaimer. I hate dealing with numbers. I find them difficult to understand and manipulate. I avoid looking at graphs, charts or any calculation more involved than deciding how much to tip. Having said that please explain to me how the relative rates as shown in the chart that David has posted multiple times comparing current, future Bartle Wells and future CBFR comparative rates are in any way confusing.
For those of you who actually like playing around with numbers, have you actually read Matt Williams explanations ?
Ryan and Mark: The city is certainly worried about the suit, as they should be. They have done a press release.
They even paid the same attorney who set up and blessed the rates for the January 15 CC meeting and adoption, to write the stellar post-litigation opinion that ….. her original opinion was spot on! I love this town.
How much did she charge to defend her own work product? Reminds me of Steiner, and her charging us for years in the DACHA litigation to defend her own work product.
The Davis Enterprise certainly thinks the suit is newsworthy: they did a full article last Friday, big headlines, above the fold. That paper knows to cover important community events, and the litigation is certainly one that they are going to closely follow.
Like I said, whether Measure I wins at the polls, or not, the City should adopt constitutionally valid water rates, and the legal case is geared to do just that. We are helping all of YOU ratepayers to ensure your water bills are lawful and fair.
I see two obvious purposes for the lawsuit. The first, and the one we see playing out now, is to boost Michael H’s ego (and as a side benefit, the flagging ‘no on everything’ campaign). I think this aspect has been an unqualified success as Michael’s ego (even to his standards) has expanded by an enormous extent. For this purpose, serving the lawsuit is counterproductive as it would require Michael to actually do some work.
The second purpose of the suit, and the reason it was filed as a ‘class-action,’ is to extort the largest settlement possible from the City. Regardless of Michael’s comments to the contrary, there is no expectation that this suit will ever be in front of a judge. This is designed to be settled, thereby maximizing the amount of money transferred from the taxpayers to Michael’s (and his friends’) pocket, while minimizing the amount of work required. Whether or not the City is ever served with the suit I think depends on the outcome of the vote. If Measure I passes, especially if it does so handily, then I expect this suit to end up in the dustbin as there is little reason to believe that the City would agree to a settlement.
keithvb wrote:
> When I go to the market I buy apples by the pound.
> If my family eats more apples than yours I simply
> buy more apples. The cost of the apples plus costs
> of the store, delivery, etc are all included.
Then Michael wrote:
> the city also admitted that it has not yet installed
> meters on some “larger” sites (parks, greenbelts),
> so I think the $775,000 is way way too low.
If the city ran the store and gave free apples to city employees the store would need a super complex cost structure for apples so people would not realize that they are paying for other peoples apples…
[quote]If the city ran the store and gave free apples to city employees the store would need a super complex cost structure for apples so people would not realize that they are paying for other peoples apples…[/quote]
If Michael ran the store, he would claim that the citizens apples were being stolen by the city despite no evidence presented, and if the city did decide to settle to save the taxpayers apples, Michael would pocket the apples obtained from the citizens….
oops…. the city, and claim he had done it all for the citizens.
Michael, once again, please, please do whatever it is you feel you must do, but don’t claim that any of it is being done on my behalf.