While much has been made of the 2010 suit against the City of Sacramento with regard to non-payments for municipal water use, there has been very little discussion of what that case, which resulted in a settlement agreement between the parties, actually entailed.
The City of Sacramento did not suffer sanctions for the non-payment of the water; rather the terms simply set up a system whereby water usage would be tracked and paid for from the General Fund to the Enterprise Fund.
According to the nine-page settlement agreement, “All City buildings, lands and facilities receiving flat rate water service or metered water service from the City’s water distribution system and not currently paying the standard flat rate or standard metered rate charged to similar retail water service customers, will pay the standard flat rate or standard metered rate charged to similar retail water service customers beginning July 1, 2010 and thereafter.”
The settlement adds, for “metered water service delivered by the City’s water distribution system to City parks and the City cemetery: (1) Beginning not later than July 1, 2010 and thereafter, City parks and the City cemetery will pay the standard fixed service charge charged to similar retail water service customers; and (2)The City agrees to phase in the payment of increased metered volumetric rates, so that at the end of the phase in period and thereafter City parks and the City cemetery will pay the standard metered volumetric rate (‘SMVR’) charged to similar retail water service customers for metered water service from the City’s water distribution system.”
It is worth noting that the agreed-to “phase in period” was set at three years, which would take the process to July 1, 2013 at which the city would go from 20% of SMVR on July 1, 2010 to 100% of SMVR by July 1, 2013.
The settlement stipulates, ” ‘SMVR’ means the City’s approved metered volumetric rate in effect for the applicable fiscal year, whether such rate is based on the City’s existing metered rate structure or is based on a different metered rate structure, such as a conservation pricing or tiered rate structure, provided that any such different rate structure must comply with article XIII D of the California Constitution.”
“The City agrees to phase in the payment of increased rates for the City’s collection and disposal or recycling of solid waste from City parks, so that at the end of the phase in period and thereafter City parks receiving these services will pay the standard rates charged to similar retail customers.”
As we reported Monday, Davis City Manager Steve Pinkerton said, “I don’t think the taxpayers are going to owe the ratepayers, I think it’s going to balance out.”
The statement from the city clarifies, “The general city facilities, such as parks, must pay for their water use, and the water and other utility funds must pay for the services and facilities that the general City departments provide to the water or utility departments.”
In perhaps the clearest statement, the city claims, “The City’s water use and payment by the City is included in the current and proposed rate structures. Individual ratepayers are not subsidizing the City’s water use. If the City does not pay its bill, it is money owed to the Water Fund.”
In a statement sent late on Sunday evening, Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza told the Vanguard, “In a strict and narrow sense, the City has not been paying for its water, but to report that and that alone is a distortion of the issue.”
“True too is that the city has not been billing the Water Utility for costs associated with city water use, nor billing the Water Utility for certain items that should be billed to all ratepayers,” he said. “We’ll see in the coming months how these two sides of the balance sheet work out.”
He also explained the process and history: “The city doesn’t shy from paying its share of water use, and since the Sacramento case in early 2010 the City has been moving to set in place the system for this. We have about 85 percent of the meters installed to do this now, and we believe we have very good estimates of our overall use.”
“This is fundamentally an accounting issue between the General Fund and the Water Utility, he argues. “There hasn’t been any deception here.”
As the city explains, “In 2010, the City Council approved an ordinance that put in place a water rate charge specific to the City, known as the Municipal Use Rate. It is set at the rate of irrigation and small commercial and is $1.41 per 100 ccf. This rate does not include a ‘Tier 2’ because the City can control the time it waters and avoid peak times – for example, irrigating parks at night.”
Mayor Krovoza writes, “The city’s water use and costs for such, and the ratepayer-supported Water Utility, have been accounted for separately to this point. This means that costs associated with city water use for parks, etc have not been billed to the Water Utility, and in other ways the city has been subsidizing the Water Utility.”
He adds, “The new water supply system and rates anticipate a full merger of city water use/costs and the Water Utility. This has been in several staff reports recently. As we merge the systems, we believe the amount either the city owes the Water Utility or vice versa will be roughly equal. Whatever the final payment either way, the city will resolve this fairly as we have always intended.”
The statement from the city asserts that the ratepayers are not subsidizing the city’s water use.
The statement continues, “For the most recent calendar year (2012), the City’s water use totaled approximately $778,000. The City also provides land and services to the Water Division, which are offsets to the water costs. The Water Division uses City lands for well sites and other Water Division activities and has not paid rent for these lands. The City believes these costs approximate the cost of the City’s water use.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
So the problem has been recognized and steps have been and are being taken to solve it, and there really isn’t a lawsuit yet, so this should resolve itself.
Ryan: the City hid their failure to pay for their own water use, for years. They certified their rate and water supply and accounting systems for years as in compliance with Prop 218. They knew about the Jan 2010 City of Sacramento water theft case, yet our little City government certified its rates and supply systeim FOUR TIMES since learning about the hot water Sacramento was in, including with the Grand Jury.
The City of Davis has been actively telling the public that the City “paid” for certain amounts of water usage. The City told the WAC that the City “paid” for its own water use.
They were telling the public that fib as late as a few days before we filed the lawsuit.
The suit outed the City’s violations, and we have no doubt that the case is what is forcing the city to now promise to pay its fair share. We will work this out with the City, after we take discovery from them as to how bad the situation is, and then work on a stipulation to be filed and approved by the Court, with appropriate orders that ensure the upgrades and billing system changes are fair, open, and transparent to the public, and the court. We will ask for a consent decree, with the Court reserving authority to review and approve the fixes. This will take several years, and the Yolo Ratepayers will be in that process for all of you, ensuring the City does what it is now promising.
As President Regan said about the Soviets and nuclear weapon reductions, “trust, but verify.” That is the motto of the Yolo Ratepayers, too.
The attempted political use of the accounting trick that the water department supplies water to the city, and in return gets free use of space, free rent, etc. is not plausible, and the legal case will show the public how false this is.
The City’s failure to bill itself and pay for its own use is what has led to the flooded greenbelts, sprinklers coming on in your neighborhood park when it’s been raining for weeks in March, etc. There is no fiscal accountability, and the result is what we have all witnessed and complained about for years. Well, now we know for sure, and the Ratepayers will ensure it is fixed once and for all.
Meanwhile, the City is billing the heck out of the rest of us, punishing us for higher tier use, demanding we use low-flow appliances, take short showers with heads that barely mist us down, not shower us? Hypocrits.
This is what we have been talking about since the 2011 referendum: lack of trust. And you Yes on I supporters are still blindly going with the “experts” and the same city water staff who have been telling us that the City “pays” for its own water? Or that the 9/11 rate increase was only 14%? Or that siting the “clean” water plant adjacent to and downwind of the dirty Woodland sewer treatment plant is prudent and complies with the law?
For years, Davis elites have laughed about “The Northern Menance,” etc etc, and now we know their human waste products turned to powder (which is exactly what the waste treatment plant is supposed to do, right?) is going to blow right over and silt up the open areation ponds of our “clean” Davis water supply?? I would say the Woodland CC has the last laugh here ….
The only real solution is to vote NO on Measure I, and support our Utilities Initiative that will establish a clear, transparent public process for larger public utility projects that must be put to the voters, just like Measure J/R.
Mike, your logic is hard to understand. Here’s what I think you are saying, [i]because the City hasn’t accounted well its water use offset by the costs by the Water department, you should vote No on a project to access surface water, and support a Utilities commission that would be made up of probably the same people who are currently involved in local politics to provide a process for the management and development of our public utilities.[/i]
Are we talking about water or is the bigger issue for you a lack of trust of our City government from the City Council down to the public works guy mowing the lawn? I don’t see how having a Utilities Commission will change or help anything. You will still find fault with either the people or the decisions they make or the experts they listened to or who their friends are, or how they voted on Measure X, or how they looked at you at the Farmer’s Market on Saturday morning. It would be a useless expenditure in our already burdened general fund…unless you think the ratepayers are going to pay for the Commission…
We are already voting on the water project now and an initiative is not needed to accomplish this.
Whether the water department billed the City and vice versa doesn’t change the documented evidence that we need another source of water and even No on Measure I admits this. Improving our water system is not a vote for development. There has been developer-owned land surrounding Davis forever. This hasn’t occurred just because this water project is coming along. You actually supported and campaigned for one development not so long ago where water was not an issue.
It is a California state mandate that citizens conserve and reduce their water use by 20%. To accomplish this, there are grants so people can purchase dual-flush toilets, more efficient washing machines, and low flow shower heads. This is not a City of Davis program – it is a State program. So your outrage is misplaced here.
Mike Harrington
The suit outed the City’s violations, and we have no doubt that the case is what is forcing the city to now promise to pay its fair share. We will work this out with the City, after we take discovery from them as to how bad the situation is, and then work on a stipulation to be filed and approved by the Court, with appropriate orders that ensure the upgrades and billing system changes are fair, open, and transparent to the public, and the court. We will ask for a consent decree, with the Court reserving authority to review and approve the fixes. This will take several years, and the Yolo Ratepayers will be in that process for all of you, ensuring the City does what it is now promising.
Interesting that you speak of hypocrisy. Let’s look at your quote directly.
1) How far back do these City’s violations go ? Possibly back as far as 2000 to 20004 ? I lived in Davis at the
time and don’t believe that there were any more or less instances of city water wastage then than now.
If I recall correctly you were on the City council then. I have not yet seen your apology for misleading the
public about the city’s failure to pay for its water use or for “billing the heck out of the ratepayers” or
for maintaining a “fraudulent “system while you were in office that the current council now has to rectify
after the 2010 Sacramento case.
2) We will “work this out with the City”. Granted this may be a matter of definition, but I do not consider
threats, law suits, political and personal smears to be “working things out”. I favor Robb Davis’ approach
to working things out where one considers evidence, does not presume to “mind read” the motives of others
and actually involves talking to one another to establish common ground and collaborative solutions.
3) You claim to want solutions that are “fair, open and transparent to the public” and yet, time after time when
many of us have posted questions to you here regarding your evidence or rationale for a particular position
you have stated “all in due time” or simply not bothered to respond at all. Hardly the “fair, open and
transparent approach” you pretend to favor.
4) “This will take several years”. So you are advocating for ever more time in which to block, stall, impede all
the while claiming as at the partially DV sponsored forum, that there is a better solution, you just aren’t
prepared to say what that might be.
5) “Yolo Ratepayers will be in that process for all of you “. Michael, please don’t “help” me. We have a
democratic process by which we elect our City leaders, you were one once, so I am sure you understand
“election”. I made my decisions, cast my votes, and now find you using tactics that could hardly be
considered “working with” to block a process that I favor. Please, please do not pretend to represent,
protect or speak for me, or for any other member of our community who has not specifically and directly
asked you to do so……and preferably in writing.