In the coming days within the next week or two, the Vanguard will analyze a series of unresolved issues in the Measure I campaign. We believe that, without the cost issue, there would be little to no opposition to this project. Therefore, we start with an analysis of the cost issues.
The era of cheap water may indeed be over, as project proponents like to argue. The Vanguard‘s own analysis suggests that water rates will double, even without a project, by 2018.
We know from the five-year Prop 218 rate projections that rates will go up over a five-year period, about 97% without a project and 136% with a project.
But in the debt-financed revenue structure, 2018 takes us to about $24 million in revenue for the project, an increase from the $10 million of current revenue we receive. The problem is that we do not know what happens to water rates from 2018 to 2032 when revenue requirements soar from $24 million to about $42 million.
The problem is that, by law, the city cannot establish a rate structure past five years. That leaves a huge amount of uncertainty.
We know rates over the next five years will at least double regardless of the outcome of Prop 218.
What we do not know is what happens with the rates after 2018, under either scenario.
Project opponents might call this a blank check. The voters have a measure of control for the first five years, but after that point control essentially exits their hands.
Observe that once we begin the project, we have largely no way to stop the project from going forward.
Proponents of the project and the city will argue that they will in five years be bound by the Prop 218 rate process. That is undoubtedly true.
As we noted on Sunday, the Prop 218 process will obviously bind the city in the first five years. However, after five years, we can see from charts provided by the city that revenue needs will continue to increase over the next 30 years. Once the voters approve the project, they will only have the Prop 218 process to protect them from future rate increases.
We have noted the problems with the Prop 218 process in the past. The whole reason that we had a referendum to begin with is that the Prop 218 process is patently unfair. It allows for people to protest the rate vote through an affirmative step that is far more rigorous than ordinary voting requirements.
It counts all non-responses as a vote in favor of the rate hike. It precludes entire classes of people who will be just as impacted as property owners from participation.
So, realistically, unless the city offers forth an utterly absurd rate hike, they will probably be able to push any rate hike through the Prop 218 process without incurring a majority protest.
We also now have some concerns about the actual costs. It has been represented to the voters and ratepayers that this project will cost about $113 million.
Opponents of the project have argued that this figure underestimates the costs. We have known that the costs will be considerably higher than $113 just by looking at the revenue charts which produce over $950 in addition revenue over a 30-year period. Some of that amounts to inflation, some to expenses that will be incurred with or without the project. Some of that will include debt payments on the financing.
However, what should concern us is a little publicized line from the letter from the President of CDM, when the company temporarily withdrew from the project procurement process.
They wrote, “We remain concerned that the DBO project may exceed the cost benchmark. Given the degree of public concern over rates, this raises a question as to the public acceptability of RFP-compliant proposed prices.”
This should be a large concern to both sides of the issue. It is evidence that the costs might be being held artificially low.
We have been told as a community that the DBO process shifts the risk from the city to the client. That means the cost-overruns end up coming from the private company’s bottom line rather than from the ratepayers. The problem is that if the cost-overruns come from the city underselling the cost of the project, we may end up keeping the advertised price down now while the election is on, only to bring that cost up once the bidding is completed.
The bidding is completed after the Measure I election.
The city does not appear bound to the $113 million project. Indeed, the language of City Ordinance No. 2399 reads, “The Davis Woodland Surface water project is currently anticipated to provide 12 million gallons per day of surface water to Davis water customers at an estimated construction cost to Davis of approximately $120,000,000.”
City Attorney Harriet Steiner, in her impartial analysis, notes, “Davis’ total Project construction cost was previously estimated to be approximately $120,000,000; however, current estimates are lower.”
However, there is nothing in that language that binds the city to $113 million or even $120 million – those are simply the estimates.
The issue of costs are undoubtedly a problem for the Yes on Measure I side, but they are not a fatal problem.
As the Enterprise in their endorsement of the project notes: “A complicated rate structure and stretched-out debt financing will help reduce the sticker shock somewhat, but we remain concerned that higher bills will be an onerous burden for many in these challenging times. Household dollars spent on water are dollars that will not be available to help support the local economy.”
They continue: “The good news? We’re told that these rates are the most fair for the most number of people. The bad news? They’re going to be high, no matter what. And the worst news? Even if you conserve, your water bill undoubtedly will rise, because the city must raise the money necessary to pay for the plant’s construction.”
However, their bottom line is this: “We have one shot to partner with Woodland on this project before that community goes forward on its own. We are asked to choose an option filled with flaws, wishing it could be so much more. If we say no, where do we turn for our future water needs?”
Nevertheless, as we noted on Sunday, this produces a potential burden on low income and fixed income residents, and the city has, in effect, thrown up its hands and not found a way to address this issue. This is a serious problem and one that may drive people out of their homes – and the Measure I proponents’ response is that the era of cheap water is over.
It may well be, but they need a better answer here if they expect some people to support this measure.
The city looked into a rate subsidy program that did not seem to produce nearly enough savings to allay people’s concerns.
Perhaps both sides need to formulate an answer for this – I cannot say for sure. What I do know is that this issue remains critical to whether the city can pass the ordinance and it remains disappointing that the city – taxed as it has been to analyze the project and costs in their self-appointed time period – has been unable to satisfactorily address this fundamental issue.
At the same time, this is not the trump card. The No on Measure I side needs to come up with a viable alternative to this project. Otherwise, it would appear that the Davis Enterprise editorial bottom line is largely correct – if we say no, where do we turn for our future water needs?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Estimates are that without the project rates will double. With the project they will triple. We already know this and we know that the [i]potential[/i] exists for this to be a burden on the most vulnerable families in our community. The City may not have taken action on this yet but one thing it can do is ask the WAC or a successor body to convene in the coming months and begin a series of public hearings on this issue. This will require developing a research protocol to assess the impact of rate increases on Davis households. We will need data, not just vague statements–as reasonable as they seem–to assess this situation.
Once the data–qualitative and quantitative–is collected and analyzed then, we, together, can begin to discuss ways to deal with any emerging problems. If a demonstrated need exists we can decide whether to develop a City-run subsidy program (involving a tax or voluntary contributions on water bills) or whether a non-profit-run (voluntary) program might be better.
We should start the analysis soon and be willing to be creative in our responses. I have noted before that we need not “throw up our hands” at this challenge. This is our community. If members of it suffer as a result of increases in water bills (again, inevitable no matter the outcome of Measure I), then we can decide to help them. If we are unwilling to do so then it will become clear that our stated concern for neighbors during this period was nothing but a pseudo-concern.
[b]I therefore request that the City Council appoint a Water Rates Analysis Task Force, the job of which will be to analyze the effects of a doubling or tripling of water rates on the most economically vulnerable members of our community.[/b]
[quote]Estimates are that without the project rates will double. With the project they will triple.[/quote]
within five years is the key. If you look at the revenues, however, you realize that rates will have to do far more than just triple.
“We believe that without the cost issue, there would be little to no opposition to this project.”
You are wrong. There are the no growth advocates who have opposed everything from Ross to Nugget, the Richards underpass, Covell Village, Mace Ranch and Wildhorse. Possibly without the costs you would have fewer opponents but this issue has cobbled together Anti-growth conservatives with fiscal conservatives. I love to tease the treasurer of the No on I campaign that he is hanging out with the NIMBYs. What is interesting is that the two groups are natural bedfellows although the no growth conservatives would probably shudder at the notion of being the alter ego of the fiscal conservatives. Look no farther than one former council member who can’t oppose measure I as anti-growth, even though she has opposed many other proposals on that basis, and so opposes it on the basis of cost. How convenient. The Republicans of Davis finally come together and drop their pretenses.
I understand this David. All the more reason to start looking at the implications NOW. We have no need to wait. If we are genuinely concerned about the effects of these rate increases on vulnerable populations then the time to examine what those effects are likely to be is now. Water is the most basic of human needs and if people’s water is cut off because they cannot afford it then we should be very concerned.
I expect all those who have decried the effects of increased rates on economically poorer members of the community to join me in my call to the City Council to form a task force. I expect the Vanguard (and Bob Dunning) to join this call.
Toad:
“The Republicans of Davis finally come together and drop their pretenses.”
Funny, I always thought that slow to no growth was a liberal mantra.
The article re-affirms what I and my colleagues have been trying to say:
the project lacks solid engineering-based definition, with specific costs, with the rates, with the rate system, all in one unified package for the voters. Like a Measure J/R for a large utility project.
This is exactly what our initiative is going to require. I have been saying this for well over a year, but many of you do not listen, or choose not to. The Large Public Utilities Project Initiative will take over this process and establish a well-defined, rationale process for the City evaluating and adopting and building these kinds of projects.
Matt Williams listens: did anyone notice his posting the other day: “Harrington’s four step plan ….”? Matt, would you do us all a favor and repost that?
And Matt reads … everything. Did anyone notice his simple comment yesterday that the WAC factual record contains solid, objective, easy to understand data that takes us down the road to the conclusion that the current rates, and the CBA two year set of initial rates coming up, violate Prop 218? Not one reader — not one — commented on that simple paragraph. Was it too obvious that no one could believe it? Or too contrary to world views of the haters that come after me, personally, that they did not want to believe what they were reading?
He is exactly right.
I have told the DV over and over that some of the data we are using in the rate case are in the WAC record. Heck, the CC has half of our case right in front of its eyes. But it needs a good, object rates attorney to tell it what the CC needs to know.
I shook my head in wonder at Attorney Salt’s recent legal memo that was lavishly, some might say slavishly, praised by the DV … she does not even know what is in the WAC and CC record, she is so hell-bent to publically defend her work product. Reminds me of Harriot Steiner and her DACHA advice.
The lack of a siting analysis of the waste treatment plant and the “clean” water plant, with something simple like: would the Director of Public Works please stand on that dusty site, stick his finger in the air, and notice that on a normal day …. guess what? The air blows straight over the dirty plant, and dumps its particulant load down across the street on the “clean” water plant site.
I was amazed — but not shocked — when I heard about the requirement of an aerosol study …. and how our engineers and consultants completely overlooked … forgot … neglected … or worse … failed to do a complete healthy and safety siting study that would evaluate and discuss these important issues.
Heck, my Momma, in Memphis, told her 6 kids to close that kitchen door when we came in … why? Because the wind blows dirt in!! Amazing rocket science, isn’t it.
Would someone please ask West Yost, the main project consultants, if they have ever designed a water treatment plant? Are their licensed for it? Has our CC even bothered to check? Do they care?
Or do they care most about the power and money that comes from these consultants?
David, what happened to the DV “underbelly of Davis” analysis that used to talk about the photo of Yost cozing up to Don Saylor at the podium when Saylor announced he was running for Supervisor? Now, why would Saylor allow, participate, and encourage that photo? Money and power.
The lack of a healthy and safety study of the siting of the plants is … amazing. And it suggests there are many, many more surprises to come. WHat else have the water engineers forgotten to check, or tell us about?
If and when the City and JPA have the rates and legal permission to move ahead on this project, the DV has correctly pointed out that the $113 million figure is … advisory!
Measure I is, truly, a blank check.
The City can up the project cost significantly, at any time. Sure, they might have to do another Prop 218 rate increase, but do any of you truly appreciate how hard it is to stop that rate increase? Pam Neiberg, Nancy Price, and our many friends do. It’s weeks of chaos to stop the City from taking us over a fiscal cliff ….
So all of you Yes on I people who trashed me yesterday … and by implication the entire No on I Committee … and by implication the 5600 protest ballot submitters we represent from the August and September 2011 fraudulent rate process, and by implication the many thousands of NO voters on March 5, please step back, look at the big picture, and understand that we have legitimate concerns about the project and its tortured process and lack of specifics that bind the City, and produce fixed, understandable, and fair rates for all of us.
Vote NO on Measure I, and let’s work together to put together a much better and specific package that won’t give the City, West Yost consultants, and the JPA a blank check.
That is funny !
Robb: thanks for the comments about a rates task force. Actually, when you see our Initiative, I think you will like it. We are going to force the City to establish a Public Utilities Commission that will have jurisdiction over these projects, and rates.
Furthermore, the Initiative will require the City to submit larger projects to all the relevant Commissions.
Do any of you know that the City was so terrified of the Budget and Finance Commission that CIty staff refused to submit this project’s costs, or rates, to any sort of critical analyis or review by that Commission! Mark Siegler, Chair of Budget and Finance, brought this up several times at the WAC and staff ignored him.
Measure J/R requires such review of all aspects of new urban development outside the city limits, and so our Utilities Initiative will do the same, for larger projects.
[quote]We know from the five year Prop 218 rate projections that rates will go up over a five year period about 97% without a project and 136% with a project.[/quote]
The Prop. 218 notice leads anyone to think this, but this statement is simply not true, and it is just another example of the City using deceptive tactics.
The City warns that average water bills will rise from $34 today to $67 by 2018 without the project, or an increase of 97 percent as reported above. This calculation involves average current usage of 15 ccf per month.
However, when the City reports what will happen to water bills with the project, it is based on median water usage of 11 ccf per month.
The apples-to-apples comparison of average water bills in 2018, assuming the same summer peaking ratios as the City used and current average monthly usage of 15 ccf/month, are $108 with the project and $67 without. As a result, water bills are projected to increase 97 percent without the project, but 218 percent with the project (and this doesn’t include the further increases after the five-year period).
One of the coolest things that has happened as a result of the bogus Sept 2011 rates, the WAC, and now this election is we see a clear joinder of political forces between the progressives and fiscal conservatives.
Most, not all, but most of the Yes on I endorsees are political and business elites, or well-paid government employees with big pension and benefit packages who can easily afford the hit from the water project.
The Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services is going to be a serious local watchdog in local governments’ provision of critical services that we all depend upon.
“Funny, I always thought that slow to no growth was a liberal mantra.”
This is a weird reality. The conservation movement was originally a Republican thing going back to Teddy Roosevelt and the Rockefellers it was also wrapped up with eugenics during the Progressive Era and later with Malthus and then Ehrlich and zero population growth in the 60’s and limits to growth in the 70’s. Interestingly, the no-growth nimby’s of Davis started calling themselves Progressives during the 90’s You need to remember that there was a realignment of the Republicans that started with Goldwater and flourished under Reagan where the environmental movement was identified with an anti-business agenda and thrown under the bus as Reagan built the Pro-business, pro-military, evangelical modern Republican Coalition. As that coalition is cracking we once again see a rise in anti-materialistic evangelicals coming back into the environmental movement. So while local no-growth advocates align with liberals on social issues they are more like traditional conservatives on the environment and view themselves as part of an educated elite that wants to protect their way of life from the hordes of barbarians that would come here to seek education and upward mobility.
[i]Would someone please ask West Yost, the main project consultants, if they have ever designed a water treatment plant? Are their licensed for it? Has our CC even bothered to check? Do they care? [/i]
Do you know how to use Google?
[url]http://www.westyost.com/project/regional-wastewater-treatment-plant-planning-and-design[/url]
[i]Most, not all, but most of the Yes on I endorsees are political and business elites, or well-paid government employees with big pension and benefit packages who can easily afford the hit from the water project.[/i]
That may or may not be true. I think it’s definitely true that all five of the public opponents of Measure I can also “easily afford the hit from the water project.” Including you.
Sac Bee, 2/12/13: Editorial: Davis should OK water pact with Woodland ([url]http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/12/5182677/davis-should-ok-water-pact-with.html[/url])
I would support a Water Rates Analysis Task Force that would monitor the rates/rate increases into the future, who would work with project managers and the city employees on setting rates appropriately and fairly as we go forward. I think it would be helpful to have a body that would provide oversight, so that the City Council can also attend to the many other things that are going on in the city (i.e. employee MOUs, deferred maintenance of streets and parks, etc.)
I wouldn’t support an initiative that would create a bureaucratic body that “would work like a Measure J/R for a utility” (measures that have the purpose of preventing growth/expansion of the City of Davis). I think this would be a colossal waste of taxpayer money and something we clearly can’t afford.
Lifeline rates have been studied and implemented across the country and state. Gas and electricity lifeline rates have many models, water lifeline rates are catching up. Back on 11-27-2012 the Davis City Council looked at Annual Lifeline Water Utility Rate Assistance Program.
[url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20121127/Packet/07-Lifeline-Utility-Rate-Assistance-Program.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsystems/pdfs/guide_smallsystems_fullcost_pricing_case_studies.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.cityofmartinez.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3333[/url]
[url]http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/energy_utility_telecom/water/r1111008_nclc_turn_comments_030112.pdf[/url]
[url]http://books.google.com/books?id=8eDRms8y9FYC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=Lifeline+rates+for+Water+Utilities+in+California&source=bl&ots=OSR0v_-qbe&sig=ht_9CaBABQyK4jHsRnzkYgS97MI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zoEaUfGIHsaJjAL_pYDYAw&ved=0CF8Q6AEwBzge#v=onepage&q=Lifeline rates for Water Utilities in California&f=false[/url]
wdft1: thanks for the link to the Bee Editorial. That same newspaper Board has never met a growth project or policy it did not endorse.
They hated J.
They loved Covell Village and Measure X.
On and on. The Bee is part of the local valley growth machine, so of course they love this project.
Dear Davis poor, middle class and progressives: do you see the team lined up for Yes on I? Looks nearly identical to the anti-J and Yes on X crowd, doesn’t it? Not all of them, and there are a couple three surprising names on the latest Yes on I endorsee list, but I only saw 2-3 total out of hundreds of Yes on I listed.
This project is all about soaking the masses in Davis for a water project that will generate 2-3 x more water than we will ever be able to use. That water will be used by the business elites and poltical elites for their long term goals of doubling the size of Davis, and developing the corridors between Davis and Woodland.
Don’t be duped: vote NO on Measure I, and work with us for a better deal that is fair, affordable, and does not set up water for the long term growth machine that has been behind this project since the 1988 General Plan.
[i]That water will be used by the business elites and poltical elites for their long term goals of doubling the size of Davis, and developing the corridors between Davis and Woodland. [/i]
Michael, I have proven that this statement is untrue. I have shown you the specific language of the General Plan. There is no “long term goal of doubling the size of Davis.” Why do you continue to state things that are provably false?
[i]Anti-growth conservatives[/i]
[i]So while local no-growth advocates align with liberals on social issues they are more like traditional conservatives on the environment and view themselves as part of an educated elite that wants to protect their way of life from the hordes of barbarians that would come here to seek education and upward mobility. [/i]
Mr. Toad – Appreciate the history lesson on the devolution of progressivism; however, rusty49 was/is correct. There are no anti-growth conservatives… at least not in any number that justifies the label.
I think it is a bit pathetic to keep reading these attempts by people with left-leaning political orientation to disown themselves from the maladies of their own ideology. Our President is successful doing this because the mainstream liberal media allows it and supports it. It is fascinating how this is done… continuing to do the same bad things while successfully labeling it as being owned by the opposition party.
For example, is waterboarding and drone killing a Republican thing, or a Democrat thing?
[b]Do liberal cities limit new housing development? Evidence from California[/b]
[quote]Abstract
Traditional explanations for why some communities block new housing construction focus on incumbent home owner incentives to block entry. Local resident political ideology may also influence community permitting decisions. This paper uses city level panel data across California metropolitan areas from 2000 to 2008 to document that liberal cities grant fewer new housing permits than observationally similar cities located within the same metropolitan area. Cities experiencing a growth in their liberal voter share have a lower new housing permit growth rate.[/quote]
[url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119010000720[/url]
This poses a question: Might Davis’s left political bent be responsible for all the difficulty we seem to have implementing necessary municipal infrastructure?
In other words, does paradise have a downside?
Please stay on topic.
I consider myself part of the poorer end of city residents – or at least the lower end of middle class. I do not have a large house with a large thirsty yard. My rates will rise around 70% by year 5 – from around $25 per month to around $35 per month. I think that’s reasonable.
I always understood Davis to be liberal in a most conservative way. The demand to think and behave a certain very liberal way is a constant presence. Though I am a committed Democrat and identify as liberal, I just can stomach the political face of “progressives -Davis version”. To me they are or have become just like the Tea Party – angry conservatives.
Ryan: You mentioned “angry conservatives.” Actually, the group of friends I have are mostly quite optimistic, and not angry or hopeless. We are confident that we are going to improve city government after the years of over-spending and neglect and abuse of the poor and middle class, such as Saylor and Souza did before they left city government. The Public Utilities Initiative will fix the process for the water and sewer plants.
There will be a Public Utilities Commission.
There will be a full public audit of the water fund. We are probably going to ask the Court for an audit going back ten years, but it certainly will go back to August 2010, when the current rates were first adopted without any sort of rate study.
There will be requirements that consultants not have conflicts of interest. The same consultants who tell us we need a project, are not going to be able to work on the planning and implementation of that project. Never again will we allow the CC, whose members receive massive amounts of political support from local consultants, to hire for the project the same consultant who told the CC that the project needed to be done.
We are hopeful, Ryan, and as we move into this new world of open government free from the insider stanglehold that has corrupted the process of the current water project, we would appreciate and welcome your active participation if you wish.
Ryan: You mentioned “angry conservatives.” Actually, the group of friends I have are mostly quite optimistic, and not angry or hopeless. We are confident that we are going to improve city government after the years of over-spending and neglect and abuse of the poor and middle class, such as Saylor and Souza did before they left city government. The Public Utilities Initiative will fix the process for the water and sewer plants.
There will be a Public Utilities Commission.
There will be a full public audit of the water fund. We are probably going to ask the Court for an audit going back ten years, but it certainly will go back to August 2010, when the current rates were first adopted without any sort of rate study.
There will be requirements that consultants not have conflicts of interest. The same consultants who tell us we need a project, are not going to be able to work on the planning and implementation of that project. Never again will we allow the CC, whose members receive massive amounts of political support from local consultants, to hire for the project the same consultant who told the CC that the project needed to be done.
We are hopeful, Ryan, and as we move into this new world of open government free from the insider stanglehold that has corrupted the process of the current water project, we would appreciate and welcome your active participation if you wish.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”within five years is the key. If you look at the revenues, however, you realize that rates will have to do far more than just triple.”[/i]
David, the annual total revenue requirement numbers below were presented by Bartle Wells to the WAC on October 25th. Your statement above does not come to pass until 2027/2028 when two factors contribute to the end of a 9 year period of holding revenue requirements level. Those two factors are 1) the debt service associated with building the third above ground storage tank, and 2) inflation @ 3% per year. NOTE: Both 1) and 2) are going to be incremental expenses regardless of whether the surface water project moves forward or not.
2011/12 — $9,978,000
2012/13 — $9,978,000
2013/14 — $14,169,000
2014/15 — $17,711,000
2015/16 — $22,316,000
2017/18 — $29,002,000
2018/19 — $29,002,000
2019/20 — $29,002,000
2020/21 — $29,002,000
2021/22 — $29,002,000
2022/23 — $29,002,000
2023/24 — $29,002,000
2024/25 — $29,002,000
2025/26 — $29,002,000
2026/27 — $29,872,000
2027/28 — $30,768,000
2028/29 — $31,691,000
2029/30 — $32,642,000
2030/31 — $33,621,000
2031/32 — $34,630,000
2032/33 — $35,669,000
2033/34 — $36,739,000
2034/35 — $37,841,000
2035/36 — $38,976,000
2036/37 — $40,145,000
2037/38 — $40,145,000
2038/39 — $40,145,000
2039/40 — $40,145,000
2040/41 — $40,145,000
2041/42 — $40,145,000
2042/43 — $40,145,000
2043/44 — $40,145,000
2044/45 — $40,145,000
2045/46 — $40,145,000
2046/47 — $40,145,000
2049/50 — $40,145,000
Stephen: Thanks for posting that, I have been loking for that staff report for quite some time and the city’s website is barier.
If you look at the proposed city program, you are talking about $15,000 total, $5 per month, $60 per year. That’s not going to cut it. I’m happy to work with Robb and others after the fact, we we need a real susidy unless we really do not care if people are priced out of their homes.
Matt: I’m going by the revenue numbers provided on January 15 to the Davis City Council. I believe the previous revenue numbers failed to include some costs if I recall correctly.
I thought Mr. Toad made a typo when he wrote: “no growth conservatives”, but he went on to write:
> So while local no-growth advocates align with liberals on social
> issues they are more like traditional conservatives on the
> environment and view themselves as part of an educated elite
> that wants to protect their way of life from the hordes of barbarians
> that would come here to seek education and upward mobility.
It sounds like Mr. Toad is talking about “limousine liberals” not conservatives.
While I’m sure there are at least a few “no growth conservatives” I bet there are more “gay fundamentalist Christians” , “black KKK members” and “vegan deer hunters”…
Then Frankly wrote:
> For example, is waterboarding and drone killing a
> Republican thing, or a Democrat thing?
When a Republican is waterboarding and killing Americans with drones it is good on Fox and bad on CNN. When a Democrat is waterboarding and killing Americans with drones it is bad on Fox and good on CNN…
[i]When a Republican is waterboarding and killing [b]Americans[/b] with drones it is good on Fox and bad on CNN. When a Democrat is waterboarding and killing [b]Americans[/b] with drones it is bad on Fox and good on CNN… [/i]
SouthOfDavis: I am thinking you meant killing terrorists, enemies and bad guys.
I think drones killing Americans might play the same on both Fox and CNN.
Back to the cost of the water project. I think the cost is the concern for half of the Measure I oposition and also some of the proponents. However, the fear of growth is the driver for the other half of the oposition, and the cost is just a proxy wedge issue that supports their agenda to prevent Davis from ever changing.
Even so, we need to absoluetly understand the costs and have them reviewed, confirmed, certified, audited and then fully disclosed.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt Williams listens: did anyone notice his posting the other day: “Harrington’s four step plan ….”? Matt, would you do us all a favor and repost that?”[/i]
That is easy to do Mike. The plan you have articulated is:
Step 1) Complete a thorough study of the current groundwater-only system, a) assessing its current condition, b) identifying necessary repair and replacement projects, and c) drawing up a schedule for completing those projects.
Step 2) Create a funding plan for the projects identified in step 1)
Step 3) Complete a thorough study of a surface water system.
Step 4) Fund the projects identified in step 3)
———————————————
Where do we stand in acting on that plan?
Step 1) was completed in 2010-2011 by the Kennedy-Jenks / Brown and Caldwell. Their report was reviewed by Water Department Staff and a schedule of R&R and Water Main projects was developed and budgeted.
Step 2) was completed by Bartle Wells through the inclusion of the Step 1) projects in the revenue requirement of the current Prop 218 rate structure.
Step 3) is what we are deciding in the Measure I vote and the Prop 218 rate process.
Step 4) was completed by Bartle Wells through the inclusion of the Step 3) estimated costs in the revenue requirement of the current Prop 218 rate structure.
We all know about Steps 3) and 4). What is rarely discussed is the fact that the completion of Steps 1) and 2) mean that a No Vote on Measure I will still leave us with an 88% rates increase from current to 2018 ($34 to $64). Com pare that to the Council approved increase of 133% with Measure I approved ($34 to $79) Is $15 per month too much to pay in 2018 for the ability to avoid spending money for bottled water and/or water softener chemicals?
Michael wrote:
> That water will be used by the business elites
> and political elites for their long term goals
> of doubling the size of Davis…
Then Don wrote:
> Michael, I have proven that this statement is
> untrue. I have shown you the specific language
> of the General Plan.
Time to wake up Don, until you see the recorded deeds that all the property around Davis has been put in to a conservation easement (banning development forever) there is no “proof” that what Michael says is wrong (he is dead on right BTW). The Davis “General Plan” is just a “Plans” George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama had to reduce our Government debt.
I have no idea if Bush or Obama actually wanted to reduce the debt but since the “business elites and political elites” didn’t want to do it didn’t happen. The people that wrote the General Plan may not want to increase the size of Davis but the “business elites and political elites” sure do (and are happy to use people like Don to bash people like Michael since Don seems to believe their so called “plans”)…
[quote]Michael Harrington: “There will be a Public Utilities Commission.” [/quote]
This won’t solve a thing, Mike. You and others will just move your allegations of corruption, fraud and personal gain to the members of the commission. Nothing will change. And it will cost us money with the same result.
Frankly wrote:
> SouthOfDavis: I am thinking you meant killing terrorists,
> enemies and bad guys.
No I meant to write “Americans” (Anwar al-Awlaki and his kid killed in separate Obama ordered drone strikes are “terrorists, enemies and bad guys” but they are also “Americans”).
To tie this in to the water debate, like most other debates people don’t want to talk about the actual issues so they start name calling to make a point, like:
“Rich Republican Political Fat Cat Land Owners want the water project” or “Liberal crazy Tree Hugging anti-growth progressives are trying to stop your kids from getting clean water”…
H. Seldon said . . .
[i]”The City warns that average water bills will rise from $34 today to $67 by 2018 without the project, or an increase of 97 percent as reported above. This calculation involves average current usage of 15 ccf per month.
However, when the City reports what will happen to water bills with the project, it is based on median water usage of 11 ccf per month.
The apples-to-apples comparison of average water bills in 2018, assuming the same summer peaking ratios as the City used and current average monthly usage of 15 ccf/month, are $108 with the project and $67 without. As a result, water bills are projected to increase 97 percent without the project, but 218 percent with the project (and this doesn’t include the further increases after the five-year period).”[/i]
H. Seldon your numbers are not accurate for a 15 ccf account. Here are the accurate numbers for a 15 ccf account with 19 ccf in the summer and 11 ccf in the winter.
Current2013__ 2014__ 2015__ 2016__ 2017__ 2018__
$34.00 $35.45 $40.77 $46.89 $53.92 $58.77 $64.06 = Measure I fails
$34.00 $35.78 $42.63 $50.99 $62.08 $68.80 $81.83 – Measure I passes
The increases are 88% and 141% respectively. Your 208% at 15 ccf is not accurate. The above numbers include $0 for wastewater discharge violation fines and $0 for parks and schools capital construction costs for repiping intermediate aquifer wells for irrigation purposes. It is impossible to forecast either of those incremental expenses with any accuracy at this point in time.
The Measure I fails numbers do not include monthly expenditures for either bottled water or water softener chemicals, because those costs vary wildly from household to household. If a customer knows what they spend on those two discretionary items, then they would add those amounts to the Measure I fails numbers.
[i]Time to wake up Don, until you see the recorded deeds that all the property around Davis has been put in to a conservation easement (banning development forever) there is no “proof” that what Michael says is wrong (he is dead on right BTW).[/i]
Growth will occur next to Davis when the voters approve it. Not before that. The track record of peripheral projects is pretty clear.
The General Plan, which was hotly debated, does not lead to a doubling of the Davis population. Even if we built at the 1% rate that was the subject of so much controversy in the late 1980’s, it would take us decades to double the population, much less achieve the ridiculous 150,000 population figure Mike H. likes to throw around.
Please name one elected official in this town who has ever advocated for doubling the population of Davis. Please show me the numbers that get us there.
Please show me the land that you believe will be annexed and built on. Please explain how the developers will achieve that without a vote of the public.
Mike is wrong about this. It is a ridiculous assertion.
Davis General Plan Section II: Planning Context Adopted May 2001/Amended Through January 2007
[i]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.
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.
[/i]
If Measure I existed in a vacuum I really think there would be little resistance. For me the big picture is that I already pay a $600/yr schools parcel tax which still does not cover a $1.5-2.5 structural deficit. This deficit pretty much guarantees that there will be another schools parcel tax on the ballot in short order. Even if it is only for a 3%/yr inflationary adjustment this will bring it up to $700/yr in 5yrs, and this does not even touch the massive backlog in renovations at Emerson or the MPR at DHS. The $150 million void in road maintenance and Rochelle Swanson’s statement that a sales tax or parcel tax needs to be looked at for roads means that you can probably bet the ranch that we will soon have a significant roads parcel tax. The parks parcel tax is underfunded and is also in need of an increase. There is also the wast water treatment project that is not going to be free. I think the little discussions between the city and the contractor who wanted to pull out of the bidding clearly indicate that this project will end up costing much much more than anyone is willing to admit. I do not think we can afford this project and that is why I am voting NO.
After all this time, we seem to have pretty well hashed and rehashed everything. This is a big, complicated project–one that requires most of us to be satisfied with the judgment and intentions of our elected leaders and their technical experts, commissions, staff and committees in order for us to support it.
After all this time, I appreciate the way several of you (Matt, Don, others) have kept providing links and quality information no matter how many times the same misinformation and questionable charges have been repeated (either intentionally or by misguided folks who’ve passed along what they believed was accurate).
After all this time, uncommitted people have looked the evidence and issues and have come to objective evaluations to support the project (including the Bee and the Enterprise).
After all this time, I’ve voted “YES.”
wesley506 said . . .
[i]”If Measure I existed in a vacuum I really think there would be little resistance. For me the big picture is that I already pay a $600/yr schools parcel tax which still does not cover a $1.5-2.5 structural deficit. This deficit pretty much guarantees that there will be another schools parcel tax on the ballot in short order. Even if it is only for a 3%/yr inflationary adjustment this will bring it up to $700/yr in 5yrs, and this does not even touch [b]the massive backlog in renovations at Emerson or the MPR at DHS.[/b]”[/i]
wesley, if the renovations at Emerson are subjected to a WAC-like process, do you think that the end result will be that Emerson is declared to be a money pit, and that Measure I-like “repairs and replacements” will be blocked from proceeding?
wesley506 said . . .
[i]”The $150 million void in road maintenance and Rochelle Swanson’s statement that a sales tax or parcel tax needs to be looked at for roads means that you can probably bet the ranch that we will soon have a significant roads parcel tax. The parks parcel tax is underfunded and is also in need of an increase. There is also the wast water treatment project that is not going to be free. I think the little discussions between the city and the contractor who wanted to pull out of the bidding clearly indicate that this project will end up costing much much more than anyone is willing to admit. I do not think we can afford this project and that is why I am voting NO.”[/i]
wesley, based on the independent analysis completed in 2010-2011 by Kennedy-Jenks / Brown and Caldwell you are going to see an 88% increase in your water rates between now and 2018 regardless. $17.77 a month is going to be a pittance when compared to the Emerson repair and renovation costs.
Current 2013__ 2014__ 2015__ 2016__ 2017__ 2018__
$34.00 $35.45 $40.77 $46.89 $53.92 $58.77 $64.06 = Measure I fails
$34.00 $35.78 $42.63 $50.99 $62.08 $68.80 $81.83 – Measure I passes
I am voting yes.
We need upgrades, and costs will increase regardless.
There is a real concern about long-term supply in our deep well sources.
Subsidence and uplift are constant concerns for pumping increasing volumes of water from the ground… thereby increasing the cost of damage to buildings, roads and infrastructure.
The cost of water softeners, and costs from hard water damage to appliances are real and big.
The damage to the environment from salts and minerals in the effluent are real and big.
The risk of future fines for failing to comply with clean water regulations are real and big.
Davis water tastes terrible, is unhealthy to drink, and leaves water spots on everything. It covers bathroom and kitchen fixtures in a white milky haze. It takes harsh chemicals to even partially clean off this junk. It requires more soap and detergent which flows down the drain adding to the pollution. It corrodes plumbing and will force some homeowners to undergo expensive and destructive pipe repairs.
Those making a case about other, non-water-related city budget challenges are conflating issues. Since the state increased sales and income tax, and the economy is improving, start demanding more of that money flows to schools. Start demanding that all public sector workers have their pay and benefits reduced to match the overall labor market. Doing this will free up funds for necessary infrastructure maintenance and improvements. It will also free up funds for programs to help supplement low income residents unable to afford the increases in fees.
Voting no on the surface water project is just another kicking of the can down the road to our children. Right now that can is the size of a barrel. Soon it will be the size of a semi-truck. When will we stop acting like adult spoiled children demanding everything for ourselves, and start giving to make the future better for the real children?
This looks as if the lion’s share of the costs are somehow associated with current infrastructure in need of maintenance and repair and a tiny amount for the new project. How can that be? It can’t. We are looking at what happens in the 5 years that will be over in a flash, 2013-2018, and not at what the rates will be after that. I asked that question at the Senior center, the presenter would’t touch it.
Donna, in 2018 the costs break down into broad categories as follows:
Baseline System Costs = $19.0 million (62% of total)
CPG Water Purchase = $1.3 million (4% of total)
DWSWP O&M Costs = $2.7 million (9% of total)
[u]DWSWP Debt Service = $7.8 million (25.3% of total)[/u]
Total Annual Costs = $30.8 million
Clarification:
Baseline System = current infrastructure
I think this chart by Matt, above, is useful:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/Mattratechart.png[/img]
Here are Matt’s yearly numbers from above, now we are getting a bigger picture, because as I said, 5 years are gone in a flash.
So lets run some average numbers, and if you use more than average water yours will be higher and if you use less they’ll be lower. First lets look at 2018: $30.8 million/16,500 households=$1866 per year/12=$155 per month
Now Matt can you help us out again? What are the Total annual costs (these are ESTIMATES if course) for let’s say 2025, 2035. We can then do the calculation and get a longer view.
Hmm, I’m thinking that 16,500 number above includes an apartment complex as 1 user so that of course is how many single family costs will be less than average. Matt, help us refine this please, sorry to be leaning on you like this, but I think people are really interested in understanding this, I know I am. 5 years is just nothing.
Matt,
Why only assume 19 ccf in summer with a 15 ccf annual average per month? 19/15 is only 1.266. In the City median example, it’s 17 summer ccf vs. 11 ccf for median monthly use, which is a summer to year round ratio of 1.545 (17/11). When you apply the same ratios that the City used and apply it to mean usage, you get an average monthly water bill of $108 with an average ccf of 15 per month with 23 summer ccf to 15 average ccf or a ratio of 1.533 (23/15).
The more you use in summer, the higher are your bills year round. My example is the apples-to-apples comparison using the same ratios that the City used. If you use proportionately more in the summer, your bills are going to be much higher than if you use proportionally less. We can argue about what the ratios will be, but the City is not being honest when they report average (mean) water bills without the project vs. median water bills with the project.
H. Seldon, I have three years of data for all 16,000 accounts in Davis for all 18 billing periods. When Bartle Wells and I did all our slicing and dicing of the data as part of the cost-of-service analysis underlying the rate proposals to the WAC, the peaking factor for single family residences at 15 ccf per month was 1.19. The peaking factor for Tier 2 was 1.15. At those levels I personally would have gone with a peak of 18 ccf for a 15 ccf average account, but Dianna Jensen and Herb Niederberger from the City felt that 19 was more conservative. Bob Dunning has gone with 20.
Here are all the peaking factors (summer divided by average)
All SFR — 1.19
SFR Tier 1 — 1.00
SFR Tier 2 — 1.15
SFR Tier 3 — 1.22
Multi-Family Residential — 1.00
All Commercial — 1.08
All Irrigation — 1.47
“…but the City is not being honest when they report average (mean) water bills without the project vs. median water bills with the project.”
The “wish list” for the total upgrading of the Davis water delivery system to expert consultant “academic” standards that would suggest that the water rates would double without the project is another example of the city’s creating future “facts” that are divorced from fiscal/political realities. Most,if not all, municipal water delivery infrastructures are kept functioning at a restoration level far below these “academic” levels.
“Please name one elected official in this town who has ever advocated for doubling the population of Davis”
Another disingenous “fact”.Future Council members will be elected who will have no problem in advocating massive peripheral residential development if they conclude that the Davis voters, with their fiscal gonads in a vice-grip, support changing the General Plan to dramatically increase Davis’ resident tax-base.
Matt,
What are the total revenue requirements in five years without the project vs. in five years with the project? This is the truly relevant ratio. Also, why have average rates gone from $34 today to $67 in 2018 without the project, when the WAC was told that bills would only go to $50 without the project? Is this the $30 million mistake?
Donna, the annual total revenue requirement numbers below were presented by Bartle Wells to the WAC on October 25th. Your statement above does not come to pass until 2027/2028 when two factors contribute to the end of a 9 year period of holding revenue requirements level. Those two factors are 1) the debt service associated with building the third above ground storage tank, and 2) inflation @ 3% per year. NOTE: Both 1) and 2) are going to be incremental expenses regardless of whether the surface water project moves forward or not.
2011/12 — $9,978,000
2012/13 — $9,978,000
2013/14 — $14,169,000
2014/15 — $17,711,000
2015/16 — $22,316,000
2017/18 — $29,002,000
2018/19 — $29,002,000
2019/20 — $29,002,000
2020/21 — $29,002,000
2021/22 — $29,002,000
2022/23 — $29,002,000
2023/24 — $29,002,000
2024/25 — $29,002,000
2025/26 — $29,002,000
2026/27 — $29,872,000
2027/28 — $30,768,000
2028/29 — $31,691,000
2029/30 — $32,642,000
2030/31 — $33,621,000
2031/32 — $34,630,000
2032/33 — $35,669,000
2033/34 — $36,739,000
2034/35 — $37,841,000
2035/36 — $38,976,000
2036/37 — $40,145,000
2037/38 — $40,145,000
2038/39 — $40,145,000
2039/40 — $40,145,000
2040/41 — $40,145,000
2041/42 — $40,145,000
2042/43 — $40,145,000
2043/44 — $40,145,000
2044/45 — $40,145,000
2045/46 — $40,145,000
2046/47 — $40,145,000
2049/50 — $40,145,000
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt: I’m going by the revenue numbers provided on January 15 to the Davis City Council. I believe the previous revenue numbers failed to include some costs if I recall correctly.”[/i]
Can you repost those numbers?
[quote]wesley, if the renovations at Emerson are subjected to a WAC-like process, do you think that the end result will be that Emerson is declared to be a money pit, and that Measure I-like “repairs and replacements” will be blocked from proceeding?
[/quote]
I think these repairs must be done, which is exactly why the pool of funds that I have available for other community projects is diminished. The pie cannot be stretched indefinitely.
[quote]Davis water tastes terrible, is unhealthy to drink, and leaves water spots on everything. It covers bathroom and kitchen fixtures in a white milky haze. It takes harsh chemicals to even partially clean off this junk. It requires more soap and detergent which flows down the drain adding to the pollution. It corrodes plumbing and will force some homeowners to undergo expensive and destructive pipe repairs. [/quote]
What is the health hazard from drinking Davis water? With regards to the residue, a little white vinegar purchased from your neighborhood supermarket will do wonders in removing any residue on your plumbing fixtures. It’s non-toxic, very environmentally friendly and a couple of dollars buys you a gallon of the stuff.
“As that coalition is cracking we once again see a rise in anti-materialistic evangelicals coming back into the environmental movement….”
An astute analysis, Mr.Toad. Gun control, Socialism hatred for Obama(racial?)and Nativism are positions that capture the voter’s interest(and media advertising profits)but many Tea Partiers find common cause with populist movements like “Occupy Wall Street”.
“The people that wrote the General Plan may not want to increase the size of Davis but the “business elites and political elites” sure do (and are happy to use people like Don to bash people like Michael since Don seems to believe their so called “plans”)”
SouthofDavis, I’s be a newbie, so’s hep me out here. I’s be eager to do battle, but not clear on the enemy or the mission.
1) Who’s exactly be these eilites (names please!).
2) How many of ’em is ah?
3) Why we non-eilites so feahful of ’em iffen we have nu, nu, numericalus superioritis and feahsome tactical weapons such as Measure J/R?
4) Haven’t we been kickin’ some serious ass these past years, so why we’s actin’ like suchum chickenshits?
5) Which of ‘dos hifalutin facts Don been a spewin’ out do we need to choke ‘im with? Matt too! He fo’ so’ be a tricky damn rascal wid his gobbelygook.
-Michael Bisch
“Please name one elected official in this town who has ever advocated for doubling the population of Davis”
I seem to remember that Lois Wolk was in favor of massive increases in Davis’ future population when she sat on our Council.
wesley506
[i]”I think these repairs must be done, which is exactly why the pool of funds that I have available for other community projects is diminished. The pie cannot be stretched indefinitely.”[/i]
If those repairs are fiscally irresponsible, why [u]must[/u] they be done? Are there no alternatives? Have we even looked at any alternatives? Should we form an EAC?
wesley506: [i]What is the health hazard from drinking Davis water? [/i]
From the EPA…
[quote][b]What are selenium’s health effects?[/b]
Some people who drink water containing selenium well in excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for many years could experience hair or fingernail losses, numbness in fingers or toes, or problems with their circulation.
This health effects language is not intended to catalog all possible health effects for selenium. Rather, it is intended to inform consumers of some of the possible health effects associated with selenium in drinking water when the rule was finalized.[/quote]
Note that I have been losing my hair since I moved to Davis and I used to drink a lot of water from the tap.
Based on their most recent pictures, I think Rich Rifkin and Bob Dunning have also been drinking the tap water for a long while.
wesley506: [i]With regards to the residue, a little white vinegar purchased from your neighborhood supermarket will do wonders in removing any residue on your plumbing fixtures.[/i]
Do you live in another city? Here in West Davis my mineral-covered fixtures would explode in a fit of deep belly laughter from me trying to clean them with vinegar. I need industrial-strength acid-based descaler and pumice powder. And just forget ever getting a glass shower door to sparkle again.
Matt, why do the numbers you posted at 6:54pm and also earlier today show $30.8 million in 2027/2028 but your post at 4:35 pm shows that figure for 2018. When I went to respond with my quickie average calculation I looked to use those numbers but they did not match, hence my subsequent inquiry for the later years. Thanks!
Donna, somehow a post got lost. I thought I posted an answer to that question earlier. The reason for the difference is costs vs. revenues. Because of the sequencing of the $37 million in capital repair and replacement projects the costs can go up and down slightly from year to year. On the other hand, the revenue requirements that Bartle Wells and City Staff put together to cover those costs are “smoothed” in order to make them somewhat consistent for the rate payers.
Matt, do you happen to know approximately how many of the 16000 accounts are single units and what proportion of the total revenues they represent? You of course see what I’m getting at here, a mechanism of calculating estimated average single family bills beyond 5 years.
[quote]What are selenium’s health effects?
Some people who drink water containing selenium well in excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for many years could experience hair or fingernail losses, numbness in fingers or toes, or problems with their circulation.
This health effects language is not intended to catalog all possible health effects for selenium. Rather, it is intended to inform consumers of some of the possible health effects associated with selenium in drinking water when the rule was finalized.
[/quote]
More on selenium (and boron) from a quick search in PubMed…..
[b]Toxicology and Industrial Health. 2012 Jul 10. [Epub ahead of print]
The effect of supplementation of calcium, vitamin D, Boron, and increased fluoride intake on bone mechanical properties and metabolic hormones in rat.[/b] . “Findings are evidence that fluoride + boron intake revealed significant positive effects on bone mechanical properties and bone metabolic hormones. These findings suggest that combined intake of these two elements has beneficial effects on bone stiffness and breaking strength comparing to even calcium + vitamin D supplementation.”
[b]Toxicology and Industrial Health. 2012 Dec 6. [Epub ahead of print]
Protective effects of vitamin C and selenium supplementation on methomyl-induced tissue oxidative stress in adult rats.
[/b] “In conclusion, the results of the current study revealed that MET-induced toxicity caused perturbations of some biochemical parameters, lipid peroxidation and alterations in the antioxidant enzymes in liver and kidney homogenates. Administration of vitamin C and Se exhibited protective effect by inhibiting MET-induced toxicity in liver and kidney.”
[b]Biomedical and “Environmental Sciences2012 Jun;25(3):340-51. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2012.03.013.
Dimethoate induced oxidative damage and histopathological changes in lung of adult rats: modulatory effects of selenium and/or vitamin E.[/b]
“We concluded that selenium and vitamin E ameliorated the toxic effects of this pesticide in lung tissue suggesting their role as potential antioxidants.”
[b]Biological Trace Elements Research. 2012 Dec;150(1-3):236-41. doi: 10.1007/s12011-012-9454-1. Epub 2012 May 26.
Antioxidant and antitumor activities of selenium- and zinc-enriched oyster mushroom in mice.[/b] “These findings suggest that SZMs (selenium and zinc enriched mushrooms) may be effective for improving antioxidant capacity and preventing tumors.”
[b]Journal of Nutritioin, Health and Aging. 2009 Jan;13(1):14-8.
Increased selenium intake in elderly high fish consumers may account for health benefits previously ascribed to omega-3 fatty acids.[/b]
“The observed health benefits of fish consumption in the elderly could be related not only to the increase in omega3 FA intake but also to other nutrients such as selenium.”
It looks like perhaps we could consider selling our boron an selenium laden well water in pharmacies and health food stores, and use the profits to get us some of that mercury laden Sacramento river water!!
I assume you all are actually aware that the problem with selenium isn’t human health, but the impact on the Delta. As they say in toxicology: the dose makes the poison. Many things which are needed in small amounts are toxic in larger amounts. If you want more information about what is driving the whole regulatory process, just Google “Delta selenium standards”.
Example: [url]http://www.c-win.org/selenium-and-california-toxics-rule.html[/url]
Note that if that particular interest group were to prevail, Davis water would instantly be [i]verboten[/i], even from the deep wells.
[i]It looks like perhaps we could consider selling our boron an selenium laden well water in pharmacies and health food stores, and use the profits to get us some of that mercury laden Sacramento river water!![/i]
I have just discovered some indication that selenium might effect the mind as well as the hairline and delta fish!
I travel frequently and I must say that Davis’s tap water tastes worse that any other I have tried. Some people get used to the taste of their local water; however, most locals I know drink bottled water or filtered water. Even my dog has trouble drinking the stuff. He has a much better sense of smell than I do. I think he knows it is dangerous stuff.
dlemongello asked . . .
[i]”Matt, do you happen to know approximately how many of the 16,000 accounts are single units and what proportion of the total revenues they represent? You of course see what I’m getting at here, a mechanism of calculating estimated average single family bills beyond 5 years.”[/i]
Donna, those numbers appear at the end of this comment; however, I think you can use the revenue requirements trends to estimate that. Whatever the overall percentage change in the revenue requirement is from year to year will determine the account level change percentage as well.
Single Family Residential = 14,736
Multi-Family Residential = 519
All Commercial = 658
Parks and Schools = 56
Irrigation – Multi Family = 52
Irrigation – Commercial = 191
Irrigation – Parks and Schools = 221
Matt: here you go
[img]http://www.davisvanguard.com/images/stories/debt-financed-rates.png[/img]
Michael Bisch said
[i]SouthofDavis, I’s be a newbie, so’s hep me out here. I’s be eager to do battle, but not clear on the enemy or the mission.
1) Who’s exactly be these eilites (names please!).
2) How many of ’em is ah?
3) Why we non-eilites so feahful of ’em iffen we have nu, nu, numericalus superioritis and feahsome tactical weapons such as Measure J/R?
4) Haven’t we been kickin’ some serious ass these past years, so why we’s actin’ like suchum chickens**ts?
5) Which of ‘dos hifalutin facts Don been a spewin’ out do we need to choke ‘im with? Matt too! He fo’ so’ be a tricky damn rascal wid his gobbelygook. [/i]
Who or what are you mocking here?
Skip: SouthofDavis wrote:
[i]Michael H wrote:
> That water will be used by the business elites
> and political elites for their long term goals
> of doubling the size of Davis…
Then Don wrote:
> Michael, I have proven that this statement is
> untrue. I have shown you the specific language
> of the General Plan.
Time to wake up Don, until you see the recorded deeds that all the property around Davis has been put in to a conservation easement (banning development forever) there is no “proof” that what Michael says is wrong (he is dead on right BTW). The Davis “General Plan” is just a “Plans” George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama had to reduce our Government debt.
I have no idea if Bush or Obama actually wanted to reduce the debt but since the “business elites and political elites” didn’t want to do it didn’t happen. The people that wrote the General Plan may not want to increase the size of Davis but the “business elites and political elites” sure do (and are happy to use people like Don to bash people like Michael since Don seems to believe their so called “plans”)… [/i]
Apparently if we support the project we are either ‘elites’ (per Mike H) or tools of the elites (per SouthofDavis).
Don, I understand what you and Michael B. said. I am just trying to figure out why he wrote it the way he did. I find it offensive and was wondering if he was mocking a so called hick, a southerner, or someone from the inner-city?
I had the same reaction to M. Bisch’s statement. And do not call us oversensitive, this is very obviously a mocking of some group as if they would be “stupid”. I can identify it as such and let garbage like this roll off me, but it’s rude.