In the end, the race ended like it was fought – hard fought, close, with the city apparently as deeply divided as ever. The final vote margin, at least on election night, was 1212 votes. 8014 people voted yes, 6802 voted no.
54.1 to 45.9 margin, deceptively comfortable. The reactions: polar opposites.
“The citizens of Davis have spoken,” Yes on Measure I campaign manager Will Arnold told the Vanguard on Tuesday night. “Our community deserves a secure and sustainable water future.”
“This has been a long and complex decision making process over the past several decades,” he added. “Now is the time to move past our divisions and make the critical investments necessary to ensure a cost effective and sustainable future for our community.”
But, despite the win by surface water project, that hardly seems possible, at least judging by the response from Michael Harrington on the No on Measure I side.
“Round two now over,” Mr. Harrington said cryptically. “The score is tied.”
He would offer no response to the Vanguard‘s follow-up question.
We can, however, wager some guesses.
Challenges Still Ahead
There is the Prop. 218 protest process that is still underway.
“Why did the (City Council) strip the water rate increases from the ballot vote on Measure I?” Mr. Harrington asked during the day. “Be sure to send in your rate hike protest to the City Clerk!”
It seems unlikely that a Prop 218 process would succeed in blocking the process, when the No side could not muster a majority to oppose Measure I.
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.
There is also the court challenge filed by Michael Harrington, that has never been served on the city.
Mr. Harrington further claims, “The Current Water Rates violate Proposition 218 and are unconstitutional and illegal in that, inter alia, they impose a fee or charge incidental to property ownership which exceeds the proportional cost of the services attributable to the parcel. The City knows this, and staff and/or paid city water consultants acknowledged such constitutional deficiencies at various meetings of the City Water Advisory Committee.”
He adds, “Plaintiff contends that Current Water Rates are in violation of Proposition 218 and therefore unconstitutional and illegal. The City disputes this contention.”
A January 15, 2013 letter to the city clerk from Nancy and Don Price writes, “We believe that the current rate system, adopted in 2010, and the new proposed structure, unfairly charge some classes of users differently than others, are terribly confusing and, for the many reasons outlined in the documents submitted to the Water Advisory Commission, city files, and the City Council, the current and proposed rates otherwise do not conform to law.”
The suit argues, “The Loge Williams Rates do not comply with Proposition 218 and are unconstitutional and illegal in that, inter alia, they impose a fee or charge incidental to property ownership which exceeds the proportional cost of the services attributable to the parcel.”
But the suit has, to date, not been served on the city, with Mr. Harrington citing strategic considerations.
As Frank Loge and Matt Williams argue in their response column, “Saying rates are not proportional, though, does not make it so.”
They continue, “What would a proportional system look like? The suit offers no specifics beyond Dunning’s column, which argues that every gallon of water should cost the same to deliver to every ratepayer every day of a given year.”
“Reality, however, does not conform to this analysis,” they contend.
Senator Lois Wolk argues, “Davis’ Proposition 218 rates are legal, consistent with the California Constitution and state law and worthy of our support.”
She writes, “Davis’ proposed rates for the following three years are also consistent with this state law. Those rates make certain that each homeowner pays for his/her proportion of the fixed costs. As conservation increases, then costs will decrease. This new rate approach resolves a problem that water agencies have long been struggling to address – how to pay for your fixed costs (the lion’s share) with variable or dropping payments.”
Mr. Harrington has argued that the courts will have to step in and figure out the rates, but the courts are going to be reluctant to tamper with a project approved by the voters that cleared the Prop. 218 process, and will only step in if the rates are egregiously out of line.
Mr. Harrington has argued that the rates fail proportionality requirements, but when Matt Williams and Frank Loge designed the rates, they submitted their rates to Kelly Salt, a Prop. 218 expert with Best, Best and Krieger.
“When we were done, we submitted our work to Kelly Salt, a lawyer who is one of the state’s leading experts on Prop. 218 compliance,” Matt Williams and Frank Loge wrote. “Her legal opinion was that it passed muster, and Davis City Attorney Harriet Steiner agreed. These lawyers work for the people of Davis, are highly qualified and have no ulterior motives or hidden agendas.”
In her legal memo, Kelly Salt concludes, “We believe that the CBFR structure provides with the substantive provisions of [Prop 218].”
She adds, “In fact, it could be argued that when water consumption is priced to capture the costs associated with greater demand, the rates more closely reflect each customer’s proportionate cost of providing water service by ensuring that those who reasonably use water do not pay for costs generated by those who place the most demand on the system.”
She writes, “Together, the rates for the two components of the City’s water service fees are structured to recover the proportionate costs of providing water service to each customer class.”
That leaves us with Michael Harrington’s public utilities initiative, which he believes will be a Measure J/R ordinance for utility projects, and he believes will apply retroactively to the surface water project.
As he wrote, “We will shortly file with the City Clerk our Initiative, which will serve as the Measure J/R for larger utility projects, including both water and sewer utilities.
He argues that the intiative would “require larger projects to be fully vetted by all relevant city commissions,” “require an outside, transparent audit of the water enterprise fund;” “require the City to immediately move to set up the metering, accounting, and payment systems so that the City pays for its own water usage;” “require the City to follow certain California codes concerning the bidding of professional contracts and retention of outside utility consultants;” and ” require a full EIR (not like the rushed, defective EIR that was done in the middle of the night at the end of December 2010, at Don Saylor’s last CC meeting before resigning).”
It would also require specific project design features, and “a stop-lock feature on total project construction costs, so the voters must re-approve the project before the construction costs can exceed the voter-approved amount” and, of course, “require the entire package to be put to a city-wide vote.”
“If the proposed project is approved, then the City will conduct a formal Prop. 218 notice on the rate changes; it should sail through,” he writes. “Never again should a project this large be pushed through planning with such an odd and opaque planning and approval process.”
The Way Forward
The critical question is whether the lawsuit has the ability to block Measure I. The city certainly spent a good deal of effort to vet the rate structure, and so it seems unlikely that this will occur.
The city needs to complete the Prop. 218, but we believe at this point that is mere formality.
In the end, the Yes on Measure I campaign clearly benefitted from the public process that the WAC engaged in, the support of elected officials in Davis, and a clear financial advantage.
However, the closeness of the race suggests that the community remains strongly divided on water, among other critical issues.
The city now must turn to fixing its fiscal house, but also find a way to bring people divided on the issue of water together on other critical matters.
Councilmembers Brett Lee and Rochelle Swanson sounded the right tone in their piece on Tuesday.
They wrote, “Whether Measure I passes or fails, this election has once again reaffirmed the fact that the citizens of Davis care deeply about civic matters. We believe we all want the same thing — continue to foster the wonderful quality of life here.”
“As members of a teeming community of communities, we are asked to sacrifice a small portion of self-interest in exchange for the common good of our fellow community members,” they write. “We face several substantial challenges over the next few months. We must find a way to have a sustainable budget while addressing very large unmet infrastructure costs, such as outstanding road and bike path repairs. Our City staffing costs have been rising due to unfunded pension liabilities and increasing retiree health care costs. Our parks and recreation budget is not meeting the high expectations of the community.”
Optimistically, they offer: “We will meet these challenges. The city council working together with the involved populace will be able to craft solutions to these issues. We will not be able to please each individual on every item as we move forward, but we hope that each individual will recognize what we are trying to do is not for the benefit of a favored few, but for the community as a whole. As such, open and honest community dialog is essential if we hope to develop and implement policies that are for the greater good.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Round two now over,” Mr. Harrington said cryptically. ‘The score is tied.’ He would offer no response to the Vanguard’s follow up question.”
Typical. How much longer will we have to suffer this too cute by half approach to municipal governance?
My sense is that the suit issues will sort themselves out in relatively short order.
My reckoning is that about 5o% of eligible Davis voters mailed in their ballots. Those who had the ballots in their hands but were undecided enough not to will be watching as the after-the Measure I-campaign facts concerning the bidding, costs, rates, etc. emerge One outstanding fact still opaque is what the bidding international water company was promised so that they would reconsider making a bid. We know that they decided that the numbers being put out were “low-balled”(no surprise to anyone) and they would not take the risk of promising to build at the figures offered to the Davis voters. 1200 votes with only 50% of those who had the ballots in their hands and decided to vote is a pretty thin margin to hang your hat on if you are the corporation that will be taking the risk of continuing Davis voter close scrutiny and skepticism of this project.
JS: “[i]How much longer will we have to suffer this too cute by half approach to municipal governance?[/i]”
Considering that David is still fighting against the Target Store coming to town, and as he apparently thinks that shilling for Michael is good for business, I suspect that the two of them will keep up the noise for another decade. It won’t matter though as they can make as much noise as they want. This one is in the books and now we have a secure source of water going forward.
That’s just an odd comment Mark.
An 8% margin isn’t ‘close’. It is a comfortable and substantial margin. The surface water project was approved by the voters and goes forward. If the lawsuit is served on the city, it is a clear statement by Mike Harrington, Don and Nancy Price, and John Munn, that they intend to flout the will of the voters.
” shilling for Michael is good for business”
Certainly my take on your coverage, as well, David .
” If the lawsuit is served on the city, it is a clear statement by Mike Harrington, Don and Nancy Price, and John Munn, that they intend to flout the will of the voters”
That would be consistent with the histories of the personalities involved, no ?
An 8% margin might not be close when choosing between two candidates, but I think it’s way too close for a community improvement project that likely enjoyed much more support before the campaign. I see this election as a confidence vote about the current city council–do we trust them to make important decisions for us?
When 46% vote “no confidence” based on the type of (mis)information upon which we made our decisions, i fear for the city council. How confident can they be that the residents will strongly support their decisions about projects, about firefighter changes, about anything? We now have 46% of our neighbors who don’t like the results, a critical mass sitting there to be stirred up about utility projects or other issues.
I think we’ll look back on this confrontational campaign as damaging to our community and its governance. It won’t go away soon.
[quote]Davis’ proposed rates for the following three years are also consistent with this state law. Those rates make certain that each homeowner pays for his/her proportion of the fixed costs. As conservation increases, then costs will decrease. This new rate approach resolves a problem that water agencies have long been struggling to address – how to pay for your fixed costs (the lion’s share) with variable or dropping payments.[/quote]
In this statement, it is not entirely correct to say that as conservation increases, the costs will decrease, because a large portion of the costs are debt services. They have to be paid regardless whether there is conservation in the future.
The current proposed rate structure covers the fixed costs, so do many other rate structures. That part is mathematically trivial: Given the sum to be paid, assign the proportion to each ratepayer. The second necessary consideration is in the fairness of the proportion. This second consideration is lacking in the proposed rates. As a result, the proposed rates are budgetary sound but unfair and leaves loopholes, which can be readily fixed if the computation of the rates are changed.
[List of issues with CBFR] ([url]http://skylet.net/docs/2013-02-18-2347-WaterRatesInfoList.htm[/url])
[Bulletin Board discussion] ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=996&Itemid=192[/url])
[i]An 8% margin might not be close when choosing between two candidates, but I think it’s way too close for a community improvement project that likely enjoyed much more support before the campaign.[/i]
I agree with this.
Rate confusion and perceptions of rate unfairness probably accounted for most of the no votes for those not part of Mr. Harrington’s NOETMEG (No on Everything That Might Encourage Growth) team. It was too close given the true cost-benefit analysis.
The additional problem is that we are proceeding with a new system that quite a few davisites do not support. These election results indicate a need for a more costly project management approach for trying to pull more people into the supporter arena. As a rule of thumb, for significant change, the project should strive to achieve at least 2/3 stakeholder support. I think by revisiting the CBFR model and making some changes we can probably get to that 2/3 support.
However, in the end, it does not matter. Happy or unhappy, Davisites will be getting a new water system and a new rate system.
I issue a snark warning before I make this comment.
I too think a lot of the no votes came from people who did not understand the CBFR rate structure, the attitude of “if they can’t give me something I can understand, I’m just voting no”. And I think a lot of those people were just to lazy to think or want to understand. It is more complex than what we are used to, it is also more fair. There can be situations where it would not be fair such as a SFR property that changes over every year to new occupants and it just so happens that in alternating years the people are water hogs and the opposing alternating years the people conserve. That would result in the people who conserved paying a lot and the people who wasted paying little. However that property would have paid its fair share for overall use even though the costs would be assigned to the wrong people.
Maybe charging by the gallon/ccf for current usage, whatever is appropriate for off peak months and a different amount for peak use months is the most straight forward. But then I can just hear it, people who use a lot would say really most of their water value was due to fixed costs and so they should not have to pay by the gallon/ccf.
Matt, why couldn’t CBFR be based on current/recent rather than last years use?
Here is an example of a comment I received from a Davis resident that is very well educated and very connected with Davis politics.
[quote]I thought the measure would be defeated because too many aspects of the plan seem ill-conceived. In the end, Chicken Little proved the victor with menacing warnings about our soon-to-be-arid aquifer.
By the way, I believe the surface water concept warrants consideration; but the convoluted rate structure that resulted from Davis’ compulsion be “innovative” scares me silly.[/quote]
It is the rates. I hate to keep harping on this because of all the hard work that went into designing CBFR. However, it breaks the KISS rule. People don’t easily support a rate design that requires a spreadsheet.
“Matt, why couldn’t CBFR be based on current/recent rather than last years use?”
I can answer that – you need to think about what CBFR is attempting to measure which is impact on infrastructure needs during peak use (ie. summer months). There is no way to measure that real time.
“However, it breaks the KISS rule.”
You don’t need to harp on it anymore, that part is over. I don’t think you use KISS to deal with complex structures and this needed to be somewhat complex to be fair. This is a more fair system than the existing one and the result is most people will be better off.
Actually David the “load” could be handled real time, but the fiscal stability benefit would be lost.
It requires no more of a spread sheet than our current rates. Currently we have tiers, CBFR has a different component for that aspect. It is all very simply explained in the 218 notice where amounts per ccf are supplied. In CBFR there are no tiers, for each category all water costs the same per ccf. You put in your meter charge, add your usage for each category of use and there you have your rate. Someone else already figured out how much it should be per ccf for the 2 use categories just like someone else figured out how much to charge per tier in our current system. If you don’t agree with those amounts per ccf then you’d need a spreadsheet for either system to know why they are what they are. The designers had the spreadsheets, the user does not need one. And if you want to know how your bill was derived I am sure the charges with the ccfs associated with reaching them will be on the bill, just like it is now. Some things in life are not SS if they are do be done well.
Matt – Why can’t we front-load the first 2 years of rates to develop a target operating surplus, and then trend usage (hopefully dropping from conservation) and reset rates every year based on estimated consumption? The surplus would be used only as a reserved operation account to cover revenue shortfalls from under-estimating consumption. The estimating model would be tweaked. I would expect that we could tune it based on trends so that the surplus would get replentished on years were revenue is higher than expected, and decreased when revenue falls short.
I think this would be a cleaner and easier to understand approach to preventing revenue shortfalls that prevent us from paying the debt and operating bills.
[i]You don’t need to harp on it anymore, that part is over.[/i]
No it is not over. There is a petition starting to circulate to demand that we change the CBFR structure to one that is easier and more fair from a per-unit volume useage perspective. Basically, to reduce or eliminate the tiers and the look-back seasonable adjustment which penalizes certain families based on a specific social, political and environmental worldview.
You can use the word penalize if you feel the need but it is based on water use, nothing else. And CBFR does not have tiers.
” There is a petition starting to circulate”
Really?
dlemongello: [i]It requires no more of a spread sheet than our current rates.[/i]
It does because of the increased family cost.
I don’t need a spreadsheet with the cost differentiation is so small that i would not make any change in my lifestyle. However, with these new rates, the financial impact on a family can mean not eating out or taking the family to the movie or a Kings game. So, yes, now I need a spreadsheet… and a crystal ball.
There is a mechanism already in place if you want to protest the rates. Why not turn in a protest form if that’s how you feel.
[i]You can use the word penalize if you feel the need but it is based on water use, nothing else. And CBFR does not have tiers.[/i]
Sir, do you read what you write? What are tiers based on if not usage?
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
David – I was told by someone today that there is a petition. I will try to find out more and get back to you.
I interpret tiers as levels with distinct cut offs. But I see your usage, so if you want to call those tiers they are continuous tiers in CBFR.
You had no way of knowing, but I am female.
According to the March 6th edition of the Davis Enterprise, the No on Measure I effort raised $23,990 for its campaign against the surface water project. In round numbers, $24,000 yielded 6,800 votes, for a cost of just over $3.50 per vote. What was the cost per vote for the Yes on Measure I effort?
Money is the milk of politics!
I want to thank Mike Harrington for working to bring this vote. He wanted a vote and now he has it. This vote means that a majority will rule through a process of direct democracy and that empowers the city leaders to say they have the support of a majority of the voters to move the surface project forward. Additionally the referendum caused Davis to engage in a water rate study, a process that will continue to be contentious, as it reaches into the pocketbooks of all our residents. Hopefully over time a rate paying system can become fair enough to lower the volume and shrillness of the debate. Mike should also be recognized for making Davis and Woodland re-negotiate and right size Davis’ portion of the system. This process, I think we can all agree, saved our community many many millions of dollars.
I also want to thank Nancy Price for raising the issue of private ownership of public resources. While she didn’t get everything she wanted it seems that the local governments, represented by the JPA, will have more control over this public resource than would otherwise have been the case and over time the role of private control will continue to diminish. Thank you Nancy.
For me it has always been about the quality of our water, but just because I voted for the project does not mean that i don’t think valuable contributions to the debate were made by some of the opponents and I want to thank those individuals for their contributions. My hope is that going forward the community will be able to move forward with less rancor.
dlemongllo: [i]You had no way of knowing, but I am female.[/i]
I stand corrected. However, I was using “sir” as a generic salutation like we do in the military.
Is there a gender-neutral salutation?
[quote]”I too think a lot of the no votes came from people who did not understand the CBFR rate structure….”[/quote]I think too that a lot of “yes” votes came from people who do not understand the DBFR rate structure. I know of at least one*.
I still can’t resolve why “summer only” months are calculated rather than one year. As long as the peak months are identifiable and can be used for the same purpose now proposed, what damage does it do to include 12 months? That would resolve 42.756% of the objections coming from those who can’t understand the system, but think that looking only at summer months [u]just has to be unfair somehow[/u].
This election does not mean the rate debate is over. It’s a mistake for project supporters to think this confusion/disagreement won’t fuel future attempts to detail stuff. Michael will try to justify his announced utilities commission initiative on the same “unfair rate/cheating city staff/lying council” confusion that successfully drove the “no on I” campaign.
Is there really anything that keeps us from better explaining the rate calculations or, even, making changes based on concerns that were revealed in the past weeks? There’s no reason to spend much time pushing back when city leaders can spend the time improving understanding and/or the rate system itself.
__________
*Come to think of it, I know of at least [u]two[/u] who still don’t understand all the rate complexities. See the David-Matt exchange above re. real time calculations.
If opponents want to make themselves valuable and helpful to the community, they should now focus on the governance model with Woodland going forward and, most importantly, the “operate” part of the DBO model for the project itself. Nancy Price made a very good argument critical of privatizing the operation of the project. It is in fact, the one issue that gave me pause on supporting Measure I. In the end, I did suppport Measure I, donated my $50 and wrote in this blog and a letter to the Enterprise in support of Measure I. However, I DO NOT LIKE the privatization of the operations of our water project. It is a bad deal for the public.
Regarding the CBFR structure, I’m very thankful to the WAC and Matt Williams for championing it in such a calm and confident manner on this blog and elsewhere. As I’ve said before, if people will set aside their egoistic need to feel wronged about the increase in rates for a new project and take the time to really understand CBFR, they will not only support it, but wonder why we didn’t use a similar structure for the last 50 years.
[i]I DO NOT LIKE the privatization of the operations of our water project. It is a bad deal for the public.[/i]
Why? Our city garbage collection service is fantastic.
davehart said “Regarding the CBFR structure, I’m very thankful to the WAC and Matt Williams for championing it in such a calm and confident manner on this blog and elsewhere. As I’ve said before, if people will set aside their egoistic need to feel wronged about the increase in rates for a new project and take the time to really understand CBFR, they will not only support it, but wonder why we didn’t use a similar structure for the last 50 years.”
Yes indeed, and it might have also produced a better incentive to conserve, which it may do in the future.
Also, may the conversation about water storage take flight.
davisite2: Yolo County webpage says about 40% of voters voted. Same old story, but that only says 60% either didn’t care enough, or are willing to let the rest of us decide for them.
JustSaying: I agree that this vote is too close for the City Council to act as if there is a mandate. That is why they need to engage opponents to sort and sift out what are legitimate and actionable alternatives and what are primarily emotional objections of which there are many. The City Council should not rest easy on any aspect of this project. This is the beginning of a long road to completion of a project that we need, but one that can be well implemented or fraught with mistakes or misjudgment. In my opinion, backing off on the CBFR would be a mistake as it has been well-vetted and passes muster when subjected to OBJECTIVE non-emotional analysis. On the other hand, reconsidering privatizing the operation would be very smart; fleshing out details of how the joint powers agreement could be problematic under various scenarios would be smart. There is a lot of work to do and it needs to be done well.
Frankly: [i]Rate confusion and perceptions of rate unfairness probably accounted for most of the no votes for those not part of Mr. Harrington’s NOETMEG (No on Everything That Might Encourage Growth) team. [/i]
The No campaign & MH used the phrase, “If you’re not sure, vote No.” Maybe that marginally helped their side. But I also think it probably suppressed overall participation. It was already a complex issue to consider. The No campaign tried to highlight that it was even more complex than it already was. Instead of sitting down to try to figure it out, one way or another, I think many voters give up if they can’t figure out their position in less than a couple of minutes.
I thought the No side relied more on a gut/emotional response (questioning motives, and how do you know you’re not being ripped off), whereas the Yes side sought to argue out the situation logically to the bitter end.
I think if the No side had also engaged more directly in the logical debate, they would have swung more voters to their side. Great example of this is Harrington’s innuendo about Well 30. If he had presented clear and immediate evidence of malfeasance and manipulation, then things would probably be different today.
By the way, interesting to note that there was no difference in the vote percentage totals for the first count (ballots cast before Tuesday) vs. the final count (including Tuesday ballots).
Frankly: [i]Is there a gender-neutral salutation?[/i]
How about “Greetings:”?
“Why not turn in a protest form if that’s how you feel.” – dl
Because I am in one of the excluded classes.
This rate structure was created and approved by home owners. 55% of Davis residents are renters. True, many are apartment dwellers with no yards and averaged water bills. Most rental housing dwellers have their city services bill passed directly to them to pay. When I shared this with Yes of I people, they said to me that wasn’t really true, because the owner is ‘responsible’ for paying the bill. This shows the lack of perspective of some owners, as the renters are still paying the amount, even if not signing the check to the City.
Even more patently unfair is new tenants paying for a year for the habits of old tenants after a lease turnover. This will be much more pronounced with the new structure. This seems unfair to the point that it could not possibly be legal, but apparently it is. Were there a way to establish ‘average’ rates for a complete lease turnover unit for the first year until new peak rates could be established for the new leasees, that would be much more reasonable.
I may support the need for the surface water project. However, I voted against Measure I because it was the only thing I could vote on to express being completely disenfranchised from the voting process on rates. I may even have supported the rate structure (a complex truth may be more fair than a simple lie). However, the 218 process is patently wrong in excluding so many directly affected by rates. I realize that is not the fault of the City. However, I will not support the entire house of cards if the foundation is broken. The foundation is broken.
Many may not agree with my logic in the chain to vote NO. I understand that. I hope you may understand my rejecting total disenfranchisement in the only way made available.
Alan, I do understand. And if you read my post from 11:21 am you’ll see I am examining how to fix part of that. Matt responded a few posts below that with a good answer, and it is not insurmountable either. Since you seem to be staying put, hopefully even if we keep the use of the previous season’s usage, you’ll come out OK, but it sure has the potential that I described and you alluded too, for personal unfairness.
From this side of the river it looks like many Davisites wanted a “perfect project” . No such creature exists, but some would be happy to stall forever, waiting . How much more time, energy and money will now be wasted, just putting obstacles in the path of progress ?
Alan Miller: “[i]Even more patently unfair is new tenants paying for a year for the habits of old tenants after a lease turnover…This seems unfair to the point that it could not possibly be legal, but apparently it is.[/i]”
It may seem unfair, but it is the way that our waste water fees have been calculated for years so I doubt there is any issue with the legality of it.
“[i]However, I voted against Measure I because it was the only thing I could vote on to express being completely disenfranchised from the voting process on rates.[/i]”
I don’t get the ‘disenfranchised’ complaint. The 218 process came about as a result of direct democracy by all California voters. It is a prime example of trying to solve a complex issue with a ‘simple’ voter approved initiative. You had your vote, unless you were not a resident at the time, and if that is the case it is no different than every other law on the books when you came to the State (or your majority). I may not like the 218 process either, but I see no value in your ‘protest’ vote. If you don’t like the law, work to change it.
“If you don’t like the law, work to change it.”
Because it is that simple? I mean it takes millions of dollars to pass a statewide proposition and a campaign organization.
Alan, although you do not have the opportunity to protest 218, the same thing can happen upon sale of a property, so it is not just renters who are subject to this potential for unfairness. Although using recent history rather than last years’ would seem more fair, and that is why the look-back was moved up to after the rates took affect (2014 so people knew it was coming) rather than the original proposal, the peak capacity was based on historical demand and even moving it to using the previous year starting in 2014 could produce revenue shortfall if people conserve. The needed revenue and therefore price setting was based proportionately on historical use, but that is when people really freaked out and so they made it a more recent basis/use for the calculation.
DG: “Because it is that simple?”
No David, I never said it was simple, just more honest than whining.
[quote]”I think if the No side had also engaged more directly in the logical debate, they would have swung more voters to their side. Great example of this is Harrington’s innuendo about Well 30. If he had presented clear and immediate evidence of malfeasance and manipulation, then things would probably be different today. “[/quote]Engaging in the logical debate would have been a good thing, but I think the “no” vote was maximized by the tactics that were used by its leaders. With respect to the Well 30 matter, engaging in innuendo was convincing to a number of people.
How could Michael have presented evidence of malfeasance and manipulation when he apparently has none? There are many examples of unsupported charges made that apparently had no basis in fact. Sticking to the logical debate would have left the “no” campaign with a shortage of material and, hence, fewer supporters when voting time came.
I disagree, Mark. David works hard to make a convincing case (sometimes over and over and over), but Michael spent weeks offering nothing but flip remarks and personal attacks in an effort to anger and confuse.
The Vanguard provided a convenient forum for Michael’s ongoing campaign of unsubstantiated nastiness, but David eventually expressed criticism from time to time. The two might have been on routes toward the same objectives, but he hasn’t been “shilling for Michael.”
I wish you were correct that “it won’t matter….this one is in the books.” Unless Michael is broke or gets embarrassed, it looks as though he intends to shovel sand into the water project gears for years to come.
About turn out.
Complaining about turnout by the side that didn’t want this on the November ballot is a beat the devil argument. Just like the argument that we must have an election but then complaining that the election was rushed. If a more robust turnout would have made a difference, an argument i don’t support, the No’s have no one to blame but themselves. It just means that they could have turned it around with fewer additional votes. More voter contact and a better get out your vote strategy has a better shot with lower turnout because each additional vote you get has greater value.
Finally, Davids argument that this is not decisive is wrong. Fifty-five percent is considered a landslide and yes got almost to that threshold. By having this vote instead of just a council vote the yes side has an even stronger argument for going forward. This was the No’s Waterloo. The rest of the story will be mop up.
You can argue about rates, prop. 218 compliance, public or private ownership, if the city must pay for their own water,the fairness of the process, any number of things. You can use the courts, the media, public comment time at the council or the JPA, letters to the editor or comments here. You can write op-eds or lobby elected officials all you want but one thing has been decided by this election, the surface water project will go forward.
I am normally a “silent” reader of this blog and usually I am impressed by the content of the articles and many of the comments that are posted. Yet today in reading the comments associated with this article, I am struck with how many cold-hearted bastards there are here in Davis, completely clueless as to how much these water rate increases are going to hurt the low-income and poor that live here. I voted no on I not because I did not want good quality water for the community but because I understand all too well how much tripling and even quadrupling the water rates will affect my household’s budget in the next 5 years, not to mention how much the rates will continue to rise after that. So why you are patting each other on the back as to what a great job you have done for the community, you might have a thought as to how many of your fellow citizens are anguishing over how they are going to manage to squeeze out the extra dollars to pay for this over-sized monstrosity. This may be the straw that broke the camel’s back for all to many poor people in Davis and rather than relishing the thought of “clean” river water, they are having to plan on where to move to next.
I’m clearly very biased, but anyone who complains ago out CBFR being too complicated hasn’t tried to understand the logic of the current billing structure.
If one applies the same criteria to all rate structures CBFR comes out as both the simplest (KISS) and the fairest.
A great place to start is by asking two questions, “What am I paying?” and “What am I paying for?”
With the current rate structure you simply can’t answer either of those questions.
As Frankly has pointed out the revenue requirement increase has gotten lots of people upset, but instead of trying to understand that increase in isolation, many have simply painted the rates with the revenue requirement “brush” without any attempt to understand what their personal water bills would be if the rate structure stayed the same, but raised twice as much annual revenue.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”It does because of the increased family cost.”[/i]
Is that a function of the rates or the revenue requirement?
Steff, the very issue you raise is one of the key driving forces behind CBFR. By fixing the historical fairness problems in the water rates, the incremental burden on your group of concern is substantially lessened.
Dear Steff,
i am sorry you are living so close to the edge and i actually have concerns about people who are hard pressed by the cost of living. if i have seemed indifferent to your situation it is because there have been few posts such as yours. Most of the posts about costs have been from people who can easily afford the increases but have an anti-growth agenda and wanted to defeat the project by claiming they were looking out for your interests. What i have complained about are the high costs of housing and how much extra we pay because of the resistance to growth. The anti-growth premium far exceeds the cost associated with improved water so my complaints on the economics have been on the duplicity of the anti-growth no’s now claiming to be champions of the less fortunate. it is my hope that things will get better for you economically by the time these costs take hold.
[i]understand what their personal water bills would be if the rate structure stayed the same, but raised twice as much annual revenue.[/i]
That is a very good point. However, so much of politics is timing and perceptions. I would very cool if the voting public would get objective and long-term focused. However, it is not the case, and likely will never be the case no matter how much we wish it.
I think it might have been a good strategic move to leave the rate structure alone and push this project. Then when the screaming reached an apex, jump in to save the day with CBFR.
The problem here is that your great work was diminished by the simple fact that rates are increasing. It is a bit of shooting the knight on the white horse that has arrived to save the day before the war has begun.
The YES victory did not approve the project but rather, according to the language of Measure I, it approved of the Council continuing to go forward with the process which would still be subject to still-to-be-determined final cost and rate figures. Will the Council give the Davis voter the opportunity to again weigh in when this information is finalized or will it require a citizen-initiated referendum?
davisite:
“Shall Ordinance No. 2399 – be adopted, which grants permission to the City of Davis to proceed with the Davis Woodland Water Supply Project, to provide surface water as an additional supply of water, subject to the adoption of water rates in accordance with the California Constitution (Proposition 218)?”
54% of the public said “Yes” to the foregoing. Where in that language do you see anything that even remotely suggests the voters will “weigh in” again?
According to the March 6th edition of the Davis Enterprise, the Yes on Measure I effort raised over $71,000 for its campaign for the surface water project. In round numbers, $71,000 yielded slightly more than 8,000 votes, for a cost of just under $9.00 per vote. The cost per vote for the Yes on Measure I effort was over 2.5 times the $3.50 cost per vote for the No on Measure I effort. Money is truly the “Mother’s Milk” of politics!
Steve Hayes: So how did it happen, then, that Michelle Rhee’s “Students First” charter school corporation spent $60,000 or $42 per vote to get her candidate elected in West Sacramento yesterday but was soundly defeated by a margin of 2 to 1 by a local teacher who spent $30,000 or $11 per vote? Money is important, but it’s never the whole story.
davehart… good contrast to Steve’s point. However, I think the answer there is the monetary value of free union labor for the ground game to get out the votes. Just like our beloved firefighters canvasing the Davis neighborhoods to scare people into supporting their big pay and benefits, the same happens with the teacher union members knocking on doors handing out flyers and scaring parents.
The unions have organization and time. There is a value to these things.
Matt, although your 5:48 post reflects a little frustration, I’ll venture asking once more for you to attempt to clarify my continuing confusion about one aspect of the rate calculation. Why does the scheme have to require rates be partly based on past summer months’ usage rather than a full-year period (which, obviously, would include the same months your plan targets)?
It seems to me that some of the feelings of unfairness revolve around the idea that focusing on summer usage shouldn’t drive year-round actual charges. If the objective is to find peak usage, what difference does it make if the appropriate top figure(s) gets pulled from a three-month or six-month or 12-month period?
I realize this question itself likely reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about what’s going on here, but please try to help get this one behind me.
[b]On the Role of 218 Protest[/b]
The usage of filing a Prop 218 protest is an inefficient mechanism to get a rate that addresses the concerns, because it depends on the willingness and ability of the rate designers to alter the rate structure to address the concerns.
From my direct interaction with Matt, that intention is undetectable from the current rate designers or WAC.
How to detect intention to address the concerns:
1) The designers would declare a rubric for comparing billing methods, and show how their rates (and other rates) compare to perfection.
2) The designers would readily adopt and consider improvements to the existing rates.
3) The designers would list the loopholes and shortcomings of the proposed rates and work on them or ask the community for help to work on them.
4) The designers would readily delegate investigative tasks to those who are motivated to improving the billing rates.
5) The designers would set a schedule for changes when the proposed changed cannot be implemented immediately.
The above are some of the observable actions that would necessarily exist when the designers operate in a cooperative mindset.
[b]How to detect cooperative mindset in general[/b]
The cooperative mindset is derived from the intention to achieve mutual good. A person with a cooperative mindset would not stop others from getting what they want as long as no one else will be hurt. A person with a cooperative mindset would not act without considering the potential harm they might cause others.
The intention to stop an action is always rooted in the perception or the existence of harm.
When someone proposes a new billing system, a person equipped with a cooperative mindset would do one of the following:
1) If they think that the proposed billing system is not as good, they would point out the stakeholders that will be harmed.
2) If they think that the proposed billing system is better, they would work toward a change plan that minimizes the cost of change.
A person with a cooperative mindset does not act in the following manner:
3) Asserting the correctness of the existing system, ignoring whether the proposed system is equally good or better.
4) Criticize a proposed idea for being theoretically sound, but fail to acknowledge that the proposed idea is also practically sound.
5) Dismiss changes by citing the reason that it is too late to change, without giving any effort to schedule the change.
6) Dismiss changes by citing the reason that there is no resource to make the change, without stating the resource required for the change, and without offering the opportunity for others to help make the change happen.
Because the cooperative mindset drives behavior, it is possible to know whether a person is equipped with the cooperative mindset by observing the lack of expected behaviors, or the presence of unexpected behaviors.
JS I’ve been a bit out of pocket. Sorry not to respond sooner. I think the best way to address your question is for me to write an article that brings together your question with others that have been posed her by others.
I will do my best to get the article to David by Sunday.
Edgar said . . .
“The usage of filing a Prop 218 protest is an inefficient mechanism to get a rate that addresses the concerns, because it depends on the willingness and ability of the rate designers to alter the rate structure to address the concerns.”
Edgar, you need to understand the process better. Neither Frank nor I have any standing or authority in the Prop 218 process. We are both simple citizens like you are. I personally am barred from bot voting and/or protesting. The City controls the process 100%.
To the best of my knowledge you have not had any communication with the City to date. Perhaps you should try sharing your thoughts with the City before you embark on your next rant about how badly you are being ignored.
It is always a good idea to “know your audience” before you speak.
Frankly said . . .
“I think it might have been a good strategic move to leave the rate structure alone and push this project. Then when the screaming reached an apex, jump in to save the day with CBFR. “
Agreed. Unfortunately the Prop 218 process sets rates for 5 years. We could have waited for the next round, but that would have meant 5 years of fiscal instability. Plus there are indeed serious legal questions about the traditional rate structures. So, even though the timing was ‘t ideal, it was the best alternative available.
[i]Unfortunately the Prop 218 process sets rates for 5 years.[/i]
I thought it was two years?
In thinking about the politics of this measure, your great CBFR work got used as the punching bag for rate fear. Hindsight is of course 20/20 vision, but I would have preferred that the WAC and city kept the rate structure the same for the first proposal and possibly for the final measure so that costs and rate system did not get conflated.
Then a new rate system could be proposed to make the absorption of higher costs fairer.
Although there are some aspects of CBFR that bother me, I was/am more concerned about its contribution to the campaign to block the project.
But now undertanding it would take five years (and not two years) before the rate system could be changed, I see why project participants did not want to push the old rate system.
Frankly said . . .
“Matt – Why can’t we front-load the first 2 years of rates to develop a target operating surplus, and then trend usage (hopefully dropping from conservation) and reset rates every year based on estimated consumption? The surplus would be used only as a reserved operation account to cover revenue shortfalls from under-estimating consumption. The estimating model would be tweaked. I would expect that we could tune it based on trends so that the surplus would get replentished on years were revenue is higher than expected, and decreased when revenue falls short.”
Two reasons Frank. 1) there were already howls about the steepness of the rate ramp up and Council took steps in January to reduce the steepness. What you are suggesting would increase rather than decrease the rates in the first five years. 2) according to credit rating experts using CBFR will result in a credit rating one or two notches better than a traditional structure will. That translates to better interest rates and a substantial decrease in interest expenses each year.
[quote]”JS I’ve been a bit out of pocket. Sorry not to respond sooner. I think the best way to address your question is for me to write an article that brings together your question with others that have been posed her by others. I will do my best to get the article to David by Sunday”[/quote]Thank you, Matt. I hope to understand my little issue soon.
And another thing. Someone commented recently that people should compare what they would pay without the project vs. your scheme with the project. I’m sure that’s been covered many times during the debates.
But, how about a single, [u]simple[/u] table that would show, say, three types of customers and the typical water bill in the future without the project (but alternative improvements) and the future with the project as you’ve been reporting?
Would such a table really show the massive monthly bill differences that were claimed during the campaign?
Thank you for all the work you’ve put into this issue before and during the campaign. I’m sure you already knew that no good deed goes unpunished. You’ve living proof, but I hope you feel it’s been worth it.
.
Re: Matt
I have been talking to you because you are already in WAC and is one of the designers of CBFR. From my perspective, if I object something, I talk directly to the person who created the proposal.
For me to talk to the city (and thus by-passing you) is ethically incorrect because I would be committing to the judgement that you will do nothing to fix the issues you created. As long as I believe that you will fix it yourself I have no reason to do it for you.
When you tell me to engage the city, you are confirming that you will do nothing about it yourself.
Here I ask you to do something about it.
Do you formally object doing anything about it?
I know of two events:
March 19: Public Hearing [Ref] ([url]http://public-works.cityofdavis.org/general-notices/notice-to-property-owners-of-public-hearing-of-proposed-water-rate-and-fee-increases[/url])
April 11: WAC meeting [Ref] ([url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/on-going-committees/water-advisory-committee/meetings-cancelled-until-april-11-2013[/url])
Re: Matt
If you object doing anything about it, would you please state the reason?
Edgar Wai said . . .
[i]”Re: Matt, I have been talking to you because you are already in WAC and is one of the designers of CBFR. From my perspective, if I object something, I talk directly to the person who created the proposal.
For me to talk to the city (and thus by-passing you) is ethically incorrect because I would be committing to the judgement that you will do nothing to fix the issues you created. As long as I believe that you will fix it yourself I have no reason to do it for you.”[/i]
Edgar, the WAC has completed its tasks vis-a-vis the rate structure recommendation to the City Council. So your speaking to the WAC is no longer timely. Further, the WAC was only created by the Council as an [u]advisory[/u] committee. The Council was not under any obligation to accept the advice of the WAC, and on 12/11 they indeed did summarily reject the WAC’s rate advice. So speaking to the WAC (or to me as an alternate member of the WAC) if you really want to see the rate structure algorithm changed, is tilting after windmills. If you want to emulate Don Quixote, I can not stop you. That is your choice and has absolutely nothing to do with ethics in any way possible.
Further, I have told you over and over again and again and again that your Supply Charge algorithm using each account’s maximum monthly ccf value is intellectually compelling in a substantial proportion of the thousands of water agencies throughout the country.
Further, I have told you that Brett Lee suggested the very algorithm you have proposed, but that both Staff and the voting WAC members (of which I was not one that night) felt that changing algorithms was not timely at that time. So no one is rejecting your algorithm at all. They are only saying that when balancing the six co-equal partners in the rate setting decision the WAC faced ([i]engineering, legal, accounting, fiscal stability, fairness and political[/i]) that switching algorithm “horses” in mid stream at that point in the process presented political obstacles that were simply too great to introduce at that time. That does not mean that now that the Measure I vote is in the books that your algorithm can not be looked at as a “tweak” to the Supply Charge.
Bottom-line, I’m saying to you do not need my permission and, “Go for it!”
——————-
Edgar Wai also said . . .
[i]”When you tell me to engage the city, you are confirming that [u]you will do nothing about it yourself[/u]. Here I ask you to do something about it. [u]Do you formally object doing anything about it? If you object doing anything about it, would you please state the reason?[/i]
I [u]absolutely have no objection[/b] to your Supply Charge algorithm. I further have [u]absolutely[/u] no objection to your bringing it forward to Staff and/or the Council. As I have noted above, the WAC process is well past the point where they will be considering rate issues, but if you want to bring it forward to the WAC I have [u]absolutely[/u] no objection to your bringing it forward on Aprill 11th or at any other future WAC meeting.
All I am saying to you is that [u]your role is as the leader[/u] in the next steps you envision.
Re: Matt
Is the role of WAC with the City over? Are you done with WAC?
When we talk about changes, we are no necessarily talking about a change right now, but also changes in 5 years.
It has to do with ethics because the city selected your rate structure, and but doing so some people will be overcharged. When I act about it, I am cleaning up an issue that was not caused by me. The entities that should fix it are the designers, WAC, the city council, and whoever that accept the rate structure. To only state that you have no objection in my taking action neglects the fact that you should be the one taking action.
When I am taking action, the relation between you and me are not neutral because I am your victim. When you refuse to act on it, it is the same as not taking any responsibility for the harm, but only taking the credits.
When we talk about design-build-operate, we expect the designer to fix the problem they created. If the firm is behaving the way you are, the firm would be doing nothing to fix the issues as long as they are paid, and asking the community to form “work groups” with “leaders” to fix the issues of the water system on their own dimes when they are the victims of the design issues caused by the firm.
It does not matter whether the firm is cheering on the “leaders”. The backbone of the dynamics is that the firm is being irresponsible.
Do you understand why this is an ethical issue?
Yes Edgar I understand why you believe it is an ethical issue.
In making its decision the City has ethically and thoroughly balanced:
— Engineering factors,
— Legal and regulatory factors,
— Accounting standards,
— Fiscal Stability factors,
— Fairness factors, and
— Political considerations.
There is no silver bullet that perfectly addresses all those issues. The City weighed those co-equal factors and made its decision in a thorough, transparent, and wholly ethical manner.
You keep saying that some people are overcharged. Can you point to a statute or regulation or standard that supports your assertion? Every time I have asked you for some corroboration of your beliefs you have not provided any. All you have done is provide calculations that [u]you say[/u] support your allegations of overcharging.
Further, when I have provided calculations in reply that show clearly that you will be sending bills to customers for capital expenditures that were never designed by the engineers nor built by the contractors, you have ignored/dismissed those calculations as irrelevant. When I have cited GAAP as the supporting authority for the accounting principles that guided my calculations, you have dismissed GAAP as irrelevant. When I have cited the billing methodologies of VISA (American Express and Master Card would do as well) under which customers are only billed for transactions that they are responsible for, you have again dismissed those business standards as irrelevant.
So I ask you once more, “What business practices are the legal/regulatory foundation of the positions you are citing? What organization or what person (or persons) promulgated those business practices?”
—————-
The role of the WAC has always been an advisory role at the whim of the Council. The agenda of the April 11th meeting is as yet unknown, so to say the role of the WAC is over would be presumptuous. A more accurate statement would be that the future role of the WAC is unknown.
Further, the makeup of the WAC roster is unknown as well. One member of the WAC placed a motion on the table at the last WAC meeting to adjourn the WAC permanently. That motion failed in part because the WAC needs to approve the minutes of past meetings, but it is not hard to imagine given the discussion of the motion that a substantial portion of the WAC members believe that they have fully completed the original charge that the Council gave the WAC when it was created by Resolution 11-193 ([url]”http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/CityCouncil/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Water-Advisory-Committee/General-Background/2011-12-08-item5-water-advisory-committee-authorizing.pdf”[/url])
When you say “because I am your victim” can you show us 1 ) how you personally are being victimized by the rate structure that the Council adopted, and 2) what the dollar value of that victimization is?
When you talk about “leaders” to fix the issues of the water system, why are you reluctant to be one of those “leaders”?
When you say “the firm is being irresponsible” what are your criteria? I have provided you with the criteria that “the firm” used, specifically,
— Engineering factors,
— Legal and regulatory factors,
— Accounting standards,
— Fiscal Stability factors,
— Fairness factors, and
— Political considerations.
What are the criteria you have used in laying out your indictment of the City’s decision?
Re: Matt
You assessment of Equal Discount is incorrect. You are persistent in using false arguments against Equal Discount. That is the reason why your arguments are irrelevant.
As discussed in email, these discussion forum are inefficient in disseminating the necessary knowledge to frame the issues regarding fair billing and governance.
The following is a document regarding billing that has been sent to councilmembers Brett Lee, Rochelle Swanson, and you.
[Discussion Thread at Meetup] ([url]http://www.meetup.com/Community-Help-Desk/messages/boards/thread/32306202[/url])
I am creating a separate document that explains the cooperative framework in governance.
Edgar, I am neither arguing for nor arguing against Equal Discount. I do not see these discussions as a competition. They are a sharing of thoughts and ideas.
I don’t even mention Equal Discount even once in my 03/09/13 – 03:56 AM post. Where do you see me making any such argument?
All I have done is lay out the parameters/criteria of the evaluation. Nothing more, nothing less.
I have just noticed your use of the word “indictment,” which has a legal implication.
I did not accuse the city for doing anything illegal.
My accusation was on the ethics of not taking responsibility to fix the issues that were generated by the decision. The intention to fix them should be intrinsic, regardless whether they were reported.
accusation = indictment
same thing
Could you acknowledge that in our current context, my accusation is not about the city and/or you acting illegally, but not acting in accordance to a notion of ethics that I have yet to create a document to explain?
If that is important to you, then consider it so.
Thank you, now I am working on that document that explains cooperation/ethics etc. Before that document is drafted, please excuse me from the discussion because I think that document is required if we wish for any progress.
[b]Cooperative Framework[/b] – A Hierarchical Implementation of Peace [PDF] ([url]http://skylet.net/docs/Cooperative Framework.pdf[/url]) [DOCX] ([url]http://skylet.net/docs/Cooperative Framework.docx[/url]) [Discussion] ([url]http://www.meetup.com/Community-Help-Desk/messages/boards/thread/32310392[/url])