Yesterday was pink slip day around the state. Something like 19,000 teachers got pink slips yesterday, and some of those were in Davis. Davis schools will have to lay additional people off, regardless of what happens with the parcel tax.
The parcel tax passage is by no means assured, as it takes a two-thirds vote, and people seem a bit more tax-weary this year in Davis than they have in the past. Still, I believe in the end Davis will support education, because that’s what Davis does.
The City of Davis is now looking to increase water rates on a monthly basis from around $35 to around $111 over a five-year period. That is a MONTHLY rate. That means, annually, the increase moves from a little over $400 per year to $1333. That’s a near tripling of the rate. And that will not even include sewer, which itself will increase over that time.
No one appears willing to stop this train which is the direct result of the capital costs of the water supply project by the Woodland-Davis CleanWater Agency Joint Powers Authority.
This increase makes the parcel tax look like a drop in the bucket, but the concern for supporters of the schools ought to be that the public will leery about raising their parcel tax when they are about to get hammered on water. And that the future ability of the school district and the city to raise revenue will be impaired by the magnitude of this increase.
We have to question the honesty of the city on this issue. Last year, as the council was close to obtaining water rights back in July, the city claimed rates would double. But it is far worse than that, as in the spring, when Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson were preparing to leave the council, they approved a very modest 10% rate hike and then left the heavy lifting for the new council.
The new council voted to be a bit more forthcoming with water rates. Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Dan Wolk supported a notice with a one-year list of the rate increase. However, Joe Krovoza pushed for full notification of the rate increases over the full five-year period, and he was backed by Sue Greenwald and Rochelle Swanson.
Mr. Souza and Mr. Wolk apparently felt that we are not ready for a five-year outlook and that there are too many unknowns. But the public needs to know what the plan is coming down the pike, even if those specifics are to change over time.
The draft water bill/ hearing notice contains a graphic representation of where Davis is situated, compared with comparable cities’ sample water bills. With the current rate hike, Davis is situated right in the middle.
This is what city staff has claimed all along. However, none of these sample cities have ongoing water projects. If these rates go through as scheduled, Davis’ water rates are projected to be the highest of all of the sample cities within five years, even assuming some sort of reasonable inflation for the other cities.
So, the city staff graphic that is meant to show we are right in the middle, actually proves the opposite, that the current rate hikes will take us straight to the top.
The cost of these projects will price residents with low and fixed income right out of their homes. We heard a lot of platitudes from council last night, but few actual solutions to this problem.
The remedies for this are difficult. A direct Prop 218 challenge is infeasible as it requires half the ratepayers to protest the rate hikes. That is not going to happen, even with a strongly organized and mobilized campaign.
Putting the project and the rates on the ballot might be another option. Some seem to believe that the public would back this move, but if the public is hesitating on the $200 per year parcel tax, how in the world are they going to support an $800 per year increase for water?
Councilmember Sue Greenwald, at the city council meeting, argued that she should be appointed to the Clean Water Board, believing it would give her the ability to push for cost-cutting measures at the JPA level that would enable to city to save money as it did on the wastewater treatment plant.
While that seems unlikely to happen, unless people wish to see their friends and neighbors forced from their homes and their own finances impaired, something has to occur.
Right now, no one seems to know that these tremendous rate hikes are coming. That ought to be step number one. Then, if the public is not willing to fight, there is not much we can do. If the public is willing to fight, then perhaps council will be compelled to find ways to lower the rates before it is too late.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]Putting the project and the rates on the ballot might be another option. Some seem to believe that the public would back this move, but if the public is hesitating on the $200 per year parcel tax, how in the world are they going to support an $800 per year increase for water?
[/i]
I really hope the public will support the parcel tax for schools. If we don’t support our schools, I think it will become downward spiral for them, resulting in decreased property values. Unfortunately, the residents don’t have much choice about the water rates. We have to have clean water to comply with the environmental laws. If Davis chooses to be out of compliance with environmental laws with respect to water, then the fines will set in and taxes will be raised.
In the end, there is just so much money to go around. Lets hope the city council does its part to free up money for our taxpayers by reducing salary/benefits for the municipal workers. Maybe then we can have decent schools and good water.
[quote]… Joe Krovoza pushed for full notification of the rate increases over the full five-year period, and he was backed by Sue Greenwald and Rochelle Swanson.[/quote]So, if 3 of 5 wanted this approach, who “blinked”? Or did the modification proposed by the mayor require a 4/5 vote?
It has been very frustrating to hear staff insist, year after year, that our water rates would be average after the surface water rates kick in and even more frustrating to hear this myth repeated over and over again by Stephen Souza after I have explained repeatedly that, given the fundamentals, this couldn’t be true.
Well, last night staff presented a graph which proved that our water rates will be among the very highest.
About the only way we can mitigate these costs at all is to make sure we minimize the costs of the project.
As I said last night, I feel very strongly that having myself appointed as one of the two City of Davis members of the board of the JPA is one important component to assure the most cost-efficient project. These is because I am the only council member who argued for years, based on interviews I had had with many, many independent experts, that the $200 million wastewater treatment plant design that was proposed by our staff was overbuilt and unnecessarily expensive, and since the other council members at the time refused for over a year to take my advice and hire the best independent experts.
Ultimately, through my dogged persistence, I created sufficient public concern that the council majority reluctantly hired the two leading experts that I had suggested for a one week-end study session. They determined that we could build a superior design for half the price. At that point, the $200 million project contract was on the city manager’s desk, about to be signed. Now, due to my judgment and persistence, we the city has saved $100 million.
I know I run the risk of sounding self-promotional, but the stakes for the city are very, very high.
Currently we have the two members of the JPA who opposed the outside review that I had advocated for well over a year. (Don Saylor was recently appointed as a county non-voting but otherwise fully participating member) and Stephen Souza, neither of whom showed the best judgment regarding cost-control. Meanwhile, the councilmember who did show this judgment is excluded.
As David Greenwald pointed out, it looks like an uphill struggle to obtain a three member vote to get myself appointed to the board.
But, again, I bring this up at the risk of sounding self-promotional only because I feel it is so important. (It is certainly not because it is so much fun to sit on these boards).
Later this afternoon or evening I will try to find time to explain what I feel are major problems with the history and the structure of the Clean Water JPA.
dmg: “The new council voted to be a bit more forthcoming with water rates. Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Dan Wolk supported a notice with a one-year list of the rate increase. However, Joe Krovoza pushed for full notification of the rate increases over the full five-year period, and he was backed by Sue Greenwald and Rochelle Swanson.”
Both Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson strongly pushed for the disclosure of the full five-year plan, after I made it clear at public comment it was time to tell the rate payers the FULL TRUTH AND NOT DELAY IT. This was the right thing to do IMHO. Sue Greenwald pointed out how misleading the city comparison chart was, so my hope is the city will ditch it in their literature. The city of Davis will have one of the highest water rate costs in comparison to the cities listed once the water project is finished. I also made various suggestions to make clear in the Prop 218 notice what citizens are in fact facing – A 28% INCREASE EVERY YEAR FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS, COMPOUNDED. People must fully understand what is coming, so they can plan accordingly.
If the matter were taken up by voters as a ballot measure, this entire project has to be put in context. No water project, then what? If the city fails to meet the federal water standards required of it, it will get fined $10,000 per day. What are the alternatives? Any suggestions? I’m all ears. City staff has said they are going to do everything possible to find ways to save money on both the water and sewer project, including phasing in the water project over time as a possible cost saving measure. The time to have opposed this project has long since passed – that horse is already out of the barn. Now the piper has to be paid, and the cost is going to be dear…
The public hearing on the increase in water rates will be held Tuesday May 17 at 6:30 pm in the City Council Chambers. I would strongly urge everyone to attend and speak your mind…
You go Sue, you’ve got my support.
The key question is whether the public will push back on this. If they do perhaps something will change.
dmg: “The key question is whether the public will push back on this. If they do perhaps something will change.”
Suppose the public does push back. To what good effect? What’s the better solution?
My thoughts:
1) First, I applaud the stand taken by Sue Greenwald on the issue over the years. Unlike most politicians and voters in Davis, who for various reasons, have had their head in the sand (or in some cases other pernicious motives), she has not. Indeed, as she justifiably argues, she has been on top of the issue from the beginning.
2) What say ye Don Schor (resident of Winters) now to what the water rates in Davis WILL be relative to other cities? And do you still dismiss the economic hardship that these water rates could cause a significant number of citizens as you have in past posts, or don’t you care?
3) Vote NO under 218. The longer we stall the greater the chances of modifications to the present plan by everyone from the city council all the way up the highest levels of the Obama administration. There have to be countless communities across the country, many of whom are poorer than Davis, that are struggling with this unfunded mandate. (Here’s a research project for someone). I’d not be at all surprised if the Obama admin. or California State govt., in some form or other, responds to the pressure as it has on other issues and as the 2014 deadline nears.
5) Send a message to the council and other complacent Davis voters by voting against the parcel tax. The message is that enough people in the community cannot continue to support resources and services that were previously funded to a far great extent by state and federal sources and under a much more progressive tax system when the national and state economy was much stronger. It is also that Davis voters and taxpayers are tired of being taken for granted and want much greater, even, dare I ask, full transparency, when a host of important issues are being decided including crucial elements of our infrastructure such as sewage and water provision.
6) Business leaders, developers, realtors, and existing home owners need to think hard about the major longer term economic implications of this project for Davis. As I mentioned in my post of yesterday: who is going to want to start a business or to buy a house in Davis when the water, and I suspect strongly, city fees, are among the highest in the state???? I welcome web links from Don Schor and others to prove that this will not be the case.
P.S. Can Don Schor please tell us what the average city fee in Winters is and WILL be compared to Davis, and the same for water rates please—a web link will do.
I couldn’t find anything more current than 2005, although it does show their projected rates and does compare to Davis at the time:
[url]http://www.cityofwinters.org/pdf/WSRateStaffReport.pdf[/url]
I agree it makes sense to put Sue on this board. She has consistently been for fiscal responsibility, even before it became fashionable and she will look after our interests.
“Send a message to the council and other complacent Davis voters by voting against the parcel tax.”
Herman, I agree with most of what you said. Isn’t it great when liberals and conservatives can come together on a cause.
Don Shor,
According to your chart, Winters lists Davis water rates as [b]$16.61[/b] in 2005. Staff projects that Davis rates will be approximately [b]$111.00[/b] per month within 5 years. And remember, no other cities except Woodland are embarking on Sacramento surface water supply projects at this time.
Therein lies the difference. Even assuming a reasonable inflation factor for the other cities, Davis will have the highest rates of any on the sample of the cites provided, and will be far, far higher than other non-Woodland cities in the region.
Staff and councilmembers have continually claimed over the years our water rates would be about average after the water supply project rate hikes were in effect. In fact, one was still making that claim last night.
Years ago, I crunched the numbers (look about 10 seconds on the back of an envelope), and saw that this could not possibly be true. Over the years, I have tried to point out the obvious, to no avail.
This will be a massive liability around Davis’ neck. I suspect it could make it much harder to pass needed school and city taxes. It will make us less competitive in terms of economic development.
This is why it is critical to keep the costs of the water project down. The fact that two of the Clean Water JPA members were councilmembers who either could not see this or would not ackowledge this is the reason that I think it is important that I have a seat at that table.
P.S., I’ll have to go back over the tapes, but I do recall that it is current Clean Water Agency JPA board member Souza who yet again claimed yet again last night that our rates would be no higher than average.
A tiny note: I was actually the one to initially make the plea for the five year rate plan disclosure. It was supported strongly by Joe and Rochelle, which was great.
David does report my role at the meetings, but I don’t know why David has a tendency to under report it.
I would encourage people to listen to this segment on streaming video. It is the last item of the evening.
Actually, it is not the last item on the agenda. It is item number 8. There is a pull-down menu on the streaming video on the city website so that you can go directly to the item.
It has been very hard to concentrate on city issues while watching the horrible tragedies in Japan unfolding. The Guardian has a good live blog on the unfolding nuclear disaster.
[quote]”This increase makes the parcel tax look like a drop in the bucket, but the concern for supporters of the schools ought to be that the public will leery about raising their parcel tax when they are about to get hammered on water.”[/quote] Let’s just hope it’ll work the other way–when we decide that $200 more a year is a small price to pay for educating our our kids, considering that we’ll be paying nearly $1,000 a year more a year for water that might not kill our houseplants.
I agree that Sue Greenwald should be on the board of the JPA. With her long record of seeing the long term fiscal impacts of decisions, I can think of no one else who could do a better job of keeping costs down.
I agree that Sue Greenwald should be on the JPA board. For years I have been wondering why no one else on the board was concerned about the finances of the water project. We need Sue on that board.
“Let’s just hope it’ll work the other way–when we decide that $200 more a year is a small price to pay for educating our our kids, considering that we’ll be paying nearly $1,000 a year more a year for water that might not kill our houseplants.”
First of all the water isn’t great but it doesn’t kill houseplants either. We’ve used this water for decades and have got along just fine, is it worth another $100 a month when you factor in higher sewer fees to change it, I don’t think so. So an extra $1000 for the water, an extra couple of hundred or so for sewer rates, and extra $200 school parcel tax, 25 cents apiece for plastic bags (I added that for you tree huggers) and pretty soon we’re talking real money here.
rusty: “First of all the water isn’t great but it doesn’t kill houseplants either. We’ve used this water for decades and have got along just fine, is it worth another $100 a month when you factor in higher sewer fees to change it, I don’t think so.”
But it’ll start killing some houseplants eventually. Groundwater doesn’t last forever, especially when you have a growing population pumping on it. I say you can actually get a deal now compared to putting it off.