by Matt Williams –
Let me start by saying that the opinions and perspectives presented in this article are those of the author and not the opinions and perspectives of the Water Advisory Committee (“WAC”).
That notice will be mailed to all qualified property owners in Davis for ratification or rejection under the standard Prop 218 processes. In addition, the notice will be available both electronically and in hard copy for all Davis residents, especially those residents who are registered to vote but are not property owners.
What does this WAC decision mean for the timeline between now and November? The WAC recommendation will first go to Council at their next meeting for consideration and passage. Next, the ballot language approved by Council will be forwarded to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors for final approval and inclusion on the ballot.
While those two steps are being completed, the WAC will dig deep into the West Sacramento alternative (starting with a presentation of the findings of Carollo Engineers on June 28th), and determine whether a West Sacramento alternative serves the citizens of Davis better than the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency (“WDCWA”) alternative. If the WAC decides the West Sacramento alternative is better, then the details of a contractual arrangement agreement between West Sacramento and Davis (and possibly Woodland) will need to be negotiated so that the WAC will have a project cost structure on which to base specific rates. City Manager Steve Pinkerton will be the lead negotiator on any negotiations with West Sacramento, and the WAC will stand ready to provide support to the City Manager (if asked) and defer rate discussions until the negotiations are finalized.
If the WAC decides the West Sacramento alternative is not the better alternative, then details of the final configuration and timing of the WDCWA project will need to be finalized in order to for the WAC to determine specific rates.
Once the rate structure is finalized the formal Proposition 218 notice will be assembled detailing 1) the specific rates, 2) the underlying details and costs of the conjunctive use project, and 3) the period of time the rate structure will cover.
It is useful to put Thursday night’s WAC recommendation the perspective of the 2011 referendum. In e-mails to individual WAC members after Thursday night’s decision, Michael Harrington said, “I thought [the] comments last night were really good […] the WAC voted to give the voters something tangible to approve or not. […] Thank you for that vote.”
There’s an old expression there’s “many a slip between the cup and the lip,” and between now and November there may be details of the process as outlined by the WAC that cause Mr. Harrington and others to be less positive about the ballot , but I believe the WAC is moving in the right direction and 100% committed to doing what is necessary to make sure that the process works smoothly, transparently and inclusively.
In Thursday night’s discussions prior to the final vote approving the November ballot (nine votes for, none against, and one abstention) considerable consideration was given to moving the ballot from November to Spring 2013 (either March or April).
In the early stages of the November vs. Spring discussions, I would say that the WAC members’ initial positions were split evenly between the two options. Evolving from that 50/50 split to the eventual decision that November was preferable was driven (in my opinion) by two factors.
First, delaying to the Spring introduced certain risk factors that could cause one of the possible West Sacramento alternatives (and possibly one of the WDCWA alternatives) to be significantly more expensive for the citizens in Davis.
Second, and most importantly in my opinion, was the fact that of the Presidential choice, this November’s election is likely to have a voter turnout in excess of 70%, while a Spring ballot would only have a likely turn out in the 30% range. Since one of the underlying principles of the 2011 Referendum was that the Proposition 218 process disenfranchises a substantial portion of Davis residents, choosing an election date that maximizes the chances of high voters participation is consistent with the intentions of the Referendum organizers and signatories.
With that said, a November ballot does introduce one risk factor . . . specifically, if the WAC cannot gather the sufficient information to finalize and publish the Prop 218 notice in September.
Why is a September publishing of the Prop 218 notice important?
Two words . . . transparency and enfranchisement. It is important to have plenty of lead time before the November election date . . . enough lead time for the community to have 1) received the detailed Prop 218 information, 2) digested that information and 3) discussed the information in community forums well in advance of the mail ballot submission date. Transparency and enfranchisement, those two words need to be the hallmark of the vote when it is counted.
“Written by David Greenwald”?
No. Fixing problems here. Matt Williams is the author
It is my opinion, that in any negotiations and final contract with West Sacramento it must be stipulated that in the event that privatization of the West Sacramento facility is contemplated through out-right sale or, in such event more likely, through short- or long-term lease with a for-profit private corporation for operation and management, that, in such an event, a full vote of the people would be required for approval. Not only would such a short or long-term lease change the public management structure, it would no doubt impact operation/management costs and rate structure.
Matt: Thank you for the timely summary of the most recent WAC Meeting, and for teasing out the most acutely relevant issues. Well done!
From my perspective, locating the surface water source for the drinkling water for the citizens of Davis should be as far away from the point discharge of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District at Knights Landing as reasonably possible. The Woodland intake structure (on the Sacramento River N of I-5) originally proposed for the Project is considerably closer to the GCID discharge than the W. Sacramento intake.
Thanks Matt and Nancy for thoughtful points
Nice summation Matt! This entire issue was quite tricky. The WAC pushed for extra time to deliberate Tuesday June 12 at the City Council meeting. It was at the June 12th City Council meeting that the WAC was asked to weigh in on the ballot language. The WAC rose to the occasion on June 14th, and in very short order made suggestions for the ballot language and how the entire process should play out, by a nearly unanimous vote. WAC deliberations can get tense and somewhat contentious under this type of time compression, but we seem to be very much up to the task. The WAC members have been a great and conscientious group of people to work with…
Elaine and Matt
[quote]The WAC members have been a great and conscientious group of people to work with…[/quote]
And I think that you two, and all the members of the WAC deserve a lot of appreciation and commendation for putting in the hard work to address these issues and make them comprehensible to those of us who do not perceive ourselves as having the time and diligence to pursue this in so much detail. My thanks to all involved.
To medwoman: The WAC appreciates your appreciation and thanks. We know that many citizens out there are following the WAC meetings, which we greatly appreciate!
“That notice will be mailed to all qualified property owners in Davis for ratification or rejection under the standard Prop 218 processes. In addition, the notice will be available both electronically and in hard copy for all Davis residents, especially those residents who are registered to vote but are not property owners.”
Increasingly, the landlords of Davis are not paying the water bills for the properties they own. They are requiring the tenants to pay the water bills. There have been concerted efforts by the property management companies and landlord associations to require tenants, even those tenants whose leasholds are not separately metered, to pay water bills that the tenants do not even get to see – they have to rely on the “honesty” of their landlord that the bill they are being asked to pay is actually accurate.
Does the Prop 218 process not allow for the actual bill-payers to vote on these rate increases?
How will the actual bill-payers know that these notices that their absentee landlords receive and do not share are available electronically?
Davis is a majority renter city. If only the landlord class is permitted to vote on this issue, or if only the landlord class is made aware of the Prop 218 notice, how can such an election be considered legitimate?
“That notice will be mailed to all qualified property owners in Davis for ratification or rejection under the standard Prop 218 processes. In addition, the notice will be available both electronically and in hard copy for all Davis residents, especially those residents who are registered to vote but are not property owners.”
Increasingly, the landlords of Davis are not paying the water bills for the properties they own. They are requiring the tenants to pay the water bills. There have been concerted efforts by the property management companies and landlord associations to require tenants, even those tenants whose leasholds are not separately metered, to pay water bills that the tenants do not even get to see – they have to rely on the “honesty” of their landlord that the bill they are being asked to pay is actually accurate.
Does the Prop 218 process not allow for the actual bill-payers to vote on these rate increases?
How will the actual bill-payers know that these notices that their absentee landlords receive and do not share are available electronically?
Davis is a majority renter city. If only the landlord class is permitted to vote on this issue, or if only the landlord class is made aware of the Prop 218 notice, how can such an election be considered legitimate?
To Downtown Resident: It is the landlord that is responsible for paying the bill. The fact that he chooses and the tenant agrees to pay the water bill doesn’t change that fact. The tenant has the ability to either accept the terms of the lease or not. The landlord, on the other hand, is stuck with water rate, once the tenant that you want give the right to vote, decides not to renew their lease.
The rent that the tenant will pay to the landlord will largely be a function of what the supply and demand for that sort of rental unit is in Davis. If the landlord’s cost are going to go up by $100 a month because water rates are going to go up by $100 a month, I don’t see a landlord saying “It doesn’t matter to me because I’ll pass through the charge to the tenant.” While it is possible that a portion of that charge does get passed along to the tenant, unless there is a great deal of price inelasticity in the Davis rental market (i.e. few substitutes and/or renters would pay increased rents if landlords simply wanted to charge them), the landlords are probably more inclined to be opposed to water rate increases than even the tenants, since that rate gets multiplied by the number of units they own and they can have no assurance as to how much of that they might be able to pass on. They will definitely try to pass the charge on, but their success well be dependent upon how tight the rental market is and their ability to convince renters that they should pay such water rates. My belief is that they will be able to pass some along, but not all. Looked at another way, who should be able to vote on an increase in property taxes? Should it be the landlord or the renter? Who should be able to vote on any sort of a parcel tax, the landlord or the renter? If the renters are strongly opposed to any such taxes or similar charges, they should launch a campaign to convince their landlords. If failure to adopt increased rates now causes even higher costs to be borne in the future, doesn’t that provide a perverse incentive for the largely transient renter to kick the can down the road further?
It is my understanding that the Prop 218 notice is sent to the property owner, bc ultimately that will be the person who is responsible for the water bill.
Secondly, in talking to some landlords, it is their contention that the total cost of any water rate increases cannot be passed on to/borne by tenants. The rental market is somewhat competitive, and if Davis rents that included water utility costs became too high, students would start renting outside Davis. Therefore according to landlords, they are going to have to absorb at least half of the costs of water rate increases.
Furthermore, if tenants do not have to pay the full brunt of water rate increases, they do not have as much incentive to conserve water – another problem landlords face. Unfortunately the larger multi-family units are not sub-metered to enforce water conservation, and the cost to install meters after the fact is probably prohibitively expensive. The WAC is looking into this issue…