On Tuesday night, the Davis City Council voted essentially to pull the Loge-Williams Consumption Based Fixed Rate Model from consideration. Despite repeated efforts by Councilmember Brett Lee to at least allow the WAC to consider CBFR, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk held firm.
However, on Thursday night the WAC proved once and for all that they were not simply a rubber stamp for the council that some, including this writer, feared they might be.
As WAC Michael Bartolic noted, if they were simply going to reaffirm what the council wanted, they might as well let the council make that decision.
The motion, that was ultimately approved 6-3, was put forward by David Purkey and Michael Bartolic to reaffirm the WAC’s support for CBFR. They accepted an amendment from Matt Williams to expand the first tier to 18 ccf, which would accommodate the indoor use of a family of 8.
Elaine Roberts Musser put up a second substitute motion, which essentially was the council proposal from Tuesday – the Bartle Wells model with an expanded first tier and some sort of check down the line.
As Matt Williams argued, “I can’t support the motion for the following reason, $27.48 is what the person in the tenth percentile is going to pay as opposed to $17.91.”
“I don’t see how anyone,” he said, “and you think about who is going to be in that group, it’s going be senior citizens, it’s going to be people who have lost their jobs, it’s going to be people who are disadvantaged and don’t have a lot of income, it’s going to be people who acted responsibly and implemented low flow toilets and low flow shower heads.”
“Why should those people be paying $10 a month more for five years and it will become $20 a month in 2018,” he said. “I just don’t see the justice in your motion.”
The motion failed.
The WAC also considered a compromise motion in which they would start with two years of Bartle Wells and transition to the Loge-Williams model at that time. That motion was defeated 4-5, but garnered support from both Elaine Roberts Musser and Alf Brandt.
Chair Elaine Roberts-Musser was joined by Alf Brandt and Helen Thomson in opposition to the CBFR.
While the city council vote was ultimately 4-0-1 in favor of recommending the WAC look at two different Bartle Wells proposals, it was clear that it was really a 3-2 vote, with Mayor Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Brett Lee, both of the JPA reps, supporting some version of the Loge-Williams rate structure, believing it to ultimately be the most fair.
What is notable about the three-person coalition was the unwillingness of Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk to even allow the WAC the opportunity to discuss CBFR. Ultimately, the WAC engaged in a lengthy discussion about whether or not they should even discuss CBFR.
Chair Elaine Roberts Musser told the WAC that she was there the entire meeting on Tuesday night: “I believe if we were to pass this motion it will be overturned by the city council. The City Council made it very clear that they were not going to accept CBFR initially.”
“I don’t think we have the votes on the city council. We will be at odds with the city council,” she said. “This will be absolutely pointless. It will cause a lot of dissension in the community and then there will be the possibility that the project will be voted down.”
Matt Williams, in responding, told his colleagues, “My own personal feeling is that I have an obligation to do my best to give the city the best advice possible.”
“I think you’re right, there will be turmoil,” he continued. “But I think that saying to a little old lady who’s on a respirator, who’s using 5 ccf per month, that she’s going to go $27 or $29 per month rather than $17 or $18, is going to cause turmoil as well.”
Mark Siegler argued that the council might need to think about the political issues, that their job is to figure out the best and fairest rates.
“It’s hard for me to believe that a rate structure that offers lower rates for the bottom 90 percent of residential users is necessarily a bad thing,” he argued. “It just seems to be much fairer.”
“It’s one thing if you have very low water rates, then your metered charge is not a bad deal,” Mr. Siegler continued. “When the fixed rate gets to be $47 and you haven’t used a drop of water yet and you look at the costs per gallon, it’s much much higher for low users than high users.”
“You can’t get uniformity when you have big fixed costs, even with inclining tiers big users will be paying less per gallon under the Bartle Wells,” he said.
Helen Thomson said, “I don’t have the same umbrage being asked by the council, once they have considered what we recommended, and whether their judgment is political, technical or rational or irrational in anyone’s point of view, they did ask their advisory committee, which is us, to please look at two options. They didn’t ask us to look at everything we’ve studied in the last year.”
Frank Loge argued that he did not understand what was confusing about this rate structure.
Alf Brandt responded that there are several pieces to the structure.
“The amount that they pay may change based on their changing water use,” he said. “That may be good but they won’t understand whether that’s good or bad for them. They’ll be uncomfortable with something they have no control over it.”
With the reaffirmation of Loge-Williams, it is unclear going forward how this impacts the council’s decision.
Elaine Roberts Musser may be right that the council will ultimately reject their overture. At the same time, there is increased discussion that re-examines the inequity of the rates in the Bartle Wells model.
On Thursday, the business community came aboard.
Kemble Pope, the Executive Director of the Davis Chamber of Commerce, sent out a statement late in the afternoon to the WAC, urging them “to reiterate your support for the Consumption Based Fixed Rate (CBFR) to finance the proposed surface water project.”
“CBFR is far superior to a rate based on the pipe size or meter capacity, which bears little relationship to actual consumption,” Mr. Pope continued. “The Bill Comparisons recently completed by City Staff now prove that CBFR would offer a less dramatic increase for apartment dwellers, home owners and businesses than any of the other rate models. The numbers really do speak for themselves.”
He added, “Conservation is rewarded and encouraged by the CBFR. The CBFR is easy to explain. It is similar to the current method of calculating our sewer rates.”
“The business community believes that the CBFR is the best choice for the entire community,” Kemble Pope concluded.
The question now is whether further reflection will allow for the council to find a compromise to move forward on a rate structure that is clearly much more fair to the vast majority of water users.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]“I don’t have the same umbrage being asked by the council, once they have considered what we recommended, and whether their judgment is political, technical or rational or irrational in anyone’s point of view, they did ask their advisory committee, which is us, to please look at two options. They didn’t ask us to look at everything we’ve studied in the last year.”[/quote]
I read Helen’s comment with some interest. I also would not take umbrage at being asked by the council to further consider only two of the options presented. This would imply that the council feels that the WAC might be willing to exercise some flexibility in reconsidering their initial advice. One can only hope that the members of the CC would be willing to exercise the same degree of flexibility in reconsidering their position. With the apparent greater fairness of the rates proposed in the CBFR once the numbers were presented in a clear fashion, I think that the CC
should be able to also see the value of this approach. Although I did not see the entirety of the presentation and discussion, it would seem that there was only one member of the CC who was truly intransigent on this issue. I would strongly urge this member and those who ultimately chose to support his position to reconsider.
I read an article recently that argued that real democracy (representative or direct) requires, first and foremost, the ability to think. I see the WAC’s actions as modeling solid thinking–moving beyond fears and narrow political calculations to ask what is best for this town.
I welcome the conflict between the WAC and the CC (given this vote) with open arms. It is only through thoroughly engaging an issue and being willing to stick to what one feels is the right course for the community that a good solution can be found. When disagreements arise in such circumstances it provides a foundation to deepen the discussion. To me, the ball is very much in the court of the CC (as it should be). The faithful group of citizens they selected to shepherd the process has spoken. I hope the disagreement their decision highlights will lead to a critical re-examination by the CC of the decision they made on Tuesday.
Best wishes to everyone involved (especially the CC at this point). This is how democracy is supposed to work. I am proud to see it happening in my town
The DV at its best.
But isn’t CBFR unfair to students ?
What a mess !
Just read Dunning. Commented on outdoor usage. Those people with larger beautiful yards and gardens are going to see huge bill increases under CBFR.
What a mess! Why couldn’t this election wait a few months, like the DV strongly recommended? Oh, wait: forget about those taskmasters on the Woodland CC who demanded this early March 5 election! Bill marbles must be such a scary brute to have gotten his early Davis election date AND rolled Dan and Rochelle on the cost sharing.
Maybe we should run a sliver of urban development up Poleline/Road 102 and let Marbles and crew annex us?
I just read Dunning’s column too.
And, I read this from Robb Davis:
[i]I read an article recently that argued that real democracy (representative or direct) requires, first and foremost, the ability to think.[/i]
It brings to me to a point that politics matter. Sure a working democracy requires the ability to think. But we don’t have a thinking-peoples’ democracy as evident by this last election. Whether it works or not is open to debate. However, it is clear that emotions and passions play much bigger roles than do facts and logic.
So we can analyze and calculate to come up with the perfect mathematical solution that optimizes fairness for all considering the myriad of economic, social and environmental criteria… this is something that I think the WAC has done a marvelous job doing. However, in the end, the residents of this town, like for so many other decisions, will vote based on their fears and self-interests. Others will succumb to the media branding of the thing from a simple binary good-versus-bad or cool-versus-uncool perspective.
I support the surface water project. It makes sense for a number of undeniable reasons. It is value-add. It solves current and future problems.
What I worry about is the technocratic rate solutions being proposed causing too many voters to turn against the project in general.
I think tiered rates are a problem. I think too-complex rate structures and billing processes are a problem. We need a straight-forward and easy to grasp rate and billing structure to ensure that the rate and billing solution does not hijack the need for the project.
Perfection is the enemy of the good.
We need to stop trying to make it perfect, and work on just making it good enough.
I just did the calculation of my monthly bill with the Distribution-Supply-Use rate model and came up with $64.52 for our big beautiful yard and household of 2. This compares to $69.70 for August of this year. I do not need to know the mathematics that went into the model, I just need to know how to add and multiple. The Distribution-Supply-Use rate model is Equitable, Fair and Visionary for ALL in Davis!!!
Jeff – I hope you are wrong re: “However, in the end, the residents of this town, like for so many other decisions, will vote based on their fears and self-interests”, but I understand why you say it. All we can do is lay out the arguments and explain the benefits and the realities of the rate structure options.
I will disagree with you that the WAC is somehow trying to create a “perfect” solution. That is not what they are doing in my view. There is no perfect structure but trying to tweak the CBFR to make it fair is to be expected. We need to take a few risks to bring this project to fruition but I don’t agree that anyone is trying to create perfection.
Those who stand back, wave their arms and simply say “this is TOO hard to understand” do a great disservice to this community. This is not TOO hard to understand. In fact, I would argue that the CBFR helps us have a much more meaningful conversation about why our water costs what it costs. Thus, I do not believe this is a “technocratic solution” but rather one that helps us account honestly and transparently for the costs of our water. You have a great mind so I hope you will apply it to figuring out how to explain the CBFR to the citizens of Davis.
I think the Kopper Midel was fair and easy to understand
Rates rates rates … But the project is too big, too expensive, and not needed for some time if at all
Just vote it down
There’ll be a better plan ahead
[i]Jeff – I hope you are wrong re: “However, in the end, the residents of this town, like for so many other decisions, will vote based on their fears and self-interests”, [/i]
Robb, I appreciate the hopefullness of that sentiment; however, this last election educated me on the value of marketing principles in politics. In marketing we have the good old VHS versus Betamax case study. The best solution does not win without better marketing.
I can help educate my neighbors and friends on the value of the surface water project, but if the opposition succeeds in amping up fears over rates, that marketing plan will likely win the day.
I don’t agree with Mike that there will be a better plan ahead. But that is what we will be focused on if we screw this up scaring too many voters with a complex rate plan. Most people do not want to have to think about their utility bills. The folks on this blog are obviously extraordinary in their motivation to undertand the details. However, we are the minority.
If the JPA project fails March 5, our committee shall remain committed and active to provide Davis with a cost effective and progressive water system that’s fair to all.
And we remain fully committed to ensuring Davis keeps its river water water take permit.
“[i]…our committee shall remain committed and active to provide Davis with a cost effective and progressive water system that’s fair to all.”
[/i]
Seems to me you should probably give us some hint as to what you have in mind. In the past, all you’ve said leads to the inescapable conclusion that your plan is continued pumping of the groundwater and buying water from Woodland or West Sac on the open market.
Water has become a highly precious resource. There are some places where a barrel of water costs more than a barrel of oil.
Lloyd Axworthy, Foreign Minister of Canada (1999 – News Conference)
When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.
Benjamin Franklin, (1706-1790), Poor Richard’s Almanac, 1746
High quality water is more than the dream of the conservationists, more than a political slogan; high quality water, in the right quantity at the right place at the right time, is essential to health, recreation, and economic growth.
Edmund S. Muskie, U.S. Senator, speech, 1 March 1966
The crisis of our diminishing water resources is just as severe (if less obviously immediate) as any wartime crisis we have ever faced. Our survival is just as much at stake as it was at the time of Pearl Harbor, or the Argonne, or Gettysburg, or Saratoga
Jim Wright, U.S. Representative, The Coming Water Famine, 1966
Until and unless a large meteor or comet either vaporizes, or supersizes the oceans, the amount of water on the planet will remain the same … it is a closed-loop water cycle system. The only considerations related to water as a scarce natural resource are proximity, quality, delivery… and then legal rights.
If you are lucky enough to enjoy close proximity to high quality water, and you have a legal right to that water, then you can cross off water as a life-concern.
For the rest of us, there is a need to work a little harder and pay a bit more to secure that same ability to cross off water as a life-concern.
We have that opportunity before us with the surface water project. If we fail to approve and implement this project, we will be back to a life of water insecurity.
I would prefer that we wrap it up and get it done. There are many other life-concern issues we must deal with. Let’s cross this one off our list so we can move to the next thing.
Jeff: there are much better options than this expensive plant that forces us to politically live with a Woodland CC that is totally screwing their poor ratepayers. “The Northern Menance” is the label Dunning uses, correctly.
All in due time …
I’m in this 1 and 1/2 yrsnow, and will see it through to a good resolution in 2-3 yrs.
[i]”Jeff: there are much better options than this expensive plant…
[/i]
No, Mike, there aren’t. I sometimes wonder if you were following the WAC meetings over the last year. They reviewed the options and rejected the alternatives. So when you say ‘there are much better options’ you need to be specific, because the experts don’t agree with you.
[quote]“The Northern Menance” is the label Dunning uses, correctly.[/quote]
I am confused by this statement in light of the fact that your own ballot argument calls for a “regional partnership” that includes Woodland.
And I, too, will add my voice to the chorus of those seeking specifics of this oft referred to “alternate plan” that still addresses our community need for a reliable, sustainable source of clean water.
“I think the Kopper Midel was fair and easy to understand”
staff said it wasn’t viable.
mr. souza: rather than weigh in with quotes from others on the importance of water, i’d rather here your take on bartle wells versus loge-williams?
don raises a good point. better options? siegler and kopper and bartolic, all members of your group, voted to support conjunctive use.
Growth: staff said they didnt have the costs worked up yet, and felt they didnt have time. Again, rush rush rush to grab the step railing on the last car of the Woodland train that is rushing off the fiscal cliff?
Since our Davis CC is so bound up with the idea of being wedded to Woodland and jointly owning the house, let’s just get past this March 5 ballot and see where we go from there.
Mr. Souza: how do you feel about the two rate systems?
Mike:[i] ” let’s just get past this March 5 ballot and see where we go from there.”[/i]
No, you should tell us what your alternative is. You’ve had years to work up a proposal. Try answering the question instead of evading it.
David: instead of the dollar graphic, try a barrel going over Niagra Falls?
Harrington’s alternative is do nothing. The rest is just BS.
Stephen
As a former CC member, I am sure that you had numerous occasions to consider what the best water options were for the city. What are your thoughts about the current proposal and rates to achieve the proposal if you see it as needed now that you are no longer in the direct line of political fire ? A position that I truly hope you are enjoying.
What’s with Michael Harrington? Twice Don Shor asked him to give us some kind of hint about what sort of alternative to this project that Harrington promises us he has in mind. Nothing. Whatever good will or credibility Harrington once had is really in deficit status. And I almost never agree with Jeff Boone, but he sounds quite reasonable on this issue. Water certainly has the power to churn everything upside down.
The issues are (1) the long-term need of the project, (2) relative costs and benefits of the project and (3) the transparency and fairness of the rates paid by the users. If those three components aren’t adequately communicated and understood, the project will be endangered or fail. The stakes are higher than for any other political issue because new sources of high quality water are extremely limited. Davis passed on Berryessa water fifty years ago. That leaves the Sacramento River. Absent that source, there is no other feasible alternative.
The City Council doesn’t seem to understand this otherwise they would be trying to understand the CBFR model so that they can communicate it or make it better instead of running for political cover. I have seen nothing but fear tactics and sarcasm from the opponents of the project who are hiding behind the “cost” and the rate structure. That only proves that the opposition is not based on principle but on emotion. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean the project gets the nod from the voters.
Y’all have work to do to make it easier for my next door neighbor to calculate her bill under the Loge-Williams plan. After all, I doubt there are many people in this town that can explain the CURRENT rate structure let alone a new one that will result in a higher bill.