On Tuesday evening, John Munn speaking at public comment at the Davis City Council meeting, refuted the involvement of the Yolo County Taxpayers in the suit against Measure I. Elaine Roberts Musser, chair of the Water Advisory Committee, would briefly respond to some of his comments.
The group calling itself Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services filed a lawsuit last week, which asks the court to declare that the city’s existing rate structure violates Proposition 218.
In addition, “Yolo Ratepayers’ suit seeks a declaration that the City’s use of present water rates to obtain illegal subsidies for itself at the expense of other ratepayers is in violation of Proposition 218 and is unconstitutional and illegal.”
There has been some confusion and question about the relationship between Yolo Ratepayers and the Yolo County Taxpayers Association. That issue was brought to a head on Saturday when Alan Pryor, at the Measure I forum, either intentionally or unintentionally referred to the filers of the lawsuit as members of the Yolo County Taxpayers Association rather than the Yolo Ratepayers.
John Munn’s comments:
In closing comments at the Measure I forum on Saturday, a proponent of Measure stated that the Yolo County Taxpayers Association was involved in the recent lawsuit against the city. I want to publicly state that this is not true.
The Taxpayers Association was neither consulted nor notified about the lawsuit. Nor has the association been involved in other lawsuits against the city.
It was additionally stated that the taxpayers association had opposed all tax measures in Davis. This also is not true, I remember that the taxpayers association supported the school district’s first emergency or temporary parcel tax measure because there was a clear need.
Overall, the taxpayers association has supported some tax measures, opposed others, and stayed neutral on most depending on the individual circumstances.
Moving on… Measure I proponents also complained that the No on I campaign was changing its message to the public. I will agree with this but it’s not because of errors or problems with the No on I arguments; instead it’s because the proposed project and related water rates themselves keep changing.
For example, the calculation of individual user rates has gone from fixed tiers for given volumes of water to basing rates on the previous summer’s water use. That was a big switch.
Recently we found out that the city has not been paying for most of the water it’s using – but we had to dig to get that. Now we’re hearing that the city, the single largest user of Davis water, is thinking of opting out of the surface water project and pumping from wells for irrigation to avoid paying the higher rates.
This would remove an enormous volume of water from the project, leaving remaining ratepayers paying even higher amounts to repay bonds sold to build the project.
Did you really know about this? The same city staff that provided you with rate proposals for the Prop 218 notice must also have known about changes that could lead to even higher rates.
Just what is going on? Withholding information about not paying for water and not accounting for possible changes in operations forces one to wonder as should all ratepayers what other weeds are growing here?
What’s next? Perhaps discovering that putting pipeline easements on paper is easier than getting them on the ground. Keep your eye on that.
I’ve always thought that the surface water project was planned backwards from what can we get instead of what do we need and what can we afford. Now it is difficult to trust the city after so many changes and when it’s obvious that water rate increases published at election time are much lower than will be needed in the future.
Elaine Roberts Musser, Chair of the WAC responded briefly:
The Water Advisory Committee worked closely with staff for over a year. It believed that there was a need for conjunctive use project, unanimously. 10-0. We also voted on the Woodland project, 8-2.
We looked at all of the issues. Staff has looked at all of the issues.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“1.) Why did you file your lawsuit now rather than after the measure has been resolved? 2.) Who is in the “Yolo Ratepayers” organization and what is its purpose? 3.) Who is financing the suit? and 4) Will the new group be attempting to influence voting on the election.”
These questions have been asked before, but never answered by Munn or Harrington. Time has put lie to Michael’s claim that the suit has nothing to do with the measure–it’s become the biggest argument from the “no” folks. I’m not sure that anyone except John cares about the relationship between the ratepayers and the taxpayers groups. I’m interested in knowing who is involved the new outfit, however.
“Now we’re hearing that the city, the single largest user of Davis water is thinking of opting out of the surface water project and pumping from wells for irrigation to avoid paying the higher rates.”
I missed the council meeting. Details? Confirmation?
I published the entirety of the discussion last night.
John Munn
[quote]The Taxpayers Association was neither consulted nor notified about the lawsuit.[/quote]
While I do not doubt that this is a literally true statement, it begs I question that a number of us have raised.
What I would be interested in seeing is a complete membership list of the Taxpayers Association and a complete membership list of the “Yolo Ratepayers….” group. I would like to be able to compare to see if the statement is functionally true as well as literally true. Would you be either willing to post the lists or send information on where to find them ?
David, have you heard anything about Munn’s claim that the city’s deciding it’s dropping out of the water project because of the projected high rates? Is the city as unrelated to the city as the taxpayers group is unrelated to ratepayers group?
I don’t want to speak to the motivation, but I think there is a plan to use some of the lower quality well water for irrigation purposes in the parks as the issue of drinking water and wastewater are non-factors.
That’s a good point, medwoman. Munn’s statement that the taxpayers group hasn’t sued anyone might be literally true as well. Is Munn a principle of the new group as well as the old one? The “no” spokespeople have refused to say.
The motivation for the city using lower quality water for irrigation is apparent on the face of it. The man obviously lies about the city opting out of the project “to avoid paying the higher fees.” The “no” arguments fall to a new low.
Isn’t Munn the President of the Yolo Taxpayers Association? I remember he was at one time and he certainly is often the public face of the organization so it is reasonable to confuse the two. I don’t need to know who is in the Taxpayer Association although it would be interesting to see how many members it has paying dues. One caveat, I would be interested to know if Thomas Randall and Jose Granda are members?
Mr. Toad
Would you still not be interested in knowing if it were to turn out that the two groups were virtually identical in membership, or had virtually all the same leadership ?
From what i can tell by looking at the Yolo County Taxpayers website John Munn is the President or at least he was last year when the site was last updated. By looking at the website it doesn’t seem to be much of a group at all. Its fair to assume that there is at least one other member, who, Munn did not consult about his lawsuit. Looking at the Website you can’t even find a board of directors.
Mr. Munn signed the No on I ballot argument rebuttal with the title “Director, Yolo County Taxpayers Association”
…
“I published the entirety of the discussion last night.”
David, I haven’t watched the CC yet; can you elaborate where this is located as far as the irrigation water ideas.
They seem like good ones, think Brett voiced the idea in his campaign, but now interested in how their implementation may impact the surface water needs.
Anyone?
Here is page one of the lawsuit document. It speaks for itself.
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/Complaint-VerifiedSIGNED30Jan13_zpsdc1b3389.jpg[/IMG]
Did John Munn make it clear last night that the Taxpayer Group was NOT formally involved but HE was?
[quote]Now we’re hearing that the city, the single largest user of Davis water, is thinking of opting out of the surface water project and pumping from wells for irrigation to avoid paying the higher rates.[/quote]
I think he’s referring to a comment that the City could use lower quality water sources to water parks and greenbelts, instead of the higher quality well water, or river water as a method of conservation. Is he really opposing the city doing this? Would it change anything about the overall rates at all? Isn’t it all one system? (God forbid, could there be a system whereby the consumer really choose an acquifer or source for their water, i.e. poor people buying from the poorer quality mid-level acquifer, rich people buying only higher quality river water?)
An earlier Enterprise article called Munn the “past president” of the taxpayers group. It also quoted Michael Harrington talking about “the plaintiffs” in the suit, implying that the ratepayers group had membership of some significance. Difficult to say, given Munn’s, Harrington’s ant the other “no” spokespeople’s’ secrecy about endorsers and funders.
How the two groups are related is one of those “who cares” diversions that come along. Vanguard and Enterprise readers already knew which “group” is filing the suit and that Munn speaks for both.
I’m still wondering how Munn’s public comments rate an unquestioning Vanguard story. The article does nothing to clarify “confusion and question(s) about the relationship” between the two groups. It just adds another forum for Munn’s misinformation.
Well over a year ago the Davis Natural Resources Commission began considering detailed plans to replumb some intermediate aquifer wells so the output would be used solely for park irrigations. This has been an idea that has been kicked around for many years but only really gained traction when the surface water project looked like it might be coming a reality and the intermediate aquifer wells would be taken offline.
This option makes perfect sense. Why should we use our precious and more expensive surface water and high quality deep well aquifer water to irrigate vast swaths of parkland when lesser uality water will do just as well? Plus the large amounts of nitrates in the intermediate aquifer will fertilize lawns saving the city even more money.
The NRC recommended this option to the WAC over 6 months ago as part of a comprehensive list of conservation measures the City and its citizens could use to meet our 20% conservation target. This has all been public knowledge and openly discussed for months. The fact that the issue is now being revisted by the “No on I” folks and recast as a way for the City to “opt-out” of its own water project is patently absurd on the face of it.
It simply shows the extent to which the “No on I” folks will attempt to distort facts and use subterfuge and misrepresentation to advance their cause. As I said in my closing arguments at Saturday’s forum, this continues the “No on I” pattern of floating one blatent misrepresentation or outright lie after another when the previous lie was exposed or discredited
First it was that we didn’t even have any wastewater violation problems at all,
Then it was that we could get more extensions on our permits or petition our way out of any compliance,
Then it was we could mine the deep aquifer forever;
Then it was we could go to West Sac;
Then it was Munn’s and Harrington’s frivolous lawsuit and Munn’s ackward attempts to distance himself from it even when his name is splashed on the front page;
Then it was the City ripping off the ratepayers on the water it used for park irrigation;
And now it is the City is opting out of its own water project by simply trying to conserve water in the most practical way possible;
Just Saying had it right, “The No arguments have sunk to a new low”
Sue Greenwald, Mike Harrington, now John Munn and Fraser Shilling…
“
biddlin
10/06/11 – 09:22 AM
…
The most expensive components of this project could be the egos !
”
Don’cha hate it when I’m right ?
;>)/
[quote]“That issue was brought to a head on Saturday when Alan Pryor, at the Measure I forum, either intentionally or unintentionally referred to the filers of the lawsuit as members of the Yolo County Taxpayers Association rather than the Yolo Ratepayers.”[/quote]Alan, you didn’t respond to David’s observation that you may have intentionally mislabeled Munn’s ratepayer group for some reason. Why did you do this awful thing? Why did you bring this to a head?
Given the way it rolled out, I assumed it was a slip of the tongue since you obviously knew from reading the [u]Vanguard[/u] that Munn/Harrington formed a new group for this new purpose. PS–I’m enjoying finding myself on the same side of an issue as you for a change.
[quote]Alan, you didn’t respond to David’s observation that you may have intentionally mislabeled Munn’s ratepayer group for some reason. [/quote]
I know Yolo Ratepayers is different than Yolo Taxpayers and that Munn is involved in both. Referring to Yolo Taxpayers as the filer of the lawsuit instead of properly identifying Yolo Ratepayers as the filer was an unintentional mistake on my part. But perhaps you can understand the slipup in the heat of the moment given their names are so similar and they are all playing the same misinformation game.
[quote]I’m enjoying finding myself on the same side of an issue as you for a change[/quote]
Yes, our coalition is very broad indeed and we all find ourselves working with strange bedfellows on this issue. But the matter will soon be decided one way or the other and then we can get back to fighting amongst ourselves on the less important issues :>)
Hello Alan,
If you are still here could you comment on whether the ratepayers could see the percentage of their water use and the percentage of their bill in covering the expenses? It think this is a basic level of accountability and would prevent a lawsuits like this. It should be done regardless the outcome of Measure I.
According to another presentation (page 16 ([url]http://archive.cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-07-12-item4-draft-water-rates-presentation.pdf[/url])), it seems that the rates are designed to accumulate a revenue of $29.9 million from the water billing system by 2020.
I don’t think Davis has a way to adjust tax rates (e.g. property tax and sales tax) dynamically to fund general city spending, and there is no mechanism to have a dynamic per capita tax for that purpose, however, I think that if a rate structure is designed to fund other uses, it can be clearly stated in the bill, that a certain portion of the [i]water bill[/i] is not for expenses related to water, but imposed to support other expenses.
When the language is clear, then the 5% extra can be excluded from the proportionality calculation. As long as the voters agree that the water bill is a practical and convenient way to pay for other expenses, then I don’t see a problem of simply stating that, and have it be done by the same bill.
But the meaning of the bill should be clear, so that people don’t accuse the city for being sneaky for effectively raising tax but hiding it as part of the water bill. I think it is better to keep the meaning of the rates separate so people don’t get confused.
Edgar, specific bill formatting features are still to be determined. I can guarantee you that you have a 150% ally in me regarding such bill formatting. I haven’t seen a billing format idea that you have put forward that I don’t agree with.
It is nice to know that the bill formatting is not determined. As far as the number goes, the billing format can protect against overcharge, which is about $2 million a year. What or who is the decision maker of the bill format?
Edgar, if you go to the Prop 218 Public meeting tonight at 7:00 PM at the Senior Center, both Dianna Jensen and Herb Niederberger will be there. They are the two key decision makers.