Comments on: Facts and fiction about Davis’ water rates

By: Matt Williams

Matt Williams — Sun, 25 May 2014 01:19:35 +0000

Calculation of monthly Bill with proposed tiers ____________ Simply add the Distribution Charge by meter size + $2.64 per ccf Supply Charge + $0.50 per ccf 20 = Total Water Bill

By: Matt Williams

Matt Williams — Sun, 25 May 2014 01:16:31 +0000

It is interesting that you say that. Donna and I were putting together the slides for Tuesday and the final slide reads as follows _________ This is a better rate structure __________
It is more responsive to consumers _________ It is more equitable _____________ It is simpler and easier to understand _________ It is fiscally resilient and sustainable ___________ It is the result of democracy in action __________ It reduces the community’s fiscal risk.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 25 May 2014 00:03:33 +0000

I hope your new proposal does go to council on Tues. I understand there is some dispute about whether that will happen or not. Measure P is absolutely necessary, given the council’s behavior pattern on this whole water thing. They have pursued their own agenda at great cost. Now democracy is forcing the council to hear a broader spectrum of voices in the community and to backtrack and come up with something that is more fair, understandable and aligned with water conservation.

By: Matt Williams

Matt Williams — Sat, 24 May 2014 05:30:45 +0000

You are seeing etherial spectres where none exist. All you have to do is read Mark’s own words above, “On Nov. 15, 2012, I voted for, and the Water Advisory Committee recommended, a 12-month CBFR with an inclining-tier variable charge, but the City Council changed this to a six-month peak CBFR with a uniform variable charge. Returning to the WAC recommendation would greatly improve the equity of the rates, encourage conservation throughout the year and more closely align charges to costs in a proportional manner. It is also simple to change the CBFR supply fee from a backward-looking one to a pay-as-you-go charge to eliminate the problems associated with basing the majority of the bill on the previous year’s consumption.” I too supported the WAC recommendation, although as an alternate I could not vote. 12-month with a tiered Variable Use Fee effectively accomplishes vertical equity just as effectively as 6-month with no tiers. The key is that the community finds the former to be more “fair” than the latter … and that it is easier to understand. That is why Donna Lemongello and I have crafted the 12-month/no look back/tiered Variable Use Fee proposal going to Council on Tuesday. Democracy is an intriguing process. It works well when the people voice their opinions about key issues … and their elected representatives listen to them. In the past two months, and especially in the past two weeks, Measure P has been looking very much like democracy working well.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 24 May 2014 04:54:08 +0000

Well Mark and Sue Greenwald co-authored an op-ed published April 22 which was all about Yes on P. So I have to suspend my disbelief that he is not a supporter of Measure P, which in turn would make him an opponent of CBFR (as adopted). Yes, thanks for point out the difference between literal and figurative writing. “Father” means something quite different figuratively speaking than literally speaking. That’s a good catch on your part, and reinforces the perception that the founder, originator, creator, and “father” of CBFR is indeed quite brilliant.