Friday, April 18, 2014
YOLO COUNTY NEWS
99 CENTS

Initiative could put water rates up for vote

By
From page A1 | July 25, 2013 | 10 Comments

BigStock photo

Even more pressure has been applied to the city this week and the water utility rates it approved earlier this year to pay for the surface water project.

Not only was the city’s legal team denied a chance Wednesday to speed up the ruling on the lawsuit that’s been lodged against the rates — important for city officials because they want to approach lenders without litigation tied to the rates in order to pick up the best possible financing for Davis’ $111 million share of the surface water project — but it also learned Tuesday that an initiative was filed by community members to repeal the rates altogether.

The initiative was drafted by Davis residents Pam Nieberg and Ernie Head, both of whom were proponents of the referendum campaign that overturned the first water rate hike the council adopted in 2011. Those rates also were approved by the council to pay for the now scaled-down and cheaper Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency surface water project.

If Head and Nieberg collect more than 1,161 valid signatures — or 5 percent of those in Davis who voted in the last gubernatorial election — the rates likely would be placed on the next general election ballot for a public vote.

Once the city releases a title and summary in the next few weeks, Head and Nieberg will have six months to collect the signatures.

The two Davis residents say they want to suspend the rates because they charge ratepayers unfairly, specifically pointing to the consumption-based fixed rate model the council approved, and because they believe the drastic rise in water rates will have adverse financial impacts on the community, among other reasons.

Head told The Enterprise Wednesday, meanwhile, that he also hopes the initiative stops the city from moving forward with the surface water project.

“I hope it kills the surface water project,” Head said. “That’s been a mess since Day One. I don’t think we need it and I think it’s too expensive. … (The initiative) takes the money away from (the city), so how are they going to (build the project) if they don’t have the money?”

The City Council adopted a five-year rate hike in March that will triple water bills during the next half-decade. The first increase kicked in May 1 with subsequent increases on the way over the next five years.

Davis voters approved the water project, which the rates were raised to pay for, in March by a 54.1 to 45.9 percent margin, but project opponents have criticized the election because the ballot didn’t include the rates.

Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk said Wednesday that rehashing this issue would not be in the best interest of the community.

“This is just the latest in a long string of attempts to block our community’s access to clean surface water,” Wolk said in a statement. “These concerns about rates were thoroughly vetted by our Water Advisory Committee and exhaustively debated during the Measure I election. The community voted in favor of the project despite these objections.”

Davis City Attorney Harriet Steiner said Wednesday that even if the initiative collects enough valid signatures and successfully repeals the rates through the public vote, the council could simply restart the Proposition 218 process at any time and raise the rates necessary to continue paying for the water project.

City denied

Complicating the issue even further, Yolo Superior Court Judge Dan Maguire ruled against Steiner’s motion Wednesday to bifurcate the proceedings of the lawsuit that claims the city’s water utility rates are illegal under state law.

Maguire said that the bifurcation would not result in a more efficient judicial process, as the city had argued in its motion.

Steiner had hoped that by pushing up the ruling on the water rates, the city would be clear of the litigation and able to reap the best possible financing terms on the bonds it needs to pay for the water project as soon as possible.

Instead, the court ruled that the entire suit will be heard in December after several initial hearings to work out other procedural details.

Steiner said that the city is pleased to have a hearing date scheduled, but if the city takes out loans to pay for the project before then, creditors likely won’t offer up their best interest rates.

“The good part is we’ll get a ruling on everything all at once,” Steiner said. “The reason we wanted to bifurcate was to get a ruling as early as possible … (but) it may not quite jibe with the best schedule we’d love to have.”

City officials also say that with litigation hovering over the rates — aside from receiving less than optimal interest terms — it also could preclude the city from making a public offering, which, compared to a private offering, could save the city more in the end.

Pinkerton said last week that if the city can’t shake the lawsuit, the city may only bond out for the first year of the project’s costs this year, potentially leaving the city and its ratepayers vulnerable to cost increases, as interest rates could rise over the next year or so.

“This could cost the ratepayers millions and millions of dollars,” Pinkerton said.

Michael Harrington, the attorney representing the Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services — the group suing the city — maintains that the city put itself in the position to incur more costs by moving forward with the rates despite the pending lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the water rates the city adopted in March are illegal under Proposition 218, as they disproportionately charge ratepayers for the water they consume. The suit also alleges the city unlawfully fails to pay for the water it uses, among other charges.

Harrington also said Wednesday that he’s requested to have settlement discussions with the city that could resolve the suit before December.

“The plaintiffs want a global settlement,” Harrington said. “We want the rates to be fixed and we want them on the ballot.”

— Reach Tom Sakash at tsakash@davisenterprise.net or 530-747-8057. Follow him on Twitter at @TomSakash

Tom Sakash

Tom Sakash covers the city beat for The Davis Enterprise. Reach him at tsakash@davisenterprise.net, (530) 747-8057 or @TomSakash.
LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 10 comments

The Davis Enterprise does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

  • Will ArnoldJuly 25, 2013 - 2:33 am

    Here we go again... These same folks argued to the WAC that the project costs too much and that CBFR is unfair. They lost. They argued to Council that the project costs too much and that CBFR is unfair. They lost. They argued to the voters that the project costs too much and that CBFR is unfair. They lost. They are now arguing in court. They've had their opportunity to get their message out and have it considered by every relevant public entity, including a city-wide vote. At every turn they have not been successful. Now they want yet another bite at the apple hoping the fifth (or sixth) time is a charm. It is an insult to our democratic process and to our intelligence as voters. I sincerely hope my fellow community members will see it for what it is, an attempt to subvert the will of the majority by a small minority bent on killing this project.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • GrantJuly 25, 2013 - 8:23 am

    You are not entirely fair in your criticism, Will. There are people in this town who did like the idea of securing a more permanent water supply, but were not in agreement with the funky rate system. Unfortunately, we were not given a choice on that, and some folks no doubt voted for the project in hopes that the rate system would be addressed and possibly changed. I remember discussing this with you at a Farmer's Market rally, and you agreed with me. How about a vote on JUST the rate system - CBFR or flat usage rate. I suspect you would not get a majority in favor of CBFR.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • AmenJuly 25, 2013 - 2:13 pm

    Amen, William. Democracy has spoken. It is time to move on. Grant, after the additional vote on the rate system, why don't we have an additional vote on the design of the water treatment plant, then we could have a vote on the pipelines from the plant, and then we could have another vote on the type of paper we use for the water bills. That way, everyone who ever had any opinion on the water treatment plant could be fully heard.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • GrantJuly 25, 2013 - 3:34 pm

    Amen - I'm not talking about tiny details here. You have to admit, the CBFR model was and still is very controversial. Many people voiced their concerns about it, even folks on the 'yes' side of Measure I, but there was so much pressure and threats that we were going to run out of water if the project wasn't passed, I think many folks voted 'yes' despite their dislike of the CBFR model, and wound up feeling disenfranchised as voters. 54% is hardly a landslide victory. If even 5% of the 'yes' voters wanted the project but not the CBFR, then the MAJORITY of voters are not in favor of the CBFR model. It may be the latest trendy rate model, but you cannot tell me it is fair. What's fair is a set rate that I can count on everyday of the year. While I don't necessarily agree with the litigators' hopes of destroying the whole project, I applaud their effort to change the rate structure.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Stephen SouzaJuly 25, 2013 - 6:43 am

    For the Love of God, Really?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • ScottJuly 25, 2013 - 12:02 pm

    There's a reason that you were not re-elected.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • And...July 25, 2013 - 2:16 pm

    ...and replaced by city council members in FAVOR of the water treatment plant....(No, wait a second, that logic doesn't quite work...)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • M. KilleenJuly 25, 2013 - 11:14 am

    Just out of curiosity: when the vote was taken, the figure of $113 million was used. Within the past month, the Council was talking about $151.5 million. Now we are hearing $111. Where are all the differing figures coming from? The escalating rates will be based at least in part on the cost of the project (and the few people who cannot opt out of it to pay for it). It does matter greatly to those who are fiscally conservative and who also want our city to survive financially.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Tom SakashJuly 25, 2013 - 11:33 am

    That's a good question and I should be more clear about it in the future. As I understand it, when the vote was taken in March, the cost to Davis was $113 million (not including the operational costs the city will be on the hook for once the project is finished, which will run about $9.5 million per year I believe split between Davis and Woodland). But then, the water agency board altered the request for proposal documents, requiring bidders -- or now just CH2M hill -- to submit proposals under a certain dollar amount. At the time of that change, the agency claimed it would reduce overall construction costs by 10 percent. The math apparently doesn't translate to 10 percent off that $113 million, however. If that were true, the costs to Davis would be roughly $100 million rather than $111 million. But in any case, the costs that the agency general manager has presented recently are $110.9 million to Davis and $237 million total for construction.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Katie BlackJuly 25, 2013 - 8:18 pm

    I'm with Souza...and Will Arnold, this is ridiculous...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Posts

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this newspaper and receive notifications of new articles by email.

  • .

    News

     
    Chuck Rairdan joins school board race

    By Jeff Hudson | From Page: A1, 2 Comments

    Going green at church, school, everywhere

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A1 | Gallery

     
    Former caretaker convicted of murder, elder abuse

    By Lauren Keene | From Page: A1, 4 Comments | Gallery

    Old friend helps Brad and others find kidneys

    By Dave Jones | From Page: A1 | Gallery

     
    Ukraine insurgents reject call to quit buildings

    By The Associated Press | From Page: A2, 4 Comments

     
    For the record

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A2

    UCD to host Global Health Day event

    By Cory Golden | From Page: A2

     
    ‘Hitchhiking’ dog looking for new home

    By Lauren Keene | From Page: A3 | Gallery

     
    Need a new best friend?

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3 | Gallery

     
    Online K-12 school holds info night

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

    Volkssporting Club plans North Davis walks

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

     
    Schwenger lawn signs available

    By Anne Ternus-Bellamy | From Page: A4

    Volunteers needed for Grad Night

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

     
    Davis grad makes rain collection a business

    By Jason McAlister | From Page: A4 | Gallery

    A few spots left on history tour

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

     
    Chipotle fundraiser boosts Emerson tech upgrade

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

    Event to provide nature scholarship

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

     
    Students have new options on leasing front

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A5 | Gallery

    Groups join for a day of service

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A7

     
    NAMI backers walk in Sacramento

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A8

     
    Food for the hungry

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A10

    .

    Forum

    Dad makes mom look bad

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: B5

     
    Early help is a great investment

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

    More tax money? Answer the question

    By Rich Rifkin | From Page: A6, 4 Comments

     
    UCD IS responsible for students

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6, 4 Comments

     
    Tom Meyer cartoon

    By Debbie Davis | From Page: A6

    In search of great ideas

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6, 1 Comment

     
    Please keep the nursery open

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6, 1 Comment

    .

    Sports

    Sharks double up Kings in Game 1

    By The Associated Press | From Page: B1

     
    Aggies lose a slugfest in opener at Riverside

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: B1

    Fox coming to UCD; Riffle heads to Florida

    By Bruce Gallaudet | From Page: B1

     
    DHS’ Golston goes full-bore on the diamond

    By Thomas Oide | From Page: B1 | Gallery

    Devils show more life in loss to Mitty

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: B1

     
    DYSA roundup: Intensity has big week; 10U games dominate schedule

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: B2 | Gallery

    Sports briefs: Aggies set the academic bar high

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: B8 | Gallery

     
    Pro baseball roundup: Susac sends Sacramento to a rare loss

    By The Associated Press | From Page: B8

    .

    Features

    .

    Arts

    ‘Transcendence’: A whole new level of tedium

    By Derrick Bang | From Page: A11 | Gallery

     
    ‘The Bloom’ paves way for Whole Earth Festival

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A11

    DHS tribute to Tony Fields slated for April 25-26

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A11

     
    UCD, city team up for Music on the Green

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A11

    .

    Business

    Ford turns its Focus to domestic market

    By Ali Arsham | From Page: B3 | Gallery

     
    .

    Obituaries

    .

    Comics

    Comics: Friday, April 18, 2014

    By Creator | From Page: A9

     
    .

    Real Estate Review

    Featured Listing

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER1

    Professional Services Directory

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER2

    Lyon Real Estate

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER3

    Acacia at Huntington Square

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER4

    Jamie Madison

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER4

    Yolo FCU

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER4

    Travis Credit Union

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER5

    Kim Eichorn

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER6

    Suzanne Kimmel

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER6

    Lynne Wegner

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER7

    Kim Merrel Lamb

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER7

    Patricia Echevarria

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER8

    Chris Snow

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER8

    Andrew Dowling

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER9

    Sheryl Patterson

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER9

    Don Guthrie

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER9

    Coldwell Banker

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER10

    Coldwell Banker

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER11

    Heather Barnes

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER12

    Julie Partain & Dick Partain

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER12

    Malek Baroody

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER13

    Karen Waggoner

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER14

    Willowbank Park

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER14

    Team Traverso

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER15

    Julie Leonard

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER15

    Tim Harrison

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER15

    Tracy Harris

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER16

    Lori Prizmich

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER16

    Joe Kaplan

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER17

    Raul Zamora

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER17

    Coldwell Banker

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER18

    Open House Map

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER19

    F1rst Street Real Estate

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER20