The Davis City Council took up water rates Tuesday, one week before an election will decide the fate of the current consumption-based water rates.

The council voted unanimously to send water rate options to an advisory analysis group with two conditions: Compare a tiered rate example in each of three cases to ones without and absolutely ban the use of so-called look-back pricing.

The consumption-based rate, which was due to take effect on customers’ bills in January, used a six-month look-back period, where water use was to be measured over the summer and that use determined the price of each gallon of water they paid the next year.

The rates were set to raise enough money to pay for Davis’ estimated $106 million share of the joint Woodland-Davis Surface Water Project, which will draw water from the Sacramento River, treat it and pipe it to the two communities.

Measure P supporters told the council and the public Tuesday to vote for the initiative regardless of the council’s actions, because that is the only way to guarantee that the consumption-based rates do not start billing. If Measure P passes, rates would revert to a more traditional two-step, pay-as-you-go-style water rate structure in effect before May 2013.

Passage of Measure P also likely would require the city to draw up new rates to avoid financial penalties. Herb Niederberger, the city’s general manager of utilities, has said the old water rates would not raise enough money to pay for the city’s obligations to the surface water project.

Regardless of the political implications, council members said they do not like the current look-back provision because it is confusing to a large number of residents.

Councilman Brett Lee made the ultimately successful motion to ban the Utility Rate Advisory Committee from providing advice on a rate with a look-back, called it alternately “confusing” and “unnecessary” based on the way most water rates are calculated.

Councilman Lucas Frerichs and Mayor Joe Krovoza made the most impassioned defense of the status quo, saying they believe the current rates are fair. But each of them acknowledged the divide in the community that the rates have wrought.

“There is a difference in the community about how we define fair,” Krovoza said.

For Council members Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk, Tuesday night had shades of déjà vu, harking back to Dec. 18, 2012, when the original schedule for the consumption-based water rates was voted in.

At that time, both Swanson and Wolk voted to use a more traditional Bartle-Wells structure from May 2103 until January 2015 to give the public time to be informed about the consumption-based rates.

On Tuesday, the pair defended the council’s timing just before the election to bring this matter up.

“Regardless of what happens Tuesday, this is a discussion we should have,” Wolk said.

“Even at the 11th hour, we get better information,” Swanson said, later reminding the public that the Utility Rate Advisory Committee was purely advisory. “The council makes the decision.”

The URAC has its work cut out for it at its next meeting June 5. Not only will the fate of Measure P be known, but its rate consultant will have tackled, at least in part, comparisons among four rate structures.

The council’s new orders included beginning to take a look at a pay-as-you-go consumption-based rate authored by Matt Williams — who put together the original consumption-based rate with Frank Loge — and Donna Lemongello, a critic of the look-back provision in the rate.

The committee will also take a look at the more traditional Bartle-Wells rate residents have been paying since May 2013, with tiers to address equity between high water users and low water users and one Bartle-Wells rate with no tiers as per council instruction.

Add to that a seasonal winter/summer two-step pricing model where — much like Bartle-Wells — 40 percent of the revenue is collected from fixed costs and 60 percent is based on variable costs.

The council will meet again on June 10 to hear an update on the rates, but Niederberger said the council would be unlikely to have time to go in depth into the rates. That discussion could be reserved for June 24.

— Reach Dave Ryan at [email protected] or 530-747-8057. Follow him on Twitter at @davewritesnews 

0528Water1w

0528Water2w

0528Water3w

Comments

comments