Comments on: Bob Dunning: Letting us vote is never a bad idea

By: Practical

Practical — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:52:48 +0000

“what they didn’t vote for was a crazy rate structure that is clearly unfair to a variety of ratepayers and, as such, one day may be ruled unconstitutional … had the city simply instituted a straightforward, pay-as-you-go, per-gallon rate for the water each citizen uses, we wouldn’t be in this mess …”

—————————

Actually Bob the voters did vote for the rate structure. The Prop 218 Notice information on the rate system was mailed to every single household and registered voter.

Your pay-as-you-go per-gallon rate structure definitely does meet the proportionality provisions of Proposition 218. That is the good news. The bad news is that it is incredibly fiscally irresponsible.

Your rate structure has even more bad news. It also is not compliant with the provisions of the Water Act portions of the California Constitution (Article X) and the enabling legislation that has been passed to support Article X.

If Davis implemented a 100% Variable Rate, which is what your rate plan is, then environmental lawyers would be filing suit against it faster than you can say William Mullholland.

CBFR creates a system where every customer pays the same dollar amount per “unit” of water, and simultaneously puts the City into a situation where if a customer chooses to not use a “unit” of water the City only loses 20 “cents” of variable income, which exactly matches the 20 “cents” of variable cost it saves. Voila, fiscal stability!

So the Dunning Water Rate Plan produces equal unit costs for customers, but with massive financial instability for the City, while CBFR produces equal unit costs for customers with no financial instability for the City. In the end (over time) financial instability for the City ends up being financial instability for the individual rate payers because the City has to raise rates in order to eliminate its deficit.

By: Why Do You Oppose Democracy?

Why Do You Oppose Democracy? — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:48:09 +0000

“Letting us vote is never a bad idea”. Except when we already did it…just 4 months ago! It was called Measure I! Look it up!

By: Why Do You Oppose Democracy?

Why Do You Oppose Democracy? — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:43:37 +0000

Practical is right. Over watering during the summer increases variable AND fixed costs because we have to pay for bigger storage tanks, pipes, and a higher capacity water treatment plant. Even if we reduce our demand in the fall, winter, and spring, those costs must be paid. I’d also like to add that the old system charged for these fixed costs based purely on your meter size. This was COMPLETELY UNFAIR because people who used less water were subsidizing people who used more water, if they shared the same meter size. Now THAT is the definition of UNFAIR! The CBFR system instead equitably distributes fixed costs based on total usage during peak demand (summer).

By: Practical

Practical — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 06:55:27 +0000

Kevin, the rates under the new structure are precisely and exactly equal for al rate payers. In 2015 everyone is paying the exact same $0.86 rate per ccf for the Variable Use Charge, and the exact same $0.32 rate per ccf for the Supply Charge. If everyone is paying the exact same unit rate, then how can there be anything other than fair and equal treatment?

By: Practical

Practical — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 06:48:51 +0000

Bill, again your assessment is made with blinders on. You ask, “How can one to three areas of the City opt out of water service?” In order to get the answer to that question, you need go no further than West Village to see how in the electricity market a consumer can choose to install photo voltaic panels in order to reduce that consumer’s electrical consumption from PG&E down to nothing.