Sunday, September 21, 2014

Bob Dunning: Mathematics thicker than water


From page A2 | February 13, 2013 |

Although the proponents of our innovative, only-in-Davis water rate structure aren’t eager for this information to get into the public consciousness, the plain fact of the matter is that once the consumption-based fixed rate system is fully functional in 2018, every ccf of water you use in the summer will cost you $7.80 annually, while the same ccf you use in the winter will cost $1.32.

You do the math and that comes up to nearly six times as much for summer water as winter water.

Add to this the fact that in the city’s Endless Summer definition, this period of so-called “peak use” stretches all the way from May 1 to Oct. 31.

In other words, if you use a ccf of water on April 30, the effect on your annual bill will be $1.32. But if you use that same ccf of water on May 1 — just one day later — it will cost you $7.80 on your annual bill.

Proposition 218, bolstered by a large body of case law, insists that charges for water be “proportional” to the actual cost of delivering water to the residence in question.

Says 218: “The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.”

Prop. 218 further emphasizes the point when it says “Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service.”

Now here is where the concept of “peak use” comes into play. According to one city official in charge of knowing these things, peak use occurs between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. during the months of July and August. The city therefore has to plan its facilities — capacity, storage, etc. — to account for peak use. Fair enough.

But there’s absolutely no way on God’s green Earth, even taking peak use into full consideration, that the city can demonstrate it costs six times more to deliver water in summer than in winter, especially when the city meteorologist defines summer as beginning on May 1 and not ending until the last of our trick-or-treaters are tucked safely into their beds on Halloween night.

When I presented these figures to the above-referenced city of Davis expert, the reply was a seemingly incredulous “Where did you get $7.80 per ccf?” In other words, this individual apparently hadn’t done the math.

In 2018 under the CBFR, your monthly bill will reflect a charge of $1.32 per ccf no matter in which month you use the ccf, be it summer or winter.

But, if you use that ccf in summer (May 1 through Oct. 31), in addition to the $1.32, you also will pay a “supply charge” of 54 cents in each and every month of the next year. Last time I checked, when you multiply 12 times 54 you get $6.48. Add that to the $1.32 monthly “variable” charge and you get $7.80.

Just for the record, the average Davis single-family home uses approximately 15 ccf per month, more than that in summer, less in winter, with obvious variations from home to home.

So let’s say you use 20 ccf in summer and 10 ccf in winter to achieve that 15 ccf average.

Those 20 ccf in summer total 120 ccf for the entire six months, with a “variable” charge of $1.32 per ccf for a total of $158.40 on your annual bill. But wait, we’re not done. Not by a long shot.

You also will be charged 54 cents for each of those 120 ccf in each and every month of the new year. That’s an additional $64.80 per month “supply” charge, times 12 months, for a total of $777.60. Add that to your $158.40 “variable” charge and your annual total becomes $936 for 120 ccf used in summer. That works out once again to $7.80 per ccf.

A comparable figure had you used those 120 ccf in winter would be just $158.40.

To be sure, “peak” demand taxes the system to a higher degree, but the cost never reaches six times as much as non-peak use. Not even close.

My city “expert,” while not disputing the accuracy of my figures, nonetheless protested that I was confusing “variable” charges with “supply” charges and said I was making it look as if the city was charging people twice for the same ccf of water.

No, the city is actually charging people 13 times for the same ccf of water. You read that right. Once at $1.32 and 12 more times at 54 cents each. Worse yet, if you had a bad summer, you’re stuck with that rate for an entire year, even if you stop using water altogether.

You can call it a “variable” charge or a “supply” charge or any other label you wish to attach, but in the end, all of those charges are based strictly and solely on the number of ccf you used the previous summer. Nothing else.

If it looks like a ccf charge and walks like a ccf charge and talks like a ccf charge, well, by golly, it is a ccf charge.

Now, Prop. 218’s mandate of “proportionality” doesn’t require that the price charged for a ccf of water compared to the cost of delivering that ccf of water be exact to the penny. In a California case (City of Dublin v. County of Alameda), the court ruled “The record need only demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fees to be charged and the estimated cost of the service or program.”

The relevant phrase here is “reasonable relationship.” Charging six times as much in summer as in winter is by no stretch of the imagination a reasonable relationship.

According to an analysis of Prop. 218 by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the burden of proof when it comes to rate compliance with proportionality falls squarely on the city. Wrote the LAO: “Now local governments must prove that any disputed fee or assessment charge is legal.”

If the city can prove to a court’s satisfaction that it truly costs six times as much to deliver water from May through October as it does to deliver water from November through April, it will be free and clear of any legal problems.

But if it can’t, the city will most definitely be in violation of Prop. 218’s proportionality requirement.

— Reach Bob Dunning a





Bet Haverim hosts High Holy Day services

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A1

Elementary school counselors: necessary, but poorly funded

By Anne Ternus-Bellamy | From Page: A1 | Gallery

Teams assess damage as wildfire burns

By The Associated Press | From Page: A2 | Gallery

Driver arrested for DUI after Saturday morning crash

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A2

Jewelry, art for sale at Senior Center

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

Davis Community Meals needs cooks

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

Help raise funds for juvenile diabetes cure

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

Da Vinci awarded $38,000 for restorative justice program

By Anne Ternus-Bellamy | From Page: A4

Hawk Hill trip planned Sept. 30

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

UC campus chancellors granted hefty pay raises

By The Associated Press | From Page: A4

Send kids to camp!

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

Outdoor yoga marathon celebrates community

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A5

Wise words

By Sue Cockrell | From Page: A12



Awareness is key to this fight

By Creators Syndicate | From Page: B5

Are we there yet? Not enough hours in the day to goof off

By Tanya Perez | From Page: A6Comments are off for this post

Where is this going?

By Creators Syndicate | From Page: A6

We’re living in the Golden State of emergency

By Debra DeAngelo | From Page: A6

Options for protection come with flu season

By The Associated Press | From Page: A6

It’s time for Davis Scouts to stand up for what is right

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A10

Mike Keefe cartoon

By Debbie Davis | From Page: A10

Building something at schools’ HQ

By Our View | From Page: A10

Don’t sell city greenbelt

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A10

Paso Fino project is flawed

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A10

Paso Fino — it’s not worth it

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A10

Archer will get my vote

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A10

Maybe David can beat Goliath again

By Lynne Nittler | From Page: A11 | Gallery

Speak out

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A11



DHS gets on its Morse to beat Edison

By Thomas Oide | From Page: B1 | Gallery

JV Blue Devils drop low-scoring affair

By Spencer Ault | From Page: B2

Four local swimmers qualify for Olympic Trials

By Enterprise staff | From Page: B3

Republic FC’s fairy tale season continues

By Evan Ream | From Page: B3 | Gallery

Wire briefs: Giants rally falls short in San Diego

By The Associated Press | From Page: B3

‘We’re a way better team’ than record, says UCD’s Shaffer

By Bruce Gallaudet | From Page: B4 | Gallery

UCD roundup: Aggie men pound Pomona-Pitzer in the pool

By Enterprise staff | From Page: B4

Davis 15-year-old making a splash in European F4 series

By Bruce Gallaudet | From Page: B8 | Gallery





‘Ladies Foursome’ adds shows

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3



UCD grad’s startup earns kudos at TechCrunch event

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A7

Styles on target for November debut

By Wendy Weitzel | From Page: A7

MBI hires VP of marketing

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A7

Taylor Morrison unveils new Woodland community next weekend

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A9 | Gallery

Rob White: What is an ‘innovation center’?

By Rob White | From Page: A9



Carol L. Walsh

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A4



Comics: Sunday, September 21, 2014

By Creator | From Page: B8