In liberal Davis, California, water rate hikes are crowding out voter approval for a new school parcel tax. Gosh, we can't wait until electricity rates increase 40% to fund green power. Read below:
Commentary: Water Rate Hikes Threaten to Imperil Parcel Tax and More
Written by David Greenwald, Davis Vanguard, 3/16/11
Yesterday was pink slip day around the state. Something like 19,000 teachers got pink slips yesterday, and some of those were in Davis. Davis schools will have to lay additional people off, regardless of what happens with the parcel tax.
The parcel tax passage is by no means assured, as it takes a two-thirds vote, and people seem a bit more tax-weary this year in Davis than they have in the past. Still, I believe in the end Davis will support education, because that's what Davis does.
However, I am not increasingly concerned that the City of Davis may be the school district's worst enemy in this. People are complaining about the magnitude of a $200 parcel tax increase, which would put the annual parcel tax up to about $520. However, that increase is an ANNUAL increase.
The City of Davis is now looking to increase water rates on a monthly basis from around $35 to around $111 over a five-year period. That is a MONTHLY rate. That means, annually, the increase moves from a little over $400 per year to $1333. That's a near tripling of the rate. And that will not even include sewer, which itself will increase over that time.
No one appears willing to stop this train which is the direct result of the capital costs of the water supply project by the Woodland-Davis CleanWater Agency Joint Powers Authority.
This increase makes the parcel tax look like a drop in the bucket, but the concern for supporters of the schools ought to be that the public will leery about raising their parcel tax when they are about to get hammered on water. And that the future ability of the school district and the city to raise revenue will be impaired by the magnitude of this increase.
We have to question the honesty of the city on this issue. Last year, as the council was close to obtaining water rights back in July, the city claimed rates would double. But it is far worse than that, as in the spring, when Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson were preparing to leave the council, they approved a very modest 10% rate hike and then left the heavy lifting for the new council.
The new council voted to be a bit more forthcoming with water rates. Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Dan Wolk supported a notice with a one-year list of the rate increase. However, Joe Krovoza pushed for full notification of the rate increases over the full five-year period, and he was backed by Sue Greenwald and Rochelle Swanson.
Mr. Souza and Mr. Wolk apparently felt that we are not ready for a five-year outlook and that there are too many unknowns. But the public needs to know what the plan is coming down the pike, even if those specifics are to change over time.
The draft water bill/ hearing notice contains a graphic representation of where Davis is situated, compared with comparable cities' sample water bills. With the current rate hike, Davis is situated right in the middle.
This is what city staff has claimed all along. However, none of these sample cities have ongoing water projects. If these rates go through as scheduled, Davis' water rates are projected to be the highest of all of the sample cities within five years, even assuming some sort of reasonable inflation for the other cities.
So, the city staff graphic that is meant to show we are right in the middle, actually proves the opposite, that the current rate hikes will take us straight to the top.
The cost of these projects will price residents with low and fixed income right out of their homes. We heard a lot of platitudes from council last night, but few actual solutions to this problem.
The remedies for this are difficult. A direct Prop 218 challenge is infeasible as it requires half the ratepayers to protest the rate hikes. That is not going to happen, even with a strongly organized and mobilized campaign.
Putting the project and the rates on the ballot might be another option. Some seem to believe that the public would back this move, but if the public is hesitating on the $200 per year parcel tax, how in the world are they going to support an $800 per year increase for water?
Councilmember Sue Greenwald, at the city council meeting, argued that she should be appointed to the Clean Water Board, believing it would give her the ability to push for cost-cutting measures at the JPA level that would enable to city to save money as it did on the wastewater treatment plant.
While that seems unlikely to happen, unless people wish to see their friends and neighbors forced from their homes and their own finances impaired, something has to occur.
Right now, no one seems to know that these tremendous rate hikes are coming. That ought to be step number one. Then, if the public is not willing to fight, there is not much we can do. If the public is willing to fight, then perhaps council will be compelled to find ways to lower the rates before it is too late.
Comments