At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, during the portion of the agenda where council would approve changes to the appointments that councilmembers would serve on commission liasons, committees and other interjurisdictional bodies, changes were considered, based on the appointment of Dan Wolk to the Davis City Council at the end of February.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald opposes the current direction of the city’s water policies and has been seeking to get appointed to serve on the Joint Water JPA body that currently Mayor Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Stephen Souza sit on.
“I think that it’s in the city’s best interest to have me serve on that agency,” Councilmember Greenwald stated at the outset of discussion. “I have a track record, the only one that has a track record of actually saving substantial amounts of money on the water capital improvement project – $100 million to be exact.”
“I had a good instant of who to ask and when to stand up to staff recommendations that I think I could save the city,” she continued, “I think there’s a good chance that if I were on that agency that our ultimate ratepayer bills would be lower.”
She went on to argue that when she was Mayor, the Council Majority overturned her decisions to be appointed to critical subcommittees. She said that by keeping the status quo, it would keep in place those unjust decisions dating back to her tenure as Major in 2006.
“I would just point out, of what I consider to be the key interjurisdictional bodies that actually make the decisions, Joe and Steve have a bit more than me,” she said. “Joe has SACOG and the Cleanwater Agency, and Steve has LAFCO and the Cleanwater Agency. The reason that Steve has those is what I consider to be the abuse of process of the last council creating the status quo that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for the point of view of the best interest of the city.”
She was willing to give up her Yolo Transportation and Capitol Corridor appointments.
“I will guarantee to the rest of the council that I will bring to the council, as a whole, any decision that comes before the clean water agency in a timely fashion,” she added.
She argued that our current representatives did not do that, particularly when it came to appointing a county representative on the JPA.
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson was concerned about interrupting the process as it is in place.
She said, “Considering the collegial way of this body and how we’ve worked, I don’t feel comfortable overturning when someone wants to stay on there and has expressed a sincere desire that they enjoy what they are doing and they are doing a very good job with moving forward.”
Mayor Joe Krovoza felt like things were moving along and going well, and stated, “All things considered I am comfortable with staying the course and moving on with our current representatives.”
Councilmember Greenwald responded that we will never know if they’ve done a job.
“It would look like Steve and Don did a good job when they voted for the $200 million wastewater treatment plant. It was only in retrospect, having somebody stand up and talk to the right people, and take a position that wasn’t always the most collegial and mainstream that saved $100 million,” she said. “I think you go with the person with the track record and there’s too much at stake on this issue.”
She went on to state that with the county appointment of Don Saylor to the JPA, that Don Saylor and Stephen Souza are on the board when they were the ones who attempted to impede her attempts to save money on the wastewater treatment plant.
After bringing up Don Saylor and Stephen Souza, she said, “I’m not being personal, I think the stakes here are very very high.”
Councilmember Dan Wolk, while supporting the work of Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza, said that “It does concern me on an issue as important as this one that we have a fractured council.”
He suggested that perhaps the two representatives should bring back significant issues to the council as a way of smoothing things over. He saw that as a way to allow Sue Greenwald to at least participate in some decisions, even if she would not serve on the JPA.
Mayor Joe Krovoza said that he has requested all of the minutes from the meetings, while at the same time he pointed out that what they had considered a minor point, the appointing of a county representative, has turned into a point of contention.
However, Councilmember Greenwald did not see this as sufficient. “There’s nothing that substitutes for being the person who sits on the board hearing and seeing the entire discussion and participating in it. Minutes don’t tell you anything.”
Councilmember Greenwald argued that this is different from anything else and that she feels she has no say in this at all, as the JPA Board is the one that votes and that is Mayor Krovoza and Councilmember Souza along with the two Woodland Representatives and Supervisor Saylor sitting at the table.
The motion failed by a 3-1 vote, with Stephen Souza abstaining.
Councilmember Greenwald believes that she could make a difference on the JPA Board, and maybe that is true. She has been right on this issue from the outset, from our perspective. And it was her efforts that led to council seeking the outside assistance on the wastewater treatment plant.
However, it was always clear that this was a futile effort to get herself seated on the board. Nevertheless, she had every right to raise the point, and the council, other than suggesting she not make it personal, allowed her to make her point and her say.
As we suggested last week, while it is clear Sue Greenwald’s preference was to serve on this board, it is not the only way to impact water policy. A number of issues including rates will have to be dealt with at the local level.
While a Councilmember should not lead a Proposition 218 revolt, it is clear she can play a huge role here in containing costs by using the bullypulpit of her office to inform the public of where the rates are going and what their rights are under the law.
As I stated last week, looking at the issues facing the city here, the bigger issues may be on our staff side. We need Councilmember Greenwald to make noise to ensure that the ratepayers know their rights, know what is coming, and find ways on the staff side to mitigate the impact of these rate hikes on those on fixed incomes or those who are economically disadvantaged.
All of these issues could be alleviated with continued forceful advocacy on the dais and behind the scenes.
While Councilmember Greenwald made it clear last week this would not be her approach and that she could not be pressured into such an approach, given the reality on the ground she has two choices at this point. She can do nothing or she can try to find alternative ways to impact water policy.
I will not pressure her to do so, but I would at least request she consider seeking another approach.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
CC Greenwald already saved us $100 million, it sounds crazy not to have her on the Joint Water JPA body. Some council members need to swallow some pride and do what’s right for the city. If not then hopefully Greenwald will become that squeaky wheel.
For once I agree with rusty. The record clearly supports Greenwald’s position.
“For once I agree with rusty.”
Now you’ve got me rethinking what I wrote. lol
I think collegiality is important but $100 million is real money–and if collegiality implies making bad decisions then we should have less rather than more.
In the recent past the biggest issue our council has had is making poor decisions, often based on staff recommendations. We need someone like Sue to keep folks honest.
dmg: “Mayor Joe Krovoza said that he has requested all of the minutes from the meetings while at the same time he pointed out that what they had considered a minor point, the appointing of a county representative, has turned into a point of contention.”
I’m going to do a bit of plain speaking here…
The appointing of Don Saylor to the JPA is most unfortunate. It is not clear to me how this came about, but nevertheless Saylor is the last person who should sit on the JPA. He has never been about the people or saving money. During his tenure on the City Council, he was all about chastizing anyone who disagreed with him, including members of the public, even if it was to the detriment of the city. Souza at the time was his “partner in crime” along with Asmundson. They were known as the “Gang of Three”. Sue Greenwald had a huge uphill battle to overcome the Gang of Three’s resistance for a more expensive wastewater treatment plant. She was villified by those three at every turn. I applaud her tireless efforts to save the city $1 million dollars on the wastewater treatment side of the equation. Appointing Saylor to the JPA was not a “minor point” as Krovoza seems to think (and I think he will discover to his detriment).
I believe what is going to happen now is this water project will be cheerleaded (is that a word?) through by Krovoza, Souza and Saylor (KSS), w/o much thought for savings. Councilmember Krovoza is pushing for full transparency so the public knows what it is in for, which is commendable. But do I think city staff and KSS should be looking for every way possible to save money for ratepayers. I don’t think they fully understand how hard these increased water and sewer rates are going to hit citizens. But I suspect they will find out in the future when citizens rise up and refuse to pass school parcel taxes and the like bc citizens have reached their economic limit. People being forced from their homes bc of the increase in water/sewer rates is a very real possibility.
I would also argue that Councilmember Greenwald’s confrontational style is sometimes less than ideal, which she has worked hard to overcome, but it has often worked to her detriment. I suspect it is one of the main reasons she was not appointed to the JPA. I think it has been perceived that she would not get along well at the JPA bc she would “rock the boat”. But unfortunately this is exactly what we need – critical thinking on a project that is way too expensive for citizens to afford. It is a difficult line to walk, remaining collegial but disagreeing w colleagues, and something Councilmember Greenwald has to continue striving for if she wants to get appointed to meaningful committees. But at the end of the day, what is more important – to be nice to each other or do what is right for citizens? I commend Councilmember Wolk for standing up for Councilmember Greenwald. Wolk is certainly finding his feet fast as a council member.
However, the damage has been done. The appointments have been made, and they are what they are. I and many others personally don’t agree with the appointments, but that is beside the point. Moving forward, I would strongly urge all City Council members (including Greenwald) to push staff to do whatever is possible to save ratepayers “sticker shock”/save money. If that means delaying the water project; stretching out payments over a longer period of time; full transparency on what increases citizens are in store for, then let the games begin. Councilmember Swanson has been excellent in pushing for appropriate language in the Prop 218 notice. However, again it has been Councilmember Greenwald who has consistently pointed out the misleading language that needs to be removed from the notice, such as the misleading chart showing Davis water rates are average, when in fact they will be one of the highest in Northern CA once the rate increases are implemented.
However, one point needs to be made here. City staff on this issue has been very good at making sure to notify the public of what is coming. I am constantly surprised at how many citizens think they have never been notified of the rate increases. Bob Weir, the former head of Public Works, started this process way back some years ago. Our commission even took a visit to the wastewater treatment plant, where the changes and costs were explained and the reasons for them. Notices have been mailed out regularly, articles in the Davis Enterprise have appeared. Bob Clarke has taken over from Bob Weir and continued this process. My only complaint with city staff is their attempt to sugar coat what is coming, which in my opinion is the wrong way to approach this. I think this is the time for brutal honesty, and violent citizen blowback just has to be accepted as part of the process. Bob Weir accepted this, took his punches, and now should be lauded for his foresight in slowly raising the sewer rates to cover costs of the new wastewater treatment plant.
Citizens must pay closer attention to mailers from the city and what is contained in them. A lot of people do not read them, nor read the newspaper. That is why I am foursquare in favor of placing one paragraph flyers inside the city bill if at all possible. And I would encourage everyone to appear at the hearing in May to voice concerns. It is important citizens make their voices heard, loud and clear, that they are very, very concerned about the rate increases, and want their representatives on the JPA to figure out ways to save ratepayers money. The JPA must understand that citizens are watching the JPA’s every move.
And we need Councilmember Greenwald’s continuted vigilance and voice on this issue…
” I think it has been perceived that she would not get along well at the JPA bc she would “rock the boat”. But unfortunately this is exactly what we need – critical thinking on a project that is way too expensive for citizens to afford.”
Exactly, too bad if some of the JPA body might not get along with her. I want someone in there that’s going to fight for us.
I confess that as a non-insider, I do not have the expertise to know what the most prudent path is in regards to assuring Davis of a long-term viable water solution. Is it to tap into the Sacramento River? Dig deeper wells? Other? But best solutions are rarely found unless there is a variety of perception, insight, and expertise among those making the decisions. It sounds like Sue would be a valuable asset to this committee. Her membership should be reconsidered.
To Observer: I have been following the water issue from its inception, and I am not sure what the answer is. It is a very difficult issue. What I do know is this: Sue Greenwald was able to get two consultants who were experts in the field to look at this issue. Their conclusion was that the surface water project was imperative and should be done first and foremost. The wastewater treatment plant upgrade could then be scaled back bc the water from the Sacto River is cleaner and would need less processing. Our deep water aquifers are not unlimited, and some of the mid-level aquifers are running dry. But more importantly the federal gov’t, in its infinite wisdom (some consider it stupidity) has decided discharge water from sewer plants must be cleaner than what our current tap water is today. So I think the real issue is to what extent can we spread payments out over a period of time – but my fear is KSS will not seriously consider this issue…
[quote]”I had a good instant of who to ask and when to stand up to staff recommendations that I think I could save the city–Sue Greenwald quoted by David Greenwald”[/quote]Thanks for reporting on this, David. A little typo here. I said [quote]”I had a good instinct for who to ask….[/quote]To Musser’s comments: Unfortunately, I tried the non-confrontational approach to bringing in the right experts to lower the $200 million price tag on the wastewater treatment plant first. And unfortunately, ultimately it is was only the “confrontational” approach that worked.
If you recall, I was chastised, gaveled down and threatened with censure for over a year by Saylor, Souza and Asmundson before I prevailed in having experts come and confirm that we did not have to spend $200 million on the wastewater treatment plant. (This was true on other important issues as well, such as advocating against some disastrous compensation decisions).
Even with this water board appointment, I tried my all to work this out with Krovoza in private (I didn’t talk with any other council member about it to avoid Brown Act violations) in order to obtain one of the seats without having to say anything negative or appear to promote my own past accomplishments in public.
It is important for people to keep in mind that anyone who advocates successfully against a strong, predetermined agenda is going to have to be “confrontational”. Saving $100 million dollars is one example when that is the right approach if it is the only approach that works.
If you echo the “confrontational style” or “civility” card that will always be played when someone successfully bucks a misguided majority agenda, you are not helping that individual help you.
Musser said “I believe what is going to happen now is this water project will be cheerleaded (is that a word?) through by Krovoza, Souza and Saylor (KSS), w/o much thought for savings.”
So what has Joe done to [i]you[/i] to be lumped in with the SS? Nice try at [i]branding[[i] though. Yep, that’s what it’s called. It’s a old-time political-operative trick. Guilt by association.
“So what has Joe done to you to be lumped in with the SS?”
He voted against Greenwald being on the JPA thereby keeping on one S.
And so what is the other side of the story? At least a quote from Joe, or Steve? Anything from off the dais from them?
Civil:
Stephen did not speak. I quoted Joe during the discussion.
The only thing I would add is that Joe doesn’t believe there is a problem with the current appointments and doesn’t see the need to kick Steve off a body he has worked quite some time on.
Also, while I’m not crazy about Saylor on the JPA, but JPA did not put him there, they only suggested having a county representative since the project would cut through county land. The BOS put Saylor on. Sue’s response is that that makes no more sense than having a city counsel meeting on the school board dais. I’m not sure I see it the same way.
My bigger point here is that we need to move on figure out how best to reduce the rates, I still think there is a lot that can be done.
“The BOS put Saylor on.”
Where does the BOS have the authority to appoint a member to the JPA board? I would assume that it was up to the Davis and Woodland JPA members(Council)to accept this “recommendation” of the BOS.
That would be different than what was told to me, which is they created a spot and the BOS named the member, just as the council names members to other boards whether it is the JPA itself or other such interjuridictional bodies like SACOG or LAFCO.
“So what has Joe done to you to be lumped in with the SS?”
Joe Krovoza was certainly a friendly and pleasant candidate. This trait easily morphs into avoiding necessary but uncomfortable and potentially confrontational decisions. Joe Krovoza was “chosen” as our mayor by the Davis voters to change the tone and substance of Davis Council politics that was shaped by Saylor/Asmundson and Souza for the past decade. A “go-along to get-along” Davis Councilperson who avoids “messy” issues which require the personal investment of significant additional time and energy is not what the voters hoped for to lead our City Council.
Regarding the County/Saylor seat on the JPA board: I am going to be somewhat blunt about this.
I believe it is unfortunate that Joe and Stephen voted to appoint a county supervisor to sit on the dais of the Davis-Woodland JPA without even having the courtesy to bring the item to the council as a whole.
I am also surprised that, even in retrospect, Joe defends voting to do this without bringing the question back to us.
Joe and Stephan had promised to bring all significant issues before the JPA back to the council. The JPA agreement does not even mention the county by name. It only says: “The Authority Board may by resolution approve additional Participating Agencies.”
Surely, then, this was a discretionary decision that should have been brought back to the council.
One of the things that I promised to do if were appointed to the JPA was to bring such decisions back to the council as a whole before voting on them.
The county is not paying a dime towards the surface water project – only Woodland are. David seems to defend the Krovosa/Souza decision to give the county a seat on the dais based on the rather flimsy rationale that “ they (Krovosa/Souza?) only suggested having a county representative since the project would cut through county land.”
I pointed out that by this logic, the city council should have a seat on the school district dais, where we could weigh in and equally debate every issue that comes before the school board because school district projects “cut through city land”.
No one would buy this logic, and no one should buy the logic that the county (Saylor) should sit on the dais of the Davis/Woodland surface water project JPA.
I should add the Stephen and Joe did not even have the courtesy to inform the council that they had voted to give the county (Saylor) a seat on the JPA board after they had done so. I only learned of it by change when Bill Marble, a Woodland JPA member, announced it at a different public meeting.
The mayor is a water lawyer. Probably good to have one on the JPA. Steve has been on there so removing him to put Sue on would require compelling reasons. Sue works to keep Steve from being Mayor, something Steve wanted. Then she seeks to remove and replace him on the JPA. While the council tries to move forward with new members and a new tone it seems that Sue is still engaged in the kind of combat that many on this blog condemned from the old council.
westof113: “So what has Joe done to you to be lumped in with the SS? Nice try at branding though. Yep, that’s what it’s called. It’s a old-time political-operative trick. Guilt by association.”
This is not personal, but pragmatic. I cannot get into the mind of Mayor Krovoza to determine why he made the decisions he did. But I personally think the combination of Krovoza, Souza and Saylor on the JPA is not the best choice. All three are inclined to support the surface water project at any price, from what I can tell. I know this to be true of Souza and Saylor from past history. Krovoza is going to be outvoted by Souza and Saylor, so it is almost guaranteed from what I can tell that the Davis contingent is going to get the most expensive surface water project possible. If Krovoza is able to work some magic, and convince his partners to hold the line on cost overruns/mission creep, I will be pleasantly surprised.
In general I think Krovoza has done a great job as Mayor, bringing real civility and professionalism to the city dais. But on this particular issue I do not happen to agree w him. Hope that answers you question?
dmg: “My bigger point here is that we need to move on figure out how best to reduce the rates, I still think there is a lot that can be done.”
I absolutely agree w this point. What is done is done. It is imperative to make Souza and Krovoza understand that everything, and I mean everything, must be done to reduce the water rate increases. It will take thinking outside the box, citizen engagement on this issue, pushing staff to get creative, and the like. There are a lot of variables here, and it is time to pull together for the good of all, to see what can/cannot be done. I plan to be very vocal on behalf of citizens, particularly seniors, on this issue, as I have been in the past. There is no good solution here, and I think all who are working on this issue mean well. But meaning well is not enough. There has to be some very critical thinking and great care as we move forward w the surface water project.
Toad,
Your statement is unsupported by the facts.
Actually Stephen’s compromise concerning the mayor appointment was that I would be mayor for the first 6 months, Rochelle for the second 6 months, and Stephen himself for the last 6 months. So I actually voted to have Joe be Mayor over myself.
I backed Joe as mayor because I thought he would be fair in his appointments, and he REALLY seemed to want to have the position, whereas I did not have such a burning desire. Had I accepted Stephen’s compromise, I would been mayor now.
Do I regret turning down Stephen’s proposal? Of course, because I would have been making these appointments. I am very disappointed in Joe’s appointments.
As I have said, I think I have made my case that I should have a seat on the Clean Water Agency. Not because it is fun, but because I think I can play a unique role in cost-containment.
In terms of being fair to Stephen and Joe, Stephen is on LAFCO and Joe is on SACOG. As I told Joe, I viewed SACOG, LAFCO and the Clean Water Agency as the most influential interjurisdictional positions at this point in time. Joe and Stephen both have two of these appointments, and I have none. I even offered to give either of them my seat on the Yolo Transportation Board its subsidiary Capitol Corridor JPA membership in exchange for a seat on the Clean Water Board. This offer would have allowed both Joe and Stephen to have more inter jurisdictional positions then myself.
Stephen Souza has voted to treat himself very, very well in terms of appointments in the past, usually at my expense.
That said, I was not trying to force Stephen to “make up for past sins”, as he himself put it. I suggested taking either Joe’s or Stephen’s seat, and I offered my only board membership to them in exchange although they both had what are considered the two other key board memberships in addition.
I was trying to obtain a seat on one particular board where I could do the most good for the city due to my track record of achieving massive cost savings on a similar large water-related infrastructure project.