The Vanguard is disappointed that both Mayor Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Sue Greenwald left a one-year compromise on the water deal on the table Tuesday night (see Wednesday morning’s article).
Instead, while the council ended up supporting a number of the provisions in Mr. Wolk’s motion, they could not find three votes for a more limited rate hike.
Such a measure could have allowed the council to move toward creating funding for the expensive water supply project. At the same time, it could have allowed for further investigation into cost savings, and perhaps even the delay in the project that Ms. Greenwald had been seeking for some time.
Such a compromise would have forced council to go through another Prop 218 process next summer to install the rest of the rate hikes. Instead, council has now passed a lower rate hike than originally planned, but still at 14% per year for the next five years, plus a six year’s hike likely needed, and the citizens of Davis are looking at substantial increases in the rates.
That translates to a 92.5% increase when the rates are compounded over the five-year period, and likely a more than doubling of the rates from current rates. That may be significantly less than the Prop 218 notices indicated, but it represents a strong financial hardship to ratepayers.
Now it seems, heading into an election year, there is the prospect of a referendum that would go virtually side by side with council elections, with the school parcel tax vote and the parks tax vote.
Such a referendum could have been avoided had the compromise been accepted. How it will play out is anyone’s guess.
On Wednesday, Mayor Krovoza called the number of protests, 4800 and change, a “message heard loud and clear by the council.” Loud perhaps, but apparently not loud enough that the council would agree to the compromise.
Numbers alone are difficult to interpret with a 218 protest, which allows parcels to vote, not people.
As I have mentioned before, you can look at this as only 28% of the parcels, and therefore argue that 72% are in favor of the project. But we all know that is a “bs” argument and Councilmember Souza, making such a statement, knows better. The fact that a non-vote counts as a yes just illustrates the problem with this process.
One political consultant told me that, in reality, the 4800 protests would easily translate into 10,000 to 15,000 votes, given 2.6 voters per parcel on average, and that this is not just soft support for the protest, but support strong enough to mail in their ballots in a process like this.
Still I have to wonder whether a referendum has much chance to succeed. Proponents argued that state regulations will put our discharge out of compliance by 2017. Critically, they argue against the possibility for regulatory relief, citing the views of Ken Landau and others.
Ken Landau, the Deputy Executive Officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, argued that appeals and variances were not possible.
“If you have a violation that qualifies for a mandatory penalty, it’s $3,000 a violation,” he informed the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency on June 30. “The only discretion the Regional Board has is making a factual determination as to whether you violated it, and whether that violation fits the statute. If it does, we assess you the $3,000 per violation.”
“A change in the law that went into effect in January of this year is, if you have used up your first five years of mandatory minimum protection, if we can make findings that you have a project, you have been diligent during that first five years in trying to achieve compliance, and a number of other things that go along with that, then we can, at the Regional Board’s discretion, grant you up to an additional five years,” Mr. Landau told the JPA.
Mayor Joe Krovoza remains optimistic that they can come in under projected costs, but apparently not optimistic enough that he would take a chance on the one-year rate increase.
“I absolutely understand the comments that came from the community last night to the effect of ‘show me a public works project that has come in under budget,’ ” the Mayor told Vanguard Radio.
However, he believes this effort will be different.
“We’ve been seeing bids in similar public works settings across the country come in at 10, 15, 20 percent below bid,” he said. “We can’t bank on that and we did not bank on that last night though I think there is some quiet optimism that we might do better… especially in this economy.”
He also argued that in this economy the nature of competitive bids and the scarcity of large public works projects plays to our advantage.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald has spent a lot of time explaining the views of unnamed experts and how they are at variance with the views of named experts speaking on behalf of the project.
The problem that Ms. Greenwald faces is one of credibility. She claims that experts have told her that these projects are unnecessary at this time, that the city can get regulatory relief and that the cost of these projects will be far higher than projected.
I think Sue Greenwald makes a strong case that the “rate decrease that is being hyped is not real.” She argues, “It results mostly from changing the assumptions about costs. In fact, unnamed professionals that I have talked with predict that the project costs will be significantly higher than predicted, and we have also not yet accounted for the new storm sewer costs.”
She has maintained for some time that experts are privately telling her that the cost will be much higher.
This week she wrote, “According to current staff estimates, base rates for combined water/wastewater/garbage will be somewhere between $2,200 and $2,300 a year, regardless of whether we ramp up a little more slowly or rapidly. If we ramp up slowly, base rates will be higher in years 6-7. They will increase according to maintenance and operating costs thereafter.”
One big oversight, she argues, is that these costs fail to take into account new major storm water requirements that are currently being hammered out. Ms. Greenwald writes, “We might have to actually collect and treat our storm water within the decade. The costs of this are impossible to estimate at this time.”
She added, “A professional in the field with whom I recently spoke thinks that the city costs are underestimated. This expert thinks combined costs will ultimately come to between $3,600 and $4,200 a year assuming storm water upgrades.”
The problem is, without naming the experts, it is difficult for anyone to evaluate the veracity of the claims that the city can get a variance. And there is a generalized plausibility argument, why would university water experts or some state water experts not be willing to go on the record regarding the merits or lack thereof about this water system? This makes no sense to me, unless they promote themselves as water consultants as a side business that caters to the very interests that are promoting this project or similar projects.
But to charge collusion, you still have to make some sort of case, and that case has not been made to the public.
However, by supporting the compromise motion, it would have bought a year to clarify the record and the law.
Three weeks ago, the business community was very united against this project. Since that time, however, with the reduced rate increases and the word of experts, they were sold this project as an expensive necessity.
In order to win a referendum, the opposition to the water project cannot simply rely on finances alone. They need to counter the claims by the city that they have no choice but to go forward or face steep fines.
Every side needs their experts identified and to be present to be questioned and cross-examined. Anything less will not do and we saw on Tuesday this contributed to the ultimate outcome.
At the same time, no one looks that good in this vote. Basically, there was a compromise on the table that could have hit pause, and allowed the city to study alternatives that would allow potential rate decreases and also possibly regulatory relief.
At the same time, a 10 percent rate increase, while far from ideal in this economy, would have moved the ball forward for the backers of this project. It is quite clear that this project will be necessary in the future and that we should have built in costs of this project into past water rates, and this would at least have gotten that ball rolling while giving us all the time to study ways to save money.
I fail to understand the urgency of going forward with five years of rate hikes, when we could have done one and revisited the issue in a year.
No one has articulated that urgency, and why we needed five years of rate hikes.
If the issue becomes one of water, then the happiest people in the world will be the city employees looking for a change of subject. That was entirely avoidable by the mayor and now he throws the entire reformist city council into some doubt.
The next election sets up an interesting split among the incumbents – you have Stephen Souza, architect of this project, Sue Greenwald who will attempt to mobilize the opposition to this project into support for her reelection, and Dan Wolk who attempted to compromise and find a solution that met everyone’s needs.
That will undoubtedly strengthen his hand as we go into the election, but will it hurt the hands of his colleagues and the mayor to produce reform?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A Arnold said in the movie Predator “If it bleeds than I can kill it.”
Sue wanted the biggest rate increase without supporting it to raise voter opposition and solidify her base.
As Arnold said
“Sue wanted the biggest rate increase without supporting it to raise voter opposition and solidify her base.”
That’s a hefty allegation, so what is your proof of this? I don’t believe that for one minute. I think of all the council members Sue was best representing the people of Davis on this issue. Can anyone say:
R E F E R E N D U M
So, Rusty… are you against the project, or just paying for it?
I’m against both the project (as it is laid out) and paying for it. I think there were other alternatives to both the project and the financing as both David and Sue have pointed out. I don’t believe that all of our choices were fully explored.
Rusty… fair enough…
Sue believes we are over carrying capacity so we should not facilitate infrastructure that allows growth. The best chance for a referendum is the most expensive project so by not supporting moderation she strengthens the chance to defeat it at the polls.
[quote]At the same time, a 10 percent rate increase, while far from ideal in this economy, would have moved the ball forward for the backers of this project. It is quite clear that this project will be necessary in the future and that we should have built in costs of this project into past water rates, and this would at least have gotten that ball rolling while giving us all the time to study ways to save money.
I fail to understand the urgency of going forward with five years of rate hikes, when we could have done one and revisited the issue in a year.
No one has articulated that urgency, and why we needed five years of rate hikes.[/quote]
On the one hand, the Vanguard concedes this project is needed, then argues rate increases should have been ramped up long ago so we wouldn’t be facing such steep increases now; then turns around, contradicts itself, and states the need to delay the necessary rate increases to fully fund the project so the city can dither some more, pondering if we can somehow delay the project a) for one year, long enough to get a school parcel tax passed; and/or 2) w a variance for another 10 years, or better yet until we have the wastewater treatment plant upgrade paid off. The Vanguard cannot have it both ways…
[quote]Ken Landau, the Deputy Executive Officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, argued that appeals and variances were not possible.
“If you have a violation that qualifies for a mandatory penalty, it’s $3,000 a violation,” he informed the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency on June 30. “The only discretion the Regional Board has is making a factual determination as to whether you violated it, and whether that violation fits the statute. If it does, we assess you the $3,000 per violation.”
“A change in the law that went into effect in January of this year is, if you have used up your first five years of mandatory minimum protection, if we can make findings that you have a project, you have been diligent during that first five years in trying to achieve compliance, and a number of other things that go along with that, then we can, at the Regional Board’s discretion, grant you up to an additional five years,” Mr. Landau told the JPA.[/quote]
Does the Vanguard take the position they do not believe what Mr. Landau says – that he is merely bluffing/fibbing? That the federal gov’t is not in fact forcing the SWRCB to impose fines for noncompliance? As has been noted before by others on this blog, it is not likely the trend is going to go towards less stringency in water quality standards. In order to obtain a variance from the SWRCB, how is Davis going to show it is economically infeasible for the city to build the surface water project until we have the wastewater treatment plant upgrade paid off first – in direct contravention of what two UCD experts advised? Or until the SWRCB conveniently lowers salinity standards just so Davis can put off the surface water project until the wastewater treatment plant upgrade is paid off first? And is it really likely that construction costs and financing are going to get cheaper in the future than they are now?
It seems to me there is a lot of very wishful thinking on the part of those who would delay the surface water project for many years. The fact of the matter is, no one disagrees this project is necessary. Our mid level aquifers are having to be shut down; and our deep level aquifers are not necessarily sufficient or uncontaminated. Subsidence is a very real problem for our city wells. The state has said they will fine jurisdictions who fail to come into compliance – enough so there will be no cost savings for not coming into compliance. The school parcel tax and city parks tax need to stand on their own merits, and not be used as an excuse to delay a needed/essential water infrastructure project for a decade or more, when construction and financing costs are very likely to be much higher. There will always be another school parcel tax and parks tax competing for approval with some other city need. A potable and reliable source of water is such a basic requirement, it should bubble to the top of anyone’s priority list. Without water, how does the town survive? Do we really want to go to extreme water rationing, especially if we enter a drought year as in Texas? All you global warming theorists are insistent temperatures are rising, and droughts are soon to follow…
Why is the city of Davis moving forward with both a costly wastewater treatment plant upgrade concurrent with a costly surface water project? A one-time rate increase of 10% would have bought time to consider numerous alternatives.
Wouldn’t it be prudent to implement the surface water project and then assess the needs of a wastewater treatment plant upgrade based on the constituents in the new surface water supply for the city? Surely, there won’t be as great a need to manage for selenium in city of Davis wastewater from the new water coming from surface water project.
Why isn’t the city pursuing other less costly avenues to reduce salt in the city’s wastewater, as is being pursued in Dixon: The city of Dixon wants to do away with salt-discharging water softeners to avoid having to build a new $60 million wastewater treatment plant. It could be the only way the city could comply with the State Water Board’s mandated salinity-in-groundwater levels. Rather than spend $60 million, Dixon City’s Engineer Royce Cunningham said it would be more cost-effective for the city to invest a few hundred thousand dollars in the incentive program to remove the salt water discharging water softeners from Dixon homes. Source: http://dixon.patch.com/articles/a-cheap-low-tech-solution-to-dixons-water-softener-problem
And another vexing question, why isn’t the city being more aggressive in providing incentives to reduce water usage as is being done by the cities of Roseville and Santa Rosa? The city of Roseville offers up to $1000.00 per site to replace lawns with low water use plants in their Cash for Grass program: http://www.roseville.ca.us/eu/water_utility/water_conservation/for_home/programs_n_rebates.asp
The city of Santa Rosa offers rebates for graywater reuse, rainwater harvesting and removing turf: http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/utilities/conserve/Pages/Rebates.aspx
This article displays an astonishing lack of analysis and understanding on the part of David Greenwald. More coming.
[b]Here is what really really happened.[/b]
First, I made the following motions:[quote][b]Motion:[/b] Pursue maximum regulatory flexibility with the regional and state water resources control, including, but not limited to, a pursuing a variance allowing postponement of the surface water project, working both directly and through all reasonable channels including the Central Valley Clean Water Association.[/quote]
[b]Motion:[/b] Prior to every meeting of the Clean Water JPA, bring the agenda and staff report to council for full discussion, so that the council can give direction to our Clean Water JPA representatives.
[b]Motion:[/b] Bring project to vote of peope AFTER DOING everything possible to obtain a variance.
[b]Motion:[/b] Ask Dr. Thcabonoglous to explore interim alternatives to the surface water project.
None of my motions even got a second. (And, tellingly, none were reported by David Greenwald in his series of articles on the water rate meeting.)
Without the first motion — to pursue maximum flexibility including pursuing a variance — the rate five year increases are inevitable, and cannot even be postponed. If we are forced to build the surface water project, then we are forced to pay whatever rates it will take to build it. There will be no other option. Any “one year increase” is dishonest, as I define the word, in the absence of the passage of my first motion, which was to apply for a variance from the SWRCB that would enable us to postpone the project.
More coming.
[quote]This article displays an astonishing lack of analysis and understanding on the part of David Greenwald. More coming. [/quote]
lol
[b]THEN CAME DAN WOLK’S MOTION:[/b] Dan’s motion was many motions rolled into one. It include reaffirming our commitment to the project as well as the approval of the first year of the increases.
First, I said that I could support the motion if Dan would the add the phrase “when economically feasible” to the “reaffirm support for project”. Dan refused my friendly amendment.
I offered to support the motion if he included the commitment to apply for a variance to the SWRCB that would enable us to postpone the project until our wastewater treatment plant was paid off (or partially paid off), which would allow us to do the project with lower total rates. He refused my friendly amendment.
Finally, I offered to vote for his motion if he would separate out the one year rate increase from the part that reaffirmed going forward with the project on the current time schedule. He refused to separate out the rate increase.
Essentially, Dan was trying to force me into a vote to reaffirm the project on the current time schedule, which I could not do, because if we proceed with the project on the current time schedule, the five year rates will have to be implemented whether we vote for them this year or next year.
Dan’s motion was not a compromise, because, by refusing to apply for a variance, he was assuring that the five year rate will be passed, whether this year or next. The difference between Dan’s motion and Joe and Stephen’s motion is that Joe and Stephen were being honest with the public, although I think this policy will end up to be more catastrophic than anyone is imagining.
Of course, no one can “verify my claims”. We’ve been over this ground before, David. Everyone who knows enough to to make a credible estimate of our future rates has a pretty high level job and is not going to publicly challenge an existing city policy.
We did hear from one “retired admiral” at the council meeting, if you call, who was a water engineer with a long career with the state, and he said pretty much what I have been saying. I have also talked to many of the top engineers who are still employed, and of course they cannot speak publicly.
As I discussed on your blog the other day, we get much of our information about important national and international policies from “unnamed sources” who are quoted by the most respected reporters in the most respected newspapers for the very reasons I described above.
I should add again that Ken Landau is an administrator who does not make the decision — the board does, and I have talked with other administrators in his organization who are far too professional to pretend to know how their board members will vote, but who encouraged me to suggest applying for the variance if I felt the project was fiscally infeasible.
[quote]Wouldn’t it be prudent to implement the surface water project and then assess the needs of a wastewater treatment plant upgrade based on the constituents in the new surface water supply for the city? [/quote]
Exactly, which is what the two UCD experts advocated for – the two UCD experts Council Member Sue Greenwald herself asked to be consulted before we moved forward with the wastewater treatment plant upgrade.
[quote]Why isn’t the city pursuing other less costly avenues to reduce salt in the city’s wastewater, as is being pursued in Dixon: The city of Dixon wants to do away with salt-discharging water softeners to avoid having to build a new $60 million wastewater treatment plant. It could be the only way the city could comply with the State Water Board’s mandated salinity-in-groundwater levels. Rather than spend $60 million, Dixon City’s Engineer Royce Cunningham said it would be more cost-effective for the city to invest a few hundred thousand dollars in the incentive program to remove the salt water discharging water softeners from Dixon homes. Source: http://dixon.patch.com/article…er-problem [/quote]
Council member Steve Souza, who is also a member of the JPA, has advocated from the dais the very real possibility of the city banning the use of water softeners, once the surface water project is built. Obviously no one can say for sure whether such a ban will be approved, but it certainly is under consideration.
[quote]And another vexing question, why isn’t the city being more aggressive in providing incentives to reduce water usage as is being done by the cities of Roseville and Santa Rosa? [/quote]
The city has provided incentives to conserve water, by introducing a tiered rate structure. The more water a ratepayer uses, the more it will cost them to use that water. To put it in more specific terms, if a ratepayer uses 27ccf or less of water per 2 month billing cycle, then they pay a base rate and Tier 1 water rates. If a ratepayer uses more than 27ccf per 2 month billing cycle, then they must pay a base rate, Tier 1 rates on the 27ccf, and the increased Tier 2 rates for that water beyond the cutoff point of 27ccf. Tier 1 rates are $1.90 per unit; Tier 2 rates are $2.46 per unit. A billing unit is 748 gallons of water.
Sewer rates are similarly based on water consumption, with a base rate, and a usage rate based on water usage in the winter months of Nov. thru Feb.
[quote]The city of Santa Rosa offers rebates for graywater reuse, rainwater harvesting and removing turf: http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/dep…bates.aspx [/quote]
The city of Davis intends to explore the possibility of selling its tertiary treated water to farmers for agricultural use.
[quote]Any “one year increase” is dishonest, as I define the word, in the absence of the passage of my first motion, which was to apply for a variance from the SWRCB that would enable us to postpone the project. [/quote]
[quote]Dan’s motion was not a compromise, because, by refusing to apply for a variance, he was assuring that the five year rate will be passed, whether this year or next. The difference between Dan’s motion and Joe and Stephen’s motion is that Joe and Stephen were being honest with the public, although I think this policy will end up to be more catastrophic than anyone is imagining.[/quote]
The official definition of dishonest according to the dictionary:
[quote]dishonest – deceptive or fraudulent; disposed to cheat or defraud or deceive[/quote]
Council member Greenwald, would you care to rephrase? I don’t think it helps your cause to characterize honest differences of opinion by fellow Council members (in this case Council member Dan Wolk) on how to approach an issue by labeling a position different from your own as somehow “dishonest”. You can (and often do) feel free to disagree with a viewpoint that runs counter to your own, and state your reasons why, but name calling is below the belt and frankly beneath you/your office. I admire your passion to do what is in the best interests of the city, but other Council members who may disagree with you may feel just as passionately their view of things is what is in the best interests of the city…
Elaine, I said a [b]one year increase was dishonest[/b]. I think that is true, because a one year increase leads people to think that their ultimate rates will be lower than $2,000 a year. I did not say that any individual was “dishonest”.
You are diverting the discussion from important substantive issues.
I would like to pose a question to David Greenwald: Why do you think a one year rate increase is a “compromise” when the rest of the motion guarantees that future rates will be as high or higher than the rates in staff recommendation?
In fact, as long as the project remains on its current time schedule, a lower rate this year will lead to higher rates in the future, because we are deferring payment on costs that have already been incurred.
[quote]None of my motions even got a second. (And, tellingly, none were reported by David Greenwald in his series of articles on the water rate meeting.) [/quote]
First, the fact that none of your motions got a second means your arguments were unpersuasive to every other Council member. Secondly, I would ask: what is so “telling” in your mind about the fact that David Greenwald did not report on any of your motions that failed in toto to even garner so much as a second for even discussion purposes?
[quote]THEN CAME DAN WOLK’S MOTION: Dan’s motion was many motions rolled into one. It include reaffirming our commitment to the project as well as the approval of the first year of the increases. [/quote]
The city would need the first year of increases in water rates just to keep up with repair and maintenance of the current well system, plus need the costs required to go after some elusive variance, which is not even in place at the moment to pursue.
[quote]First, I said that I could support the motion if Dan would the add the phrase “when economically feasible” to the “reaffirm support for project”. Dan refused my friendly amendment. [/quote]
As was his perfect right. Please define “economically feasible” in terms that would pass muster for the SWRCB and would have any chance of approval of a variance – a variance that currently does not exist by the way. How would Davis argue it is economically infeasible to do the surface water project? What specific criteria can the city argue that would be convincing to the SWRCB? From my research it appears the criteria are in Order 92-49, but I have not been able to locate this specific Order for some reason. If I am chasing information up the wrong tree, please point me in the right direction for the specific criteria…
[quote]I offered to support the motion if he included the commitment to apply for a variance to the SWRCB that would enable us to postpone the project until our wastewater treatment plant was paid off (or partially paid off), which would allow us to do the project with lower total rates. He refused my friendly amendment. [/quote]
As was his perfect right to do so. Perhaps Council member Wolk does not believe tabling the water project for 25 or more years is the wisest course of action? Perhaps he believes it is in the city’s best interest to build the surface water project first and foremost, to be able to realize any savings to the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, as the two UCD experts strongly suggested. By the way, two experts you yourself insisted the city should listen to.
[quote]Essentially, Dan was trying to force me into a vote to reaffirm the project on the current time schedule, which I could not do, because if we proceed with the project on the current time schedule, the five year rates will have to be implemented whether we vote for them this year or next year. [/quote]
Essentially YOU were trying to FORCE Council member Dan Wolk INTO A VOTE TO REAFFIRM what YOU thought was the proper fork in the road to take, and Council member Wolk disagreed. He has every right to disagree if he doesn’t think you are correct in your assessments.
Elaine, the real question was whether the project was going to be fast-tracked on its current schedule. If the project was fast tracked, then Stephen and Joe were right: The rates were going to have to be raised substantially every year for the next five or six years, and it was more honest to be straight with the public about it.
But I thought that I already made that clear in earlier posts.
[b]Elaine Musser[/b]: We can make a very good argument before the SWRCB that the cumulative costs of our new waste water treatment plant and surface water project, if undertaken simultaneously, will have a substantial negative socei-economic impact. It is up to the board members and the board members only if they will accept it.
I believe that we owe it to the city to make the case.
[quote]Essentially YOU were trying to FORCE Council member Dan Wolk INTO A VOTE TO REAFFIRM what YOU thought was the proper fork in the road to take, and Council member Wolk disagreed. He has every right to disagree if he doesn’t think you are correct in your assessments.—[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote].I don’t know how you get here, Elaine. Your logic has me flummoxed.
Elaine, it is common courtesy on the council to divide motions so that a councilmember can vote on the part of the motion that the he/she agrees with.
All I was doing was asking Dan Wolk to divide his motion so that I could vote on his one year rate increase but not on his reaffirmation of the project. This was not trying to force Dan to vote my way; it was asking Dan to allow me to vote his way on part of his motion, while allowing me to vote against him on another part of the motion.
In my twelve years on the council, I would say that 99% of the time, a councilmember will divide his/her motion if it will get support for a major component of the motion.
I ask you a question, Elaine Musser: If Dan really wanted his one year rate to pass, then why on earth wouldn’t he have allowed his motion to be divided so that I could vote in favor of the one year rate increase without compromising my principles or voting for a course of action I thought disastrous?
To Council member Sue Greenwald: With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely bc I have a lot of respect for your views on fiscal responsibility) I honestly think (and this is just my personal opinion) that trying to have a debate with you at times is like dealing with jello – it is ever elusive in substance. At first you took a “nuanced” position and would not say you were for or against the surface water project, seeing the positive and negatives of both sides; finally conceded your position was to delay the project for 25 years until the wastewater treatment plant upgrade was completed; at one point said the actual water rate increases don’t matter; stated subsidence was a problem; that we don’t know how long the deep aquifers will last, but on the other hand cite unnamed sources that have insisted they will last at least another 40 to 60 years; said you were for this project, just not now; then you want to go after a variance to delay the project; disagree with the very experts you insisted be brought on board; seem to think the representative from the SWRCB is bluffing when he states jurisdictions are not going to be able to benefit from not complying with the new water standards; refer to unnamed sources to back up whatever you are saying at the moment; and on and on it goes. Keeping up with your “fluid” reasoning is like trying to grasp water (pardon the pun).
I asked a simple question – what are the criteria that must be met and you would cite as meeting the required criteria – to justify that the surface water project is “economically infeasible” for Davis? Or more basicly put, just point me to a link that lists the criteria that must be met…
[quote]Elaine, it is common courtesy on the council to divide motions so that a councilmember can vote on the part of the motion that the he/she agrees with. [/quote]
It would seem to me to be “common courtesy” to
1) allow a Council member to make the motion they want to,
2) to either allow/not allow a friendly amendment to that motion,
3) vote the way a Council member wishes too,
4) using the Council members’ own independent judgment,
4) without any implication of “dishonesty” from fellow Council members.
Honestly, Elaine, it often seems that you are not discussing this issue, but are merely hectoring.
First off, you are egregiously misrepresenting my position.
I never have never said that rates weren’t important–ever. I have always that obtaining surface water is important, but it is an issue of cumulative costs and timing and an issue of assessing risk/benefit of doing the project now versus postponing it. I don’t think my position could have been any more consistent.
I never specified the need for a 25 year postponement, I said that we should postpone it until most or all of our wastewater plant was paid off (and sometimes added “until we are in better economic and fiscal times”). I mentioned 25 years as a potential date when all of our wastewater treatment plant could be paid off, but always specified “most or all”. How can I have been more clear or more consistent?
What has changed is information that I have received regarding the risk/benefit analysis, much of it by talking with experts over the August break, about both our options for delay and the likely cumulative costs of the wastewater/water/stormwater and garbage.
I learned that stringent new storm water requirements are imminent, I learned that the project might cost significantly more than we had estimated, and I learned that there is a process in place for us to apply for a variance that I was encouraged to pursue.
E. Robert Musser: Elaine, regarding your 3:34 post: In response to your non-stop stream of allegations, you are forcing me mention, in self defense, something I was trying hard to stay away from.
Dan did not simply make his motion and vote on it. Afterwards, he called people I know complaining that I did not support his one year rate increase. But he neglected to tell them that part of his motion on the one year rate increase was to affirm the project, and that I had offered a number of friendly amendments that would have allowed me to vote for the one year rate increase that he refused to accept.
[i]Three weeks ago, the business community was very united against this project[/i]
Please cite your evidence. And please don’t tell me they are unnamed sources.
The only way now for David to now get his full and open expert accounting on the merits and necessity of proceeding with this project now is through the upcoming citizen referendum campaign. He should be championing the referendum process rather than throwing cold water on the effort as he does in this commentary.
Elaine:
“Does the Vanguard take the position they do not believe what Mr. Landau says – that he is merely bluffing/fibbing? “
I’ve already explained my position with regards to Mr. Landau – he gave the agency the answers they wanted but they were more nuanced than he or they acknowledged.
See: Vanguard Commentary: Wrong Time For Rate Hikes ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4670:vanguard-commentary-wrong-time-for-rate-hikes&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
Sue:
I know we have been over it before, but in my honest assessment, the chief weakness in your position is that the other side has a bunch of people with titles and letters after their name and you can only assert that you have spoken to experts who disagree.
“Why do you think a one year rate increase is a “compromise” when the rest of the motion guarantees that future rates will be as high or higher than the rates in staff recommendation?”
Because it would require another 218 protest opportunity in a year, and gives you a year to drive down the costs. We’re basically buying for time right now, and this gave us the time without committing us to anything more than a small increase this year.
[quote][i]Three weeks ago, the business community was very united against this project[/i]
Please cite your evidence. And please don’t tell me they are unnamed sources.[/quote]
The only evidence I can offer you is that each one of those business people that spoke on Tuesday night were opposed to this project with the 218 rate hikes three weeks ago, plus there was a larger group of people who supported running the Davis Enterprise ads. Otherwise I’m not going to name names just for posterity sake.
[quote]The only way now for David to now get his full and open expert accounting on the merits and necessity of proceeding with this project now is through the upcoming citizen referendum campaign. He should be championing the referendum process rather than throwing cold water on the effort as he does in this commentary.
[/quote]
You miss the point of my commentary then. I give you a blue print as to how the referendum can be successful but also how it can fail when I write:
[quote]In order to win a referendum, the opposition to the water project cannot simply rely on finances alone. They need to counter the claims by the city that they have no choice but to go forward or face steep fines.
Every side needs their experts identified and to be present to be questioned and cross-examined. Anything less will not do and we saw on Tuesday this contributed to the ultimate outcome.[/quote]
I just read a comment in the Enterprise that was very interesting. We’re spending $325,000,000 for this project and how much good is it actually doing for the environment? Sure it helps, but at that cost could that money have been better spent on other things that helped the environment even more. At about $20,000 per parcel every homeowner could have new solar panels installed on their roofs or close to a new hybrid car in their driveway. Both actually save homeowners money and might actually be better for the environment than the water project. Just a thought.
“I give you a blue print as to how the referendum can be successful…”
Your “blue print” fails to include the issues that can galvanize voter involvement in the signature-gathering. Sure, the “pocket-book” issue is paramount but the fact that developers will be getting a ‘free-ride” on the issue of identifying water sources when they come forth with development schemes in 5 years plus the fact that voters will no doubt be “trapped” into voting yes on a Measure R ballot to lessen the impact of the soaring water rates, even though they may not have done so without this fiscal “gun to their heads”. South Davis residents paying for the water that they are not slated to receive is another hot point. The issues that you describe will, IMO, be left moot even after both sides mobilize their “experts”. In the end, the issues that will decide the referendum will be fiscal, those that I have described above and the anger that Davis voters will be expressing by the way this process has been deliberately kept out of serious public debate by the past Council Majority and now-retired Davis Public Works Department head Mr. Weir only to be “steamrolled” now under the “mushroom cloud” threats.