A diverse group has come together to fight the water rate hikes, as anti-tax conservatives join forces with liberal progressives in Davis seeking to overturn the five-year water rate hikes of 14% passed by the Davis City Council on a 4-1 vote last week.
This would suspend the rate hikes while the school district gets its parcel taxes renewed.
A senior member of the group organizing the referendum told the Vanguard, “Led by Ernie Head and Pam Nieberg, the Committee for the Protection of Taxpayer Rights is being formed this week.”
The Committee expects to collect the number of required signatures of registered Davis voters in the next 30 days and place on the June 2012 ballot a repeal of the City Council’s September 6, 2011 water rate hikes.
In the meantime, the rate hikes would be stayed, pending the election results.
According to the source, “The Committee is also examining placing an initiative on the same ballot that would limit future water rate hikes.”
The Enterprise today quotes longtime Davis resident Ernie Head as one of the organizers spearheading the referendum.
“I prefer that they don’t do the fees,” Mr. Head told the Davis Enterprise. “Let the project fall where it may.”
One point of question is the number of people needed to sign a petition to get it on the ballot. The Vanguard was originally told 10% of the turnout for the last governor’s election, which would have worked out to be about 2400 votes.
However, the Enterprise talked with Ashlee Titus, an election law attorney working with the referendum group. According to her figures, 3,833 signatures would be needed for a referendum which would essentially act as a more democratic version of the Prop 218 protest, and allow all voters to vote on whether to accept or reject the rate hikes.
On the other hand, an initiative has a higher threshold of 5825 signatures and would allow additional details beyond simply an up or down vote on the rate hikes.
According to the Enterprise, the group is undecided on whether to go beyond a simple up or down vote on the rate hikes.
A referendum certainly represents a more “democratic” alternative to the Prop 218 process, which can at best be described as arcane.
While the city opened up the process with a rather liberal Prop 218 protest form, the protest is limited to ratepayers, who in Davis are exclusively property owners. Non-property owners cannot participate in the protest, and those who do not turn in protest forms are counted as yes votes.
In Davis there are roughly 15,800 parcels that were eligible for protest and about 4800 people (some with the ability to vote more than once, owning multiple parcels) turned in protest forms.
This led Councilmember Stephen Souza to argue that 72% of the voters supported the rate hikes – presented in such a fashion, that sounds overwhelming.
If we polled the public, my guess is far less than 100% will be even aware of the Prop 218 vote.
Even with newspaper coverage that reaches perhaps a third of all households, and notices that many will not see or will get thrown out with the rest of the junk mail, my guess is that if we polled the public, we would find the number a lot closer to 50% than to 100% knowledge.
It is therefore conceivable that the 28% percent who protested represents more than half of those households who actually know there is a water rate hike and know that they can protest.
“4800 protests was a message heard loud and clear by the council,” Mayor Krovoza said on Vanguard radio Wednesday now. “It was very, very impressive.”
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.
Supporters of the Clean Water Project argue that the city is likely to be out of compliance with discharge requirements by 2017, the current supply of groundwater is increasingly laden with minerals and becoming unreliable, and that fines imposed by state regulators would exceed the costs of the new project.
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.
Many in the community were willing to accept the rate increase at the reduced rate of 14% over the next five years, with a sixth year looming.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald counters that the “rate decrease [from the original projections] 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.”
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.
According to the Davis Enterprise, an election would cost the city, hurting for money, up to $200,000 for a standard election with a reduction of $90,000 for a mail-only ballot election.
Mr. Head told the Enterprise that he had asked the city to put the matter to the voters to begin with.
“I’ve asked them time and time again to let people vote on this thing and they never would do it,” he said. “But this time, they’re going to do it.”
Mr. Head told the Enterprise that “he does not believe the water project is necessary, but what frustrates him the most is that Davis people did not get to decide if it was what they wanted.”
“When they want to do it their way, they don’t think anything of the cost,” he said, adding, “So many people pay so little attention to what’s going on and if they didn’t have someone like me looking out for them, they’d be much worse off.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”When they want to do it their way, they don’t think anything of the cost,” he said, [/quote]
If the City Council and Dept. of Public Works was not thinking anything of the cost, then why is it that the costs that were approved were reduced significantly from the projected Prop 218 water rate increases? When I worked with the citizens group with the Dept. of Public Works, I can assure your our citizens advisory group was very much concerned about cost. It is why we strongly recommended a future advisory group to make sure costs were kept to a bare minimum…
[i]If the City Council and Dept. of Public Works was not thinking anything of the cost, then why is it that the costs that were approved were reduced significantly from the projected Prop 218 water rate increases? [/i]
Isn’t it because they were hammered on for two months?
[quote]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.[/quote]”plausibilty arguments” are fun… you get to choose ‘what-if’s’ to make your point/opinion. It is equally plausible that “head of the household” who actually writes the checks that pay the bills, sent in the protest letter, and the other 1.6 members of the household supported it. Let the “games” begin!
It’s all a guess anyway until they put the referendum on and vote.
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.
“plausibilty arguments” are fun… you get to choose ‘what-if’s’ to make your point/opinion. It is equally plausible that “head of the household” who actually writes the checks that pay the bills, sent in the protest letter, and the other 1.6 members of the household supported [s]it[/s] the project and the rate hike that is needed to fund it. Let the “games” begin!
“I’ve asked them time and time again to let people vote on this thing and they never would do it,” he said. “But this time, they’re going to do it.”
You tell em Ernie. Let the public decide.
“It is equally plausible that “head of the household” who actually writes the checks that pay the bills, sent in the protest letter, and the other 1.6 members of the household supported it.”
It’s possible but not “equally plausible” at all, I would say that most households vote alike.
The last minute fee decrease seemed spurious to me. Why couldn’t that have bee done earlier?
Many of the protests had already been filed so perhaps some of those folks wouldn’t have filed with the new lower rates.
My question which I hope will be explored, is Nancy Price’s issue of Design Build ?Operate contracts to private questionable companies. David could you do a column on this aspect?
[quote]Isn’t it because they were hammered on for two months?[/quote]
What is your point? The advisory group worked very hard, as did the Dept of Public Works, as did the CC, to work on ways to find common ground, which we did. Would you have only been happy had we found common ground instantaneously, w no discussion? I’m not seeing an issue here.
[quote]”I’ve asked them time and time again to let people vote on this thing and they never would do it,” he said. “But this time, they’re going to do it.” [/quote]
And I would strongly advise voters who decide to scuttle the water rate increases to have a back up plan… bc I suspect we all will be in for a rough ride…
“does not believe the water project is necessary.”
So what is his preferred alternative?
One reason I am supporting the repeal is I want to see the school parcel taxes have a decent shot at renewal in March 2012. If the surface water rate increase is left in place now, those DJUSD parcel tax renewals are probably going to lose. The referendum places those water rate increases on HOLD until after the school tax election. I have no idea what the heck the Davis City Council was thinking of when they pushed these huge rate increases through.
Ok, Michael, what is your preferred alternative to the surface water supply?
For those interested in the siganature-gatherering campaign: Pam Neiberg’s email address is Pneiberg@dcn.davis.ca.us
Don, park the rate increases for now, and work with the community for better, and less expensive, solutions.
Meanwhile, the DJUSD can pass the needed parcel taxes in March 2012.
As it stands now, from my usually accurate sense for what is sellable in this town, the repeal is going to go on the ballot with massive numbers of signatures, and the repeal will win overwhelmingly in June 2012.
Then what is the City going to do with no money to pay for this project or to find real, viable solutions?
I always thought the money for this project should be on the ballot, and now that is about to happen, as it should be. People in this town like to vote on big ticket items.
Name a better, less expensive solution.
“He also argued that in this economy the nature of competitive bids…”
As a home-owner who has to put a new roof on his home, and have obtained multiple bids recently, I have found NO significant reduction from the bids I received in past years when I first began looking into the roof replacement.
Actually, I am working on your request. Mayor Joe and the City Manager are kindly organizing briefings on the technical and fiscal issues underlying this project. I really hope to find some solutions.
The project has gone through for +15 years on a series of majority votes by the CC (I never voted for any of it), and now, finally, the money is going to be on the ballot. To date, the money has been raised a bit at a time, sort of death by a thousand cuts. But if you look at the total $$ raised over the past 10 years, this project has sucked an enormous amount of money out of the pockets of the rate payers, and into the pockets of huge numbers of expensive consultants. All without a vote of the people.
Ernie and Pam and others are going to ensure that the voters get to decide this one, not 3 CC members and their legions of paid consultants.
IMO if anyone truly believes that the project is going to come in under projected costs they must also believe in the tooth fairy. Funny how at the last minute through “creative” financing and wishful pie-in-the-sky cost projections all of a sudden just before the council vote the rates just happen to come down. Is this another boondoggle that we’ll all be blaming a past council for what future councils will have to deal with?
[quote]One reason I am supporting the repeal is I want to see the school parcel taxes have a decent shot at renewal in March 2012[/quote]
Those who agree with this point of view favor the immediacy of a school parcel tax over that of long-term community sustainability. Future generations lose every time to the wants of now.
Rusty49, amongst those involved in the referendum, the estimate of $500 million is where we think the total will fall. Of course there will be massive cost overruns. Once the City signs the major contracts, and the engineers later say “oooppsss, but looks like we need another $50 million”, probably several times, what is the City supposed to do? Leave a big hole in the ground where the plant is supposed to be? Walk away from the $300 million they have already spent?
This thing is headed to $500 million, or more.
I totally agree with you Mr. Harrington. I feel they just want to get the ball rolling knowing that we’ll all have to deal with the consequences later.
There will be school parcel taxes every two years, forever. So this argument will be used over and over again, choosing a postponement of the surface water project forever, even though most agree that the surface water project is needed eventually.
Michael:[i] Actually, I am working on your request.[/i]
There are three options:
1. status quo. Not really an option.
2. deep-water aquifer deferral of surface water; pay for both eventually.
3. surface water.
Am I missing one?
Don Shor: One thing that is really different today is the financial meltdown that cuts across America. Did you see the Wall Street Journal headline articel today: “Income Slides to 1996 Levels” ? I can be convinced that we need to do something about water in Davis, but I want to know more about it, including funding.
For the meantime, however, I think the rate hikes need to be stopped while this town and its population get back on their fiscal feet.
Silly Rabbit – Do the liberal progressives honestly think the anti-tax conservatives are in this together so that the school measure passes? Whether or not the water project referendum passes, the anti-tax conservatives are going to be all over the school tax measure next screaming to stop the school tax measure. And the liberal progressives are going to be left holding the bag saying, “Huh?…What happened?…I thought they were on our side!”…Silly Rabbit
“2. deep-water aquifer deferral of surface water; pay for both eventually.
As Sue pointed out, the cost of drilling more deep wells is small compared to the surface water project. We will, in all probability, be in better shape with more deep-aquifer wells in any event, even if we do complete the surface water project in the future, as it will negate the need to increase our buying more surface water. No one really believes that once the surface water project is completed, developers will be requesting(read “buying” local political leverage) to increase the amount of surface water to be purchased for their development proposals. If I am not mistaken, Councilperson Souza already has “floated” this concept of the need for even more surface water.
correction: needed a double negative here.. No one really believes that developers will NOT be requesting….etc.
I wish that David had given the same description of Ken Landau’s comments that he gave the other day, because I think David’s previous comments were spot on.
The variance a key issue here, and Ken is just an administrator who is guessing about how a board will vote. I spoke to another administrator who suggested applying for a variance if council felt the project was economically infeasible at this time.
David presented one administrator’s opinion, I talked with another administrator who emphasized that a variance was a board decision and that there was no policy precluding us from receiving a variance if we made our case.
Rather than hijack the threat with a rehash of this debate, I would suggest that readers who are interested in it go back to the comments on David’s last two blog posts.
[b]Don Shor[/b]: Since you asked: Yes, I think you are misrepresenting the options.
I think our biggest problem is that we have to pay for a new $100 wastewater treatment plant at the same time is the approximately $190 million surface water project (assuming the project doesn’t end up costing more, which is a big assumption). In this $190 million cost, I am including the Conway Water purchase and the new East Area Water tank, which staff our staff considers necessary components of this project.
When a town of only 65,000 undertakes approximately $300 million in capitol improvement projects, it is better to phase the projects in. This is not, as you say, a matter of “paying for both eventually”. It is paying for the wastewater project first and the surface water project second. It is paying for the projects one at a time.
This is a time-honored way to keep payments lower.
I am sure there are a number of different interim solutions, but the obvious one is a few more deep water wells. The variance deals with salinity, and the selenium issue is surmountable with a few more deep aquifer wells (and the use of some of our intermediate wells for landscaping, which we are actually doing anyway).
Deep water wells cost only 3 to 4 million apiece total, whereas our annual interest payments on the $190 million surface water project will come to around $10 million every year.
There are relatively inexpensive interim solutions if we work with the SWRCB and obtain a variance.
[b]SODA:[/b]Remember, the last minute fee decrease only decreases total water/wastewater/garbage costs from $2,300 in year 5 to about $2,150 in year 6, and all the rate options are based on guesses about interest rates and project costs anyway.
A part of that nominal decrease was a result of deferring a few needed water capitol improvements for a few year, which will show up in larger increases after year 6.
Every interim solution is eventually followed by the surface water project. Ergo: pay for both eventually. You have been consistent in saying that the deep well solutions are interim, dependent on the variances, and that you wish to have the city pay for the sewer first. You have given a time frame of roughly 15 – 25 years, depending on many factors.
We don’t know the extent or reliability of the deep aquifers. We will be competing with UC Davis for that water, which they intend to use to provide West Village potable water in addition to the surface water they are bringing in. That surface/deep water UCD plan is for ten years. After ten years, UC Davis is assuming the surface water project will be operational. If it isn’t, UC Davis and the City of Davis, under your scenario (and assuming a series of positive variances granted) will both be drawing even more water from the deep aquifer. This is the alternative outcome if we follow your proposed course of action. That is why I disagree with you about the wisdom of that course of action.
That is why I ask each of those proposing this referendum what their alternative is. Davisite appears to wish to avoid the surface water project entirely, focusing his argument on the growth-inducing effect he believes it might have. I don’t believe that is a sustainable course of action. I don’t know what alternative Michael Harrington or Pam Nieberg propose. Ernie Head appears to prefer the status quo. That is also unsustainable.
Sue
Could you address my other point which is Nancy Price’s concern of the Design Build Operate plan with questionable companies in the running (not sure I am characterizing it correctly; apologies if I am not) BUT would like to hear some chatter about this aspect. Thx.
[quote]Every interim solution is eventually followed by the surface water project. Ergo: pay for both eventually.–Don Shor[/quote]Of course, Don, you pay for both and you get both eventually, which is a good thing!
The difference is that you can afford it one way and not the other.
The fact that I will have to pay for my house eventually is not a good argument to say that I might as well pay for the entire house on day 1.
Sue, how old will you be when you are done deferring the surface plan? Eighty or ninety and then if we pay it off over 30 years you will be how old? isn’t this the same as saying you never intend to pay for it? Ernie Head said he is 91. How old will he be?
One other point about the deep aquifer. We are using up our ground water by over drafting it. This is why we need to keep going deeper. Yes it recharges but pump rates must exceed recharge rates or we would not need to go deeper. Someday if we don’t change we are going to be in big trouble and the fault will lie at the feet of those who say no today just as we look back on the previous generation who said no with disdain.
[quote]Sue — Could you address my other point which is Nancy Price’s concern of the Design Build Operate plan –SODA[/quote]SODA, these are important questions. Unfortunately, they are not coming before the council; they are being addressed only at the Clean Water JPA (I hate that name; it is manipulative in that it implies that our well water is dirty, and whatever you think about our well water, it is certainly clean. Goodness gravy, the river water is all sorts of runoff and sewage in it!)
Joe Krovoza and Stephen Souza are the only council members who sit on the JPA, and they are solely responsible for every aspect of this process. It only comes to council at the very end of the process, as happened with the Tsakopoulos water purchase. At that point, council has no real ability to influence or have input into the decision. I can only abstain or pass a symbolic “no” vote.
I don’t like the whole process. I made a motion at our last meeting to bring all items on the JPA agenda to council for discussion and vote before the JPA meetings so that the entire council can have input and vote on the issues such as DBO, and so that our JPA members will be acting is true REPRESENTATIVES of the council.
My motion didn’t even get a second.
Mr Toad: please don’t bring personal references into this. I have edited portions of your comment.
Why not Don? Sue is a public person. She asks for a deferral. It is quite fair to point out that her age precludes her from ever paying for the surface water project should her position to wait 20 or 30 years to start and then to pay it off over the next 20-30 years prevails. now if you think its wrong to point out that other old cheap geezers are off limits I disagree but I at least understand but public figures should have a higher standard of scrutiny. Its not liked I called anybody an asshole.
Also Ernie Head went to public comment and put his age on the record seems like when you do that it opens up the issue because he has entered it publicly in the debate. Especially when, as the lawyers say, time is of the essence.
Oh I see Sue can call Dan Wolk a liar but I can’t comment about someone’s age. Oh no wait I don’t see??????
Censorship on this blog seems arbitrary and capricious and while I’m sure many will be relieved by my absence I am also sure that the range of debate will be narrowed by my absence. Bye bye.
Hey Toad, there’s a tunnel located at 5th and Poleline that I hear is very affordable.
[quote]”According to one source…
A senior member of the group…
The Committee expects…
According to the source…
One political consultant…”[/quote]And, let the battle of the secret sources begin! This disease must be catching, David.
Of course, I’d want to hide too if I came up with the lame concept of disabling the city water initiative “for the good of our dear Davis school children” and their parcel tax. A variation on this theory was found wanting the last time it was tossed about in the [u]Vanguard[/u].
Stopping a multimillion dollar, long-term municipal health and environment project in order to give a small, school district parcel tax (hardly in serious danger anyway) some breathing room to pass suggests this coalition thinks we’re just stupid.
Nobody would admit to advancing this silly “justification” except David’s secret source, Notgnirrah Leahcim, and Michael Harrington.
David, “a diverse group (that) has come together to fight the water rate hikes” suggests you know who has “joined forces” to undertake this mission. Please enlighten the rest of us. You list only Ernie and Pam, but apparently didn’t talk to either (only the secret sources).[quote]”This would suspend the rate hikes while the school district gets its parcel taxes renewed.”[/quote]Is this super strategy one being advanced by the “anti-tax conservatives” or by the “liberal progressives” or by other groups in this in this grand coalition–is it agreed to by all?
For those interested in the siganature-gatherering campaign: Pam Neiberg’s email address is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ‘> Pneiberg@dcn.davis.ca.us
I apologize for the incorrect email address: It should be Pnieberg@dcn.davis.ca.us
JustSaying: I am in the phone book, and call me to get my email. There is nothing secret about this campaign. I use my name. You dont. Call me.
We may have a difference of opinon, but no reason to be nasty about it.
Get used to the idea that the water rate hike is going to be held back for at least nine months while we look at the issues and see what needs to be done. If there are no solutions, the rate hikes are DOA in June 2012. We have a draft initiative — right now — that caps water rate hikes pegged to the CPI increases or something similar. You want to see that on ballot? It can happen.
@Michael Harrington:[quote]There is nothing secret about this campaign.[/quote]So who are the organizers?
JustSaying: [i]Please[/i] no more personal attacks.
[quote]We don’t know the extent or reliability of the deep aquifers. We will be competing with UC Davis for that water[/quote]Don: I don’t think we will be competing with UCD for the deep aquifer. My understanding is that UCD has first rights and then we can have anything that is left over (minus the water necessary to recharge the aquifer).
It’s really too bad that there has not been more public discussion regarding the size and sustainability of this resource.
MH, sorry, I was referring to David’s attribution practices here, not to your personal (and quite open) advocacy. The only place I see we disagree so far is where you express support for “one source’s” rationale to suspend the rate hike so the school tax can pass.
I don’t mean to be nasty in questioning this concept, just incredulous that anyone takes it seriously. Do the “anti-tax conservatives” really support this tricky means of slipping through the parcel tax renewal during the window you’ll leave open by holding back the water rate hike?
As to the serious aspects of the real issue here, I’m troubled we’ve come to this point. I fear more heat, less light is all we’ll be getting in the coming months. How will we ever end up doing the right things for the right reasons at the best cost after our failure to get consensus so far?
Don, does my response to Michael clear me of the personal attack charge? I hope it it clarified things for him, but how about you? I don’t think you edited anything, so what offended? I don’t have much of a personal attack record–and don’t want the rep–but here I am already a at “PLEASE no more….”
Yes, thank you.
[quote]One reason I am supporting the repeal is I want to see the school parcel taxes have a decent shot at renewal in March 2012. If the surface water rate increase is left in place now, those DJUSD parcel tax renewals are probably going to lose. The referendum places those water rate increases on HOLD until after the school tax election. I have no idea what the heck the Davis City Council was thinking of when they pushed these huge rate increases through.[/quote]
You must not have very much faith for support in our schools at this point. Secondly, as Don Shor so eloquently pointed out, there will be school tax renewals coming up every few years, so the logical conclusion is that you want to kill the surface water project altogether. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so please explain logically how this is not necessarily your view. You keep referring to “other alternatives”, which again implies you want to permanently kill the surface water project. Something else that is cheaper somehow must be possible. Yet you have not come up with a single suggestion on how the city is to survive without the surface water project. It is easy to naysay, but much more difficult to come up with viable alternatives. I’m open to suggestions for reasonable alternatives, but I have as yet to hear one…
[quote]Then what is the City going to do with no money to pay for this project or to find real, viable solutions? [/quote]
The citizens very well my pay dearly for it in the long run…
[quote]IMO if anyone truly believes that the project is going to come in under projected costs they must also believe in the tooth fairy. Funny how at the last minute through “creative” financing and wishful pie-in-the-sky cost projections all of a sudden just before the council vote the rates just happen to come down.[/quote]
I was on the committee that worked with the CC and Dept of Public Works to bring the costs down… and strongly suggest a citizen advisory group to keep a watchful eye… and yet somehow we are being cast in a bad light as hoodwinking the public or acting as dupes… very disheartening…
“You must not have very much faith for support in our schools at this point.”
The last school bond passed by what, 1%? With residents getting hit with much bigger utility bills I’ll all bu guarantee you that any future school bonds will hardly ever pass again.
[quote]Rusty49, amongst those involved in the referendum, the estimate of $500 million is where we think the total will fall. Of course there will be massive cost overruns. Once the City signs the major contracts, and the engineers later say “oooppsss, but looks like we need another $50 million”, probably several times, what is the City supposed to do? Leave a big hole in the ground where the plant is supposed to be? Walk away from the $300 million they have already spent? [/quote]
This was the purpose of forming the citizen oversight committee…
[quote]For the meantime, however, I think the rate hikes need to be stopped while this town and its population get back on their fiscal feet.[/quote]
You mean when interest rates/construction costs are higher? You mean after we have had to expend the money on drilling a number of deep level aquifer wells/paid fines for noncompliance?
[quote]The variance a key issue here, and Ken is just an administrator who is guessing about how a board will vote. I spoke to another administrator who suggested applying for a variance if council felt the project was economically infeasible at this time. [/quote]
Unnamed sources again?
[quote]David presented one administrator’s opinion, I talked with another administrator who emphasized that a variance was a board decision and that there was no policy precluding us from receiving a variance if we made our case. [/quote]
Unnamed administrator you “talked” to, who may have said “uh huh” rather than stand there and argue? There is no way to tell what the substance of the conversation was or its context. Mr. Landau, however, went on public record to say that cities will be fined for noncompliance in a way that will not allow them to economically benefit from noncompliance.
Secondly, I am still waiting to see your argument on how to obtain a variance in light of the criteria set out in SWRCB Resolution 92-49. A variance can only be had for a maximum of 10 years, not the 25 years it would take to pay off the wastewater treatment plant upgrade as you are trying to push for. So we will eventually be paying off both projects at the same time in ten years, when there will still be school bond measures to pass, and storm sewer costs to pay for, probably higher construction costs and interest rates, etc ad nauseum.
Thirdly, if we build the wastewater treatment plant first, the savings that were supposed to materialize were predicated on building the surface water project first and foremost, according to the two UCD experts you yourself insisted be consulted by the city. Now you are disagreeing with the very consultants you brought in, bc they do not agree with the position you have now staked out for yourself, damn the possible consequences. Two UCD experts who went on public record by the way.
Fourthly, if we don’t build the surface water project first and foremost, how are drilling deep level aquifer wells not going to add to the eventual cost of the surface water project you yourself have conceded the city needs? How do we know how long the deep level aquifer is going to last, and if the water from it is going to be uncontaminated enough to satisfy the SWRCB? How do we know subsidence isn’t going to be a serious problem – something you yourself have admitted in public?
[quote]The fact that I will have to pay for my house eventually is not a good argument to say that I might as well pay for the entire house on day 1. [/quote]
WE WILL NOT BE PAYING FOR THE SURFACE WATER PROJECT ON DAY 1 – THIS IS PATENTLY UNTRUE.
[quote]Unfortunately, they are not coming before the council; they are being addressed only at the Clean Water JPA (I hate that name; it is manipulative in that it implies that our well water is dirty, and whatever you think about our well water, it is certainly clean. Goodness gravy, the river water is all sorts of runoff and sewage in it!) [/quote]
It is a matte of which water passes the Clean Water Act standards. Our current mid-level aquifer water does not. It is not clear water from the deep level aquifers does, and there is a good chance if it does now it will not in the future. Which is the whole point of bringing in the surface water from the Sacto River, which even you agree needs to happen. So you cannot have it both ways – we don’t need the cleaner Sacto River water, but we do.
“This was the purpose of forming the citizen oversight committee…”
ERM, I didn’t know that you were on any committee. Believe me, if I wanted anyone on that committee it would be someone like you because I know from seeing your posts on this blog that you’re a person of integrity and fiscal responsibility. That being said, what could an oversight committee do once the project goes forward and we don’t get the hoped for favorable bid and/or low interest rates. Just today it was reported that the inflation rate for Aug. had risen to .04%. Usually higher inflation leads to higher interest rates. There are so many variables going into this project and it just seems to me that that only the best scenarios were put forth to get the project to go forward. Correct me if I’m wrong.
[quote]Get used to the idea that the water rate hike is going to be held back for at least nine months [/quote]
I am getting the distinct impression, be it right or wrong, that perhaps the school district is behind the push to put off the surface water project? Someone from the school district or wdf1 can jump in and correct me if that is an incorrect impression…
To JustSaying: I understood exactly what you meant, and did not take it as being “nasty”… others on this blog have been considerably more pointed in their exchanges…
“How do we know how long the deep level aquifer is going to last, and if the water from it is going to be uncontaminated enough to satisfy the SWRCB?”
How about some more what ifs. How do we know that there won’t be a massive toxic spill just up-river from Sacramento? How do we know that there won’t be massive levy collapses that will impact Sacramento river flow and contamination? Sacramento river levies are near the top of the national list predicting massive future levy failures.
DG: “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.”
This statement by David re-emphasizes the problems with all of these unnamed sources. We don’t know who they are, whether they truly have expertise in an area, and whether they have any bias. We all have reputations, and like it or not, reputations are important.
Assuming that David accurately reported what was said, which I have no reason to question, it seems to me that this political consultant did not know what he or she was talking about when he or she multiplied the protests by 2.6. Does David or anyone else here know where the 2.6 number comes from? I do. It varies by community, but that is roughly the average number of residents in a dwelling. Single family is typically a bit higher than that, while multi-family or apartments are typically lower, so this may represent a blended rate. Last I checked, there was a certain minimum age to vote in an election. That means that the 2.6 includes kids. The political consultant may know something about elections and politics, but clearly was out of his or her element when factoring in this 2.6 factor. I fear that many of these “statements” or “facts” from these “unnamed experts” contain similar errors. As was stated by someone else on a previous blog post, we have no context for where these statements come from and we all know that what people say in conversation can either be a well thought-out and research supported statement, or could be just an “off the cuff” statement where the speaker expects a lack attribution. Had an expert known his or her words would be quoted and attributed, he or she might have thought more carefully and/or said nothing at all. We have no way to know which situation we are dealing with, yet we are always led to believe that the commenter is credible, has relevant expertise, isn’t unduly biased, and isn’t involved in “cocktail” type conversation.
And if the secret “expert” isn’t accurately represented by the person “quoting” him, no problem. One doesn’t have to worry about maintaining one’s professional reputation if nobody knows it’s being waved about.
Whenever an unnamed person is quoted, be suspicious. Legitimate use either will be duly noted and justified by the author or the reason will be apparent to the casual observer. Otherwise, disregard out of hand.
The least offensive use of unnamed sources routinely hide lazy, sloppy reporting of little factual significance. The more significant the seeming contribution to the argument, the more likely the “quote” has no basis in fact.
Journalists should be able to use confidential sourcing if necessary to expose corruption and abuse. But, the overuse and fraudulent use of Deep Throats and other anonymous sources led journalism to establish more strict standards.
More unseemly, however, is the use of secret sources by our leaders to sway public policy disagreements. Public officials need no journalistic-type protections to get to the truth of matters. And, getting verifiably accurate information into the public discourse should be the objective.
What can we make of a public official who would allow himself to be used by another public official as a secret weapon against a subordinate public official’s professional presentation to yet another body of public officials? (Whew!) Wouldn’t a chat at the office be a better way to deal with such an internal dispute? It’s just another weird Davis governance episode.
ERM: [i]I am getting the distinct impression, be it right or wrong, that perhaps the school district is behind the push to put off the surface water project? Someone from the school district or wdf1 can jump in and correct me if that is an incorrect impression…[/i]
If so, then it’s news to me.
[quote]If so, then it’s news to me.[/quote]
Thanks for your comment… it is greatly appreciated…
ERM: If you’d like further documentation, the school board discussed the issue at the Sept. 1 board meeting. The minutes were approved last night and can be found linked to the agenda: [url]http://davis.csbaagendaonline.net/cgi-bin/WebObjects/davis-eAgenda.woa/wa/showMeeting[/url] (refer to the consent calendar, and find the item at the bottom of page 3)
The board took no position on the issue. You can also reference the archived video of that meeting at the Davis Media Access site.
Individual board members are free to think and act as they want in their own lives, but the board discussion is public record.
To wdf1: Minutes are unavailable at this time. But I will take your word for it that the board took no position on the surface water project. Rumors sure do abound when controversial issues come up! Thanks for your input…
Does anyone know how much Woodland is raising their water rates? I haven’t seen anything or heard any chatter yet. It would be interesting to compare to our hikes.
[b]JustSaying:[/b] First off, my conclusions don’t rely on unnamed sources. My conclusions can be deduced from first principles and from verifiable fact.
Secondly, JustSaying: I strongly disagree with your argument and insinuations about the use of information from“unnamed sources”, as well as your nasty tone (I can respect people who are willing to make nasty statements and sign their names, but not people who use nasty tones and remain anonymous).
Just as newspaper reporters often rely on unnamed sources for important information, so must I. Those with enough expertise in a field to give advice will usually not speak out against a city policy, because the city is simply too large an employer in the field, or there is too much contention in speaking out against a strong establishment perspective.
Thus, in the past I have had to rely on unnamed sources to make the case that we were about to spend twice as much as necessary on our wastewater treatment plant. I relied on unnamed sources and ended up with a process that saved us $100 million. All of the experts employed by the city had maintained for over a year that we needed to spend $200 million.
Similarly, back in 2002, I became concerned about the sustainability of enhanced early retirement. I enrolled in a PERS conference. All of the experts giving talks said that the advanced early retirement was sustainable.
Then, at dinner and after a few glasses of wines, I started talking with one of the PERS analysts. He opened up and told me that he was terrified that the system would collapse, but that no one at PERS could say anything publicly because the PERS board were political appointees and were heavily weighted toward the unions.
But for years I used the information given to me by the unnamed source to make the case that the enhanced early retirements were unsustainable. Unfortunately for the city, no one would listen to the advice of my “unnamed sources”, and we have a virtually insurmountable problem on our hands.
The fact is that I did save the city $100 million by listening to “unnamed” sources, and by using “unnamed sources” to influence city policy. Have you saved the city $100 million, JustSaying?
[b]Councilor[/b], I’m concerned you missed my points by a mile. Sorry, I wasn’t more clear.
With respect to how I view using secret sources in the political arena, it should be obvious I’m concerned about [u][b]how[/b] they are used to sway or influence public opinion[/u], and [u][b]not whether [/b]they’re used to track down information to enlighten the public official[/u] who seeks them out.
And I did not say anything about your conclusions relying on anything in particular. Relying on “first principles and from verifiable fact” is an admirable standard.
You’d know better, but I feel elected officials are adequately empowered to get to the facts of most public matters by whatever means now are available to them. Once there, I’d like to see more effort going into an open dialogue rather that a battle over whose secret source if better than someone else’s source (secret or not). Wouldn’t that be more productive all around?
My nasty label is reserved for the unnamed source (described earlier as Mr. Landau’s superior) who is attacking the civil servant’s performance and statements without assuming any responsibility for his own accuracy. This is just wrong–it’s disrespectful at the employee-employee level and sows distrust and discord at the civic level.
There’s no doubt you’ve been successful at (and deserve much respect for) saving city money in your position. (No, I can’t compete–my contribution is limited to saving uncounted park staff funds during several volunteer litter pickup days.)
My other observations referred to the limited value of secret-source information from a reader’s viewpoint, particularly in journalism. Wouldn’t you agree that it cannot be given the same weight as information attributed to an identified source?
PS–Thanks for sharing your “few glasses of wine” technique.
[quote]Wouldn’t you agree that it (secret source information) cannot be given the same weight as information attributed to an identified source?–[b]JustSaying[/b][/quote]All I can say is that if I relied on identified sources over unidentified sources for my information on the wastewater treatment plant, we would be spending $100 million more.
Similarly, there have been many times in history when identified sources have been right and identified sources wrong. Isn’t that what investigative reporting is all about?
Regardless, my analysis does not particularly rely on unidentified sources, but I am constantly facing argument by authority and I have to deal with it the best I can. No doubt I am at a disadvantage when paid staff and consultants and other sincere but very vested staffers can be lined up behind a position with such strong political support. But I will continue to gather as much information as I can, talk with as many independent professionals as I can find, and present my conclusions.
The stakes have never been higher. The consequences of a town of 65,000 spending $300 million or more on simultaneous, massive water-related capitol improvement projects puts us in uncharted territory.
[quote] I’d like to see more effort going into an open dialogue rather that a battle over whose secret source if better than someone else’s source (secret or not).–[b]JustSaying[/b][/quote]I completely agree, JustSaying. That is what I have been trying to do.
So, we’ll just have to agree to agree. Keep up the the good fight….
P.S.–No one has been nasty to Mr. Landau. In fact, far from it. But ultimately, the Board makes all the decisions, not Mr. Landau or any staffer that I have talked with.
The Porter-Cologne Act specifies that economic considerations should be taken into account. Mr. Landau said, probably in an off-the cuff moment, something to the effect that the surface water project is proven “feasible” per se because previous councils have chosen to pursue it (I don’t have the interview in front of me). This comment was seized on by the “do it now” proponents.
I was skeptical about the assertion that the board would necessarily follow this line of reasoning in light of Porter-Cologne, and another staffer I spoke with agreed with me when I specifically inquired. He affirmed that economic feasible could certainly be a consideration.
What on earth is nasty about that?
P.S.–No one has been nasty to Mr. Landau. In fact, far from it. But ultimately, the Board makes all the decisions, not Mr. Landau or any staffer that I have talked with.
The Porter-Cologne Act specifies that economic considerations should be taken into account. Mr. Landau said, probably in an off-the cuff moment, something to the effect that the surface water project is proven “feasible” per se because previous councils have chosen to pursue it (I don’t have the interview in front of me). This comment was seized on by the “do it now” proponents.
I was skeptical about the assertion that the board would necessarily follow this line of reasoning in light of Porter-Cologne, and another staffer I spoke with agreed with me when I specifically inquired. He affirmed that economic feasible could certainly be a consideration.
What on earth is nasty about that?
And thanks for the kind words.