When the new council was elected last June and they replaced Mayor Don Saylor eventually with Dan Wolk, it appeared that the city was about to turn the corner after nearly a decade of irresponsible and wasteful fiscal policy.
Thus, it becomes clear that, despite some very clear and important successes, the legacy of the new city council, and in particular the leadership of Mayor Joe Krovoza, is on the line right now. We are in crisis mode and the crisis is coming in multiple forms.
The city has been very admittedly transfixed with the issue of water. We were expecting, possibly by yesterday evening, to know whether the referendum has qualified, but apparently that will not happen now until Monday.
The water project is a huge mess right now. The city and the JPA have put on the best possible face, they clearly believe they have to proceed but, make no mistake, this is going to be a huge problem for the next seven months.
There is likely to be a referendum. Ernie Head is also pushing an initiative that a lot of people think is illegal and goes too far, but others are making noises to put a more modest “Measure J for Water” initiative on the ballot that would augment the very flawed Prop 218 process.
What will come of this is hard to know. The community is clearly divided. The Mayor has told me repeatedly he needs to find a way to bring folks together, but I have yet to see anything that bears any resemblance of a plan to that effect.
One opportunity to do that was squandered as councilmembers largely appointed people who support their positions on the water issue to a citizen oversight committee, that could otherwise have been the genesis of some shared understanding and common goal.
The problem, as we have laid out repeatedly here, is that in this economic crisis, people are hurting and this will further hurt the economy.
The council on Tuesday will not only work to codify that committee, but also will receive an update on the current Design, Build, Operate RFP (request for proposal). This issue has fallen a bit off the radar, but that process is a mess, as well, with two companies being considered in the DBO package as operators that have very questionable backgrounds. One of them is facing a federal indictment and the other has had scores of failed projects, as we laid out last month.
The city and consultants believe this is less than a huge issue, and they believe that the DBO process will protect the cities against costs overruns and other incompetence by the operators. I am less than assured on this front.
Water has dominated the radar since September 6, but there are other huge issues as well. The city’s economy continues to slump, and more businesses have gone belly up or have left. This is perhaps punctuated with the loss of Borders, which will be replaced by Whole Foods, another grocer.
The economic uncertainty adds to the anguish of the budget by threatening to drive down sales tax revenues even further.
Last week’s Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) ruling is perhaps one of the biggest blows the city could have received. We have talked a great deal about this already this week, but this is not a small occurrence. It threatens to undermine the entire plan.
Already the city was behind in implementing the first $2.5 million in cuts to what will eventually surpass $7 million that the city is projected to have to pay in increased PERS (Public Employees’ Retirement System) and OPEB (other Post-Employment Benefits) costs.
Increasingly, that $2.5 million appears likely to come from layoffs and service costs – the exact thing that the city wanted to avoid.
Unfortunately, the city has been and apparently remains its own worst enemy. The PERB hit, which will be $800,000 according to Mr. Rifkin’s estimate, only adds to the problem and worse yet, was entirely of the city’s own doing and avoidable.
This is just my own opinion, but I truly believe the impasse was an overcompensation for the fact that the city had not bargained hard enough with the first bargaining group, the firefighters. They got criticized for not going far enough and not cutting a tough enough deal.
In an effort to show fortitude, city staff, fearing political pressure in the upcoming elections, panicked and pushed council to make huge errors that we will only now really come to understand.
With the next round of MOUs coming up, a new council and a new city manager, the city was poised to fix some of the problems. Now they will likely have to deal with an even more emboldened and angry employee base.
Employee groups were already angered by the council, showing up in huge numbers in June to protest the proposed $2.5 million in cuts. 150 city employees came out on a very hot June evening and stayed until the wee hours of the morning. That was already a burgeoning crisis, and the ruling by PERB will only add fuel to that fire.
For a long time, the city was in need of new leadership at the top of its ranks. It has that opportunity in Steve Pinkerton. Mr. Pinkerton’s contract is a problem, and another huge miscalculation by this council that will make things far more difficult for them.
But, putting that issue aside, there is still an opportunity. This is not Mr. Pinkerton’s mess and so he has a freer rein in attempting to fix it. But time is short and his attention is divided.
The city has needed someone to clean house for some time and this is the moment to do it – but will Mr. Pinkerton have the will and guts to pull the trigger?
Make no mistake, if the council gets the labor contracts and compensation wrong, they are looking at a fiscal crisis. They are looking at mass layoffs. They are looking at massive service cuts. And they are looking at an angry mass of people.
Add the two situations together and it is not entirely outlandish to speculate that this is the critical moment that the city and this council face, and if they blink, we are on the brink of disaster.
So the question is really, how will future Davis historians look at the current council – lost opportunity? Disaster? Or a body that in its darkest moments was able to rise to the occasion to help unify and lead us.
At some point, the buck has to stop somewhere, we just don’t know where.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]One opportunity to do that was squandered as councilmembers, largely appointed people who support their position on water to a citizen oversight committee that could have been the genesis of some shared understanding and common goal.[/quote]
How was “one opportunity squandered” by these appointments? Why do you assume the advisory committee cannot be the “genesis of some shared understanding and common goal”? It seems to me you are condemning this group before it has even had a chance to meet; and because it does not have on it people you personally deemed appropriate, but that would have done everything in their power to destroy any hope of consensus.
[quote]This is just my own opinion, but I truly believe the impasse was an overcompensation for the fact that the city had not bargained hard enough with the first bargaining group, the firefighters. They got criticized for not going far enough and not cutting a tough enough detail.[/quote]
What does this have to do with the fact that it appears the city did not follow the letter of the law?
I just hope the people on the committee are open to both sides of the equation.
[i]”…the genesis of some shared understanding and common goal.”
[/i]
I haven’t heard anything from the opponents of the water project that is likely to lead to this. What do you have in mind? There aren’t really that many options.
“Why do you assume the advisory committee cannot be the “genesis of some shared understanding and common goal”? “
I don’t assume that, it’s my belief largely based on its one-sided composition.
“What does this have to do with the fact that it appears the city did not follow the letter of the law? “
It would appear that was the motivation for not following the law – or so says I.
Don: I fail to see why the onus is simply on the opponents of teh water project. If anything the onus should be on the proponents of the water project who ar seeking to change the status quo and raise rates. Nevertheless, I think this illustrates the exact problem we face here – there is a huge divide in this community. I can address it personally by voting no on the water project and convincing others to do so, and that will force the council to do things differently. I would hope not to go that far however.
David, there are technical and regulatory arguments compelling the surface project. The onus is on the opponents to address those.
That is the argument you and others have been making for some time that I don’t think opponents ascribe to.
But, if that is the case, then the onus is on the proponents to mitigate the impact of their policies lest we further cripple the economy and put people out of their homes. Make no mistake, I don’t think most opponents see that they have the onus that you ascribe to them, and that would have to be part of coming to the table because there is a huge divide here.
Like I have been saying, the bus is going over the waterfall. You’ve got the CC majority sitting on top, singing “Merrily, Merrily, Life is But a Dream.” They are living in the old days, sort of a California Dreaming, that business as usual is OK, and that the residents are going to continue supporting these huge boondogles like giving away $500,000 of the sales tax increase of 2004 to the firefighters in 2005; the Target, which sucking money out of the local economy and hurting existing small Davis business in the downtown; huge raises and pension benefits, all championed by Steve Souza and Don Saylor; sucking grant money to pay staff positions for doing an unnecessary EIR for the changes to a few blocks of 5th St; the surface water project; the DACHA deal where staff and the City Attorney worked night and day to practically give away those low-income homes to some residents; the impasse mess and now a Labor Board ruling that makes our wonderul little city government look like a bunch of yo-yos who cannot shoot straight; and of course, the water debacle where those same city leaders are trying their best, guided every step of the way by water consultants who are being paid to tell the city to do the project, and of course, to use those same consultants to help design and build it, and certainly, to advise on its’ operation.
I am thinking we need an independent audit of how the last 15 years of water project money has been spent.
Our CC may be “California Dreaming,” but the rest of us are not. Time to throw some cold water on our elected leaders.
Mayor Joe: You were sand-bagged by the City Attorney at your first meeting, with the contractual errors in the ZipCar contract. It’s rapidly falling apart. You can show you are a leader by: asking for an independant attorney to review the City Attorney’s involvement with DACHA and her advice and handling of the labor negotiations that resulted in the $850K award against the city; repealing the surface water rate ordinance at the December 6th CC meeting; setting up a process to solve the questions concerning the supply of water (your Advisory Committee is only going to endorse the current project, given the biased appointments and only 3 members whom might question the project); and cutting the CIty budget so it is balanced in a long-term, sustainable way.
Mayor Joe and CC: You are looking at losing the Parks Tax in June. The CC and senior staff now lack credibility on a range of subjects. For example, why should any of us believe any of you on any subject concerning city finances, when we were definitely lied to concerning the water rates? Three of you are attorneys, and you know that once the court catches one side lying to the court, those parties and attorneys are doomed in any further legal matters before that judge.
Also, we were lied to back in 2004 when 5 CC members (me included) put that 1/2 cent sales trax increase on the ballot, it passed overwhelmingly, and instead of spending those funds on parks and programs that were listed in the staff reports, and the city informational brochures sent to the voters (oh yes, we have it all in a file, to be pulled out soon as campaign exhibits if needed), the Saylor-led CC majority promptly gave it all — every red cent — to unnecessary raises to the Fire Department staff.
All of these things tie in to this Vanguard article’s theme that the city is on the edge, and it is going to take the strong leadership of the Mayor and City Manager to save things before June.
BTW, to all city employees: I want to be very clear that I do not hold any of those high raises or pensions or benefits against any of you. It’s your union leaders’ jobs to ask, and it’s the CC and City Manager’s jobs to decide what the city can afford, and then reach a fair deal. If the unions got the better deals for their members, then Bless them, and shame on the CC for approving what may lead to a city bankruptcy next year or the year after.
[url]I want to be very clear that I do not hold any of those high raises or pensions or benefits against any of you. It’s your union leaders’ jobs to ask, [/url]
Right. Just like it’s the bank’s jobs to make mortgages.
Occupy the Unions.
[i]”The PERB hit, which will be $800,000 according to Mr. Rifkin’s estimate, only adds to the problem and worse yet, was entirely of the city’s own doing and avoidable.”[/i]
Yesterday evening, Paul Navazio told me, “We haven’t run the detailed calc for the DCEA restoration, but our estimate is closer to $500,000, not counting the interest (7%) penalty …”
Hopefully Paul’s number is closer to the actual debt than mine. I didn’t ask Paul how he arrived at his estimate. Here is how I arrived at mine.
The city’s staff report of May 25, 2010 stated that the reforms in the imposed contract, compared with the status quo of the old contract, would save the city $507,000 in one fiscal year: [quote] The provisions of the City’s “last, best, final” contract proposal would yield budgetary [b]all-funds savings of $507,000[/b] and General Fund savings of $203,000 in the current fiscal year. [/quote] If you divide $507,000 by 12, you get $42,250/month in savings. That is the “payment” amount. To calculate the principal owed, just multiply 18 x $42,250 = $760,500.
To figure the interest owed, you have to consider how long each payment has been earning interest. The first payment has been earning interest for 18 months. The second for 17 months. The third for 16 months and so on.
The interest rate for a month’s interest is 7% divided by 12 = 0.5833%.
When you run the interest and principal for each of the 18 payments, you get a total of $804,070. (If you assume that the interest is only earned at the end of each period, then you get a slightly lower total, $799,407.) Therefore, the interest is $804,070 – $$760,500 = $43,570.
What seems to be at issue is the original claim by staff that the savings from the new contract would be an “all-funds savings of $507,000” per year. Staff may have been exaggerating that number, by counting some things as “savings” in the new contract which were already provisions in the old contract.
[i]”I truly believe the impasse was an overcompensation for the fact that the city had not bargained hard enough with the first bargaining group, the firefighters. They got criticized for not going far enough and not cutting a tough enough deal.”[/i]
It should be pointed out that the so-called “hard-line” reforms imposed on DCEA were no different than the reforms mutually agreed to in the PASEA contract, the Management Contract or the Dept. Heads contract. It is false history to state that everything the City did not get out of Local 3494 it needed or wanted to get out of DCEA. The fact is it got PASEA and others (and later the police, sworn and non-sworn) to agree to changes that DCEA and by a unanimous vote its members rejected.
For whatever reason, the DCEA union leadership and the members of the DCEA responded differently than those other bargaining units did to the same requests of the City. To me, that says a lot more about the people in DCEA than it does about the City’s position.
That said, I have two sources telling me that at least one of the pro-fire union members of the council* had very harsh, negative things to say about the PERB leadership behind closed doors, and perhaps it was that attitude of disrespect which made agreement more difficult with DCEA.
*The pro-fire union member of the CC was obviously not Sue Greenwald, though she is the member of the council that [i]the DCEA attacked in its case with PERB[/i]. In response to the DCEA attack on Sue, PERB found she was correct in her position and actions. I should add that I have spoken with Sue about this, and she would not reveal or discuss with me anything which was said in closed session. She did agree that the PERB report was favorable to her and her actions in this matter.
Oops. I need to correct this: “… very harsh, negative things to say about [u]the PERB leadership[/u] behind closed doors.”
That should read, “… very harsh, negative things to say about [u]the DCEA leadership[/u] behind closed doors.”
[quote]Don Shor: David, there are technical and regulatory arguments compelling the surface project. The onus is on the opponents to address those.
DMG: That is the argument you and others have been making for some time that I don’t think opponents ascribe to. [/quote]
Nevertheless, those technical and regulatory arguments that compel the surface water project have to be dealt with. The new water regulations are not going away, and neither are the MANDATORY FINES… To pretend otherwise is foolish…
[quote]BTW, to all city employees: I want to be very clear that I do not hold any of those high raises or pensions or benefits against any of you.[/quote]
Michael, this is an exaggerated generalization. Not “all city employees” got high these things. Believe what you will but your opinion would benefit from taking a closer look.
[quote]Hopefully Paul’s number is closer to the actual debt than mine. I didn’t ask Paul how he arrived at his estimate. Here is how I arrived at mine. [/quote]
Rich,
No offense as I honestly don’t pose this to you as an attack; but you quite often present figures and calculations. So I’m genuinely curious to know if you have a background in accounting and/or finance.
“Nevertheless, those technical and regulatory arguments that compel the surface water project have to be dealt with. The new water regulations are not going away, and neither are the MANDATORY FINES… To pretend otherwise is foolish…”
We shall see. But the flip side is also true as to impacts and the fact that the voters can effectively block any rate increase if they are so inclined. Your seeming refusal to look at that side of the equation, leads to my skepticism.
All the following information is derived from either a Public Records Act request or from documents on file with the court.
The Council should investigate the City Attorney and City staff and look at how they lent $4 million in public funds to DACHA and what due diligence was used. It would appear from documentation that the City Attorney and City staff knew that there was no legal quorum for the DACHA board and DACHA membership to vote on borrowing $4 million loan of public funds.
In fact, City staff (Foster or Cochran) attended at least three official DACHA meetings where the topic on the agenda was (October 3, 2007 minutes), “Stephanie (President) discussed suspension of Bylaws Section 4.6 which states members cannot vote if they are behind payments. Suspension would allow everyone to vote.
Neither the City Attorney (Steiner) nor City staff (Cochran/Foster? Ayala-Garcia) informed the City Council of concerns they had about DACHA as a borrower. Neither did any of their staff report let the City Council know that the votes by the DACHA board and membership were conduced by ineligible legal bodies. Or that the loan documents for $4 million of public funds were signed by ineligible officers of DACHA.
The City Attorney had the next board of DACHA vote a second time to confirm the loan. Even though City staff were likely aware that the new board was also composed of ineligible members.
City staff and City Attorney have not shared with the Council or the public what went on at DACHA. It continues to be a debacle of the first order imposed by staff on the City Council. There is much that needs to be cleaned up.
David Thompson, President, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[i]”So I’m genuinely curious to know if you have a background in accounting and/or finance.”[/i]
Sort of.
When I was an undergraduate at UC Santa Barbara, one of my two majors was Economics (the other was Political Science). In econ, we had to take a full series in accounting.
But in my professional life, I was for some years a general partner in a real estate development* and management company in San Francisco. My work included raising investment capital (through limited partnerships) and getting construction loans (usually from banks) and getting long-term loans (usually from thrifts). I did a lot of other things in that company, but it was there that I really learned the world of finance and financial accounting.
That knowledge came in handy when I covered business development and investment in Mexico as a journalist. Though I was based out of Mexico City and Guadalajara, I also covered other topics and occassionally covered other Latin American countries.
*With my partners (one of whom was my cousin who started the company) we bought old, usually shuttered, run-down or bank-owned industrial buildings in the Bay Area. We then rehabbed them into small to medium sized light-industrial spaces or we converted them into live-work lofts. Our typical tenants were artists, craftsmen, cabinet shops, photographers, assemblers, importers, office users and other people who had trouble paying the rent.
One of my duties was to check on the progress of projects under construction and write reports for our bankers detailing that progress. As such, I had to visit our construction sites, meet with the supervisor of construction and debrief him, usually a couple times a week. But in late September of 1989, I left my company for a time to go back to graduate school at UC San Diego. The employee who assumed my duties visiting our job sites was a guy named Bruce Stephan, who drove a Mazda. About three weeks after I left, on October 17, 1989, Bruce and our property manager drove over to Oakland at 4 pm to measure the progress on a project which was nearly done. At 5 pm, driving back to San Francisco, the Loma Prieta earthquake struck. Bruce’s Mazda became famous, as the Bay Bridge collapsed underneath them, and his car dangled precariously over the Bay. He survived with nothing more than a few cuts and bruises. Janet, the property manager, was hospitalized with broken ribs and severe emotional trauma. … I never kept up with Bruce, who was a great guy and a good friend, but the last I heard about him he was working in New York at the World Trade Center ([url]http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/01/news/adna-dodging1[/url]). Yes, he was in WTC1 on September 11, 2001. His wife was in WTC2. They both made it out alive.
[quote]We shall see. But the flip side is also true as to impacts and the fact that the voters can effectively block any rate increase if they are so inclined. Your seeming refusal to look at that side of the equation, leads to my skepticism.[/quote]
You seem to refuse to look at the flip side of the equation if the voters do effectively block any rate increase – which is MANDATORY FINES. THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH IF THE VOTERS DECIDE TO VOTE AGAINST THE RATE INCREASES.
I would suggest that the DACHA cooperative model was fatally flawed from its inception, and a judge in the case just said as much…
[i]”Janet, the property manager, was hospitalized with broken ribs and severe emotional trauma. … “[/i]
My memory failed me. The lady’s name was Janice, not Janet. She was [s]a total shrew[/s] a competent property manager who went the extra mile to extract rents from our poor tenants.
Off topic, unnecessary, and rude. Do you want me to call you? Or can I just go ahead and remove this one, Rich?
David: [i]”…the flip side is also true as to impacts and the fact that the voters can effectively block any rate increase if they are so inclined.”[/i]
The question is whether you, personally, believe they [i]should[/i] do that.
“MANDATORY FINES. THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH IF THE VOTERS DECIDE TO VOTE AGAINST THE RATE INCREASES. “
That’s a possibility.
“The question is whether you, personally, believe they should do that. “
It’s not really relevant if I think they should do it.
Worst case scenario? Woodland and Dixon are already there.
[quote]The fact is it got PASEA and others (and later the police, sworn and non-sworn) to agree to changes that DCEA and by a unanimous vote its members rejected.
[/quote]Could it be, given the record in the PERB ruling, that DCEA was presented with the LFBO, and before they, by thylaws, ciuld not vote on it for 10 calaendar days, but the City declared impasse in 4? If you were willing to consider something, would you be inclined to vote “yes” if the other negotiating team said “no deal” before you could vote on the “deal”?
Moderater… can we please look seriously @ Mr. Thompson’s post where the subject is water and employee compensation, and he goes on about DACHA, etc. Maybe on topic, but I’m thinking NOT.
As I look at Mr. Thompson’s, Mr. Harrington’s posts, they tend to promte off-topic issues… please delete mine, after reading, because it is technically off topic.
oopss… accidental double-post…
Yes: DACHA is off-topic here, please.
thanks Don/moderator… I misplaced your “off-line” e-mail, where my comments would have been better placed… can you pass on your “off-line” e-mail address again?
donshor@gmail.com
thx.
Don and hpierce: I respectfully dont agree with you that DACHA is off topic. DACHA is the pin-up example of what is wrong with this city, and some of its senior staff. There is a common thread here: the City Attorney. The title of this article is “City on Edge of Precipice.” DACHA has cost the city millions, and there is no end in sight. David’s post went into more detail maybe than warranted, but it proves the point. DACHA involves the potential “theft” of significant amounts of public money. I consider the surface water plant as lacking justification, so I consider the $250 million of design, build and start up operations costs to Davis ratepayers as simple “theft by CC vote”. Again, where was our City Attorney on these rates? Doesnt she have a fiduciary obligation to the CC to point out that the rates were a bald-faced lie to get the apt owners and chamber people off the CC’s back for the crucial Sept 6 vote? And why didnt she point out that the ordinance does not conform to the motions that she stood by and let happen by her clients?
So Don and hpierce, DACHA is extremely important to anyone thinking about the city being near the precipice …
[i]”Off topic, unnecessary, and rude. Do you want me to call you? Or can I just go ahead and remove this one, Rich?”[/i]
I think my Loma Prieta story is very interesting to most people, and it was told in response to a question asked of me, how I came to know the world of finance. But since you at least had the kindness of asking me, go ahead and take it all down if that is what you want to do. And then take down this post, as it no longer would have any meaning.
[i]”Could it be, given the record in the PERB ruling, that DCEA was presented with the LFBO, and before they, by thylaws, ciuld not vote on it for 10 calaendar days, but the City declared impasse in 4?”[/i]
That does not explain why DCEA rejected the City’s offer, HP.
In 2009, DCEA met 16 times with the City. They rejected every single change in their deal that the City requested. During the same time frame–before LFBO came into play–the other bargaining groups agreed to those changes. Every single member of DCEA voted no on what the others accepted.
My belief is that the DCEA leadership–for whatever reason–has never believed what (in my opinion) is obviously true: that the City can no longer do business as usual; that we are in a short-term and a long-term crisis; and that without major changes this City is either going bankrupt or it will have to severely cut critical services.
If you read the PERB report, that DCEA point of view becomes evident, because they based their case on the fact that Davis is not in a fiscal emergency. No other bargaining units–including fire–seemed to think that.
I also think the DCEA members felt slighted by the City’s approach to them, which they seem to think was not respectful or was such that they thought the City did not hold them in high esteem as people. I have gotten a few emails from members of the DCEA in the last 12 months, and the one thing I sensed from those letters is they seem to have a chip on their shoulder as a result of this contract process. Given that they won the PERB ruling, I imagine they feel better now (though I have not heard from any of them recently).
On the Northcoast today drinking the water from the tap. Tastes great. too bad Davis is still to cheap to pay for decent water. A high tech world class university town with terrible water after a consistent 60 year history of being too cheap to pay for better quality water. So sad. I wonder what all you anti-water improvement people drink? Do you let your kids drink the selinium rich stuff from the tap or do you buy it from the coop using fossil fuels to get it home.
[quote]That’s a possibility. Though it is a worst case scenario.[/quote]
Worst case scenario? As Don pointed out, Dixon and Woodland are already being fined – and on the basis they are moving forward with coming into compliance. How sympathetic do you think the SWRCB is going to be when citizens just decide they don’t feel like paying for coming into compliance? Not only that, the fines are MANDATORY. I repeat – MANDATORY.
Elaine: The problem I see is that you are assuming there is only on consequence and only one solution. That mindset suggests to me that perhaps you are not the best person to be serving on an oversight committee that should be questioning all. I know that will get your blood boiling, but you are actually making my case for me. Please do not take that as a personal shot at you, I simply disagree with you here.
[quote]Elaine: The problem I see is that you are assuming there is only on consequence and only one solution. That mindset suggests to me that perhaps you are not the best person to be serving on an oversight committee that should be questioning all. I know that will get your blood boiling, but you are actually making my case for me. Please do not take that as a personal shot at you, I simply disagree with you here.[/quote]
Elaine: The problem I see is that you are assuming there is only on consequence and only one solution. That mindset suggests to me that perhaps you are not the best person to be serving on an oversight committee that should be questioning all. I know that will get your blood boiling, but you are actually making my case for me. Please do not take that as a personal shot at you, I simply disagree with you here.
I will respond to your points one by one:
1) You are INCORRECT in your assumption of my “mindset” on the surface water project. There will be many consequences whether we do the surface water project sooner or later (fines, subsidences, increases construction costs, costs of increased water rates to consumers, etc.) – ultimately it is a risk/benefit/cost analysis. The solutions may be varied. The problem is opponents of the surface water project have not come up with a single viable, less costly alternative solution to date. However, I like to keep an open mind. For instance, I am intrigues by the posited solution suggested by Matt Williams/Sue Greenwald, of delaying the wastewater treatment plant, providing there are no substantial and insurmountable hurdles to that potential resolution.
2) I accept that you do not agree with my appoinment to the advisory committee because you are in favor of stacking the committee with opponents to the surface water project. That would be in keeping with what appears to be your agenda in regard to this issue, which is to delay or kill the surface water project at whatever the cost to citizens, in order to ensure the passage of upcoming school parcel/city taxes.
3) I believe members of the advisory committee were chosen for their willingness to work together in a cooperative spirit to resolve the issue of the water rate increases which has now divided our city. I’m sorry that you have no confidence in my abilities, and hope to prove your negative opinions of my capabilities entirely wrong. 🙂
Oops…Don’t know why the quote was repeated in the body of my answer…
This comment from Greg Kuperberg was posted on the Davis Enterprise website. It makes an important point about solipsism in Davis politics that really speaks to why the community is so screwed up. Too bad he doesn’t post on the Vanguard anymore.[quote]These comments so far illustrate the solipsism behind the opposition to the water rate hike. People who aren’t on the city council or city staff (even if they used to be on the city council) can simply talk as if the Clean Water Act doesn’t exist, as if the State Water Resources Control Board doesn’t exist, as if the Porter-Cologne Act doesn’t exist. Of course the city council can’t ignore them, nor would voters in Davis want them to, even when some voters themselves ignore those same things.
So what would happen if the rate hike were rolled back? The city would still have to move forward with the surface water project, because the Clean Water Act would still be there. They would just have to come back again to the rate question later.
Meanwhile Davis can always tell itself that ratepayers are mostly broke, as if the rest of the state doesn’t exist. State regulators can see that Davis has the lowest foreclosure rate in the region and they won’t have any sympathy.[/quote]
[quote]State regulators can see that Davis has the lowest foreclosure rate in the region and they won’t have any sympathy.[/quote]
If there is documentation to back this up as fact then I think it says a lot. We also know there is a serious slump in the housing market. I would also be intersted to know what the mean property value in Davis is and how it compares to the rest of the state as well as the nation. It would also be interesting to see mean property value decrease in property value in Davis over the last 4 years and how it compares nationally and statewide.
Sorry for the redundancy. Ran out of coffee this morning.
For property values and foreclosure information, check http://www.trulia.com/
For as long as I’ve been checking it, the foreclosure rate in Davis has been way below Dixon, Woodland, Vacaville, and West Sacramento. The property value loss has also been considerably less.
If Covell Village had been built–I voted for it–Davis would surely have a much higher foreclosure rate today and all of our property values would have fallen further than they have.
We had the Measure X vote on November 8, 2005. That was perhaps the apex of the bubble. If by November 8, 2008, the owners of Covell Village had built 540 homes and put in a tremendous amount of infrastructure, almost everyone who had bought a CV home would be upside down. The values of all houses, due to that alone, would have plummeted.
Because Spring Lake in Woodland was passed, that is what happened in our neighbor to the north.
Bob Dunning wrote many times that a lot of the unspoken opposition to CV was the fear that so many new houses in Davis would, by raising the supply, reduce the cost of living here and thus diminish the equity existing homeowners had in their properties. In other words, Dunning accused many of those opposed to CV as being selfish.
But in hindsight, it seems clear to me that the 60% of Davis voters who opposed Measure X did our City a favor. Our property values, though down from the peak, have stabilized due to the lack of supply, not the strength of demand.
Budget and Water Crisis Leaves City on Edge of Precipice
“We are in crisis mode and the crisis is coming in multiple forms”.
“Water has dominated the radar since September 6, but there are other huge issues as well”.
”Last week’s Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) ruling is perhaps one of the biggest blows the city could have received. We have talked a great deal about this already this week, but this is not a small occurrence. It threatens to undermine the entire plan”.
When I posted my info on DACHA and the role of the City Attorney I was remiss in not pointing out why it was connected to the title of the article (as above)and numerous elements within the article. I apologise for presuming that others would see the same connection. Sorry for that.
The “crisis is coming in multiple forms” and DACHA is one of them. “There are other huge issues as well” and like the PERB ruling, the advice of the City Attorney to the City Council and the advice given to City staff show up as needing an investigation.
The City Council has so far relied upon the City Attorney re DACHA. Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation is pointing out occurrences which seriously question that advice.
The City Attorney likely prepared the City’s response to the Grand Jury about DACHA which stated; ”Settlement negotiations have begun”. The City Attorney then had the Council adopt the document, the Mayor sign it and send to the Grand Jury.
Yet at the time the evidence shows the City was not in “settlement discussions”. On June 10,(Steiner) had told Yolo County Superior Court that the City did not wish to engage in “settlement discussions” and Steiner had arrived at the court without her client. What Mayor Krovoza signed and sent to the Grand Jury on behalf of the Council was incorrect.
Does this not ring with some similarities to the role of the City Attorney in the PERB process?
Next Tuesday’s Council Agenda show another law firm (besides Steiner’s) being brought in to play a role in the PERB problem. Perhaps wiser heads are finally prevailing? Our City certainly needs it.
David Thompson, President
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
My comments to City Council on July 19.
Lastly, in the three minutes I am allowed, we do not think that the following statement to the Grand was true. The staff written response on June 28th states, “Settlement negotiations have begun.”
However, this City Council knows that at that time that statement was not correct.
Through the City Attorney, the City Council had made it plain that you were not willing to participate in settlement discussions. TPCF and its lawyer went to the Superior Court on June 10th fully prepared to enter into settlement discussions. I told Judge O’Mara that I and our attorney were there to participate in settlement discussions and the City was not there. How the City Council could approve a letter on June 28 to the Yolo County Grand Jury saying that settlement discussions had begun eludes reality.
Pardon me, I should have used “negotiations: rather than “discussions” in this specific paragraph.
Yet at the time the evidence shows the City was not in “settlement discussions”. On June 10,(Steiner) had told Yolo County Superior Court that the City did not wish to engage in “settlement discussions” and Steiner had arrived at the court without her client. What Mayor Krovoza signed and sent to the Grand Jury on behalf of the Council was incorrect.
David Thompson Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
I just have to answer what I consider to be some overstatements posted above which concern the surface water project.
First, our water is safe and meets all health standards. The selenium is an issue for wastewater, not drinking water. We are currently in compliance with selenium effluent levels and we will not be far from compliance after the new wastewater treatment plant is built. It is quite possible that our current plants to divert some higher selenium wells for irrigation (and hence use a higher percentage of our deepest wells with their undetectable levels of salinity for water which goes down the drain), plus our plans current plans to replace a few intermediate wells with deeper ones, will create sufficient dilution to meet standards in the future.
Also, there is currently a salinity variance process that is being formulated. This has been confirmed by our own water attorney.
Thirdly, Porter Cologne states that socio-economic factors CAN be taken into consideration when determining compliance measures. We do NOT necessarily have to prove that we are poorer than other cities to have a case. In fact, our per-capita new water-related expenditures are probably among the highest in the state. The grants that used to be available no longer are, and economic conditions have changed. We have demonstrated progress in all areas of compliance.
I find these discussions frustrating. It is one thing to say that you think that the city can afford $300 million worth of new water-related expenditures if that is your assessment. But there is no reason to say that they city has absolutely exhausted all remedies when it comes to negotiating with the regional board, because this isn’t true.
We do not have the infrastructure to divert high-selenium wells for irrigation rather than potable water, as far as I know.
You have not addressed the problem of the sheer magnitude of pumping increase on the deep aquifer that you are proposing. To wit, “replace a few intermediate wells with deeper ones” doesn’t describe what you are suggesting the city of Davis do.
57% of our water comes from wells that are high in selenium.
Increase to deep aquifer pumping: 3x, 4x, 5x or more.
Finally, ten or so of our wells are 30+ years old.
To all working to stall or kill the surface water project: your challenge and problem is the lack of any viable competing alternative. You are asking us to just trust in fate that a less costly solution will materialize. You have no experts in your camp; only politicians, political agitators and supporters willing to throw the dice in a can and kick it down the road.
This debate is interesting in that it cuts through ideological lines. I really think most of us share the same goal of compliance and capacity at the lowest possible cost. So get to work and put together your expert-vetted comprehensive proposal for a viable alternative to the surface water project. I will be the first to support it if it makes sense. Otherwise stop blocking what is necessary.
Hope this is not considered off topic, but it seemed the best place to put it.
(It is about water, which has a huige effect on taxpayer budget and city discal issues, so I call it relevant for this article.)
The results of the petition drive to qualify the referendum might be announced this coming week, maybe as soon as Monday. I will keep everyone posted.
The County Elections Office received the boxes the same day we turned them in (10/24), and have been working hard on them ever since. I know that they did suffer some delays due to emergency counting requirements from the Secretary of State as to some statewide initiatives, and elections staff are also dealing with re-configuring some districts due to map changes required by law. I can attest that it is never a dull day in the offices of Freddie Oakley!
[quote]Rifkin: Bruce’s Mazda became famous, as the Bay Bridge collapsed underneath them, and his car dangled precariously over the Bay. He survived with nothing more than a few cuts and bruises…Yes, he was in WTC1 on September 11, 2001. His wife was in WTC2. They both made it out alive. [/quote]
Bruce is one lucky dude. We could all use some of that.
This is nothing to do with politics, progressives v. conservatives, one group fighting with another.
I am truly afraid for this city as to fiscal issues.
I have lived here since 1979 (with a break for law school in Washington, DC), and I can tell you there is a mindset in the city that everything can and must be done with the very highest standards, and that the voters will always pay for everything the CC wants to spend.
Since about 2007, the fiscal situation in the City and its households has been rapidly deteriorating. Unfortunately, the CC and senior staff do not see it, and are still trying to spend money like it will never end. There just is not a mindset at City Hall that every dime matters now.
An example is the $49/year parcel taxs passed in 2001 to fund Open Space. If it were put on the ballot tomorrow, it would go down 90/10. The voters felt like they had an extra dollar, and they approved the tax.
As part of the water referendum, we knocked on many doors, and met voters at the markets. We are the most current as to the city mood of any group in town.
I can tell you that the mindset and available money has completely changed from as late as 2004 (the sales tax increment vote). People no longer have 2nds on their homes; they dont have money like they used to for assisting their kids in college; vacation homes are a thing of the past; remodel jobs have mostly vanaished; new contruction is near zero; and foreclosure activity is everywhere, in all neighborhoods.
But there has been a fundamental mindset shift over the past 2 years. My grandmother and mother lived through the great depression; so did Ernie Head.
The midset from those days is dont spend it unless you have it in the bank.
We are now mostly back to those days. All of you probably know that the US savings rate is way up, and that is one reason why the economy won’t restart. Consumers are saving, and spending less.
I dont know at this moment if the referendum is going to qualify, but if it does, the voters are going to vote to repeal the rates. Once you lie to people, they will discount everything else you have to say. The City’s own rate plan and how it was handled is going to doom this version of the project. I have other issues with the project, but the rates alone will give us the victory.
Now, if this was 2004, we would have a lot harder time winning, because people had the extra money to take a chance and throw it into the pot. Not anymore.
This mindset will probably cause a failure of the parks parcel tax renewal.
From my experience in town, I can say for sure that if those water rates are not repealed, or at least held in abeyance until June 2012, the school parcel tax renewals would fail. There is no doubt in my mind. So the water referendum is critical to saving the schools.
The CC simply has to re-set itself to the idea that the voters simply are not going to allow the CC to continue its “tax and spend binges” that have been standard operating procedure for decades. It is a new era.
Jeff: you asked for alternatives.
I am thinking about running my own initiative that will:
1. Require 100% city of davis owned water supply project, and for the city to pull out of the JPA.
2. Require the city to fund an independent study of the city’s well water supply system.
3. Roll back the water rates, pending completion of the independent study.
Ernie’s initiative now being circulated should have more issues in it over and above just the rates.
Jeff, surely you would support this proposal as being cost effective and prudent?
Why an independent study? Because the same water consultants and staff members who designed and conducted and wrote up the prior studies and the surface water plant studies, make huge amounts of money if the conclusion is BUILD THAT SURFACE WATER PROJECT.
You agree that there has been a 15 year built in conflict of interest?
I am not sure yet how to ensure that the new study is independent, but one way to start is to forbid any previous consultant or staff member from working on it, and ensure that there is an independent resident panel that runs the study. The CC would have to vote the funding, then step back and wait for the final report, with no hanky-panky by anyone with Yost Engineering or the City. Usually staff get drafts of consultant reports, and they can, and do, change the outcomes to fit the expected or desired result.
Given the blatant lies concerning the rate structures, anyone associated with those rates or the current surface water project should be excluded from medling with the independent study or its experts.
“Require the city to fund an independent study of the city’s well water supply system.”
What is it you want to know about the city’s well water supply system?
Given the way David has responded to the advisory panel, and the way you have disparaged every expert who has weighed in on this topic, I would say that there is zero chance that an independent panel could be put together that you and he would find acceptable.
[quote]We do not have the infrastructure to divert high-selenium wells for irrigation rather than potable water, as far as I know. — [b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Paul Navazio told me that we are in the process of diverting some high-selenium intermediate wells to city park irrigation. Since 80% of our water goes to irrigation and only 20% down the drain and since our intermediate wells have very high selenium counts and our deepest wells have non-detectable amounts of selenium, clearly we could achieve significant wastewater selenium reduction with this replumbing effort. After talking to staff recently, it is clear that our selenium levels will not be that far out of compliance to begin with, as I have explained in previous discussions.
I just don’t know why you feel compelled to argue some of these points. You can support the surface water project without needing to prove that every aspect of any alternative is impossible.
Total wells: 20
Older than 30 years9
High selenium12
Percentage of water that comes from high selenium wells: 57%
That’s why.
You are proposing that the City of Davis go to the deep aquifer at a level that will increase our pumping from that aquifer very, very substantially.
You haven’t proven that your alternative is even remotely workable. It is based on many assumptions that you can’t support, in particular about the long-term stability of the deep aquifer with a many-fold increase in pumping. Please don’t quote Dr. Fogg at me again on this topic, as he has never said anything that supports a massive increase in pumping from the deep wells. Please don’t tell me again that it is “only a few” wells. By any measure, you are proposing a significant shift to the deep aquifer.
Look at the EIR for the UCD water project. Look at the EIR for the city deep wells. We will be monitoring those wells carefully and there are built-in triggers based on the current usage of that aquifer.
My impression was that Paul was the finance guy for the city, not the water expert. No discredit to him, but I’m surprised to see you quoting him on this issue.
UC Davis currently pumps 2300 acre-feet per year from the deep aquifer. The proposal for Solano Water involved increasing their pumping up to 5300 acre-feet per year for ten years, with some sale back to the City of Davis as they switch to Solano water for potable use (690 acre-feet per year would be sold to the city until the Sac River project comes on line).
Because of the possible impact on the deep aquifer, identified in the EIRs done for the LRDP (plan) for the campus in 2003, the surface water from Solano was brought in to mitigate potential harm to the aquifer from this increased pumping.
City of Davis total pumping as of 2010 is 15531 acre-feet per year from 20 wells.
Due to age and quality issues, over the next decade or so about a dozen will need to be replaced, and the intent is to go to the deep aquifer. Just rounding, that means about half of the city water will go from intermediate to deep aquifer.
That is just under 8000 acre-feet per year the City would be pumping from the deep aquifer.
It is known that wells dug by the city into that aquifer will cause a drop in the water level in UC Davis wells.
It is almost a certainty that doubling or tripling the pumping from that aquifer would have adverse impacts.
How do you propose that the City of Davis mitigate the potential impact of this additional pumping on the deep aquifer in the absence of a surface supply of water?
If the deep aquifer option (which would certainly need an EIR and mitigation plan) is not feasible, then the City of Davis will continue pumping saltier water from the intermediate aquifer. The known rate of subsidence from the combined Davis and Woodland pumping ranges around an inch per year. You can’t mitigate subsidence once it occurs.
I urge you to pursue the option of delay of the wastewater facility. Delaying the surface water project carries unacceptable risks.
[quote]You are proposing that the City of Davis go to the deep aquifer at a level that will increase our pumping from that aquifer very, very substantially.—[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, it appears that you are just not reading what I am writing. I am saying that we probably would not have to go into the deep aquifer significantly more than already planned, because we are not very far off our ultimate selenium limits and because we will get quite a bit of dilution from projects already planned, such as repiping some wells for irrigation and already planned replacement of some shallow wells. I have explained this in great detail in previous blogs, and you are not even acknowledging the points I have made, accept to say that you aren’t aware of the replumbing plans that I have told you about.
Don, postponing the wastewater plant would be preferable, but in my opinion we have to explore all avenues and then try to negotiate with the WRCB.
[i] I am saying that we probably would not have to go into the deep aquifer significantly more than already planned,[/i]
I am saying there is no way that can be true.
You are proposing that we delay the water project 20 to 25 years.
9 of our wells are older than 30 years.
Even without the selenium issue, which I believe you are being far too blasé about, the number of wells that will have to be replaced will be somewhere around half of the total Davis water supply.
And your plan would force UC Davis to increase their pumping from the deep aquifer as well.
The total increase in pumping from the deep aquifer, City and UCD combined, is significant.
We have a Faustian bargain: continue using shallow wells (subsidence) or go to the deep aquifer with the attendant risks there.
As noted by others, the decaying infrastructure of our water system is one issue. Salinity, selenium, and subsidence are the others. The biggest problem with your proposal is that many of the variables are out of our control.
Tightening water standards for salinity and selenium.
Loss of wells due to subsidence making repair impossible.
Sudden contamination of the deep aquifer.
Drop of water levels in UCD wells due to City of Davis wells.
Any one of those things could lead to sudden loss of water supply.
The surface water project carries none of those risks. It solves all of those problems. And we’re going to have to pay for it anyway eventually, as you have agreed.
Here is the total amount of water that the City of Davis is planning to shift from potable to irrigation purposes:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/watershiftirrigation.png[/img]
“I accept that you do not agree with my appoinment to the advisory committee because you are in favor of stacking the committee with opponents to the surface water project. “
What I would have preferred would have been a mix of people – relatively balanced – with some supporting, some opposing, and some neutral. That would have pressed city staff. I think too many people have bought into the official line and are not going to press on critical questions. I think we have a lot more room – and that is after talking to staff and consultants, than has been suggested publicly.
[quote]The “crisis is coming in multiple forms” and DACHA is one of them. “There are other huge issues as well” and like the PERB ruling, the advice of the City Attorney to the City Council and the advice given to City staff show up as needing an investigation. [/quote]
I would say an investigation needs to be launched into how the DACHA model was marketed to low income minorities who speak English as a second language by the consultants hired for this project…
The handling of the PERB and water issues is eating away at people’s faith in City government. DACHA is just one example of the problem.
Due to “forgetting” The City Attorney and City staff lost the opportunity for the City to share in $11 million dollars of economic gain in Wildhorse. In her report to the City Council the City Attorney admitted the following excerpted elements:
“To some extent, definitive answers are difficult because we have been unable to determine why certain actions were not implemented”.
“With respect to the recapture note, we can find no record in either the City files or in our files that this note was drafted or implemented”.
“It is possible that the “recapture note” was put on hold or, more likely, was delayed and then forgotten…”
“However, as stated above, neither city files nor my files show any action on this matter after the Council action in 1995”.
Elaine Roberts Musser has never commented on the lack of due diligence ($11 million lost at Wildhorse) or critiqued the due diligence done by the City Attorney and City staff, relative to DACHA. She has no problem with the fact that the City Attorney and City staff did not tell the City Council that they were recommending that an ineligible board and ineligible membership should be allowed to borrow $4 million in public funds. A board and membership composed mostly of delinquent members who are today still delinquent.
If Ms. Musser wishes to sweep under the carpet what the City Attorney and City staff have done at DACHA while at the same time wanting us to believe her on water then our City is really in trouble.
David Thompson, President, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation.
Notice my comments about the defectiveness of the DACHA model are being ignored; the way in which it was questionably marketed, both crucial issues of how this entire mess got started…