Whatever name and scope the council eventually chooses for the utility committee, the question is what value will be gleaned from such a committee? The committee is somewhat loosely styled after what was created in Dixon, following their contentious water battle.
At the time, though, Dixon gave the Solano County Taxpayers Association a seat at their table. For the most part, the Davis City Council chose safer picks, closer to their own preferences on water.
Stephen Souza appointed Elaine Roberts Musser and Michael Bartolic.
Rochelle Swanson appointed Gerald Adler and Dobie Fleeman.
Dan Wolk appointed Alf Brandt and Helen Thomson, in the least-kept secret in Davis.
Sue Greenwald appointed Mark Siegler and Bill Kopper.
Joe Krovoza appointed Frank Lohse and Steve Boschen.
All of these are good people, and this is not meant to disparage any of them, but other than Stephen Souza who appointed Michael Bartolic, it’s not clear that any of the appointees diverge in position from the people who appointed them.
Mr. Bartolic actually volunteered his time to put the water referendum on the ballot at the same time that Stephen Souza was fighting against the water referendum.
Mr. Bartolic, in a letter to the Enterprise, argued: “The City Council disregarded public opinion and the circumstances of its residents, letting a couple of members of the council effectively game the system to impose on us $300 million of debt over the next 30 years for a project of unproven need, on a scale of unprecedented size, fraught with huge and ambiguous impacts.”
The city faces a huge credibility gap right now.
Columnist Bob Dunning has accused the city of hiding the ball on the true nature of the rate hikes.
Just yesterday he wrote: “The City of Davis has dug in its heels on the severity of our water rate increases and tried to convince us with smoke and mirrors that more than doubling or even tripling our rates is actually just a 14 percent annual increase over five years.”
The city clearly knew about the conservation assumption, and put it in the staff report.
Also buried in the middle of the September 2 Op-Ed by Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza was this line: “The city’s estimate above for an average single-family bill assumes 20 percent conservation over today’s typical use level. Thus, monthly impacts on each ratepayer will vary depending on their current water use and their level of conservation.”
But, as Bob Dunning pointed out, “Rather than argue about what was or wasn’t said at forums or whispered in the grocery store or written in unofficial spin-filled op-eds that may have been read by 5 percent of the population at best, much better to go to the official source for city of Davis facts and figures, the city’s own taxpayer-supported website.”
Going there he found out, “Unfortunately for the mayor and his colleagues and all those city staffers parroting the party line, what I learned does not support the contention that the city has been straight with us about the 20 percent conservation element it claims is baked into the new rates.”
He quoted the page saying: “The Davis City Council approved maximum water rate increases of 14 percent each year, for five years, for the typical single-family residential customer.”
“Note that unmitigated word ‘maximum,’ ” he noted.
Bottom line, Mr. Dunning reported: “Nowhere under ‘Utility Rate Increases’ does the city even hint about 20 percent conservation being assumed in order to achieve that fictional 14 percent figure. It’s simply not mentioned.”
To add to the mounting evidence of confusion and uncertainty, even by those making the decisions, we have shown that at least one councilmember himself was confused about the rate hikes.
Councilmember Wolk told Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning: “The motion I voted for calls for maximum rate increases of 14 percent per year. Your math (which looks right to me) shows that is not necessarily the case for some.”
As Mr. Dunning pointed out, this would have been the perfect time for him to say “Oh, Bob, that presumed 20 percent conservation.”
This is a huge problem the city faces, if they in fact face a referendum and potentially a very poorly-written and ill-conceived initiative, that we doubt will pass legal muster.
The best way to restore credibility is to appoint people to a citizen’s oversight panel who disagree with the city’s position on water and will use everything in their power to find way to save the residents money.
There is a reason why you see a Democratic President embroiled in controversy appointing a Republican to do the investigative work, because if they get exonerated, at least they can make the credible claim that it was an investigation on the up and up.
I will give Stephen Souza a lot of credit here for naming Mr. Bartolic, a man of credibility anyway, to this panel. Again, the list of nominees are a long list of very worthy people. I have nothing but respect for the work they have done in this community, but most of them fail the Dixon test.
Dixon put the Taxpayers Association on their board, knowing that no stone would go unturned. There were a lot of equally worthy appointees that were not put on the board, and I think this committee will not be able to have the ability to inoculate the council from criticism.
The referendum will go forward and the city is going to have to convince a majority of the public that they are being honest in their claims that we need to do this project, and that we need to do this project right now at this particular cost.
This was an opportunity to at least blunt the referendum and show the public that they are serious about bridging the gap that currently divides the public on this issue. Unfortunately, I believe that opportunity has been lost.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Folks in Carmichael are going through similar water rate hike pains: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/02/4023713/carmichael-water-customers-face.html#storylink=omni_popular
Eastdavis,
Conserve and in the end we’ll have to pay even higher rates. That’s what we’ve been saying here.
No rusty, that isn’t what has been said. The rate structure as promulgated puts the residents into the position of “either conserve or you will pay even higher rates.”
David, if the City websites says what you have cited above, then that is a major blunder on the City’s part. I will go to the City website now, and look for that statement.
All, here’s what I found. If you click on the [i]Water Issues[/i] link in the center [i]Current Topics[/i] tab of the main City web page, and then click on the [i]Rate Information[/i] link, you get to [url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/prop218/services.cfm[/url]. Once there the text reads:
[b][i]Water Rate Ordinance as Adopted September 6, 2011[/i][/b]
[i]The Davis City Council approved water rate increases that will increase our revenue by 14% each year, for five years, from the typical single family customer. Individual bills will vary depending on actual water use. Bills for non-residential customers will increase by different percentages based on their water use and consumption unit rates. The need to increase revenue an additional 14% is expected in Year 6 (under a new Prop. 218 process) to cover the expected capital and operational costs of the utility infrastructure improvements. [/i]
The City needed to raise revenue by at least 14%. It assumed that people would conserve around 20%. It is that simple.
Read the article about Carmichael. This is exactly what happened there. The City needed to raise rates and did so. Consumers then conserved on average 23%, which then did not produce the revenue for the City. So now it is proposing to raise rates 18% to solve this. Is this what you believe should happen here in Davis?
Who would you want appointed to the committee? Mike Harrington, who bases his contributions on who he has talked to recently and has a history of walking out of meetings when it doesn’t go his way? Who? It looks like all sides were represented. It sounds like Steve Souza is owed an apology here.
One interesting piece of information that it would be interesting to chase down would be 1) the average CCF used in the different water districts from San Jose up to Sacramento/Roseville, and 2) what the average household size is in those districts, and 3) the water transpiration index in those communities. Don Shor can help us with the last item once we have the first two. Water transpiration information will help identify if there are any “apples and oranges” issues in irrigation water consumption.
If we have those three pieces of information, we should be able to see the effect of water conservation in water districts comparable to Davis.
[quote]Dixon put the Taxpayers Association on their board, knowing that no stone would go unturned. There were a lot of equally worthy appointees that were not put on the board, and I think this committee will not be able to have the ability to inoculate the council from criticism.[/quote]
I very much doubt the mission of this advisory commission is to “inoculate the council from criticism”. I consider it my duty – the Vanguard’s comments notwithstanding that members of the advisory committee are nothing but mouthpieces of those who appointed them – to seriously listen to opponents’ concerns, research the issues, keep an open mind on all possible solutions, and advise the City Council accordingly, even if the advice is not what the City Council may want to hear.
There are a cadre of good/knowledgeable people who have various concerns about this project that I plan to consult, and I welcome any and all views that are well thought out/researched. Please feel free to call me at any time, and voice your concerns – I need to hear them.
On another note, the city of Woodland has a 25 member advisory committee that just grew out of citizen concern. They were not appointed by City Council members. On the other hand, our city has chosen to appoint members through our City Council. Obviously there is more than one way to approach an issue. Neither way is right or wrong, just a different method. However, my sincerest hope is that all of the meetings of the advisory group are noticed and open to the public. If this is the case, I would strongly encourage anyone concerned about this project to attend these meetings.
[b]Matt[/b], why did you waste six minutes of your life to research something that’s already been published by Dunning & Greenwald without the benefit of basic research or fair evaluation. Then, you’ve gone and made it look as though D&G are just full of bs in continuing to claim deception when the real problem appears to be their own lack of due diligence in reading and reporting.[quote][i]”The city clearly knew about the conservation assumption, and put it in the staff report.” [/i][/quote]And, everywhere else anyone would care to take six minutes to read. But, don’t forget David’s warning about arguing with people who buy ink by the barrel and space by the url.[quote][i]”…this is not meant to disparage any of them…but most of them fail the Dixon test….Unfortunately, I believe that opportunity (to ‘show the public that they are serious about bridging the gap that currently divides the public on this issue’) has been lost.”[/i][/quote]Questions for David: Who said our unnamed committee was intended to be “styled after what was created in Dixon” and what in their experience would justify our following their lead?
Why do you list 15 “good people,” then proceed to disparage them by stating–without the slightest evidence–that they cannot do the job? Extra-noticeably absent from your report today is any hint about what you feel should have happened here.
I know you sometimes say it’s not your job to come up with solutions, but what do you think the five should have done with their appointment opportunities? It certainly ought to be your job to include enough information to help us understand why our council members and their appointees “fail the Dixon test” when you haven’t even described how anyone could pass the test.[quote][i]”Dixon put the Taxpayers Association on their board, knowing that no stone would go unturned. There were a lot of equally worthy appointees that were not put on the board, and I think this committee will not be able to have the ability to inoculate the council from criticism.”[/i][/quote]Do you mean [u]every[/u] Davis appointee should be should fit the troublemaker profile rather than just the one example? (Other than the taxpayer association’s, how many of the Dixon seats are filled by contrarians?)
Do you really think Sue’s appointees won’t be turning over stones? Should Sue really have met your standard and appointed people who “diverge in position from (her)”? Did you consider that would have decreased Mr. Bartolic’s ability to do what you want him to do on this group. Sue also should be getting praise for selecting “good people.” I just hope that one of them is her Secret Source![quote]”Dixon gave the Solano County Taxpayers Association a seat at their table….”[/quote]I’ve an uneasy feeling that what you’re [u]really[/u] getting at is a desire that Michael Harrington and his group should have some seats on this committee. After seeing how they and you handled “facts” this past two months, I appreciate that it would have taken a lot of courage to overtly lobby for them. But, I’m thinking the real point of the Dixon example is to promote that now-lost cause.
[i] The committee is somewhat loosely styled after what was created in Dixon, following their contentious water battle.[/i]
Actually, Dixon voters rejected the [i]sewer[/i] rate increases.
[b]@JustSaying:[/b]
I have no “secret sources”. I have talked to regulators at the state and regional board, to University hydrologists and to citizens who are professionals in field in private industry. Rich Rifkin talked with some of the same people that I talked with and confirmed what I reported out. He quoted individuals by name. I am in a different position and I want people to feel free to talk with me without fear of being dragged into a political controversy, so I don’t usually quote them by name.
I am hoping that my appointees will do their own research the way I have done and draw their own conclusions.
I appointed Mark Siegler because he is chair of the economics department at Sac State and he will able to contribute to the group by going over the rates and how they are calculated, etc.
I was sort of joking, Sue, as well as suggesting that David was just plain wrong to be critical of the all the appointees you and the other council members selected (excepting the one he noted). The case that you five would have done better to pick a pair of folks who David would have known thought along different lines than you do seemed to be an odd concept for him to be promoting. I’m confident the two selections you’ve made will provide a worthy mix, along with the appointments your collegues have made.
You already have my thoughts about how ridiculous it appears for you to keep confidential from your fellow council members and constituents the name(s) of public officials who secretly give you criticisms and contradictory remarks about other responsible officials’ public statements. What possible credibility can you claim when you discredit someone by passing along information from a supposed departmental superior who lacks the courage to make the comments on the record.
It seems as though you should not rely on such sources to enlighten yourself on important public policy matters. I don’t agree that you are in the same situation as reporters who won’t be able to handle their responsibilities without confidential informants who demand anonymity. As an elected public official, you have access to information sources that don’t need to be coddled this way. Politicians who demand secrecy for their views because they don’t want to be “dragged into political controversy” are essentially unaccountable; their opinions, therefore, should be considered suspect.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]
“I appointed Mark Siegler because he is chair of the economics department at Sac State and he will able to contribute to the group by going over the rates and how they are calculated, etc.”[/i]
My experience observing Mark on the HESC, as well as engaging him on both sides of issue discussions (in agreement and in opposition), tells me that Mark will be an absolutely superb addition to the committee. I am ecstatic that Sue nominated him.
[b]@JustSaying:[/b]
Everything that I have reported can be checked out. How do I “prove” that there is a salinity variance program that is being set up? It’s just a fact. Call anyone. How can I “prove” that no city has had its water rights permit revoked? It is a fact. Any number of people have said it. Rich Rifkin gave you one of the names. How do I prove that Porter-Cologne says that socio-economic effects of compliance can be taken into account? Read Porter-Cologne. How can I prove that our selenium levels going into the wastewater treatment plant are greater than the weighted average of the selenium in our well water? Call the city.
Where do our JPA members get their information that our cumulative water/sewer garbage rates will be no higher than average for the region when we are paying for our projects? Why aren’t you asking them them to site sources?
[i]How can I prove that our selenium levels going into the wastewater treatment plant are greater than the weighted average of the selenium in our well water?[/i]
Please explain this.
I tried to explain this during our previous discussions, Don. I was told by city staff that the selenium in the waste stream as it enters the treatment plant is lower than the selenium measured in the well water, and that the selenium after the overland flow treatment is much lower than the that in the flow going in. Apparently something happens during the treatment that sequesters the selenium or something like that.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
“I tried to explain this during our previous discussions, Don. [b]I was told by city staff that the selenium in the waste stream as it enters the treatment plant is lower than the selenium measured in the well water, and that the selenium after the overland flow treatment is much lower than the that in the flow going in.[/b] Apparently something happens during the treatment that sequesters the selenium or something like that.”
Sue, what happens in the treatment that sequesters the selenium is very straightforward. Staff has told you and me and anyone who is willing to ask, that [i]”the Overland Flow portion of the WWTP currently reduces selenium concentrations, however, the overland flow process presents significant challenges in meeting future discharge requirements not related to selenium. Facilities to treat the effluent from the overland flow process would have to be extensive in order to meet new requirements for TSS and turbidity. These extensive facility improvements would be for one constituent and have little or no other benefit. Future new requirements would possibly necessitate additional improvements beyond what is done now if the overland flow process is kept in service.”[/i]
Further, you can go to page 6 of the city’s wastewater permit fact sheet, where Staff states, [i]”The Discharger has projected that a new tertiary treatment system could be completed as early as 2015 or as late as the end of 2018 for facilities to provide a tertiary (or equivalent) level of treatment and year-round nitrification/denitrification. The Discharger anticipates the new treatment system would be able to comply with priority pollutant water quality standards for all constituents except selenium. Removal of the overland flow system as part of the upgrade to tertiary would improve the effluent quality for most constituents, but would likely cause an increase in effluent selenium. Achieving compliance with the CTR effluent selenium limitations would most likely require a change in the City’s water supply.”[/i]
You are being disingenuous when you say, [i]”Apparently something happens during the treatment that sequesters the selenium or something like that.”[/i] because you know [u]exactly[/u] what that “something like that” is.
Regarding your statement, [i]”I was told by city staff that the selenium in the waste stream as it enters the treatment plant is lower than the selenium measured in the well water,”[/i] it is hard to imagine statistically how Staff could even calculate that, since there are 23 different and unique selenium values at each well site and only one selenium value at the treatment plant intake. Just how do you think the statistics of that 23-to-1 relationship work?
Sue
How do you prove something that you are asserting as fact through unattributed sources? Because it is just a fact? Give me a break!
You were asked repeatedly to present evidence on there being a salinity variance. You never did so. Rather you spoke, and continue to speak, as though such a variance exists. In the mean time, Elaine pulled a Board resolution on variance procedures and started a debate about how it might apply to the city. You laid claim that this was the variance you were talking about. Turns out you were wrong. That wasn’t it. It took Don Shor posting a link to a Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [i]proposal[/i] for instituting a variance policy. It’s a proposal because no such variance policy exists!
So, no, it is not a fact. And you could have proved the existence of a proposal for a salinity variance policy that is the central focus of your alternative plan B by simply posting the link that Don Shor did. You chose not to, and instead misled everyone. Did you do that on purpose, or is it telling of just how reliable your communications are with anonymous sources?
Tell me again why I should trust you? Because you only get half the story right?
The overland flow system will be removed from the future wastewater treatment plant. This will increase the amount of selenium in the effluent. The only plan in the works for meeting selenium standards is a changed source of municipal water – river or deep aquifer.
The deep aquifer is problematic on so many levels that it makes no sense to consider it above surface water. And Matt has shown us that drilling more deep aquifer wells is not “budget dust” in comparison to the surface water project.
[quote]Overland flow is essentially a biological treatment process in which wastewater is applied over the upper reaches of sloped terraces and allowed to flow across the vegetated surface to run off collection ditches. Actual treatment of the wastewater is accomplished by tiny organisms and plant life in and on the surface mat of the overland flow terraces. The process consists of the pond effluent being pumped to 15 overland flow zones via two 60-horsepower Peerless mixed flow pumps. These pumps are designed to pump 4,400 G.P.M. Each of the 15 zones has two terraces. Wastewater is evenly distributed over each terrace using spray heads. Each terrace is 150 feet wide with a two percent slope from top to bottom. The hydraulic loading rate is 37,000 gallons per acre per day over the 170-acre field of 15 zones.[/quote]Overland flow biologically sequesters selenium but increases turbidity and total suspended solids.
The hypothetical $100M savings from the Schroeder and Tchobanoglous proposal assumes, in part, that we switch to surface water and eliminate the need to treat the effluent form the overland flow system to reduce turbidity and total suspended solids.
It’s hard to imagine how one can claim credit for the savings without embracing the actual plan.
Selenium is a problem.
Going to the surface water project solves it. Postponing the wastewater upgrade solves it, though it does require a variance for other things.
Postponing the surface water project and proceeding with the wastewater project doesn’t solve the selenium problem. So there is no point in applying for a salinity variance.
The variance we need to pursue, if it is available, has to do with the things the wastewater project is supposed to deal with (coliform, something else; I could look it up).
[quote]It’s hard to imagine how one can claim credit for the savings without embracing the actual plan.[/quote]
Bingo!
[quote]All of these are good people, and this is not meant to disparage any of them, but other than Stephen Souza who appointed Michael Bartolic, it’s not clear that any of the appointees diverge in position from the people who appointed them.[/quote]
In other words, marginalize this committee as not worthy of consideration? Nothing this committee will say will be anything but the “party line” of supporting the surface water project? The more I thought about this, the more disgusted I became… to demonize an advisory committee before it is even given a chance to function seems very unfair and disingenuous to me…
Frankly, this is the very same thing that was done to the previous advisory committee that actually was able to get the costs of the water rate increases down. Yet this advisory committee has been vilified by opponents for doing the very thing opponents were clamoring for – delayed parts of the surface water project and lowered the rate increases.
What that tells me is that many opponents are not open-minded to possible alternative solutions. Rather there mind is made up the only solution is to kill the project, and hope for the best. Hope the fines won’t be too steep; hope the crumbling infrastructure will hold up; hope variances can be had for indefinite periods of time; hope the deep level aquifer will hold up under increasing usage and won’t subside too quickly; hope construction/finance costs will stay the same or go down, hope we can hang on to our water rights even tho the hope is to sleep on those water rights 25 years or more as other entities are grabbing up whatever water rights they can get their hands on…
Sounds like many opponents are engaging in a whole lot of wishful thinking, and trashing anyone who may have a different idea…
“The more I thought about this, the more disgusted I became… to demonize an advisory committee before it is even given a chance to function seems very unfair and disingenuous to me… “
In what way is it disingenuous to question the composition of a committee?
“What that tells me is that many opponents are not open-minded to possible alternative solutions.”
What it tells me is that the council is not open-minded to possible alternative solutions given the composition of their board.
David
What composition for the board would you have seen as balanced ? Please be specific and explain the reason for your choices.
[quote]Postponing the surface water project and proceeding with the wastewater project doesn’t solve the selenium problem. So there is no point in applying for a salinity variance.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, you don’t understand what it would take to “solve the selenium problem” because neither city, JPA nor regional WRCB knows what it would take to solve the selenium problem. I have explained this to you many times. I have been talking with staff of all three entities during the last two weeks, and they don’t know. If they don’t know, you don’t know.
The most recent information from staff that I have received is that we have 5.6 ppb of selenium going into the treatment plant. Our limit will be 4.4 ppb. We currently have 2.2 ppb after treatment with overland flow. The new wastewater treatment plant will not remove as much of the selenium as our current plant, but it will probably remove some.
So, we have to get from something below 5.6 ppb after our new wastewater treatment plant is completed to 4.4 ppb.
Our deepest wells have an undetectable amount of selenium. We will be achieving additional dilution under our current plans because we are repiping some of our high selenium wells for exclusive landscaping use. Thus, a greater percentage of low selenium water and a lower percentage of high selenium water will be entering the waste stream. Additionally, we will be replacing other high selenium wells with deep ones. This is true whether or not we proceed with the surface water project.
The current plans alone will create substantial additional dilution of the selenium. This might be enough to meet selenium requirements without surface water. If not, a small number of additional well replacements should do it.
I don’t want to have to explain this over and over. This is the most current information I have gotten from staff at all three agencies. We don’t even know if there is a “selenium problem” after completing our current groundwater management plant upgrades.
[b]@Davis Enophile[/b]: I really don’t know what you are talking about. I described the salinity variance process accurately. There has been scoping sessions which Davis was invited to participate in. We should have been involved at every stage. The process is being crafted.
David Suder posted the information during an earlier discussion.
Sue: [i]Don, you don’t understand what it would take to “solve the selenium problem” because neither city, JPA nor regional WRCB knows what it would take to solve the selenium problem. I have explained this to you many times. I have been talking with staff of all three entities during the last two weeks, and they don’t know. If they don’t know, you don’t know. [/i]
You really, really need to stop saying things like this. You are being patronizing and offensive. I understand all of what you are saying. I know what the current selenium levels are. I know everything you are saying above. You are, in my opinion, either underestimating or misrepresenting the number of high-selenium wells that will have to be taken off line or replaced. You have never addressed the issue of increasing the pumping from the deep aquifer by a factor of 200% to 500%. I have, as you would say, explained it over and over.
Really. Stop patronizing me.
[i]The most recent information from staff that I have received is that we have 5.6 ppb of selenium going into the treatment plant. [/i]
Yes. That is what it says in the current discharge permit that I posted. You don’t have to ask staff for that.
[i]Our limit will be 4.4 ppb.
[/i]
Yes. That is what it says in the current discharge permit that I posted.
[i]We currently have 2.2 ppb after treatment with overland flow.[/i]
Yes. And if you get your variance and delay the surface water and proceed with the wastewater treatment, as you have proposed over and over again, we will not get to 2.2 ppb.
[i]The new wastewater treatment plant will not remove as much of the selenium as our current plant, but it will probably remove some. [/i]
Really? How much? The bottom line is: you are proposing a course of action that would lead to less selenium reduction, not more. You are proposing going very heavily to the deep aquifers, by a huge factor. You are proposing that we significantly increase the demand on the deep aquifer.
Sue, you are wrong.
You’ve talked like the salinity variance process actually exists. Alan Pryor pointed out that it didn’t exist, but was a proposal. I asked you for a document or a link, some evidence of this variance or proposal which you should have been able to provide since you were talking with such authority and confidence on the matter. You did not. Elaine started citing SWRCB Resolution 92-49, to which you thanked her for proving your point. Don Shor later posted the actual variance proposal, which I suggest you actually read: [url]http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/basin_plans/variances/[/url]
David Suder then quoted out of the RWQCB’s variance proposal staff information report.
It took several months of fact checking your confidential sources to find that there is no variance for salinity in place. Could there be one in the future. Yes. So my question to you, why couldn’t you tell the story straight?
[quote]What it tells me is that the council is not open-minded to possible alternative solutions given the composition of their board.–[b] David Greenwald[/b][/quote]I am honestly puzzled, David, as to why you think that my two appointees would not be open to alternative solutions.
[b]@Davis Enophile[/b]:I have always clearly explained that the process is being developed, that the purpose is to allow postponement of fines for up to 10 years all the WRCB reexamines salinity management. David Suder showed you the links, and our city water attorney confirmed my comments about the salinity variance at an open council meeting.
What more do you want?
medwoman: I would have liked to have seen a far greater mix of people who will challenge staff. I don’t want to make this personal. So I will just suggest this, the committee they created in Dixon, half the membership was from the Taxpayers association, I’m not suggesting we do that here, but it shows the different mindset. There are a lot of people on there that are completely satisfied with the water project and current rates – that’s not what I think we want on there, whether we agree or disagree with the overall project.
Sue you want to turn this into your picks, it’s not about them. They are a small percentage of the board.
I think it’s really funny that you keep using the Dixon wastewater committee as an example. How do you think they’re doing? I think they’ve met twice in three years.
And you know why I keep using it, because it’s the example that Souza cited both when he first proposed it and last week.
[quote]Sue you want to turn this into your picks, it’s not about them. They are a small percentage of the board.– [b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]David, I guess I don’t know what you are driving at then. On the one hand you say: [quote]For the most part, the Davis City Council chose safer picks, closer to their own preferences on water.–[b] David Greenwald[/b][/quote]Then you say: [quote]I would have liked to have seen a far greater mix of people who wi:ll challenge staff.–[b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]Certainly, I think that my picks will “challenge staff” if and when appropriate.
So perhaps what really meant to say was that you feel council should have picked more people critical of the water project. If so, you should have come right out and said it, instead of couching it in a euphemism.
At least David Greenwald met privately with city staff and the consultant to get answers to his questions. What did the rest of you do? It’s seems that you are just parroting city hall. If you support this project open YOUR wallet and pay for it. Don’t try to stuff it down my throat and force me to pay for it too.
[u][b]Questions for David[/b][/u]: Who said our unnamed committee was intended to be “styled after what was created in Dixon” and what in their experience would justify our following their lead?
Why do you list 15 “good people,” then proceed to disparage them by stating–without the slightest evidence–that they cannot do the job? Extra-noticeably absent from your report today is any hint about what you feel should have happened here.
I know you sometimes say it’s not your job to come up with solutions, but what do you think the five should have done with their appointment opportunities? It certainly ought to be your job to include enough information to help us understand why our council members and their appointees “fail the Dixon test” when you haven’t even described how anyone could pass the test.[quote][i]”Dixon put the Taxpayers Association on their board, knowing that no stone would go unturned. There were a lot of equally worthy appointees that were not put on the board, and I think this committee will not be able to have the ability to inoculate the council from criticism.”[/i][/quote]Do you mean every Davis appointee should be should fit the troublemaker profile rather than just the one example? (Other than the taxpayer association’s, how many of the Dixon seats are filled by contrarians?)
Do you really think Sue’s appointees won’t be turning over stones? Should Sue really have met your standard and appointed people who “diverge in position from (her)”? Did you consider that would have decreased Mr. Bartolic’s ability to do what you want him to do on this group. Sue also should be getting praise for selecting “good people.”[i][quote]”Dixon gave the Solano County Taxpayers Association a seat at their table….”[/quote][/i]I’ve an uneasy feeling that what you’re really getting at is a desire that Michael Harrington and his group should have some seats on this committee. After seeing how they and you handled “facts” this past two months, I appreciate that it would have taken a lot of courage to overtly lobby for them. But, I’m thinking the real point of the Dixon example is to promote that now-lost cause.
Sue: You’re one of five, I was trying to make it a more general statement.
“So perhaps what really meant to say was that you feel council should have picked more people critical of the water project. If so, you should have come right out and said it, instead of couching it in a euphemism. “
That’s not necessarily what what I was driving at, I think we needed more people that would challenge staff.
JS:
First of all, it two people per councilmember, so the number is 10 not 15.
“then proceed to disparage them by stating–without the slightest evidence–that they cannot do the job? Extra-noticeably absent from your report today is any hint about what you feel should have happened here.”
I’m sure what evidence I can produce at this point. My opinion is that we needed people who would challege staff to do things differently and come up with ways to save money, I know most of the people appointed and there are few on that list that is going to do it.
“Do you mean every Davis appointee should be should fit the troublemaker profile rather than just the one example? “
I didn’t say that, and I don’t think that. I would have like to have seen more fitting the roll of harsh critic. And frankly the council doesn’t do it well enough either that’s why we have thinks like Zipcars and now the DCEA fiasco.
“Do you really think Sue’s appointees won’t be turning over stones? ” Sue is one of five.
“I’ve an uneasy feeling that what you’re really getting at is a desire that Michael Harrington and his group should have some seats on this committee. “
No in fact Harrington was very disappointing to me that he would not meet with city staff.
Politically Incorrect said . . .
[i]”At least David Greenwald met privately with city staff and the consultant to get answers to his questions. What did the rest of you do? It’s seems that you are just parroting city hall. If you support this project open YOUR wallet and pay for it. Don’t try to stuff it down my throat and force me to pay for it too.”[/i]
Politically Incorrect, I think your comment is shared by a substantial portion of the City’s residents, and the impact of the rate changes make your feeling understandable.
With that said, if we step back from the rates for a moment, I have three questions for you (and anyone else):
[i]1) Do you also feel you are being [u]forced[/u] to deal with the current water/wastewater issues the City is facing?
2) Do you have a reasonably good sense of what those water/wastewater issues are?
3) Do you think that most Davis voters understand the water/wastewater issues, or don’t really understand them? [/i]
Sue: I would prefer you had better recall of your exact words. I suggest you review your previous comments, starting a bit before Elaine’s “debating you is like debating a bowl of jello” comment.
You complained that no other council member would second your motion to pursue a salinity variance. Could that possibly be because they listened to the attorney and heard that there is no such variance to apply for as of yet? Why should we delay collecting money for a project you say we need, delay final engineering and the like, on the off chance that at some unknown time in the future we might be able to apply for a variance that solves only one of several wastewater problems?
[quote]ERM: “The more I thought about this, the more disgusted I became… to demonize an advisory committee before it is even given a chance to function seems very unfair and disingenuous to me… ”
DMG: In what way is it disingenuous to question the composition of a committee?
ERM: “What that tells me is that many opponents are not open-minded to possible alternative solutions.”
DMG: What it tells me is that the council is not open-minded to possible alternative solutions given the composition of their board.[/quote]
I will say this as gently as I can. It seems to me you are condemning out of hand this advisory committee bc your choices were not selected for this committee. That does not mean that the people chosen will not ask the hard questions. Frankly, in view of the pending referendum, the committee has to ask the hard questions. To do anything else will be counterproductive…
Secondly, an advisory committee of opponents met with city staff, and did get the water rate increases reduced and parts of the surface water project delayed. Some of those folks are also on the newly appointed advisory committee. Why would you think they will not be asking the hard questions? They already did, and got some results…
Or is what you are really saying is that you wanted an advisory committee formed that would stop this surface water project dead in its tracks, so that the school parcel and city taxes have an easier time at the polls?
My count includes: 5 inadequate council members + 10 inadequate committee members = 15 disparaged citizens.