It turns out the water referendum needed every one of those 5124 signatures and probably needed to spend every dime that it did on the petition drive. That is because 1258 of the signatures, around one quarter, were found insufficient by the Yolo County Clerk’s Office.
The question is what the next step will be. The referendum needs to be placed on the ballot unless the council agrees to rescind its September 6 vote to raise rates at least 14% for the next five years. Until that issue is resolved, the rates are frozen at the current rates
The referendum was certified too late for the council to take action tonight. The next opportunity will be the December 6 meeting.
Organizer Michael Harrington failed to respond to a Vanguard request for a comment. However, he sent out a somewhat inflammatory email to the council and half of the City of Davis.
He said, “This is a courtesy notice to the Mayor and City Manager that we plan to ask the public to turn out en masse at the CC meeting that considers this matter.”
“We ask for you to set a special meeting just for this, or clear the agenda on December 6 to focus 100% on this important issue,” he said.
Mayor Krovoza told the Enterprise this morning that they had no plans at this time for a special meeting on this matter.
Mr. Harrington said, “We are going to respectfully request that the City Council immediately repeal the rate hike ordinance and enter into serious negotiations with appropriate representatives from the proponents of the referendum and the pending water initiative.”
This doesn’t seem likely to happen either.
“There is no doubt that there is great concern in the community about the water project,” Mayor Krovoza said in a statement to the Vanguard on Monday evening. “The referendum qualifying only heightens the clear need to explain the project better, consider all options for reducing costs, and to ensure the fairest possible rate structure — and likely all of these items and more, not just one or two discrete acts.”
The Mayor reiterated that he does not support a no-project option, but appears willing to look into additional ways to save money for the ratepayers.
“I believe the fundamentals of the project bring us the lowest possible long-term costs, and in a way that doesn’t just push fiscal and environmental problems on those who will follow us. But if we can do better, we will,” he said.
The Vanguard has repeatedly questioned the composition of the city’s water rate oversight committee, and on Monday Mayor Krovoza took exception to that as well.
“I believe we have excellent and balanced expertise on the new 10-member water advisory committee established by Council,” he said.
He also told the Vanguard that he believes the new general manager of the Joint Powers Authority will help in finding new ways to save money.
“Dennis Diemer — the new general manager of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency — has excellent ideas for cost control and outside funding,” he said.
“I am confident that the right next steps will emerge in the coming weeks,” he said.
But make no mistake, the referendum qualifying is a huge blow to the city, and the council is now going to have to find a way to bring the community together or risk a long and drawn-out election battle that could lead to the city having to turn back the rate increases and risk mandatory fines.
Emails from the Vanguard to Councilmember Sue Greenwald and Councilmember Stephen Souza asking for comment were not responded to on Monday evening.
The Vanguard on Monday laid out five points of concern on the water project, including concerns over the rate structure, the impact on the economy, the impact on the school parcel tax, the composition of the oversight committee, and concerns about the Design-Build-Operate process and the qualifications of two of the “operate” members of the teams that are in the process now of responding to a Request for Proposal.
The suggestion was that the Vanguard was suggesting a “tweak” in the water rate schedule. In fact, we are suggesting major changes, as we believe the schedule contains overly-onerous conservation assumptions and flat rates per household, which fail to take household size into account.
We remained concerned about the economic impacts of the rate hikes. We remain concerned that the rate hikes would take money that might normally go to schools and put them toward water.
Organizer Michael Harrington argued for disbanding the JPA, with 100% Davis ownership and operation of its own water system.
He also argued for a required independent review of the current ground water system.
Mayor Krovoza also raised a major question with the Vanguard via email, about the legality of the referendum in overturning a 218 process.
“It is very clear that you can’t overturn a 218 with a referendum,” Mayor Krovoza said.
However, others have suggested that any ordinance can be overturned via referendum. That is certainly an issue that will come up, but if it requires an initiative to overturn, the requirements for initiative are, as we now know, much less onerous.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Mayor Joe: Please show us your opinion memo supporting your claim that the referendum is unconstitutional.
Mike… if the matter goes on the ballot, and fails reverse the CC, will you shut up, or sue?
hpierce: Has Mr. Harrington done anything that he is not entitled to do?
No. Am just trying to establish what lengths he (or others) will go to to get their way. He has repeatedly brought the water supply issues into “threads” where, at first glance, the water issues are ‘non sequiturs’. I think I have asked a fair question. I seem to recall that he, himself, posed the litigation question before.
I’m sitting here laughing while reading the whiny and pissy comments from some of the pro-water posters.
So, Rusty, are you anit-water? What do you drink, wash with, flush toilets with? Vodka?
Hpierce,
I use Davis water and it has always done the job. I’ll let you use the Vodka as it sounds like you need a good stiff drink this morning.
Rusty… I do not “promote” the surface water project… anyone who believes that there will be no consequences, financially or otherwise, of relying on groundwater has their head in the sand… or somewhere else…
should have read, “[b]solely[/b] on groundwater”… I suspect, based on evidence to date, that we need BOTH.
[quote]But make no mistake, the referendum qualifying is a huge blow to the city, and the council is now going to have to find a way to bring the community together or risk a long and drawn-out election battle that could lead to the city having to turn back the rate increases and risk mandatory fines.[/quote]
So now you finally concede to “turn back rate increases” will have serious repercussions such as steep fines? Not to mention subsidence issues, crumbling infrastructure, need for drilling new deep level wells, increase in construction/finance costs, etc. In other words those who vote down the surface water project may end up paying MORE IN THE LONG RUN…
Actually let me correct that: In other words those who vote down the surface water project may up FORCING ALL OF US TO PAY MORE IN THE LONG RUN…
Correction: Actually let me correct that: In other words those who vote down the water rate increases may end up FORCING ALL OF US TO PAY MORE IN THE LONG RUN…
ERM, in today’s Enterprise:
[i]“I have no problem with the referendum. The voters had a right to do that; that was their choice. The City Council is going to have to think very long and hard about what the next steps are and I think the proponents of the project are going to have to take a step back and have to think about what the next steps are.”[/i]
Precisely: [i]our choice[/i].
@DG: “Has Mr. Harrington done anything that he is not entitled to do?”
For starters … repeatedly lying to the community.
Frustration: Will someone please tell me (and I am sure many other Vanguard readers) who the 10 members of the Water Advisory Board are, and ideally, a little about their qualifications to be on this board? Finally, who chose these members and how were they appointed? I support (financially and in other ways) and admire the Vanguard and some or most of the dissident positions it takes, but it is in some sense part of the “establishment” and takes for granted sometimes that all readers have information not so handily available to “outsiders” like myself. Or did I miss it in some DE story–if so please give me the cite.
On an unrelated issue: I look forward to an answer from Krovoza, or anyone else, that the ref. is unconst., to repeat Mike’s question. Already, as I predictyed yesterday, I see the CC looking for any way that it can to avoid this getting on the June 5 ballot or being decided upon by the voters of Davis.
To very briefly answer MW’s criticisms of me yesterday: allowing all voters a voice in this major decision is a crucial issue in itself and I am not prepared to spend three quarters of my day debating the minutiae of water rate structures until much nearer a real June 5 vote–that is if there is one. It’s a simple issue of democracy at one level MW, and then there are the arguments for at least applying for a variance, as Sue has suggested, and the arguments for a complete study of the viability of our existing wells. Then there is the argument that whatever system we end up be run by the city and not a private entity. So I do not at this point accept many your basic premises, ideologically, financially, or technically MW et al. Given the broader issues at stake, which have been repeated ad nauseam on this blog for months, one almost wonders if MW has been reading the Vanguard for the last few months or is it a case of Perry/Cain amnesia?
Herman, please see November 3 Vanguard article as a starting point:
Did the City Council Miss an Opportunity in Establishing the Utility Advisory Rate Committee?
Written by David Greenwald Thursday,03 November 2011 05:55
Could we cut the nastiness now that we are at a milestone in the process. The nasty comments by several of us is disheartening at best.
[quote]MH: “We are going to respectfully request that the City Council immediately …enter into serious negotiations with appropriate representatives from the proponents of the referendum and the pending water initiative.”[/quote]
I think Mike feels that he is holding the City hostage and must give in to his demands. I personally feel that he has demonstrated that he doesn’t understand the project, water issues or public finance. His speech is inflammatory and hateful in some instances, shrouded in false friendliness. What we need are people willing to work in a collaborative manner to find the best way to deal with this issue. Mike is not a good fit for this. Hopefully, cooler heads will win out here.
[quote]Could we cut the nastiness now that we are at a milestone in the process. The nasty comments by several of us is disheartening at best.[/quote]
Thank you for this observation…
To all: I’ve removed several comments. Please keep it civil.
[quote]ERM, in today’s Enterprise: “I have no problem with the referendum. The voters had a right to do that; that was their choice. The City Council is going to have to think very long and hard about what the next steps are and I think the proponents of the project are going to have to take a step back and have to think about what the next steps are.”
Neutral: Precisely: our choice.[/quote]
Let me add an additional observation – the OPPONENTS of this project are going to have to take a step back and have to think about what the next steps are…
The bottom line is that we are all in this TOGETHER. Whatever the outcome, we are ALL GOING TO PAY FOR IT…
While having worked in Sacramento while living in Davis for 27 out of 32 years, I was often on the butt-end of many jokes poking fun at “those nutty people living in the people’s republic”. None of this ever bothered me because I knew the nuttiness was mostly harmless and I was proud to live in a great community. However, with the passing of this referrendum, the nuttiness has grown harmful and I am no longer as proud of the city. Looking forward, I am starting to question the ongoing value-proposition for living here.
Frankly, we have shown ourselves to be a bunch of hypocrites. A city that is 70-80% liberal Democrat with a top education and income level, with high home equity, prone to voting for and supporting every evironmental cause… just told the rest of the state that we don’t want to pay for a water project that would reduce efluent and polution discharge.
With the passing of this referrendum, I think the Davis brand has been tarnished by so much bad water. Let’s hope we can overcome our challenges and do the right thing in the end. Meanwhile, look forward to being the butt-end of more jokes.
Since this going to go to a vote, I wonder if anyone in the city is researching ways to reduce the cost to voters by getting more stimulus money, grants, etc. Alternatively, is there a way to “sweeten the pot” for likely “no” voters: e.g. seniors, low income people by giving them a break of rates? Personally, I don’t like this idea, as I’d have to pony up their discount, but that is how lots of school bonds are passed.
There is no real doubt that the city will have to pay for the surface water project; the only question is do we pay now or much more later. The council has to find a way for this to pass.
[i]”there are the arguments for at least applying for a variance, as Sue has suggested, and the arguments for a complete study of the viability of our existing wells. Then there is the argument that whatever system we end up be run by the city and not a private entity.”[/i]
All of those are points that the community should be considering with any alternative it chooses. I’ve been arguing for more than three months that we should be applying for any and all variances that allow us to sequence the projects. The reality is that all such variances apply to the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, not our source of water. Therefore any granted variance will be most valuable in sequencing the wastewater upgrade [u]after[/u] the source water improvements. What kind of “viability of our existing wells” study do you propose. The intermediate wells have been fully studied. We know we need to retire those wells and replace their production with water that is not chemically compromised. Any study of wells needs to focus on water that would replace the intermediate well production we need to retire.
Herman said . . .
[i]”So I do not at this point accept many your basic premises, ideologically, financially, or technically MW et al. Given the broader issues at stake, which have been repeated ad nauseam on this blog for months, one almost wonders if MW has been reading the Vanguard for the last few months or is it a case of Perry/Cain amnesia?”[/i]
What are my basic premises that you don’t accept? It is easy to make a sweeping generalized, unsupported statement like you just did. It is another thing altogether to back it up with supporting facts. Said another way, you are long on rhetoric, but woefully short on substance.
[quote]Frustration: Will someone please tell me (and I am sure many other Vanguard readers) who the 10 members of the Water Advisory Board are, and ideally, a little about their qualifications to be on this board? [/quote]
My qualifications:
1) Attorney
2) Applied mathematician
3) Have been employed as public school teacher, junior college instructor, computer software consultant, systems analyst, lawyer in private practice, volunteer attorney for Senior Legal Hotline, facilitated legal clinic in West Sacramento
4) Chair Davis Senior Citizens Commission – recommended based water rates on consumption rather than flat rate
5) Vice-Chair Yolo County Commission on Aging & Adult Services – gives me a countywide perspective on the surface water project
6) Volunteer Attorney Yolo County Multidisciplinary Team – main function is to assist in preventing physical and financial elder and dependent adult abuse
7) Have studied the surface water project/wastewater treatment plant upgrade for approximately 5-6 years
8) Was on the informal advisory committee that lowered the rates from 3.3 times the current rate to approximately 2 times the current rate for the average residential user assuming 20% conservation
9) Have worked on various issues at the county and city level, including saving the Davis Senior Citizens Commission from elimination, and shepherding the Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility through city processes to fruition despite stiff city staff resistance
You will have to decide for yourself whether you deem me qualified to sit on the utility rate advisory committee…
Each city council member selected two people to be on the utility rate advisory committee…
[quote]Since this going to go to a vote, I wonder if anyone in the city is researching ways to reduce the cost to voters by getting more stimulus money, grants, etc. Alternatively, is there a way to “sweeten the pot” for likely “no” voters: e.g. seniors, low income people by giving them a break of rates? Personally, I don’t like this idea, as I’d have to pony up their discount, but that is how lots of school bonds are passed. [/quote]
All of the issues you have raised are being looked at…
Neutral, thanks for the reference. (BTW,I note that the composition of this committee is not listed on the Davis City “Water Information” page). I agree with David, in his Nov. 3 piece, that allowing council members two appointments each just perpetuates the existing politics without providing an objective or neutral voice or review that we really need.
On another matter: I am getting really tired of proponents of the measure calling opponents grossly irresponsible!!! As many have said, we want the existing proposal scrutinized much more carefully in ways that might lead to a cheaper and better solution and one operated by the city. Is it really so outrageous to ask for seven months to look into this? It so only to those who have a totally uncompromising and fanatical commitment to the current proposal as demonstrated by the tomes that some people, that I have already mentioned, find time to write on this blog every day. Would these same people rather that we were paying for a $200 million waste water project rather than a $108 million one?
And in terms of responsibility, should for some reason, Davis or Woodland default on their obligations or have severe ecponmic difficulty as a result of the hikes, can we garnish your assets and re-possess your homes regardless or not of whether you live in Davis?
As for Jeff Boone, I am sure he will find plenty of people willing to help him move to Sacramento where (like most places) any progressive activism on the part citizens in Davis (or any other community for that matter) is characterized as essentially looney left politics. If Jeff wants to live in an apathetic city with little grass roots political organization or opposition, Sacramento will fit the bill well. And while he is there he can push for a new stadium and a $2.4 billion sewer program. I am sure most voters in Sacramento would hardly notice.
As follow-up to my comments to Herman above, no matter what rate structure one devises there will be some flaws. The key is to devise a structure that 1) minimizes the flaws, and 2) has the ability to address the “affordability” challenges you’ve described. I believe the rate structure that the Irvine Ranch Water District has been using since 1991 is extremely good at doing both. Since they have been using this rate structure for 20 years, it has more complexity than Davis needs, but a simplified version would work as follows:
Each home would get a “water budget” with two components. First, the base “indoor water use” budget is calculated by multiplying 55 gallons per day (20,075 gallons per year or 1,673 gallons/month) times the number of residents in the home. That translates to 4.5 ccf per person per bimonthly billing period. Second an “outdoor water use” budget is calculated using a typical lawn of 1300 square feet using 8.44 ccf per bimonthly billing period.
So a person living alone in Irvine has a combined indoor/outdoor bimonthly water budget of just under 13 ccf. The combined budget for a family of two goes up to 17.4 ccf. For a family of three it is 21.8. For a family of four it is 26.3. For a family of five it is 30.8. For a family of six it is 35.3.
Once the budget for a house is set, then the following rates apply:
USAGE – LOW VOLUME (0-40% of Budget)$0.91 per ccf
USAGE – RESPONSIBLE CONSERVATION (41-100% of Budget)$1.22 per ccf
USAGE – INEFFICIENT (101-150% of Budget)$2.50 per ccf
USAGE – EXCESSIVE (151-200% of Budget)$4.32 per ccf
USAGE – WASTEFUL (201%+ of Budget)$9.48 per ccf
In addition to the calculated consumption amount there is a fixed bimonthly Service Charge.
Mike Harrington has already said about this kind of structure, [i]”Matt: why would anyone disclose how many live there? Also, people frequently move, so the data become obsolete very quickly.”[/i]
The answers to those questions are really quite simple. 1) We already provide household population numbers on our Tax Returns and to the Census, why not to the Water Department in order to have everyone have “fair” rates? 2) Dealing with changes would be as easy as when the family that buys a house contacts the City to turn on the water and sewer service, they simply would provide one number in addition to all the other demographic data they currently provide.
I believe that is a start toward coming up with a “fair” rate structure. What does everyone think?
@Jeff Boone:[quote]… the nuttiness was mostly harmless and I was proud to live in a great community. However, with the passing of this referrendum, the nuttiness has grown harmful and I am no longer as proud of the city. Looking forward, I am starting to question the ongoing value-proposition for living here.[/quote]This is a very important point that cannot be stressed enough!
Davis is in decline, and the blow-back from our dysfunctional politics (in this particular case driven largely by David Greenwald, Sue Greenwald, Michael Harrington, and Bob Dunning) is likely to have increasingly serious negative consequences to the community.
Don Shor,
“To all: I’ve removed several comments. Please keep it civil.”
Mr Shor, you erased my posts which weren’t over the top at all and in response to other posts but you then leave:
“Mike… if the matter goes on the ballot, and fails reverse the CC, will you shut up, or sue?”
and,
“@DG: “Has Mr. Harrington done anything that he is not entitled to do?”
For starters … repeatedly lying to the community.”
I sometimes wonder about the fairness on here.
Clarification or information question in the light of Rusty 49s post: Is Don Schor really the moderator, or censor, of comment on the Vanguard blog? I always assume that task fell to David. If it is partially Don’s job why is this the case?
rusty: I wasn’t singling you out. I saw an argument starting, and decided to nip it in the bud.
Herman: I am the moderator. I was asked to do it, and I accepted. If you have questions about it you can contact me at donshor@gmail.com. If you have complaints about it you can contact David. He also, obviously, has capability of removing and editing posts.
“Looking forward, I am starting to question the ongoing value-proposition for living here.
Frankly, we have shown ourselves to be a bunch of hypocrites. A city that is 70-80% liberal Democrat with a top education and income level, with high home equity, prone to voting for and supporting every evironmental cause… just told the rest of the state that we don’t want to pay for a water project that would reduce efluent and polution discharge. “
I fear you’re exactly right Jeff . I have long understood the difficulty of explaining science issues, but one would hope that would be less so in Davis . The fact that some of the biggest “Boosters” on this blog have worked to derail the project is bizarre to me . I am also surprised that the political and, I assume, financial opportunists have been so successful at directing the debate .
[quote]Da Vinci students present water information nights
Da Vinci High School’s environmental science students invite all members of the Davis community to a pair of water education nights intended to educate the community and raise awareness about the myths and realities of Davis water.
The students will present information on watersheds, fresh water, water treatment, the Woodland-Davis water supply project, funding for the water supply project and water conservation.
The events will take place on Wednesday, Nov. 30, from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m. at International House Davis, 10 College Park, and on Thursday, Dec. 1, from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Stephens Branch Library, 315 E. 14th St.
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/schools-news/da-vinci-students-present-water-information-nights/[/url]
[/quote]
Jeff B.: Here’s your chance. You can attend a public Da Vinci presentation and decide for yourself in person if Davis schools are offering education that has any relevance to issues in 2011.
wdf1: Thanks for the heads-up. I have a conflicting appointment that I will try to move so I can attend. Note that I have always applauded Da Vinci as being a net positive when compared to the status quo.
[b]@Biddlin and Voter 2012[/b]I have a real problem with the tone of some of you. What I am seeing is a lot of ad hominum and demeaning comments about anyone who disagrees with you. This is not good.
I for one have been studying this issue for years, I have a good understanding of the science and I have talked to scores of professionals with a good understanding of the science.
In fact, I believe that we are in denial about the cost of our new water-related expenditures relative to the costs that have been imposed on other cities.
$300 million of new water-related costs for a city of 65,000 puts us in the league with cities nationally that have gotten into major trouble lately.
Guys, our cumulative water-related new expenditures are far greater than those of other cities. Much greater. If we don’t do something to substantially lower the cumulative costs, there will be widespread ramifications. Substantially lowering the costs will probably have to involve some phasing in of at least portions of one of the major projects.
I’m really tired of detailing, week in and week out, the misconceptions and misinformation that I have been reading on these pages.
In short, we have not exhausted our regulatory remedies, we will not lose our water rights if we can negotiate relief with the WRCB, we probably do not have a major selenium problem, the water quality in our aquifer would would take decades to centuries to degrade if it does, our well water is safe and “clean” and our water/wastewater costs will most definitely not be average for the region if we proceed according to the current plan — they will be far, far higher than average for the region and also high by statewide standards.
I would prefer to postpone the wastewater treatment plant if we have a choice, but we have to get the cumulative costs down somehow.
$300 million of new water-related expenditures is too much for a city of $65,000. Even Porter-Cologne, the state’s clean water act upon which the federal Clean Water Act was modeled, acknowledges that fiscal impacts have to be taken into account in implementation.
At the very least, I want to be on record for pointing out that the current course, if unmodified, will be likely to have serious negative effects on the city for the next 30 or 40 years.
Sue:
[i]we probably do not have a major selenium problem,
[/i]
Untrue. Want to go over it again? I have rebutted you time and time again on this.
[i] the water quality in our aquifer would would take decades to centuries to degrade if it does
[/i]
Totally untrue. Want to go over it again? Your numbers don’t add up. You are misconstruing Dr. Fogg. I have rebutted you time and time again on this.
[i]I’m really tired of detailing, week in and week out, the misconceptions and misinformation that I have been reading on these pages. [/i]
I am really tired of responding to your failure to prove these two points above, week in and week out, and have you act as though you have proved your point.
You haven’t.
[quote]Untrue. Want to go over it again? I have rebutted you time and time again on this.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, I have explained this in great detail to you. I have talked with the city staff who are in charge of this, and they have never really analyzed it, but the numbers aren’t bad and the regulations can probably be met with the dilution already planned. Time will prove me right on this one. I will bet you a good dinner.
[quote]the water quality in our aquifer would would take decades to centuries to degrade if it does — [b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]I am quoting the University’s leading groundwater expert.