The compromise that was crafted on the dais was the right move for Davis. The city could not move forward with the project as the rates were currently structured.
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson said to those leaders of Woodland, “We didn’t do the things that you did,” referring to rate studies and public outreach.
“I can’t support a rate going [up] that doesn’t have a rate study behind it,” the Mayor Pro Tem said. “That was a mistake, I regret not sticking to my guns in September and only doing the one year.”
She said that, while she was not opposed to a June vote, “I would hate to see a June vote be about a rate structure that is clearly untenable.”
At issue is not only studying and determining the appropriate rate levels, tiering and impacts on the community, but also reevaluating the confusing 14% rate increase that really was not. People needed to have a very real idea of what the water rates would be under this project.
Joe Krovoza also admitted mistakes, acknowledging, “We didn’t do a good job of communication – it was confusing.”
But the mistakes were more than just that. The Prop 218 process, despite the best efforts of the council to make it fair, still left a lot of people feeling disenfranchised, such as the 300 residents of Rancho Yolo who would be hit by the rate hikes, but since they do not own their own land, they could not participate.
“I also believe that this community sooner or later wants and deserves a vote on this project,” Mayor Krovoza said.
The compromise that was arrived at is not perfect. It has some flaws that I think need to be addressed. There will be the opportunity, I think, to do that when the city staff comes back with the proposed initiative in mid-January, as directed by the vote of council on Tuesday night.
Both Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk argued that any vote in June would need to have specific rates that people could vote to support or oppose.
“I would need to have [assurance] that it’s concrete,” Ms. Swanson said. “If somebody votes yes for the surface water project, they are also saying my rates are going up by a specific rate and whatever the structure is with that, so that folks truly know what they will be paying if they support the water project.”
“They would also be approving a rate so that when this is done, they know what they are getting into,” she added.
We do not disagree, either, with Sue Greenwald’s argument that even if we do a rate study, the rate estimates are just estimates, until the city actually gets a bid and takes out bonds.
“It’s illogical, we have no idea what the project is really going to cost. These are the roughest estimates out there.” She added, “We don’t know what the water rates are going to be until we know what the two projects are going to cost.”
“We’re going to have to pay whatever it costs to pay off the bonds that we’re going to issue,” she stated.
While we agree on that point, we do not see how we can move forward with the planning without estimates, at least, then hopefully downwardly revising those estimates after the project begins.
Moreover, I think there needs to be a debate over when the election should occur. I understand the urgency expressed by Mayor Krovoza and Councilmember Stephen Souza, both undoubtedly responding to what the leaders from Woodland were telling them about timing – we will get to the Woodland issue shortly, but while timing is important, getting it right is more important.
Considering that we have to do a proper rate study and considering that council elections are in June, June may not be the appropriate time to have a vote on this issue.
Dan Wolk expressed concerns that such timing would lead to the council election becoming a referendum on the water issue, which will detract from the importance of the budget.
“I am not in favor of an election in June, because while this issue is incredibly important, I think that we are much more than one issue,” Councilmember Sue Greenwald said. “There’re so many big issues in front of us, I don’t think we should make a circus out of June.”
The council should consider the possibility of a November initiative on water, rather than June.
We have suggested in previous columns the idea of pushing the parks tax back to November, but putting the water in November might make more sense, as the council candidates could then campaign for the parks tax for June, much as they did for the sales tax renewal in 2010.
Yesterday we took issue with the tone and audacity of Woodland to have their five councilmembers and one supervisor come to the Davis council chambers to not only lobby but also berate Davis.
At the same time, we understand that, while Davis has to the right thing for Davis, Woodland has to do what they see as the right thing for Woodland.
Woodland Mayor Art Pimentel told the Bee that they believe they can move forward on their own. We remain skeptical about this and believe that ultimately the path of both cities rests together, but that will require a bit more patience on the part of Woodland than we saw on Tuesday.
The Bee quoted Woodland Councilmember Tom Stallard saying: “Quite honestly, I’m not sure of all the implications. I sense there’s a lot of support in Davis for the transition to surface water. But I heard a lot of frustration with the process.”
He added that it appears that the city will circle back in order to address that frustration. That is a fair assessment of where things stand.
West Yost Associates believes a one-year delay could add more than $17 million to project costs, but West Yost is not exactly a neutral bystander in this process. Moreover, $17 million in a $350 million project is not a huge cost to make sure that they get this right and have public support.
Meanwhile, Mayor Pimentel called the Davis actions “a bit frustrating.”
He told the Bee, “The city could go ahead and study this for another generation if they want. But the city of Woodland needs to do what we have to do … with or without the city of Davis.”
We do not disagree with the Mayor there.
The Woodland Daily Democrat wrote this morning, “Woodland City Council members say the picture is even grimmer if the ballot stops Davis’ funding. In that case, they say Woodland may be forced to shoulder all the project costs themselves, which would mean taking on Davis’ share of the cost as well as potentially losing more grant funding, taking on more delays and otherwise seeing the project cost balloon.”
As we have argued repeatedly, there have been a series of mistakes that have been made, leading to the referendum. Past Davis City Councils failed to sell the public on this project, they failed to do a rate study, and they failed to release real numbers on rate increases prior to the Proposition 218 process that began earlier this summer. There is a Water Advisory Committee that is meeting for the first time, tonight. And council did not ramp up rates leading up to the commencement of the project.
The result is that the Davis City Council had no choice but to do what they did on Tuesday night. This was not a kicking the can down the road, but rather an exercise in due diligence, granted, due diligence that should have been done five years ago or, at worst, two or three years ago, but due diligence nonetheless.
I understand why Woodland is frustrated, but they need to hang in there.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Dan Wolk expressed concerns that such timing would lead to the council election becoming a referendum on the water issue which will detract from the importance of the budget.
“I am not in favor of an election in June, because while this issue is incredibly important, I think that we are much more than one issue,” Councilmember Sue Greenwald said. “There’re so many big issues in front us, I don’t think we should make a circus out of June.”[/quote]
So in other words put this issue off to November for political reasons? How about keeping it on the June ballot for financial reasons and the good of the community?
“So in other words put this issue off to November for political reasons?”
Political reasons matter first of all. But that was not the sum total of my reasoning. Are six months going to matter really for financial reasons and the good of the community? What if the referendum loses because it was put on too soon or because it got caught up in council politics? How will that impact financial reasons and the good of the community?
[quote]The result is that the Davis City Council had no choice but to do what they did on Tuesday night. This was not a kicking the can down the road, but rather an exercise in due diligence, granted due diligence that should have been done five years ago or at worst two or three years, but due diligence nonetheless.[/quote]
No matter how you slice it, this was “kicking the can down the road” and will have definite repercussions. I have no doubt it will add costs to the project (if nothing else, the cost of a rate increase study). Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in an alternate universe. However, I will agree that a full rate study should have/should be done, if nothing else, to have a specific document to point to that details the rationale of the proposed rate increases that speaks with one voice.
Two points Elaine, first, we have to do things right. Second, it may cost less to do it right now rather than have put those rates up for a vote to most likely lose in June.
[quote]At the same time, we understand that while Davis has to the right thing for Davis, Woodland has to do what they see as the right thing for Woodland.
Woodland Mayor Art Pimentel told the Bee that they believe they can move forward on their own. We remain skeptical about this and believe that ultimately the path of both cities rests together, but that will require a bit more patience on the part of Woodland than we saw on Tuesday.[/quote]
The Vanguard can remain “skeptical” all it wants. But Woodland has made it clear that they will move forward with the project on their own if necessary. They have a very specific back up plan in such an eventuality and will build a much smaller capacity plant (20mgd versus the planned 52mgd; will leave out/delay/move certain structures). The Davis public needs to understand this, and not be misled by claims of “skepticism” that are based on nothing more than conjecture with absolutely no facts to back it up. I would urge the Vanguard to interview Project Manager Diemer on this issue…
I for one, think that June is a great time to consider the referendum, AND the three candidates, AND city budget issues. They are all related.
(meant, “candidates, three of whom are part of the Council that have been involved.”)
“But Woodland has made it clear that they will move forward with the project on their own if necessary. “
The question is really when it become necessary because as the Woodland article makes very clear, it would drive up the costs tremendously for woodland far more than just the $17 million.
[quote]…there is a Water Advisory Committee that is meeting for the first time, tonight…[/quote]
What does this have to do with anything, since the Vanguard has already declared they trust no conclusion the Water Advisory Committee will come up with since they consider the committee to be stacked with proponents?
Sorry to sound so harsh, but the Vanguard is all over the place on this issue, with very little in the way of facts to support any of its positions. Now it is calling for an even longer delay. How long a delay is the Vanguard really calling for? Because there will always be a school parcel tax on the horizon; there will always be doubts about this project of some sort; there will always be an economy that is less than ideal, etc. As the Mayor pointed out, at some point the citizens need to be allowed to vote on the surface water project, and the sooner the better. Delay does nothing but add huge costs onto this project. If the voters don’t want the project, then let them vote it down period and the city can get going on an alternative plan that is probably going to be even more costly. To dither indefinitely is just causing the cash register to keep going $$$ ka-ching !
“What does this have to do with anything, since the Vanguard has already declared they trust no conclusion the Water Advisory Committee will come up with since they consider the committee to be stacked with proponents?”
We never opposed the idea of having the WAC, in fact it was quite necessary and should have been in place a while ago, just the composition of it.
[quote]Two points Elaine, first, we have to do things right. Second, it may cost less to do it right now rather than have put those rates up for a vote to most likely lose in June.[/quote]
There is a huge assumption here by the Vanguard – that the voters will vote down the surface water project. You don’t know that.
[quote]Political reasons matter first of all.[/quote]
Matters to the candidates, not the citizens.
[quote]I for one, think that June is a great time to consider the referendum, AND the three candidates, AND city budget issues. They are all related.[/quote]
Amen
[quote]Two points Elaine, first, we have to do things right. Second, it may cost less to do it right now rather than have put those rates up for a vote to most likely lose in June.[/quote]
There you go again, assuming you know what is in the voters’ collective minds… did you do a scientific poll to see what way the voters are likely to vote? All five CC members agree we need the surface water project. Between now and June I expect a lot of educating of the public to go on as well. Education that will debunk a lot of the hysteria that has been ginned up by various opponents that has no basis in fact, as well as a serious discussion of the consequences of inordinent/continual delays.
“Between now and June I expect a lot of educating of the public to go on as well. Education that will debunk a lot of the hysteria that has been ginned up by various opponents that has no basis in fact, as well as a serious discussion of the consequences of inordinent/continual delays.”
Possible translation: That $300,000 for the PR firm will be put to work.
Speaking of education, I’m glad the public got educated about the supposed 14% increase.
“There is a huge assumption here by the Vanguard – that the voters will vote down the surface water project. You don’t know that.”
It’s a prediction. But more importantly, it’s something that has to weigh into the calculation of cost. Your argument is that the council action will kick the can down the road and drive up costs. It may. But the council action was the middle ground on this. The potential is there that if the voters oppose the project, I think the past rates would have lost and a better set of rates could win, and that would actually increase costs even more than the middle ground. You are correct that we don’t know that for sure, but I think the middle ground is the less risky and costly alternative.
“Matters to the candidates, not the citizens. “
It matters for public policy on a whole range of issue. If people are angry enough, you could end up with a new council majority that opposes water rate hikes – then what? Is that likely? Perhaps not. But you are being a bit naive if you really believe that politics do not matter for public policy.
“Education that will debunk a lot of the hysteria that has been ginned up by various opponents that has no basis in fact, as well as a serious discussion of the consequences of inordinent/continual delays. “
But the hysteria is not what is driving this. What ‘s driving this is the perceived lack of public process (flawed 218), the lack of a reasonable rate structure, and the convoluted 14% figure. I don’t think education makes those issues go away.
[quote]I don’t think education makes those issues go away. [/quote]If you are correct, there is absolutely no reason to delay the vote beyond June.
[quote]If you are correct, there is absolutely no reason to delay the vote beyond June.[/quote]
Bingo!
[quote]We never opposed the idea of having the WAC, in fact it was quite necessary and should have been in place a while ago, just the composition of it.[/quote]
Again, I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I consider that answer disingenuous at best. If you doubt the composition of the committee before it has even had an opportunity to meet, then you will always feel free to dismiss anything and everything that comes out of the committee, so the committee in the Vanguard’s eyes is effectively useless, no?
[quote]Speaking of education, I’m glad the public got educated about the supposed 14% increase.[/quote]
The irony here is that the citizens who came together to get the water rates increases decreased from 28% to 14% were/are being vilified for their efforts. Would you have preferred the rates increases to stay at 28%? At least give the informal advisory committee some praise for at least making the effort to engage the Dept of Public Works on the issue and do something about lowering the rates…
David
” But the hysteria is not what is driving this. What ‘s driving this is the perceived lack of public process (flawed 218), the lack of a reasonable rate structure, and the convoluted 14% figure. I don’t think education makes those issues go away.”
I hope that you are right on this. I feel that at least some of the referendum signatures were obtained by stirring up if not hysteria, at least undue angst and by the provision of misinformation. One example. The very young, personable and paid signature gatherer at Central Park used these terms to me 1) put forward without any research, referring to the surface water project. He looked genuinely amazed when I told him the process had been going on for 10+ years. 2) “snuck past the public” I had to agree that as a Sacramento student it had probably escaped his attention, but that there has been much public discussion of this issue 3) ” public officials lying” completely unsubstantiated but potentially anxiety producing 4) ” undemocratic”…. From previous posts, I’m sure you all know I have a very different view of representative vs direct democracy.
Education of the public is very important. But if an individual is still uneducated on this issue, it is solely their own responsibility. Not that of the CC, the Enterprise, the Vanguard or anyone else. I say this as someone who has come very late to this issue by my own choice. Now I am playing catch up, also by my own choice. Also, one cannot ignore the point that no amount of education or facts will deter those whose stated goal is to defeat the project at all costs.
Well said medwoman!
As Dan Wolk said, we have to consider other issues, including the city budget. I hope people think twice about the wisdom of putting a water project initiative on the ballot along with our absolutely essential parks tax, which, if one is to take the school board polling information seriously, will already need all of the help it can get.
Sue, do you think this project can get properly vetted in only 6 months?
[quote]West Yost Associates believes a one-year delay could add more than $17 million to project costs, but West Yost is not exactly a neutral bystander in this process. Moreover, $17 million in a $350 million project is not a huge cost to make sure that they get this right and have public support.–[b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]With all due respect, those cost estimates were wildly speculative and based on biased assumptions. I was taken aback by the methodology. A five year delay would cost $131 million? Come on. They didn’t even look at the fact that we save $10 million in interest every year we delay the project, or that there is no federal funding available now and there might be in the future, or that we only have one bidder now who is not associated with controversy and that we might be able to get better bids using a different approach, or that construction costs could go down.
[i]I hope that you are right on this. I feel that at least some of the referendum signatures were obtained by stirring up if not hysteria, at least undue angst and by the provision of misinformation.[/i]
medwoman – I would take it one step further -without the hysteria and false accusations regarding Woodland’s financial capacity, blocking allegations, lack of democracy, etc, – the referendum would have failed. It only passed by approximately 100 votes anyway with the misinformation.
[i]They didn’t even look at the fact that we save $10 million in interest every year we delay the project[/i]
Sue – deferral is not equal to savings. We will incur the interest expense whenever the project happens. There is at least an equal chance that rates will be higher rather than lower in the future.
IMO, construction costs for the same plant will not go down. Only if we are allowed to build a less substantive facility will the cost go down. The costs of labor, materials and environmental impact studies and review will likely only go up.
[quote]”We’re going to have to pay whatever it costs to pay off the bonds that we’re going to issue,” she stated. While we agree on that point, we do not see how we can move forward with the planning without estimates, at least, then hopefully downwardly revising those estimates after the project begins.— David Greenwald[/quote]The point I was trying to make, David, is that the rates could be much higher, as well as lower, when we the final price comes down, and if the bonds are already distributed, there will be no choice but to raise rates regardless of voter desire, since the alternative will be default. We can’t set a “maximum rate” because the necessary rate could be much higher.
That is why I think we need to get further along in the cost determination before making a commitment. On the one hand, the JPA says that we must do the project now, because companies are so desperate for work that prices will be low. On the other hand, they say that no one will apply because unless the city has its funding guaranteed, because the costs of applying are too high.
I don’t buy that. These companies are spending the money to apply knowing that they probably won’t get the contract anyway. The chances that voters would turn down the rates after finding out the cost is no greater than the chance that the company wouldn’t get the bid in the first place. Either way, there is an application cost with no guarantee.
With $325 million project at stake, I think we can invite the three companies produce bids before the 5 year rate increase is finalized.
According to the school district poll, we could run into trouble with the parks tax. We really need to put the parks tax on in June, so that we can get another shot in November if necessary. Also, we have always done the parks tax in June because we have all of the council candidates, which usually include many incumbents, can combine campaigning for the tax along with campaigning for their seats. We really need that tax to be renewed.
Two unrelated comments/questions.
1) Sue, do you see a way that the issue can be voted on in Nov. instead of June? If, so by what means? Is there the political support for it on the council?
2) David, I think, like almost everyone, you are a little too kind to Woodland. In fact most of those who are “kind” to Woodlanders patronize them by not beginning to hold them to as high standards of democracy, environmental quality et al. as Davis and we only have to look at the record of their council to realize their shortfalls. Take Spring Lake, as just one example, voted down by their planning board (5-0 as I recall), but approved by their Council. Among other things it is built in the 100 year flood plane. By “their” I don’t mean the people of Woodland, I mean the city council and the majority of about, let’s guess, 20% of eligible voters that actually turn out in an election if there is only a local issue on the ballot. I do not mean the other 80% or so that for one reason and another, including the Daily Democrat, just are not engaged in local politics and defer to their “betters.” I have several good friends in Woodland and I actually like many things about the place and the people and the relative absence of the social snobbery and piety that comes when one lives in a universality town almost anywhere. I have lived in them in many places in my six or so decades.
Of course I can understand their concern as I do not believe they can do it alone. That’s indeed why they showed up in such force. And David, to raise the subject yet again, are you really like Don Schor, and some or most other proponents, sanguine about the risk of Woodland defaulting? I’d love to hear your answer to that question and the related one that if, as you say, the project will impose hardship on many Davisites, may it not do on on even more Woodlanders? (Please Oslo note that for all the pomposity and rhetoric we got from the Woodland Council reps that even Dan Schor could find no evidence of an informed discussion of the water issue when I asked hum directly last week).
Finally I resented the fact that the six representatives from Woodland were allowed to speak before anyone in Davis, as well as a lot of what they said–which was wonderfully critiqued in Dunning’s column yesterday. Is this some bizarre custom in local politics or what? I see no reason why this convention should exist. Unelected people from Davis have as much right to speak before them if they got to the meeting earlier. Moreover, there is a degree to which if one allows this, in this particular case particularly, the deck gets a little bit stacked or skewed at least, especially for opponents speaking later.
[i]David, I think, like almost everyone, you are a little too kind to Woodland. In fact most of those who are “kind” to Woodlanders patronize them by not beginning to hold them to as high standards of democracy, environmental quality et al. as Davis and we only have to look at the record of their council to realize their shortfalls[/i]
I’m sorry, but I think Woodland has every right to appeal to it’s long time partner in a very expensive project to uphold it’s tentative bargain. Imagine how Davis would feel if the shoe was on the other foot.
Since Mike Harrington and his clients are threatening to put initiatives on the ballot, and could readily do so in June, it seems to me the council should put this before the voters at the earliest possible opportunity.
David: I’m a little surprised that you think that $17MM is not a lot of money, regardless of the overall cost, but I think you summarized your position well, that $17MM is not a lot to pay for getting it right and getting public support. I’d say it a bit differently. I’d say that an extra $17MM may be the price for Davis being Davis. Also, while it may be cheaper for Woodland to wait for Davis to join than to go it alone, Woodland doesn’t know whether Davis will ever join, so it needs to look at its options taking that into consideration. Given Davis being Davis,if I were Woodland, I would start on a path that would be consistent with Woodland having to go forward on its own, and then force Davis to have to pay the cost of joining at a later day, if they ever decide to do so. Can’t wait around forever for Davis. When all is said and done, I predict that Davis will still move forward, but at greater cost and hence at higher water rates. Buy hey, that just the price of Davis being Davis.
I can sympathize with Woodland’s predicament. Their pro growth at any cost policies have pushed them up against a deadline that does not exist for Davis. I am skeptical that we can solve all the technical obstacles getting between Davis voters and funding this huge project in only six months. Don’t forget that after solving the technical issues there needs to be time to educate the voters.
Voters are having problems with more than just the projected cost. There is the intake location issue (immediately downstream from major pollution sources). There is the Design, build, operate problem whereby voters are being asked to turn over their water supply to a profit motivated corporation. There is the fact that the JPA has told us there are only three companies in the U.S. capable of doing a design, build, operate to accommodate two medium sized citys, two of whom are unacceptable to Davis voters. There is the rate structure, which now seems to be dependent on a solid bid.
A presumed 17 million cost increase could well be obviated by slowing down a bit and getting the right contractor, not just putting it out there that we have 325 million to spend. Finding the right contractor, who needs the work, could half that cost!
[quote]Sue – deferral is not equal to savings. We will incur the interest expense whenever the project happens. There is at least an equal chance that rates will be higher rather than lower in the future.
–[b]Adam Smith[/b][/quote]For purposes of phasing in the two mega-projects, it is a savings because the costs will be tacked on the end–probably in 30 years, after the waste water plant has been paid off. Ideally, one would pay off one mega-project (and then those rates go down) before starting the next. That what the school district did with its Emerson Jr. High construction bond.
DMG “…critical mistakes were made in this process. …”
From my perspective, the “Christmas Coup of 2010*” was among the worst mistakes made by project proponents. The citizens of Davis STILL do not have an explanation for why the water right offer from the developer was available ONLY for December, 2010.
__________
*The Davis City Council approved the Project the week before Christmas 2010 when everyone was busy, weary, unaware, or away! Those approving the Project did not provide any explanation why the critically needed Project water right offer was available from the developer ONLY in December of 2010. Finally, December 2010 was also the last month that Councilman Saylor (an assured third vote), was available to approve the Project.
[quote]’m sorry, but I think Woodland has every right to appeal to it’s long time partner in a very expensive project to uphold it’s tentative bargain. Imagine how Davis would feel if the shoe was on the other foot.—–[b]Adam Smith[/b][/quote]Actually, the shoe was on the other foot, Adam. The University was partnering with Davis, and then just pulled out. We said nothing at all to them about it. In fact, we offered them a full participating but non voting JPA directorate (I don’t know why we did that and they wisely declined, unlike the county) and we even (unwisely) hired a University attorney to represent us in the Conaway deal.