When Davis contemplated rescinding the city’s rate increases on water, Woodland’s city council came down to the chambers in Davis and expressed their concerns about delays and cost hikes, and even threatened that they would go at it alone.
Now, over a month later, perhaps calmer heads are prevailing as Dennis Diemer, the General Manager of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency, came before the city council on Tuesday night to address concerns about costs and timelines.
According to Mr. Diemer, Woodland is currently going through a rate study and plan that will culminate in a Prop 218 process this spring. At this point, Davis is looking at a rate study and a new Prop 218 process that could be completed by this fall.
With the rate schedules presently being reviewed by the two water agencies, the current schedule is no longer feasible.
Mr. Diemer continued to argue that project delays would be costly. He argued that we could lose our partnership savings, such as the joint intake facility savings of $9 million over a separate intake.
In addition, West Yost determined that pursuing the economy of scale savings through the joint project would save the two communities at least $65 million from the cost of doing the project separately.
Delay might require the need to have to redo work, especially environmental permitting.
As we mentioned in December, it remains in the interest of both communities to work together. With that in mind, Mr. Diemer presented a modified project approach, to allow time to complete the modified rate studies and complete the 218 processes, along with keeping the project on the same completion schedule to limit delays and avoid significant cost increases.
“In order to do this, we have identified what we are calling ‘critical path’ items that need to be completed during the calendar year in order to remain on schedule,” Mr. Diemer told the Council.
One of the most significant changes in the schedule that will impact the budget is the changes in the procurement steps. “Under the current schedule, we were calling for the issuance of the final RFP this month,” he said. The new proposal calls for the issuance date being December of this year.
One of the things that we mentioned last week is that this delay may actually be of benefit, as it will give the cities and JPA the time to more thoroughly review issues such as ethics complaints.
“We’re engaged in an ethics review process,” he said, and “we want to complete that in the next couple of months. “
“We also want to continue our discussions with the DBO teams to work with them to identify cost-savings using the DBO methodology that we can apply to the current cost estimate,” he continued. “In other words, get their concurrence on cost reductions that we can build into the cost estimate and then in turn use for your rate study both in Davis as well as Woodland.”
“We anticipate very little activity from May through December,” he said noting “the heavy lifting if you will, will begin when we issue the RFP and that would be the time that the DBO teams actually spend the millions of dollars developing the firm cost proposal for the agency.”
In addition to the modified Design-Build-Operate procurement, they would continue working on intake structure ($1.89 million), environmental and regulatory permitting ($.8 million), property acquisition ($.65 million), site filling ($3.38 million) and ASR (Aquifer, Storage and Recovery) Program (Woodland-only program – $.58 million, agency administration at $1.58 million and agency contingencies at $.62 million).
He compared the old budget to the revised budget. “We’ve taken out about $3.6 million from the current schedule,” he said.
The new revised schedule pushes the issuance of the final Request for Proposal (RFP) back by nearly a year, but the rest of the changes appear to be about six- to nine-month delays.
The bottom line, though, is a rather modest delay overall.
“With these changes, the delay that we anticipate is rather modest,” Mr. Diemer said, “about three months. Rather than completing it May of 2016, we believe that we can complete the project in August of 2016.”
The bottom line from Mr. Diemer’s presentation is that, even with these delays to get the rate structures right and do a proper rate study, the costs and delays will be relatively minor.
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson made the point, “It’s not just that we’re sticking on the same necessary track but that we really do have an opportunity to look at some creative alternatives.”
Mr. Diemer responded, “I think the time that’s built into the delay in the issuance of the RFP provides the opportunity to explore those issues.”
Councilmember Dan Wolk added, “One of the more significant problems that I’m hearing in the community is this whole private versus public operation… I just want to be sure that that issue can be revisited.”
Mr. Diemer answered yes, “But if the council with the agency were to decide that they wanted to make modifications – the more significant the modifications, the more time we would need to build in, in order to change directions. That would be my only caution – that conversation ought to take place sooner rather than later.”
Mayor Joe Krovoza added, “That is part of the motion by our council, so we fully expect that conversation to take place. We want to make sure that staff – if that affects the timing of the JPA, we want staff to bring that to us as soon as possible.”
Councilmember Sue Greenwald said, “We were given three reasons why we had to complete this project by 2016, we had to stay on this exact schedule, we obviously have some crisis of confidence in the community and we have a new water advisory committee that is supposed to be overlooking the fundamentals.”
Mr. Diemer warned, however, “There is a risk of circumstances and situations changing that would require a redo or reworking of all the environmental permits as well as the regulator permits that we’re pursuing.”
When pressed by Ms. Greenwald, he continued, “There’s a chance, depending on the particular circumstances that were to develop, that one or more or all of the permits could require re-doing.”
Councilmember Greenwald was skeptical that this would happen.
The bottom line from this discussion depends on where one stands on the water issue. Those who support moving forward with the project can be assured that at this point the timeline seems to be maintainable in terms of overall completion of the project, and the cost impacts of this delay are small.
Those who believe that we needed to look further into the details can be re-assured that this delay will not result in cost increases and that the threats by Woodland were perhaps misplaced. We will have time to properly study the rates and alternatives without the threat of penalties or vastly higher costs.
And even those who oppose the project outright can be assured that time will be given to develop and explore reasons for not going forward with the project.
It seems, at least from this discussion, that pushing the pause button was the right decision and the next steps will determine further courses of actions.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
So, with Woodland doing a rate study would that ave delayed even if Davis hadn’t rescinded ?
Interesting he noted admin costs would not change even with the delay.
Where does a SERIOUS attempt to obtain a variance fit in to this schedule?
“We’re engaged in an ethics review process,” he (Mr. Diemer) said, and “we want to complete that in the next couple of months. “
As far as the project as a whole goes, I hope “full transparency” will be part of the “ethics review process.”
The sky did not fall by taking a pause? You mean, the water consultant gang gave us wrong information rushing up to Sept 6 rate hike meeting? Like the Covell VIllage proponents did via Supervisor Helen Thompson’s “Chicken Little Letter” on the eve of the October 2005 CV vote?
Meanwhile, the CC is continuing to spend our rate money unnecessarily on the surface water project while it lacks a demonstrated need.
We are probably going to put in an independent audit requirement in the initiative (for Jan 2000 to current), and a requirement that bars the City from spending any more money on this project until the ground water well system is properly and independently evaluated for long term fiscal and technical feasability.
The JPA is history as of November.
Meanwhile, not one, and I mean not one, of the consultants and staff who set up their CC majority for the Sept 6 debacle that nearly stole over $500 million of eastern Yolo COunty ratepayer money has been laid off, fired, or disciplined, so far as I know. These same people are staffing the WAC.
This project is all about West, Yost, and their many professionals who brought us Sept 6, and are still running the show on water supply in this city.
We are in the quiet before the storm.
For anyone who believes that “this delay will not result in cost increases” Michael Harrington’s post has just demonstrated the error in this statement. I was at the CC meeting when the Woodland representatives spoke. Their’s were not the only threats being issued that night.
Earnie Head stated very clearly that he and his group intend to fight any proposal that would involve a Prop 18 process ( and thus presumably
Any surface water project given the context in which he was speaking). We have no need to be looking at Woodland for threats. We have rright here in our own community, a group that is so opposed to any development of a surface water project that they are threatening to tie up any project with endless delay through political and legal maneuvering. Personally David, in the interests of objectivity, I would like to see an estimate of how much “additional studies” , analysis only by groups acceptable to Mr. Head and Mr. Harrington of course, any Prop 218 processes, any initiatives, and any legal maneuverings including threatened law suits are going to cost us.
In essence, I would like a cost analysis of the threat inherent in the closing sentence ” we are in the quiet before the storm.”
Alternative to explore-
Contra Costa Water District just finished a water project. Maybe we can purchase the plans from them, scale it to fit our needs, and operate it ourselves. We would save money on the design, have a benchmark to know what construction costs should be when we go out for bid, and might be able to cooperate with Contra Costa Water District on operation and maintenance activities.
[url]http://www.ccwater.com/files/AIPFactSheet.pdf[/url]
[url]http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.866778,-121.543961&ll=37.867024,-121.543829&spn=0.003003,0.005681&num=1&t=h&vpsrc=6&z=18&iwloc=A[/url]
[url]http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/Municipal Services Backgrounder Brief.pdf[/url]
[quote]Meanwhile, the CC is continuing to spend our rate money unnecessarily on the surface water project while it lacks a demonstrated need. [/quote]
It is my understanding that the CC voted to do just the opposite of what you are claiming here…
I want to note that the WAC has had two meetings, one on Dec 8 and Jan 12. Neither Mike Harrington, Ernie Head, nor the Vanguard have been present at either one of these meetings. Very few members of the public have been attending thus far (about 3-4 were there the first night; about 5-6 were there the second night) . Yet the WAC is asking the tough questions, truly trying to tease out what is the best solution for this city. City staff and the consultants are most definitely feeling the heat, and fielding the questions as best they can. If there is more information required, city staff has expressed a willingness to provide it. Everything, and I do mean everything, is going to be gone over with a fine tooth comb.
I very much appreciate the attendance of the interested citizens who came to these meetings. However, I’m getting the distinct impression that some in this town are not keeping open minds, but have already made their decision – the FACTS be d_mned. This is most unfortunate, and not in the best interests of the city – to remain ignorant of the issues, yet expound as if one knows what one is talking about when in fact one doesn’t know a darned thing.
At the WAC’s strong request, the WAC minutes and packets of documents for each meeting will be posted on the city’s website. Please be patient while staff works out the details and the materials are made available. My hope is that all citizens who care about this issue will take the trouble to follow along with the WAC, and get themselves educated. If you cannot make it to the meetings, check in to the city’s website via computer, and at least take a look at the minutes for each meeting. Even better, try and read the supporting documents, even if all you can manage are the executive summaries. The proposed surface water project/wastewater treatment plant upgrade is probably THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING THIS CITY (except perhaps for the city budget).
If at all possible, drop in and watch the meetings whenever you can. I highly encourage public comment, which occurs at the beginning of each meeting. I guarantee the discussion is far from dull, and quite lively. We truly keep the staff and consultants on their toes. Many on the WAC have quite a bit of knowledge about water issues, which is extremely helpful. The WAC members are good people who have volunteered their time to wade through literally thousands of pages of documents, to try and come to some resolution that the WAC feels will be in the best interest of the city/citizens of Davis.
WAC meetings are held at the Davis Senior Center the second and fourth Thursdays of each month, from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. The next meeting will be held on Jan. 26. Hope to see many more there. The topic under discussion will be:
Alternatives to the surface water project that have been explored
Wastewater regulatory requirements and the surface water connection
[quote]As far as the project as a whole goes, I hope “full transparency” will be part of the “ethics review process.”[/quote]
Can you be more specific as to what you mean here? This is an issue that came up at the last City Council meeting, and is an extremely important one. So any details as to what you are looking for in terms of ethical parameters would be most helpful. If you don’t care to share here, you can contact me off line…
[quote]Alternative to explore-
Contra Costa Water District just finished a water project. Maybe we can purchase the plans from them, scale it to fit our needs, and operate it ourselves. We would save money on the design, have a benchmark to know what construction costs should be when we go out for bid, and might be able to cooperate with Contra Costa Water District on operation and maintenance activities.
http://www.ccwater.com/files/AIPFactSheet.pdf
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=…18&iwloc=A
http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/Municipal Services Backgrounder Brief.pdf[/quote]
Any chance you would be willing to come to the next WAC meeting and present this possibility? If not, I’m wondering if there isn’t some way for folks to offer public comment via computer prior to a meeting?
David (or anyone else who knows): Did you ever find out who was secretly financing Mike Harrington’s slimy campaign tactics to stop the water project and his continuing “legal maneuvering including threatened lawsuits” that now concern medwoman? I’m convinced that we’ll learn a lot about what motivated Mike and his backers if we’re ever able to “follow the money.”
As some predicted when the insults and shenanigans started, it turned ugly fast and stayed in the gutter thorough out. Woe be our community if we have a continuation of the same level of insults, thoroughly unenlightening banter and wasted time and effort during 2012,
30-months from contract award to project start? Jesus, Steve Jobs, if he was still alive, could probably create iWater in that much time.
[quote]30-months from contract award to project start? Jesus, Steve Jobs, if he was still alive, could probably create iWater in that much time.[/quote]
LOL