Council Has Not Determined Whether the Vote Will Be Advisory
It seemed when the Vanguard first posed the question of having a November rather than a June ballot, that it would be a controversial matter. However, by the time the vote had occurred on Tuesday night, everyone agreed with it.
As Chair of the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) Elaine Roberts Musser put it, “I would strongly recommend that you make sure the ballot is in November not June. June is too soon. We need to have the water rate study completed and we won’t be able to give you the advice that you need if we have it in June.”
The key question was whether the vote should be advisory or binding – there are clearly advantages and downsides to both.
Councilmember Dan Wolk said, “I’m wholeheartedly in support of having it on the November 2012 ballot. I’m not prepared today to say it should be an advisory measure.”
“My understanding is that if the council wants to initiate it and not have it be an advisory vote – it has to be a two-thirds vote,” he said.
“If the measure included the financing and the approval of the special financing mechanism then it would require a two-thirds vote,” City Attorney Harriet Steiner clarified. “Putting a regular binding initiative type action on the ballot, it’s not my recollection that it would take more than a majority of the voters.”
She then clarified, “One of the questions that came to us was whether you could go straight to the voters to set the water rates. And it seems to us that you cannot go straight to the voters to set the water rates.”
According to Ms. Steiner, the city would have to first go through the Proposition 218 process and then go to the voters and under those conditions it would be a two-thirds vote requirement to set the water rates.
The answer is that the council could set a vote that dealt with the project and not the rates at majority, but any ballot measure that actually set the rates would require a two-thirds vote.
Mayor Joe Krovoza said, “We’re going to put this on in November and if we’re going to put it on I don’t want the community thinking that it’s kind of this advisory thing and then we’ll decide what we’ll do afterwards based upon their advice.”
“We’re going to queue this up so that we do that Prop 218 process through the fall or ending sometime in October,” he continued. “That’s going to be the rate setting but then there will be a vote of the people in November to tell to go forward with the project and that will be binding in some way.”
But at this time, the council has not made the decision as to whether the vote in November would be advisory – only that the vote will be in November.
“I’m not necessarily committing to a non-advisory vote,” Councilmember Wolk clarified. “The two-thirds issue is an important consideration.”
The council also unanimously approved the beginning of the rate study.
A further issue was raised by Councilmember Wolk to direct the WAC to look into the public versus private operator option.
“I would like to direct the water advisory committee as soon as possible to look at the issue of public operation versus private operation of the water project,” Councilmember Wolk said. “That to me seems like one of the more important issues they have to look at.”
Elaine Roberts Musser popped out of her seat to clarify to council that the WAC has already put the issue of public versus private on their agenda for consideration.
One issue that has been raised several times in the last week is the issue of televising the WAC meetings. As we suggested earlier, we raised this issue during public comment to put it on the radar of the Davis City Council.
City Attorney Harriet Steiner argued that this matter was not on the agenda and therefore could not be discussed in conjunction with the rest of the water issues under the Brown Act.
It was determined that the item could be added on an emergency basis to the WAC’s agenda at their meeting on Thursday night. Members of the public are encouraged to send their thoughts to the WAC regarding this issue.
The matter was, late in the evening, agendized for council discussion at their February 7 meeting.
Our concern here is twofold. Given the scheduling of the WAC Meetings, it is unlikely that the Vanguard would be able to attend these meetings until at least early March, at this point.
Second and more importantly, we believe that these meetings are vital to this community – we need an open and transparent process that encourages as many citizens as possible to participate.
Putting the matter on television will allow those who cannot attend to record the meetings and others to participate from home.
On Tuesday night, Elaine Roberts Musser once again played the hostility card, similar to her comments from Saturday night: “With such open hostility shown to WAC members, as expressed in the above two comments, is it any wonder the WAC members made the decision they did? Perhaps if some of you toned it down and asked nicely…”
However, I believe most people have toned it down and, in fact, a lot of people who were openly skeptical about the composition of the committee have been pleasantly surprised by how they have reportedly conducted themselves.
But regardless, this is the largest project that the City of Davis has ever contemplated and the WAC is expected to play a critical role in vetting this project. As such, it behooves the city to make the meetings as open and as accessible as possible, given the busy lives that Davisites live.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/25/4213163/sacramento-sewage-agency-gets.html
[quote]Elaine Roberts Musser popped out of her seat to clarify to council that the WAC has already put the issue of public versus private on their agenda for consideration.[/quote]
I advised the City Council that we had moved the issue of the DBO process, including the public versus private issue, earlier in our schedule to accommodate Dan Wolk’s request.
[quote]On Tuesday night, Elaine Roberts Musser once again played the hostility card, similar to her comments from Saturday night: “With such open hostility shown to WAC members, as expressed in the above two comments, is it any wonder the WAC members made the decision they did? Perhaps if some of you toned it down and asked nicely…”[/quote]
This is an incorrect characterization of what I said last night. Please see below for my actual words:
[quote]At the first meeting the WAC came to a general consensus not to televise meetings. No reasons were given. Since then there has been a spirited discussion of this issue in the Davis Vanguard internet blog. I have advised citizens to contact the WAC and make their concerns known by using the following email address: water@cityofdavis.org. Let me repeat that: water@cityofdavis.org.
I cannot speak for the commission as to why the WAC made the decision not to televise. But I do know: WAC members in public have been called shills for City Council members, which may explain WAC member hesitation in being televised. Some find being televised inhibiting to a full discussion. ON the other hand, some members of the public who cannot attend WAC meetings would like them televised. I plan to take the issue up at Thursday’s WAC meeting, including reading submitted emails during public comment.[/quote]
ERM stated,
“But I do know: WAC members in public have been called shills for City Council members, which may explain WAC member hesitation in being televised.”
If I were one of those dedicated citizens who were dedicating a serious chunk of time from their busy lives to attempt to help voters make the right choices on water import I would want the public to be kept informed of my every word to the WAC. That way the public would know that I was not a shill for some CC member.
[quote]If I were one of those dedicated citizens who were dedicating a serious chunk of time from their busy lives to attempt to help voters make the right choices on water import I would want the public to be kept informed of my every word to the WAC. That way the public would know that I was not a shill for some CC member.[/quote]
Good point Roger!