Councilmember Greenwald Concerned with Using West Yost, Given Track Record
The city staff is recommending the council approve a resolution that would authorize City Manager Steve Pinkerton to execute a consultant agreement with the West Yost/Malcolm Pirnie Team to provide City Representative services for the Secondary and Tertiary Improvements Phase of the Wastewater Improvements Project (CIP No. 8219).
The proposed City Representative consultant agreement is for a not-to-exceed amount of $3,990,000; these funds are budgeted in CIP No. 8219 (Fund 532 – Sewer Capital Replacement Fund). It is the first portion of a forecasted total not-to-exceed fee of $5,390,000 for City Representative fees.
Staff acknowledges, “The actual expenditures may differ from the $95,000,000 forecast and will depend on construction market prices and project scope choices the City makes during the course of the project.”
The scope of the project has been significantly reduced since the development of the Charrette Plan developed in 2010 by a panel led by Drs.Tchobanoglous and Schroeder, whose services were commissioned at the insistence of Councilmember Sue Greenwald and who were able to reduce the cost from around $200 million to the present $95 million.
There remain two significant concerns about the use of West Yost Associates on this project. First, it was the consultant that pushed for the $200 million project back in 2008.
More importantly, there is a conflict of interest, as they have been advising the city on water projects and policy that they now stand to profit from, to the tune of nearly $4 million.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald strenuously objects to the use of West Yost Associates here.
“I am very unhappy about staff’s recommendation to choose West Yost Associates over Brown and Caldwell to be our city representative and initial designer for the wastewater treatment plant. I have conveyed my opinions about this consulting contract to the city manager over a period of many months,” the councilmember told the Vanguard on Monday.
She continued, noting, “West Yost Associates was one of the authors of the wastewater treatment plant proposal that was approximately $80 to $100 million more than necessary.”
According to the staff report, the project delivery process will be a design-build process, unlike the water supply project which includes the operation component.
Staff argues, “The project delivery process of design-build encourages a collaborative relationship between the owner and the design-builder. Paramount to developing a reliable and fruitful relationship is establishing clear goals, expected performance, evaluation criteria, and expected outcomes.”
The process comes with three major steps, including the establishment of expected performance and risks that “will be allocated between the Owner and design-builder,” the creation of documents to “conduct a concise, transparent process” and the design, build, and commission of the project.
According to the staff report, an RFQ was published in June 2011: “The City received statements of qualifications from two teams: Brown and Caldwell/SAIC and West Yost/ Malcolm-Pirnie.”
After a preliminary evaluation indicated that both teams were highly qualified, the selection committee invited both teams to submit a proposal. Both teams submitted a proposal.
After a lengthy process, the city determined the West Yost team ranked higher because “they had a better understanding of local issues, proposed a thoughtful method of moving the Charrette conceptual plan into a more complete plan that could be used as the basis of design-build contract documents, and proposed a more subtle approach to the design-build method which is more consistent with the City’s needs.”
Sue Greenwald argues that Brown and Caldwell, who were the other applicant has a solid track record and they were not involved in the previous design which the city ultimately rejected as inefficient from a cost perspective.
“I feel very strongly that we should select Brown and Caldwell as our City representative and to undertake the initial design parameters of the wastewater treatment plant,” Councilmember Sue Greenwald said.
West Yost Associates is also involved with Woodland’s wastewater treatment plant and with the surface water JPA project.
“I think we will benefit from another set of independent eyes on our extraordinarily expensive new water/wastewater infrastructure projects. There are many other reasons that I hold this opinion,” she said.
City staff has asked that Dr. George Tchobanoglous lead a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for the project. The team would review and evaluate major project decisions, and provide “specific expert scientific, engineering, and management guidance and advice for challenging issues.”
Writes staff, “It is likely that Dr. Tchobanoglous will staff the TAG with wastewater and construction industry professionals, academics, and other interested individuals who are experts in their fields with appropriate scientific and technical knowledge.”
They add, “Staff’s primary use of the TAG will be to provide independent review of staff recommendations related to council actions and review of major work products from the City Representative Team.”
However, Sue Greenwald remains concerned about the process itself.
“I think we should take a step back and reconsider a design, bid, build process rather than the current design-build process,” she told the Vanguard.
She noted, “Staff had initially recommended design-bid-build process and I voted on it but it narrowly lost in a 3/2 split. A number of potential bidders in the audience said that they would have to drop out of the process if we chose the design-build alternative because only the larger companies can undertake such a massive project.”
“We will have fewer competitors under the current design-build. If we are supposed to be taking advantage of the “favorable bidding environment;” we should choose a process that can actually take advantage of this favorable bidding environment by having a larger number of bidders,” she said.
She added, “A number of professionals in the field have told me that they think that we could probably save 10% to 15% of the cost (about 10 to 15 million dollars) by reconsidering our decision to go with design-build and by choosing design-bid-build instead. That would take this city representative contract off the table.”
That is certainly something that the city ought to consider.
Regardless, given the track record of West Yost, Sue Greenwald remains unconvinced.
“In any event, I would prefer to see Brown and Caldwell selected if we go forward as currently planned,” she said.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]More importantly, there is a conflict of interests as they have been advising the city on water projects and policy that they now stand to profit from to the tune of nearly $4 million.
[/quote]
Stop right there. I have seen how these conflicts of interests play out for other projects with other cities. In my experience the consulting company is driven by which project will generate more profit for them. In this case they also appear to have a set idea in mind, which is not what one wants from an independent consultant.
You need a truly independent consulting team advising the City.
How come Sue is the only one who gets that?
There is a difference between saying you are going to be fiscally responsible and doing it. Once again Sue is showing us what it truly means to be fiscally responsible.
“A number of professionals in the field have told me that they think that we could probably save 10% to 15% of the cost (about 10 to 15 million dollars) by reconsidering our decision to go with design-build and by choosing design-bid-build instead. That would take this city representative contract off the table.”
Anonymous sources, no doubt .
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”More importantly, there is a conflict of interests as they have been advising the city on water projects and policy that they now stand to profit from to the tune of nearly $4 million.”[/i]
Three questions David . . .
1) How do water decisions pose a conflict of interest vis-a-vis the management of an already designed and specked wastewater treatment upgrade plan?
2) What were the portions of the originally proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade that were removed from the final project?
3) Given the recommendation of the Tchobanoglous led Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for the project, how can any project manager (regardless of who it is) have enough leverage during the project to change the direction of the project?
Dr. Wu said . . .
[i]”Stop right there. I have seen how these conflicts of interests play out for other projects with other cities. In my experience the consulting company is driven by which project will generate more profit for them. In this case they also appear to have a set idea in mind, which is not what one wants from an independent consultant.
You need a truly independent consulting team advising the City.
How come Sue is the only one who gets that?
There is a difference between saying you are going to be fiscally responsible and doing it. Once again Sue is showing us what it truly means to be fiscally responsible.”[/i]
Dr. Wu, go back and reread the article and the staff report. West Yost will not be “advising the City” in this role. The Tchobanoglous led Technical Advisory Group (TAG) will be “advising the City” for the project. The role proposed for Brown and Caldwell/SAIC or West Yost/Malcolm-Pirnie is one of project management and project coordination.
Said another way, this is about project execution not project direction.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”A number of professionals in the field have told me that they think that we could probably save 10% to 15% of the cost (about 10 to 15 million dollars) by reconsidering our decision to go with design-build and by choosing design-bid-build instead.”[/i]
If this is true, then I suggest that Sue share the names and contact information of these professionals in an electronic or written document. Saving 10% to 15% on a $95 million project is very meaningful given today’s economy and City Budget. Hopefully, this is a real opportunity to save rather than a hearsay opportunity to talk about saving. The ball is in Sue’s court.
biddlin said . . .
[i]”Anonymous sources, no doubt.”[/i]
biddlin, that is a cheap shot. Lets give Sue an opportunity to provide the sources.
To be fair, West Yost is simply more qualified and experienced working on Davis wastewater treatment plant projects than any other firm or team. They have been working on projects for the Davis plant for many many many years, and know the plant better than any other firm. It is difficult for other firms/teams to compete against a team that is so experienced with a client like this. I should know, since our firm competes with them.
Although West Yost is being hired as the City program manager and preparing the preliminary design documents, they will be precluded from bidding on the design-build portion of the work. So a different engineering firm will be preparing the detailed design drawings for the secondary and tertiary treatment improvements at the plant as part of the design-build team.
Typically, design-build is also a [b]less [/b]expensive way to go when the client generally knows what they want to construct, and it can be completed quicker as the staff report suggests. The other (unsaid) advantage of a design-build method of procurement is that staff only has to go back to Council once more for an agreement – with the design-build team, instead of up to three times for the designer, construction manager, and Contractor.
The reason to not pick West Yost would be because the City would be unhappy with their previous recommendations for the STI work and wants a fresh perspective, if they had a negative perception of past performance on City projects, or the quality of their staff assigned to this project. Because the City typically performs a qualifications based selection of consultant firms. Not because of the potential profit motive for the company, their proposed role, or their perceived bias.
The City representative acts as the City’s experts in managing the project. The TAG acts as a third-party reviewer to provide the City with expertise that is not typically found in City staffs. This is a pretty standard practice for large and complex public works projects. And especially since the City Council is being so vocal in their comments on wastewater contracts and the direction of the project, having that third party expertise available provides cover for staff to stand behind the proposed preliminary design and design build procurement method.
Sue is a public figure with a public record . She uses this blog to make many unsubstantiated claims with unattributed quotes for which she subsequently never seems to provide citations . It is more than apparent that she represents the wishes of many Davisites and that many there are willing to overlook such lapses . If she does not want to be a target for “cheap shots”, perhaps she is in the wrong position .
It would be a serious mistake to have Yost now be the consultant for this project after their previous plans for the wastewater treatment plant were found to be overly costly. Their work on the surface water project has been found to be flawed with investigations not carried out and serious data omissions. It is common knowledge that Yost and Don Saylor are politically “attached at the hip” and that through Saylor, Yost wields unacceptable local political power. Skepticism about conclusions that Yost will offer will inevitably be tainted and only fuel more citizen opposition and citizen-initiated referendums.
biddlin said . . .
[i]”Sue is a public figure with a public record. She uses this blog to make many unsubstantiated claims with unattributed quotes for which she subsequently never seems to provide citations. It is more than apparent that she represents the wishes of many Davisites and that many there are willing to overlook such lapses. If she does not want to be a target for “cheap shots”, perhaps she is in the wrong position.”[/i]
You make some very good points, but in this case I think we should allow Sue to come forth with her specific information before you hoist her onto a petard.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”It would be a serious mistake to have Yost now be the consultant for this project after their previous plans for the wastewater treatment plant were found to be overly costly. [b]Their work on the surface water project has been found to be flawed with investigations not carried out and serious data omissions.[/b] It is common knowledge that Yost and Don Saylor are politically “attached at the hip” and that through Saylor, Yost wields unacceptable local political power. [b]Skepticism about conclusions that Yost will offer will inevitably be tainted and only fuel more citizen opposition and citizen-initiated referendums.[/b]”[/i]
Two questions davisite, 1) What investigations did West Yost not carry out, and what data did they seriously omit? 2) What conclusions do you expect that West-Yost will be offering if they are awarded the contract?
I ask the second of those questions because of the proposed Tchobanoglous led Technical Advisory Group that will be “advising the City” for the project.
[edit]
I think Jim Yost and our own waste water plant upgrade team (Stan Gryzko and Mike Lindquist) are top-notch people and will do a great job in the end. I do question, though, whether the basis for choosing the West Yost design-build team was truly objective and transparent. For instance, following is the reported reasoning and basis for selection of the West Yost team:
“…they had a better understanding of local issues, proposed a thoughtful method of moving the Charrette conceptual plan into a more complete plan that could be used as the basis of design-build contract documents, and proposed a more subtle approach to the design-build method which is more consistent with the City’s needs.”
What does the above statement really say? What is a “…better understanding…” or a “…thoughtful method…” or a “…more subtle approach…”?. This reasoning really sounds more like “we just liked them better”. No where does it unequivocally state that they are more qualified to do the job or that they will do an equivalent job less expensively.
maconi said . . .
[i]”To be fair, West Yost is simply more qualified and experienced working on Davis wastewater treatment plant projects than any other firm or team. They have been working on projects for the Davis plant for many many many years, and know the plant better than any other firm. It is difficult for other firms/teams to compete against a team that is so experienced with a client like this. I should know, since our firm competes with them.”[/i]
Thank you for sharing this professional perspective maconi.
It is, after all, her own petard . A bit of etymology, petard comes from a middle French word, peter, meaning to break wind . Petard is still in usage meaning a firecracker or, in slang, a marijuana cigarette or a pistol .
“To be fair, West Yost is simply more qualified and experienced working on Davis wastewater treatment plant projects than any other firm or team.”
But are they more qualified? There seems room for some disagreement there after all, they were perfectly willing to push forward a $200 million project. It was only when other consultants and experts stepped in that these assumptions were questioned. Now it may be that the TAG team makes this concern moot, I’m not sure, but that’s not exactly a vote of confidence.
marconi: [i]”To be fair, West Yost is simply more qualified and experienced working on Davis wastewater treatment plant projects than any other firm or team. They have been working on projects for the Davis plant for many many many years, and know the plant better than any other firm. It is difficult for other firms/teams to compete against a team that is so experienced with a client like this. I should know, since our firm competes with them.”[/i]
This is a very strong statement coming from a competitor and it should be given strong consideration.
My wife was Jim Yost and Bruce West’s first employee when they opened their doors at the Westlake shopping center a couple of decades ago. Bruce and Jim are fine people and they have hired outstanding employees. The civil engineering firm is highly respected and highly regarded throughout the state. They are an economic development success story for our city. They provide many high-paying jobs and contribute tax revenue to the city.
Frankly, I see the demonization of West Yost being part of the larger troubling trend of our politicians being hostile to business. Also, I would point out the conflict of interest for Sue’s opposition to using West Yost since the opinions of these professional engineers have been in opposition to hers. Sue might need to recuse herself from this decision.
Jeff, I read your last sentence as, [i]”Sue might need to rescue herself from this decision.”[/i] I thought that was an interesting turn of phrase, but then I reread it and corrected my misreading. It was funny though.
[quote]City staff has asked that Dr. George Tchobanoglous lead a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for the project. The team would review and evaluate major project decisions, and provide “specific expert scientific, engineering, and management guidance and advice for challenging issues.”
Writes staff, “It is likely that Dr. Tchobanoglous will staff the TAG with wastewater and construction industry professionals, academics, and other interested individuals who are experts in their fields with appropriate scientific and technical knowledge.”[/quote]
I am very encouraged that Dr. Tchobanoglous will staff a TAG to oversee this project. I have a good deal of respect for his opinions. However, it should be remembered Council member Greenwald ultimately did not agree with this very expert (Tchobanoglous) she herself chose, on the surface water issue.
Tchobanoglous and Schroeder were in favor of moving forward with surface water first and foremost, then determine if there are not ways to save money on the wastewater treatment side. In fact, one of the experts Council member Greenwald selected (it was either Tchobanoglous or Schroeder – I think it was Schroeder) wrote an op-ed piece in the Davis Enterprise diametrically opposed to Sue’s position of delaying the surface water project for 20 years or more. At the time, if I remember rightly (and I believe I do), Sue was very dismissive of the two, saying they were only experts in wastewater management but not water issues.
My problem here is that Council member Greenwald has made accusations of conflicts of interest and then stated various opinions as a preemptive strike, without attributing any of these opinions to any specific experts – in other words referring to “unnamed sources”, which tends to be a pattern with her commentary. Like Matt Williams, I am not certain I see any particular conflict of interest here.
I have no particular feelings one way or the other about either of the consultants named, and am keeping an open mind. But thus far I do not find Council member Greenwald’s arguments particularly persuasive or convincing. It would be helpful if she could name the experts she is referring to, or come up with more of a basis for claiming some sort of conflict of interest.
David asked me for my comments, and I provided them to him.
I told him that it was my opinion that Carollo Design, West Yost Associates and staff each had an independent obligation to tell the city manager that there were more cost-effective designs for the wastenwater treatment, and none did so. It would have been a disaster to for the city to have built a waste water treatment plant twice as expensive as necessary, and it should not have been left to me to have to turn that decision around by locating other (unnamed) experts who advised me that the plant design was too expensive, finding the consultants who could better evaluate that, and then having beg the council for the better part of a year to hire those consultants.
If you guys think it is a good idea to hire the same consultants who neglected to advise us that we could do the job for half the price, then that is your right.
David asked me to go on record with my perspective, and I did.
David: You could always ask the City staff person managing the contract to review the proposals from B&C/SAIC and West Yost/Pirnie to make your own decision about whose approach or qualifications are better. The cost portion of the proposal may be sealed, but the technical approach, experience, and staffing sections are public record once the contract is signed. It’s a pretty typical part of the debrief following a consultant selection.
“This is a very strong statement coming from a competitor and it should be given strong consideration.”
If we knew who it was coming from, we could perhaps give it strong consideration.
[i]”If you guys think it is a good idea to hire the same consultants who neglected to advise us that we could do the job for half the price, then that is your right.”[/i]
This gets us back to the point that there is not concensus that we could do the job for half the price. There are many of us that believe it is a water pipe dream, and the reality will be even higher costs.
Again though, we can respect a well-respected local firm for their proven capabilities to do a job without projecting so much devious intent, can’t we?
“it should be remembered Council member Greenwald ultimately did not agree with this very expert (Tchobanoglous) she herself chose, on the surface water issue.”
In fairness, you are conflating surface and wastewater. She asked the city to bring them in for wastewater, she has argued that they are not as well versed on water supply issues. I’m not taking a position on that, but rather, I am attempting to explain her position accurately.
David and Sue, any time that a project is pared down it 1) reduces costs and 2) changes functionality. To ensure that the discussion of the reduction of costs for the Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade is complete, can one of you (or both of you) please post a description of how the upgrade functionality was changed in order to reduce the costs?
Take a cue from the New York Times and give us, “All the news that’s fit to print” otherwise we will only get the news that fits.
I’d rather have Sue give her initial perspective at the council meeting where staff and other council members can discuss the matter. Other than the fact that she agrees with David’s conflict of interest contention, it’s hard to understand why her opinion was solicited.
It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that she’d again invoke the unnamed sources means of buttressing her own opinions, particularly on this topic. biddlin’s shot may have been cheap, but it’s an easy one. We’ll see whether biddlin jumped to his conclusion too early.
In addition, let’s give Councillor Greenwald a little love for sticking with [i]Vanguard[/i] readers through thick and thin. Even when things get a little pushy, she returns for more most of the time. (The DACHA hit-and-run op-ed that memorialized city council lies being a notable exception.)
Maconi is an anonymous poster, claiming to be a competitor with no vested interest and an impartial view. If this is to be given any credence, Maconi should identify himself/herself so that we can form conclusions as to whether this claim is accurate. There is very big money involved in these contracts.
The reasons that staff gave for selecting West Yost Associates were not compelling to me. They said that West Yost Associates could “communicate better with Davis citizens” and that Brown and Caldwell were “too engineering oriented”.
No one has addressed the accountability issue. It is pretty darn scary to me that one layman councilmember had to intervene to keep the city from spending $80 to $100 million more than necessary.
Brown and Caldwell have done work for the city in the past and are very well regarded in the field.
Re Elaine Musser: I had many good talks with Dr. Tchabonoglous about the surface water project. He is not dogmatic at all; he would be the first to admit that it is a cost-benefit question and a judgement call and that affordability has to be taken into account. He is an expert in wastewater treatment and not in current regulations. His report suggested postponing the wastewater treatment plant in order to make the surface water project more affordable, just as I initially did and as Matt did. He will be the first to admit that he had not called up the Water Resources Control Board to look into the practicality of controlling costs by postponing the wastewater treatment plant. And Ed Schroeder believed the incorrect statements from staff and the JPA that we would lose our surface water rights if we postponed the project.
[quote]David and Sue, any time that a project is pared down it 1) reduces costs and 2) changes functionality. To ensure that the discussion of the reduction of costs for the Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade is complete, can one of you (or both of you) please post a description of how the upgrade functionality was changed in order to reduce the costs? –[b] Matt Williams[/b][/quote]Thanks for asking this question because it emphasizes my concerns. What made the initial design so concerning is that everyone I have talked with, including Dr Tchobanoglous, said that the design that was twice as expensive would give us no advantage. In fact, Dr. Tchobanoglous said that the less expensive design would be better because it would be more flexible and less expensive to expand while doing an equal job of meeting our wastewater objectives.
Sue: Brown and Caldwell are a “big box” engineering firm. I am surprised that you would prefer them over West Yost, a smaller local company with a fine reputation.
[quote]In fairness, you are conflating surface and wastewater. She asked the city to bring them in for wastewater, she has argued that they are not as well versed on water supply issues. I’m not taking a position on that, but rather, I am attempting to explain her position accurately.[/quote]
Surface and wastewater issues are inextricably intertwined. Secondly, Council member Greenwald makes it quite clear in the above comment that she does not agree with the two experts she herself selected, and is dismissive of their opinions as uninformed, to wit:
“He is an expert in wastewater treatment and not in current regulations.”
“He will be the first to admit that he had not called up the Water Resources Control Board to look into the practicality of controlling costs by postponing the wastewater treatment plant.”
“And Ed Schroeder believed the incorrect statements from staff and the JPA that we would lose our surface water rights if we postponed the project.”
So the public has to decide who to believe, two experts Sue herself chose, or Sue herself, who staunchly disagrees with the two experts because they do not agree with her position on surface water.
[quote]This gets us back to the point that there is not concensus that we could do the job for half the price. There are many of us that believe it is a water pipe dream, and the reality will be even higher costs.–[b]Jeff Boone[/b][/quote]Dr. George Tchanoglous said this at a council meeting, and this is exactly his area of expertise.
Let me correct the spelling: Dr. George Tchobanoglous.
“BTW, did you ever get the water leak on your property fixed? I hope you aren’t still using three times the City-wide average for water.”
Good to know that some are above cheap shots . ;>)/
Sue, I don’t know Mr. Tchobanoglous, or know of his credentials. He is only one man and entited to his opinion. But you know the saying… opinion are like “???”… we all have one.
Jeff: I suggest you re-think your view, it implies all opinions are created equally and that some people do not have more expertise to render their opinions upon. For instance, you go to a doctor for their opinion on a medical condition that is not equal to your wife’s opinion, even though in a technical sense it is an opinion.
David: Get 100 professionals of almost any discipline in a room and you can have 100 different nuanced opinions. It is human nature. Humans generally develop their opinions first based on their developed worldview, and then work to provide the data to back those opinions. Once the opinions are delivered, they hope their track record will be a winning one while they work furiously to defend their reputation for being correct.
What I look for is people and companies that demonstrate:
1. A winning record.
2. An indication that their individual and company worldview provides them a broader and more objective opinion.
West Yost meets those two criteria in my experience.
The same is true with doctors. I have had doctors stuck in their paradigms and inflexible to change their mind over diagnosis and treatment. My mother spent her last two years fighting brain cancer and my family encountered several highly-regarded cancer specialists that could not seem to get out of the way of their egos.
One very basic problem is that the city does not have conflict of interest codes. If West Yost wined and dined city staff more than their
competition did, then staff promote Yost by saying they understand Davis better.
Jeff: re Dr. Tchobanoglous.
[url]http://www.amazon.com/Wastewater-Engineering-Treatment-George-Tchobanoglous/dp/0070418780[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tchobanoglous[/url]
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Thanks for asking this question because it emphasizes my concerns. What made the initial design so concerning is that everyone I have talked with, including Dr Tchobanoglous, said that the design that was twice as expensive would give us no advantage. In fact, Dr. Tchobanoglous said that the less expensive design would be better because it would be more flexible and less expensive to expand while doing an equal job of meeting our wastewater objectives.”[/i]
Sue, I appreciate that answer, as far as it goes. Can you flesh it out for us a bit. What were the major “carve outs” that were removed from the West-Yost proposed solutions? Where did the savings come from?
We all know there were savings, but few of us have a sense about the nature of those savings.
biddlin said . . .
[b][i]”BTW, did you ever get the water leak on your property fixed? I hope you aren’t still using three times the City-wide average for water.”[/i]
Good to know that some are above cheap shots . ;>)/[/b]
I don’t understand your comment. I’ve asked davisite2 for an update on his water leak a number of times and he hasn’t given us an update. We are all just looking after the conservation of his “discretionary expenditures in Davis.”
I’d respond to Matt Williams, but Don doesn’t give me the local dispensation for rude and disingenuous comments .
I’ve removed some comments. Please keep to the topic of the wastewater project and consultant agreement. Thanks.
[quote]”One very basic problem is that the city does not have conflict of interest codes. If West Yost wined and dined city staff more than their competition did, then staff promote Yost by saying they understand Davis better.”[/quote]What part of this do you suggest is true, eagle eye? I’m always suspect of sentences that start with the word “If” and proceed to imply something untoward happened. It’s also odd that a municipal government would have nothing to deal with conflicts of interest on the part of employees or elected officials.
The city does have conflict of interest codes. You can google it.
Gov. Code section 81002(c)requires every entity to have a conflict of interest codes and Davis has a rigorous one, which is why commissioners are required to file 700 forms and disclose interests.
“Two questions davisite, 1) What investigations did West Yost not carry out, and what data did they seriously omit?”
The Council “history” of the surface water project is as follows:
The project was pushed from the dais by Don Saylor with Steve Souza as his “wing-man”. The now-retired Davis Public Works Director, Mr. Weir, stonewalled important factual questions raised by Sue Greenwald repeatedly as the open Council presentations were claimed to be reversible steps and information rather than leading to a decision. The obvious plan was to keep the project off the voter’s radar by continuing to proclaim that no final decisions were being made. Don Saylor decided to remain on the Council rather than step down in the fall(to assume his Supervisor seat in Jan), and allow an election for his seat rather than an appointment. He cast the deciding vote in December to go ahead with the project. Now it was argued that the decision was unchallengeable as the “horse had already left the barn”. As to inadequate studies which were never pursued because the results might challenge the “sky is falling” surface-water project narrative that was being pitched, no adequate studies of the dilution factors when deep-well aquifers were added to the numbers used to predict selenium levels and no detailed studies were performed to evaluate the Davis groundwater aquifer system.
The Yost consultants were evidently complicit in not gathering this data.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”The Council “history” of the surface water project is as follows:
“The project was pushed from the dais by Don Saylor with Steve Souza as his ‘wing-man.’ The now-retired Davis Public Works Director, Mr. Weir, stonewalled important factual questions raised by Sue Greenwald repeatedly as the open Council presentations were claimed to be reversible steps and information rather than leading to a decision. The obvious plan was to keep the project off the voter’s radar by continuing to proclaim that no final decisions were being made. Don Saylor decided to remain on the Council rather than step down in the fall(to assume his Supervisor seat in Jan), and allow an election for his seat rather than an appointment. He cast the deciding vote in December to go ahead with the project. Now it was argued that the decision was unchallengeable as the ‘horse had already left the barn.'”[/i]
How does any of the above reflect on West-Yost? It clearly reflects on Council, but how is that germane to West-Yost?
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”As to inadequate studies which were never pursued because the results might challenge the “sky is falling” surface-water project narrative that was being pitched, no adequate studies of the dilution factors when deep-well aquifers were added to the numbers used to predict selenium levels and no detailed studies were performed to evaluate the Davis groundwater aquifer system.
The Yost consultants were evidently complicit in not gathering this data.”[/i]
Your facts on the above are faulty. First, the selenium issues were indeed being studied at the City’s behest, but by Brown and Caldwell rather than West-Yost. Is it your position that there should have been two simultaneous studies of selenium being paid for? How is the fact that the City asked Brown and Caldwell to study selenium a failing on the part of West-Yost? Further, if you had chosen to attend either of the WAC meetings on 3/24 or 4/12 you would have heard Robb Beggs from Brown and Caldwell, Ken Loy from West-Yost, Jay Lund Chair of the UC Davis Watershed Science Center and Graham Fogg of UC Davis all say that the deep aquifer has indeed been studied, and that there are significant risks in relying on the deep aquifer as Davis’ sole source of water.
At the 3/24/2012 meeting of the WAC, Rob Beggs the principal author of the Brown and Caldwell Selenium Evaluation told the WAC members in attendance that there was no margin of error in the measures proposed in the evaluation, and that to rely on them for anything other than the short term is a significant limitation and would entail considerable risk.
So given all the above, how is it that West-Yost is “evidently complicit in not gathering the data”?
I think the above two posts by Matt Williams and Davisite are a bit of a tangent. I am focusing on the simple fact that the recommended design was much, much more expensive than necessary, and that all parties involved with this design had the responsibility to inform the city manager that their were more cost-efficient alternatives. Many other water professionals in town were telling me this, and it turns out that they were right.
Sue, how did the design change?
Matt, I am not an engineer and I am not going to give you an engineering report. You can ask Ed or George. What I do is actively solicit advice from multiple outside experts who are considered the best in the field. The bottom line here is that there was a design that was equal or better that cost half as much.
To Jeff Boone:
My sources tell me that the entire waste water treatment plant is designed around the current surface water plant design and its expected water quality output, which is a bit different than the current well supply.
So, if there is no surface water plant, then the wastetreatment plant design is screwed up, right?
So with the technical need and the politicial efficacy of the surface water plant undergoing review by the WAC, and what I expect will be a lively political and legal process if the CC chooses to proceed with what we have seen to date, why is the CC rushing to encumber the City with yet another consultant contract that has a high degree of near-certainty (in my view, anyway) of not panning out?
Further, it is common knowledge that the waste treatment plant rates are unconstitutionally disproportional. The question is when, not if, the City is sued over it.
Sorry I am so late to this party.
I am terribly confused why anyone with the City of Davis would even consider hiring West Yost: They have a track record on this very project and it is terrible. Had we not rejected what W-Y was telling us to do (and our city staff was buying their ideas hook, line and sinker), the ratepayers of Davis would now be paying roughly $100 million more than we will because we rejected W-Y.
How could anything be more damning than that?
If you hired a plumber to come to your house to fix a leaky pipe and he said you needed to spend $100,000 and replace all of your pipes and all of your fixtures and your neighbors fixtures and Don Saylor’s fixures and you had no other choice. But out of curiosity you call another plumber and he fixed the leak for $40 and said all that other stuff about changing pipes and fixtures was bogus. Then, knowing that, would you hire that first plumber a month later when you needed some advice on fixing your plumbing?
Obviously not.
There is very good reason to never hire someone for advice when that someone tried to talk you into spending $100 million you did not need to spend. I am saddened that anyone who is not making money off this project cannot see this fact on its face.
[i]”How does any of the above reflect on West-Yost? It clearly reflects on Council, but how is that germane to West-Yost?”[/i]
Matt, what more do you need than the fact that when West-Yost was hired to give advice on this very project earlier, they gave truly horrible advice? Is that not enough? How much worse would they have to do to prove to you they are not competent?
I have not read all the comments–I am taking a quick dinner break from work to catch up on this thread–but one more thing needs to be said (if no one yet has): West-Yost (at least with one of the partners) has been active for a long time funding various candidates for the City Council. I have personally been invited to (though never attended) fundraisers for members of the Council at their offices. If W-Y were just publicly minded citizens who wanted good government, then I would say, Well, that’s our system. However, they are a company which makes money off of the decisions of the Council. It is therefore an unethical act for them to give money to members of the Council and unethical for members to take that money. It is every bit as bad as real estate developers buying influence, though not quite as bad as city employees (that is, the firefighters) paying Council candidates for better labor contracts.
Rich, I think that is a gross over-simplification and a bit of arm-chair quarterbacking. Was it explicit in the RFP or contract that West Yost was hired to propose the lowest-cost solution? I don’t think so. Cost is always a criteria, but it is generally NEVER the only one. There are always tradeoffs. There are also short and long-term cost considerations. It appears that you and others are still discounting the long-term cost considerations.
[i]”West-Yost (at least with one of the partners) has been active for a long time funding various candidates for the City Council.”[/i]
So what? As far as I know both partners are long-term residents of the city.
I am really not impressed with this line of reasoning that business-political connections are all suspect for conflict of interest. Show me evidence, but otherwise these are just baseless emotives. Ethical people will behave ethically. But marketing is marketing. Business does not go to those that sit around and wait for it. The first step is to get the job, next step is to perform and develop a strong reputation for doing good work. West Yost has a VERY strong reputation for doing good work. The attacks from the Davis crowd just reinforces the point that we are extra hostile to business.
[i]”Was it explicit in the RFP or contract that West Yost was hired to propose the lowest-cost solution? I don’t think so. Cost is always a criteria, but [b]it is generally NEVER the only one[/b].”[/i]
At the risk of not getting my work done … I will make one final comment on this thread.
Cost may not be the only consideration. But what West-Yost told the Council was that the $200 million solution was the only viable solution. And then staff bought that. And then the Council majority (all of whom took money from West or Yost or both) refused to allow any other considerations … they would not even let others testify … until Sue finally got Schroeder and Tchabangalous in to testify at the last moment … and S&T said that West-Yost’s plan was massive overkill and completely unneeded. By accepting the advice of S&T, only after years of planning for the West-Yost $200 million project, the City ultimately agreed that West-Yost gave BAD advice, and that would have caused all of our rates to inflate by $100 million or more beyond what was needed.
[i]”I am really not impressed with this line of reasoning that business-political connections are all suspect for conflict of interest.”[/i]
You can choose to close your eyes to this kind of corruption. After all, you earlier said your wife works (or worked) for West-Yost. So you are not objective. However, closing your eyes does not make these kind of gifts to politicians less than corrupting. Frankly, it should be criminal. In most modern democracies it is criminal.
The reason businesses (and unions) donate to politicians is because they are expecting to get more in return than they invest. But their returns are not based on creating an efficiency or providing a great product or pleasing consumers or saving anyone money. Their returns are based on political favoritism. It’s why we buy tanks we don’t need for the Army; why we have ethanol subsidies; why we have ungodly huge pension debts; and why we pay as much as 200% of the costs for rice farmers in our region. All of the beneficiaries of this form of “democracy” gave money to get more money. It is, in no uncertain terms, corrupt.
Rich: [i]”After all, you earlier said your wife works (or worked) for West-Yost. So you are not objective.”[/i]
There you go again! I guess in your mind everyone is guilty by simple association. I guess I need to do background checks on everyone I assocate with.
My point in bringing up my wifes’s connection was that I know the partners and the company, and the realtity of who the people are and what the company is did not match the tone of hostility toward them.
With the union connection to policians – especially in this state – we have copious and long-term evidence of the resulting corruption of policy decision-making. We really don’t have any evidence that the proposal from West Yost was not anything other than their professional opinion. That fact that others have a different opinion for spending less is simply that… a difference of opinion.
On that note, I do agree that their failure to promote the more cost-effective solution should be a consideration for a continuing business relationship. However, like I said, it should not be the ONLY consideration. Frankly, we should consider the politicians that pointed them in this direction. Ask youself what would West Yost seek to gain to propose a solution that was ultimately rejected… they were likely responding to the direction given to them by their customer.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”My sources tell me that the entire waste water treatment plant is designed around the current surface water plant design and its expected water quality output, which is a bit different than the current well supply.
So, if there is no surface water plant, then the wastetreatment plant design is screwed up, right?”[/i]
Well Michael, your sources have misled you. The design of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) upgrade does indeed assume that the water sources going into the WTP are going to improve with respect to certain key constituents. Pretreating our existing groundwater at each wellhead to remove those constituents would achieve the same result as going with a new surface water source. Further, even if the existing groundwater were not pretreated, the design of the WTP upgrade would stand unchanged. A decision not to go with wellhead treatment of groundwater would mean that the effluent arriving at the WTP would be pretreated before entering the as-designed upgraded WTP. Such pretreatment would mean the expenditure of an incremental $50 million (approximately) over and above the $95 million.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”So with the technical need and the political efficacy of the surface water plant undergoing review by the WAC, and what I expect will be a lively political and legal process if the CC chooses to proceed with what we have seen to date, why is the CC rushing to encumber the City with yet another consultant contract that has a high degree of near-certainty (in my view, anyway) of not panning out?”[/i]
First, as noted above, there is not a technical need. Second, the contract being proposed by Staff for West-Yost is not a “consulting contract.” The Tchobanoglous Advisory Group (TAG) will be the “consultant” on the project. West-Yost is in effect providing outsourced project management employees. The alternative would be to try and hire temporary employees to complete the those tasks in the project plan.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Further, it is common knowledge that the waste treatment plant rates are unconstitutionally disproportional. The question is when, not if, the City is sued over it.”[/i]
Common knowledge? Like the common knowledge that our existing water rates are unconstitutionally disproportional? Please expand . . . we are all ears.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt, I am not an engineer and I am not going to give you an engineering report. You can ask Ed or George. What I do is actively solicit advice from multiple outside experts who are considered the best in the field. The bottom line here is that there was a design that was equal or better that cost half as much.”[/i]
What I hear you saying Sue is that when you advocated for the reduced cost WTP upgrade alternative you did not do a cost benefit analysis. Is that correct?
[b]@Michael Harrington and Matt Williams:[/b]Neither of you are quite right on this one. All wastewater plant designs under consideration are independent of the surface water project. None deal with selenium and salinity, which are the constituents that surface water deals with. There actually is no practical wastewater treatment plant that deals with salinity and selenium.
Again, if we want to, we can probably meet our salinity and selenium standards with our already planned deep wells and replumbing of intermediate wells for landscaping and water softener regulations. At most, we might need a couple of wells to deal with downtime, at a cost of maybe $8 million. That is less than one year’s interest that we would save by postponing the surface water project.
Sue said: “Maconi is an anonymous poster, claiming to be a competitor with no vested interest and an impartial view. If this is to be given any credence, Maconi should identify himself/herself so that we can form conclusions as to whether this claim is accurate. There is very big money involved in these contracts. “
Yet Sue also claims her own anonymous sources. Maybe Maconi will show Sue his if Sue shows him hers.
$4 million is not a petty sum even when its taxpayer money but the pettiness here is palpable.
West-Yost is local going after a big local project. Choosing them keeps more money circulating in our community. Were they pushing an overpriced project in the past? Seems so. Should that disqualify them from this project? Not necessarily so. It depends on whether or not cheaper alternatives were being purposefully ignored. To me it seems that there is a little bit of pay back in Sue’s objection especially since the overview will be independent.
The question I have is why was it so difficult to get an independent look at the original project? There are two possibilities. One is that the proponents and developing engineers didn’t want to allow cheaper alternatives to be considered. The fact that the council finally came around to looking at other options should put that one to rest. Second, that its so hard to listen to Sue that it takes $100,000,000 to get the attention of the other members and for them to realize that Sue isn’t just voicing opposition because she opposes everything that might allow future development. My guess is its the second case.
[i]Again, if we want to, we can probably meet our salinity and selenium standards with our already planned deep wells and replumbing of intermediate wells for landscaping and water softener regulations.
[/i]
Again, I completely disagree with this oft-repeated statement by Sue Greenwald. And so do the experts.
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-03-24-item4-presentation-deep-aquifer.pdf[/url]
Deep aquifer study slides from the WAC.
Clicking on Don’s link is definitely worth doing, as is 1) listening to the audio tape (it was a Saturday session so no video unfortunately) at [url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-03-24-wac-mono.mp3[/url] and 2) watching the last half hour of the video of the April 12th WAC meeting starting at the 2 hour and 30 minute point, where two UC Davis faculty members Jay Lund, Chair of the Watershed Science Center and Graham Fogg, Professor of Hydrogeology, also discuss the Deep Aquifer.
[quote]rich rifkin: Cost may not be the only consideration. But what West-Yost told the Council was that the $200 million solution was the only viable solution.[/quote]
Based on what I heard last night, this is not a correct characterization of West Yost’s involvement in the $207 million proposed WTP (according to Sue Greenwald the pricetag was more like $250 million and up – the figure grew the longer she talked). West Yost was a subcontractor of a larger consulting firm, and were only responsible for 17% of the work. It is not clear to me if they even had any say in what specific project was suggested. I just don’t know enough about the process to comment on that aspect. What I do know is that Council member Greenwald vilified West Yost from the dais, then turned around at the very end and disingenuously conceded they were a competent well respected firm. You can’t have it both ways…
[quote]Sue Greenwald: Again, if we want to, we can probably meet our salinity and selenium standards with our already planned deep wells and replumbing of intermediate wells for landscaping and water softener regulations. At most, we might need a couple of wells to deal with downtime, at a cost of maybe $8 million. That is less than one year’s interest that we would save by postponing the surface water project. [/quote]
Did you listen to the March 24 Saturday workshop by Robt Beggs on the sustainability of the deep aquifer? Did you listen to Graham Fogg and Jay Lund expound further on this subject at our next WAC meeting on April 12? [b][i]None of these experts are advocating your position.[/i][/b] I would highly recommend taking the time and trouble to tune in and absorb the possible ramifications of relying solely on the ground wells in Davis. The attendant problems with such a solution are far more complicated that you are proposing here…
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”Did you listen to the March 24 Saturday workshop by Robt Beggs on the sustainability of the deep aquifer? Did you listen to Graham Fogg and Jay Lund expound further on this subject at our next WAC meeting on April 12? [b]None of these experts are advocating your position.[/b] I would highly recommend taking the time and trouble to tune in and absorb the possible ramifications of relying solely on the ground wells in Davis. The attendant problems with such a solution are far more complicated that you are proposing here…” [/i]
For the record I have copied and pasted below the bullet points from the final slide of the Beggs presentation to the WAC on 3/24. IMHO, they speak volumes.
[b]Summary of Conclusions from Deep Aquifer Studies[/b]
• The deep aquifer could supply a portion of Davis’ needs, likely around half or a little more during summer months
• Quality not as good as surface water and will likely degrade gradually with time
• UC Davis impacts, water quality trends, and subsidence impacts would need to be evaluated before increased use.
What Elain says is true. West Yost was a subcontractor to Carollo Engineers. And, albeit a bit dated, this news article cites a previous WWTP upgrade estimate at $125-140 million.
[url]http://www.watershedportal.org/news/news_html?ID=316[/url]
“None of these experts are advocating your position.”
This is an ongoing problem with Sue’s credibility and is another reason she is no longer fit to serve because facts no longer matter to her.
[quote]Again, I completely disagree with this oft-repeated statement by Sue Greenwald. And so do the experts (concerning meeting our salinity and selenium discharge requirements with out the surface water problem) — [b]Don Shor[/b] [/quote]With all due respect, Don, you have not been talking with the experts. For example, George Tchobanoglous told me specifically that he never thought selenium was an unsurmountable problem requiring surface water.
The topic before us is the wastewater treatment plant — not the timing of the surface water project. These are completely separate issues, as I have tried to explain.
That said, no one is guaranteeing the aquifer is infinitely sustainable, or that the surface water project is not a good thing. What Graham Fogg has said is that the aquifer quality could degrade over time, particularly if we grow substantially. He has given estimates of the time frame under which degradation could occur that vary from decades to centuries (in writing) to a decade to fifty years, acknowledging that degradation might never occur. He has also stated that degradation would occur slowly.
The only issue is whether or not we could postpone the surface water project long enough to pay off some or most of the wastewater treatment plant, to keep costs manageable.
It appears that someone told Graham Fogg and Ed Schoeder and who knows who else that we would lose our surface water rights if we don’t proceed with the surface water project now. This incorrect information been weaved into the discussion.
[i]George Tchobanoglous told me specifically that he never thought selenium was an unsurmountable problem requiring surface water.[/i]
And, as you know:
1. Selenium is not the only problem. Chromium and arsenic are also concerns with the deep water. There is an excellent chart with yellow highlights in the Beggs presentation.
2. In order to use the deep water to dilute the water sufficiently to get selenium to our current water limits, we would have to run the deep wells in an unsustainable manner.
3. Extensive use of the deep wells by the city is likely to have an impact on UCD’s deep wells.
Most pertinent to this thread, since it pertains to the wastewater issue:
4. We still don’t know what the limits for selenium, chromium, salinity, et al. will be in the wastewater discharge permit when it is renewed and updated (this year? I seem to recall that).
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”That said, no one is guaranteeing the aquifer is infinitely sustainable, or that the surface water project is not a good thing. [b]What Graham Fogg has said is that the aquifer quality could degrade over time, particularly if we grow substantially. He has given estimates of the time frame under which degradation could occur that vary from decades to centuries (in writing) to a decade to fifty years, acknowledging that degradation might never occur. He has also stated that degradation would occur slowly.”[/b][/i]
Sue (and everyone), if you go to the webcast of the April 12th WAC meeting and watch/listen at the 2 hours and 39 minute point, you will find the following testimony from Graham Fogg and Jay Lund:
[b]Graham: “I don’t know that you can develop all the water that Davis needs from the Deep Aquifer.”
Jay: “I think there is a lot of uncertainty in what you all are talking about. You need to be prepared for what happens if you are wrong.”[/b]
Watch the whole half hour from 2 hours and 30 minutes to the end of the meeting. It is very illuminating.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The only issue is whether or not we could postpone the surface water project long enough to pay off some or most of the wastewater treatment plant, to keep costs manageable.”[/i]
That is what you feel is the only issue. Jay’s quote above says to me that there are a whole lot more issues than that one that you have a laser focus on.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”It appears that someone told Graham Fogg and Ed Schoeder and who knows who else that we would lose our surface water rights if we don’t proceed with the surface water project now. This incorrect information been weaved into the discussion.”[/i]
What I hear when I read your words is that now you are denigrating Graham and Ed. That is a very curious behavior if true. What evidence do you have for believing the appearance you have described?
[quote]The topic before us is the wastewater treatment plant — not the timing of the surface water project. These are completely separate issues, as I have tried to explain.[/quote]
Sue, how do you come to this conclusion that these are completely separate issues. It is a fact that the City’s WWTP is under a time schedule order to comply with selenium effluent limits. That means the City can not consistently comply today. It is a fact that the City’s stated solution in its pollution prevention plan is obtaining an alternative water source. And it is a fact that the WWTP upgrade currently proposed eliminates the only existing treatment process (the overland flow process) that treats selenium and keeps the City in usual compliance with its discharge permit. The City’s own engineers and planners don’t see them as separate.
[b]@Matt Williams:[/b] Of course there is uncertainty. Who would disagree with that? There is risk in everything we do and don’t do.
There is also uncertainty about the effects of trying to pay for both mega projects simultaneously, cost be darned. George Tchobanoglous and I talked about the “watchful waiting” approach with conservation, replumbing for irrigation, etc. Yes, there is risk involved with everything we do. We assume risk by not having a fourth fire station and we assume risk by not having more police officers. It is all about risk/benefit assessment.
[b]@Davis Enophile:[/b]Wrong. Davis is in compliance with selenium. Once we build the new waste water treatment plant, we can comply with selenium either with surface water or with our new deep aquifer wells. Meeting selenium and salinity requirements have nothing to do with the waste water treatment plant. I seem to remember explaining this earlier in the thread.
So Sue, what is the actual risk associated with the effects of trying to pay for both projects at once? How does the fact that the WTP upgrade is already one third paid for factor into your analysis?
I think this madness and bloated pork projects will be stopped when the voters disapprove the rates, and when someone sues the city for disproportional rates. The rst of it … Whatever.
[quote]That said, no one is guaranteeing the aquifer is infinitely sustainable, or that the surface water project is not a good thing. What Graham Fogg has said is that the aquifer quality could degrade over time, particularly if we grow substantially. He has given estimates of the time frame under which degradation could occur that vary from decades to centuries (in writing) to a decade to fifty years, acknowledging that degradation might never occur. He has also stated that degradation would occur slowly.
[/quote]
This is a mischaracterization of what was said. Please go back and listen to the audiotapes…
[quote]The only issue is whether or not we could postpone the surface water project long enough to pay off some or most of the wastewater treatment plant, to keep costs manageable.
[/quote]
That is hardly the ONLY issue. If you think that, then you need to get more educated and keep a more open mind…
[quote]It appears that someone told Graham Fogg and Ed Schoeder and who knows who else that we would lose our surface water rights if we don’t proceed with the surface water project now. This incorrect information been weaved into the discussion.
[/quote]
This is disingenuous attempt to discredit the opinions of Fogg and Schroeder because it does not comport w Council member Greenwald’s myopic view of surface water. Fogg and Schroeder, in so far as I am aware, are well versed on the issues. Sue herself selected Schroeder as a trusted expert, and has also referred to Fogg for his opinions. Yet now she conveniently insists their opinions are somehow based on faulty information bc they disagree with her…