By a 4-1 vote, the City Council approved authorization of 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.
The four million dollar agreement was finalized very late Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning.
The scope of the project has been significantly reduced since the development of the Charrette Plan 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.
“My biggest concern is that West Yost Associates was a partner with Carolla Design on the first project that at one point got up to $230 million,” Councilmember Greenwald said.
“My concern is that West Yost never stepped forward and said ‘this plan is overbuilt.’ If any firm should have, West Yost should have because they were involved in the surface water project so they knew what our cumulative costs were doing,” she continued. “Other engineers were saying this was way overbuilt – West Yost never said anything.”
“West Yost is at fault for not coming forward and saying, guys this is really expensive,” Councilmember Greenwald. “There is a cheaper way to do it and your cumulative costs are going to go sky high.”
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 argued that Brown and Caldwell, who was the other applicant, has a solid track record and was 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.
Some believe that Sue Greenwald’s concerns are moot, with the oversight built into the project through the creation of a Technical Advisory Group led by Dr. George Tchobanoglous.
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.”
These are among the reasons that councilmembers such as Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson are more comfortable at this point moving forward.
“Part of the reason why I’m more comfortable moving forward is that there [are] a lot of things that we did on this council to build trust into this process,” she said. She noted that the Charrette process itself and what came out of that process went a long way toward building trust in this process overall.
For her, the design-build is a critical way to build that trust.
“Design-build is one way that you can control costs and control change orders,” the Mayor Pro Tem said. It allows the council to control the parameters and the price tag while putting the risk onto the builder.
“So we know up front, we know what the costs is, especially in these economic times, we can’t afford to have things come back to us and say, oh, this is actually going to cost a little bit more,” she added.
Councilmember Stephen Souza added, “We are at a major milestone here tonight. We have never gotten this far to commit ourselves to 30 percent design.”
He said this is not the point of no return, but it is getting pretty close.
Sue Greenwald was the only one questioning the design-build method.
She told the Vanguard before the meeting, “I think we should take a step back and reconsider a design, bid, build process rather than the current design-build process.”
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.”
However, others disagreed.
Stephen Souza cited an article that found far greater savings for the design-build method.
He quoted from an article, “Design-build projects delivered method for water and wastewater treatment plants have provided a cost-savings of up to 43% and a reduced project schedules by as much as 33%.”
“To me, isn’t that we’re really after? Trying to find a reduction in costs and a reduction in time, particularly since we don’t have much time?” he continued.
Councilmember Dan Wolk added, “I’m comfortable with going design-build for reasons that were mentioned.”
“The procedure that we’ve gone through on this council,” he said, “has been very good. There has been significant trust in this process.”
I do think some of Councilmember Greenwald’s concerns about the bidder are mitigated through the TAG approach. But I do find it interesting, the expressed trust that West Yost seems to engender on council when, in fact, it is built in through heavy oversight.
The conclusion seems to be, yes, they did put forth a project that was overly-priced, and it may have been what the council had gone with had there not been persistent push-back from minority members on the council like Sue Greenwald, and to some extent, Lamar Heystek.
It was determined by the consultants that there could be a more cost-effective way to do this. That is something West Yost apparently did not question sufficiently. So now we are giving them the $4 million bid and telling them to go ahead and help oversee the design and construction of this project, but we will retain outside consultants to make sure you are optimizing our savings.
We probably get to the same place either way; it just seems odd to be rewarding West Yost when they got this project wrong the first time.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Again, Sue is the one who votes for financial sanity and good planning. West Yost botched this project’s first plan; they botched the surface water plant design, and at least stood by while staff botched the Sept 6 rates. Now, the CC is rewarding this consultant, again?
And we all know that the delay or death of the surface water plant changes the chemistry of the waste that enters the sewer plant, yet the CC is blindly pushing ahead with a waste treatment design that completely depends on the operation of the surface water plant whose huge rate increases were soundly rejected last fall.
Which of the CC members who voted YES were the ones who attended fundraisers at West Yost Associates? Rich, you mentioned some yesterday, but did not name names. Can you tell us?
This is exactly why I and many others are voting for Sue.
Sue, thank you for running again.
It is clear by his comment above that Michael Harrington practices “hit and run” when it comes to posts here in the Vanguard. Yesterday he posted the same inaccurate statement that the “waste treatment design […] completely depends on the operation of the surface water plant” and both Sue Greenwald and I corrected him. He clearly didn’t bother to read either of our responses, because here he is again saying the same totally false statement. I only hope that Michael isn’t texting while driving when he posts this drivel. If he is he may well be at risk of practicing a whole different kind of hit and run.
For the record here is my response from yesterday followed by Sue’s response.
[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. [/i]
and from Sue
[i]”[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.” [/i]
To address Sue’s comment above, she is both right and wrong. Reverse Osmosis can be used to remove both selenium and salinity; however, that process would be so expensive that it indeed would not be practical, as Sue pointed out in her response.
Thought Don Saylor had left town. Is there some subliminal message in use of this old photo?
Is this a debate about whether design-bid-build or design-build is cheaper? And Sue’s says her anonymous experts say the first saves 10% and Stephen’s anonymous article says the second will save up to 43%? That’s a pretty wide spread. It doesn’t seem that anyone has much of a handle on this.
The only sure thing is that the vote has gone from 3-2 to 4-1.
This is not the only issue facing the City. Sue’s concerns were addressed by creating an oversight body with the very experts that she likes, yet votes against it. Delay, delay, delay is the mantra of the opposition. I suspect that Sue’s votes these days are designed to garner support for her re-election campaign. Mike Harrington’s comments support this.
Just Saying, I don’t pretend to be an expert on the nuances of the issue you describe above, but for informational purposes here is a link to the peer-reviewed article that Steve referred to [url]http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/6/prweb8563707.htm[/url] I was able to find it with Google using the information he said from the dias. Perhaps Sue can provide similar documentation for her 10% savings assertion.
The following is a synopsis of the 43% article,
[i]”[b]New Report Describes Time and Cost Savings From Design Build Project Delivery[/b]
The Design-Build (DB) project delivery method was found to provide cost savings of up to 43% and reduced project schedules by as much as 33% when compared to the conventional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) approach for water and wastewater treatment projects. The results are described in a peer-reviewed paper authored by Smith Culp Consulting that will be published in July by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Las Vegas, NV (PRWEB) June 13, 2011
The Design-Build (DB) project delivery method was found to provide cost savings of up to 43% and reduced project schedules by as much as 33% when compared to the conventional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) approach for water and wastewater treatment projects. The results are described in a peer-reviewed paper authored by Smith Culp Consulting that will be published in July by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Alternative project delivery methods such as DB, Design-Build-Operate (DBO) and Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO) are increasingly being considered as options to DBB. In DBB, one party designs the facility, it goes out to bid and the low-bid contractor builds it. In DB, one company both designs and builds the facility. In DBO, the same company also operates the facility and in DBFO, also finances it. For public agencies, these alternative methods allow the owner to use qualifications and the quality of proposal as predominant selection criteria for the contractor rather than being forced to accept the low bidder. Project quality is improved as confirmed by an analysis of over 300 DBB and DB projects. The owners of these projects felt DB provided significantly better finished project quality than DBB.
DB provides the owner with one source of responsibility for both design and construction (and operation when using DBO). This eliminates disputes about whether the responsibility to solve a project problem rests with the designer, constructor or operator.
Smith Culp Consulting of Las Vegas, NV (http://www.smithculp.com) has recently guided several communities such as Spokane County, WA; Phoenix, AZ and Pima County (Tucson), AZ through the process of procuring and negotiating DBO contracts for major water and wastewater projects. Smith Culp Consulting also has assisted several other cities and utility districts in determining the best delivery method for their projects. In the Pima County project awarded earlier this year, the cost of a new 32 million gallon per day wastewater treatment plant was reduced from an estimated $240 million to $170 million using DBO. Construction was underway within five months of execution of the DBO contract.
The paper concludes that these alternative project delivery methods have the greatest value when applied to projects involving new facilities or discrete additions to existing facilities, projects that are schedule driven, or projects that offer the potential for innovative solutions.
Media Contact
Gordon Culp
702-360-1120
http://www.smithculp.com“[/i]
George Tchobanoglous wrote a memo detailing why he thought that the article of mentioned by Stephen extolling design build did not apply to this plant. He recommended design-bid-build, as did a number of other professionals, including the non-anonymous professionals who were in the audience on the night the decision to chose design-build over design-bid-build was made, who said that they would have to drop out of a design-build process, leaving only a few big firms to bid.
I am going to address the issue of anonymous sources. Reporters use anonymous sources for a reason, and that is because it is often the only way they can report the information they have learned. Either you trust the reporter or you don’t. So you can believe me or not, it is your choice. I was the only councilmember who said that the Corolla-West design was too expensive, and I was right. Most of my sources for this information were anonymous sources of the highest caliber. It is your choice whether to believe it or not.
[quote]The conclusion seems to be, yes, they did put forth a project that was overly-priced, and it may have been what the council had gone with had there not been persistent push-back from minority members on the council like Sue Greenwald, and to some extent, Lamar Heystek.[/quote]
This is an incorrect statement. Based on what I heard that night, Carolla Design was the primary consultant, and West Yost was a subcontractor and only was responsible for 17% of the work.
[quote]”My concern is that West Yost never stepped forward and said ‘this plan is overbuilt.’ If any firm should have, West Yost should have because they were involved in the surface water project so they knew what our cumulative costs were doing,” she continued. “Other engineers were saying this was way overbuilt – West Yost never said anything.”[/quote]
Yet at the end of the discussion Council member Greenwald conceded West Yost was a fine engineering firm. You cannot have it both ways…
You go, Sue. And you were the only CC member who made a motion on Sept 6 to put the huge water rate increases to a citywide ballot vote. The rest is history.
Matt, hate to say it, but I remember being savagaed by you and ERM and a host of other project apologists as wrong wrong wrong last fall. I was not, as you know now. I am right about the waste treatment plant; it should be halted until there is a community consensus on what to do with the water supply system, and funding to do it, if anything.
We are going to take this community past the developer-driven CC majorities, and to a direct democracy model where, by a good government system of reforms done via inititative that only the voters can change, the big ticket items like the waste treatment plant, surface water plant, ConAgra, and the other controversial projects are always, routinely, put on the ballot.
We are also going to set up an audit function in city government that will be indepdenent, and empowered to take sworn testimony and subpoena documents and witnesses.
We are going to go around the CC majority that would spoliate our sweet little city or bankrupt us, like we had to do with Covell Village and the surface water plant debacle.
The give-away to West Yost is unconsionable.
[quote]This is not the only issue facing the City. Sue’s concerns were addressed by creating an oversight body with the very experts that she likes, yet votes against it.-[b]Ryan Kelly[/b][/quote]Ryan, I advocate going full steam ahead with the waste water project, because we need the project to meet our regulatory requirements. This is not true of the surface water project, so there is less rush with that project. I voted to go full steam ahead with design-bid-build wastewater treatment plant, and even made a motion to go full steam ahead with Brown and Caldwell leading my least preferred design-build process. That said, if necessary, it is worth taking to time to get the right team and the right process
I don’t understand the logic that picking the best team for the specific job is not an issue if you have an oversight committee. It is better than no oversight, but better yet IMHO to choose a team in which I have confidence with an oversight committee in which I have confidence.
This project along with the surface water project is an order of magnitude larger than any other project that the city has undertaken, so I think we need the team in which we have the most confidence along with the oversight committee in which we have the most confidence.
If you have more confidence in West Yost than Brown and Caldwell, that is a legitimate argument. I don’t. But to say that all is fine because we have good oversight seems weak logic to me.
[quote]Sue’s concerns were addressed by creating an oversight body with the very experts that she likes, yet votes against it. [/quote]
It is far worse than that. Council member Greenwald is staking out diametrically opposite positions on the surface water issue than the very experts she herself chose. She then disingenuously dismisses their credentials because they don’t agree with her position to delay surface water for 20 or more years…
“Expert shopping” to find someone to agree with a position is fine. But when the chosen experts offer an opinion that may disagree with the person who selected them to weigh in on an issue (showing that the experts have integrity), it is wrong to be so dismissive/conveniently question the credentials of the very experts invited on board to discuss the issue…
[quote]Some believe that Sue Greenwald’s concerns are moot, with the oversight built into the project through the creation of a Technical Advisory Group led by Dr. George Tchobanoglous.
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.”[/quote]
For me, the TAG is crucial…
[quote]”I am going to address the issue of anonymous sources. Reporters use anonymous sources for a reason, and that is because it is often the only way they can report the information they have learned. Either you trust the reporter or you don’t.”[/quote]You are flat out wrong about the reason reporters use anonymous sources. Studies show that journalists themselves see them as inherently less believable and that most (more than 80% in one landmark study) blame competition for forcing them to use them.
There is no honor amongst editors in the use of such sources. For every Deep Throat situation–which folks agree justified anonymous sources–there have been hundreds of sensational and routine stories built on secret sources that have been proved frauds or pure political propaganda efforts.
The reasons for the unreliability of anonymous sources should be apparent. First, consider the source; what motivates them to feed information and, more important, why do they want to hide from their own statements? Second, consider the writers; are they just lazy or are are they purposely making up the information to support their position or make for a better story?
Because of the inherent lack of reliability, most media outlets now allow secret sourcing only under strict rules and indicate the reason for each such source in their stories. Furthermore, they primarily use such sources to lead to information and sources so they can publish without relying on the anonymous label and/or they convince the sources to speak on the record.
I don’t understand why you want to be in such company. You are an elected public representative, and your sources for public policy issues have no reason not to stand by their opinions.
There is no reason for you to be taking on the burden of credibility for people who are afraid to go public for whatever motivation. In fact, you must notice that your own motivation and reliability get questioned every time you rely on such support for your stands.
I hope you’ll reconsider this technique. It is just wrong for a public official.
– – – –
I still can’t figure out how to make links work here, but Google “anonymous sources”+”Columbia Journalism Review” and you’ll find out what reporters and editors really thing about this technique.
Sue: I flat disagree with you about halting the waste treatment plant. It should be stopped for now.
Sue: as to oversight, you are correct. The City has to have good oversight, and there is clearly none when it comes to West Yost. There was none last year with the water rate increases.
And there has been none with DACHA, until maybe the last few months.
Sue, you are correct: the lack of oversight by city staff and the CC is a key factor in the fiscal and program disasters of the past 5+ years.
Mike Harrington: “You go, Sue. And you were the only CC member who made a motion on Sept 6 to put the huge water rate increases to a citywide ballot vote. The rest is history.”
I have difficulty understanding Mike Harrington’s flippant posts. Someone else referred to them as “hit and run” posts.
Just what does he mean by “The rest is history”? Does he mean that nothing else matters after that vote or that Sue’s lone vote set in motion something that couldn’t be changed?
Ryan: sorry to be so brief, but I have several businesses to run, little kids at home, and I am rebuilding another downtown home. I dont spend my days cutting and pasting and researching and writing volumes on this and other Blogs; some do, and bless them for having the interest and time; I don’t have the latter.
But sometimes these big-ticket items draw me out for a quick post or two. The surface water project give-away to the consultants and lawyers; the DACHA debacle are a couple of them.
(BTW, there still is no CC oversight of DACHA mess: did you know that the City is still losing $20K a month on unrented former DACHA homes, and the City Attorney is still billing/milking us for about $30K a month to litigate her advice and legal documents that created the litigation?
Let me seee: I screw things up; I get to ger rich defending my conduct and trying with all the City’s resources to stomp down and bankrupt and defame and ruin David and Luke, two of the nicest, most professional, and most loyal residents Davis has every been blessed with? Not to mention Twin Pines Coop, and housing staff’s crusade to eliminate the mutual coop housing model that underpinned DACHA and other projects
Moderator: the key tie in with the waste treatment plant is the clear pattern and practice of lack of effective oversight by the voters of the CC, and the senior staff. THAT is the issue of the day, and one we are going to all have to work on. The waste treatment plant and giving away the kitchen store, again, to West Yost is just the mess du jour.
Michael’s comment about cutting and pasting reminded me why the Saylor photograph might ring a bell. A [i]Vanguard[/i] search reveals it was used to illustrate a story 4-1/2 years ago.
I get the implications now that I’ve read the story (which must include interesting memories for Sue as well):
[quote][b]Saylor Carries Water for West Yost[/b]
Monday, 15 October 2007 05:05[/i]
The Vanguard has discovered that Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor, has accepted campaign contributions from a firm that has a contract to do business with the city of Davis on the highly expensive and volatile issue of water….
Mayor Sue Greenwald has maintained that while it is clear that we need to implement the wastewater treatment facility in order to insure that our water discharge meets state and federal standards, the timing of the water supply project could be delayed in order to protect the pocketbooks and wallets of ratepayers in the city….
In addition to attending his party, Jeff Peltz is listed as a $100 to Don Saylor’s reelection campaign as is the firm he works for West Yost and Associates itself.
So now you have a major consulting firm that is in charge of doing work on one of the most expensive projects in the city’s history has been contributing to the reelection of their chief supporter on the city council.
[i]—Doug Paul Davis reporting[/i][/quote]
[quote]Mike says : Ryan: sorry to be so brief, but I have several businesses to run, little kids at home, and I am rebuilding another downtown home. I dont spend my days cutting and pasting and researching and writing volumes on this and other Blogs; some do, and bless them for having the interest and time; I don’t have the latter. [/quote]
Here’s some research I cut and pasted:
Definition of a jerk: 5. Slang A foolish, rude, or contemptible person
Ref. The Free Dictionary.
No personal attacks, please.
[quote]”(BTW, there still is no CC oversight of DACHA mess: did you know that the City is still losing $20K a month on unrented former DACHA homes, and the City Attorney is still billing/milking us for about $30K a month to litigate her advice and legal documents that created the litigation? “[/quote]Michael, are we also still paying Harriet for legal advice re. DACHA? Why do you think the city council would have decided to sign an op-ed, complete with lies about a local business, then refuse to respond when the lies were exposed?
Do attorneys recommend, “just shut up,” or do they say “let’s put out something to libel the opposition first, and then go quiet”? Not that you would know how all lawyers operate. But, it seemed like a pretty sleazy approach for elected representatives to undertake on their own.
You connect DACHA to way the council makes decisions on water and other issues. I say it also stands alone as a moment of legal disgrace for our city. I hope David is able to get the real story about who developed and reviewed this op-ed. Or, maybe, some secret source could reveal it to him.
Good work Just Saying. For the record, Doug Paul Davis was the pen name that I used the first two years or so of the Vanguard.
Here’s a picture of Bruce West for future columns.
[img]http://engineering.ucdavis.edu/go/50years/biographies/biographyimages/westbruce.jpg[/img]
[url]http://engineering.ucdavis.edu/go/50years/biographies/BruceWest.html[/url]
Don Shor: The point was just to remind people that I warned five years ago where this was all going. Maybe W-Y is the best firm for this job, but unfortunately where there are these blending of the lines, there is an appearance of favoritism. That is made all the more apparent when part of the justification is their familiarity with the project which is of course an interesting circle.
It wasn’t too anonymous, David, since your real name (or is it?) was at the top of the page.
Thanks, Don, he looks like a man of integrity (but, of course, we can’t see those 100-dollar bills in his cuffs).
“Yet at the end of the discussion Council member Greenwald conceded West Yost was a fine engineering firm. You cannot have it both ways… “
That’s why I try not to make those kind of gratuitous throw away statements, because someone will hear them and use it against your core point.
The irony is that I suspect if I read the through the comments in that article from 2008, that I will find your posts under various names that expressed quite a bit of skepticism about the process.
“It wasn’t too anonymous, David, since your real name (or is it?) was at the top of the page.”
The article originally appeared on the old blogsite webpage and was transported over. which is why all comments are in triplicate. Basically it was well known who Doug Paul Davis was by January 2007, I liked the pen name but as the site shifted it became more hassle than it was worth to keep it up and have to explain to everyone my name.
Thanks for the background for the newer readers.
The [i]Vanguard[/i] has come a long way since the beginning. You must be quite pleased with how it’s grown to a voice that’s listened to in the community, regardless of whether folks agree with every stand or not. (Or whether you should use so many anonymous sources.)
[quote]Again, Sue is the one who votes for financial sanity and good planning. West Yost botched this project’s first plan; they botched the surface water plant design, and at least stood by while staff botched the Sept 6 rates. Now, the CC is rewarding this consultant, again?
And we all know that the delay or death of the surface water plant changes the chemistry of the waste that enters the sewer plant, yet the CC is blindly pushing ahead with a waste treatment design that completely depends on the operation of the surface water plant whose huge rate increases were soundly rejected last fall.
Which of the CC members who voted YES were the ones who attended fundraisers at West Yost Associates? Rich, you mentioned some yesterday, but did not name names. Can you tell us?
This is exactly why I and many others are voting for Sue.
Sue, thank you for running again.
[/quote]
My sentiments exactly
[quote]The irony is that I suspect if I read the through the comments in that article from 2008, that I will find your posts under various names that expressed quite a bit of skepticism about the process.[/quote]
Don’t know about that article specifically, but I certainly had “grave concerns” (and I think those are the exact words I used) in regard to the abuse of process practiced by the Gang of Three on the City Council at the time. However, that is not the issue here, and this is a whole new City Council dynamic. Here we have West Yost who only was a subcontractor to the design team for the WTP, and only did 17% of the work. There will be an oversight committee (TAG) headed by experts that Council member Greenwald selected for their expertise herself. Whole different ball game…
[quote]In addition to attending his party, Jeff Peltz is listed as a $100 to Don Saylor’s reelection campaign as is the firm he works for West Yost and Associates itself. [/quote]
Now here is my question for everyone… should there be a city ordinance that forbids anyone doing business w the city to give campaign contributions to any candidate running for office? Because that is essentially what appears is being advocated for here. Frankly, I don’t think such an ordinance would even be constitutional (violates right to free speech). Comments?
[quote]It is far worse than that. Council member Greenwald is staking out diametrically opposite positions on the surface water issue than the very experts she herself chose.–[b]Elaine Musser[/b][/quote]Elaine, you are not discussing, you are heckling and hectoring, since I have answered this accusation of yours a thousand times.
First, you are taking their recommendation out of context of the report. Ed and George were not focusing on the surface water project but on the wastewater project. They suggested posponing the wastewater project and proceeding with the surface water project to phase the project and to ease the financial strain, since they recognize that the total debt burden is extraordinarily high.
The problem with this approach is that Ed and George don’t pretend to be experts on current regulations and on water rights; they relied on staff and staff gave them incorrect information on a few fronts. I have had long talks with George, and he is very concerned about total debt burden, and suggested postponing the wastewater treatment plant. It turns out that that can’t be done due to the inflexibility of the regulations. Secondly, they were told that we would lose our water rights if we did not procede immediately. Ed gave loss of water rights as his main reason for proceeding with the surface water project in a letter to the editor. Ed now understands that this information that he was given is incorrect.
I have had long talks with George about the surface water project. He is not dogmatic about it. We talked about the watchful waiting approach, and using conservation and replumbing of the aquifer and getting prepared to proceed if necessary. This would be a lot easier if we could use the West Sacramento option (or the West Sacramento option might be affordable enough to procede immediately — let’s hope!!) George’s main reason he gave me for proceeding now was his view of the economics, and he is not an economist. He is of the impression that the project will “cost more later”. Other experts, such as David Purkey of the Water Advisory Board who is hydrologist who trained in the economics of water systems and Mark Siegler who is Chair of the Economics department at USCS take a more classical economics view that the time value of money dictates that you usually save money when you postpone huge capital improvement projects. These are judgment calls; the fact that the Corolla Design West Yost treatment plant design is more expensive than necessary is not a judgement call, it is a fact.
Sue said: “I am going to address the issue of anonymous sources. Reporters use anonymous sources for a reason, and that is because it is often the only way they can report the information they have learned. Either you trust the reporter or you don’t. So you can believe me or not, it is your choice.”
Sue is not a reporter she is a member of the city council. I hope she understands the difference.
[quote]time value of money dictates that you usually save money when you postpone huge capital improvement projects.[/quote]
Sue, could you explain this further? What is the “time value of money?”
I have a dollar today that I can spend on a capital improvement project. I delay this. What is my dollar worth later?
I can see raising rates and building reserves, while delaying a huge project, but by delaying both just pushes the problem down the road with inflation making the project even more expensive. Doesn’t it?
[b]@Ryan Kelly:[/b]I know that this is the intuitive view, but I learned in economics that it is not really accurate. Inflation doesn’t make projects more expensive unless construction costs outstrip inflation in general, and there is no reason to assume that they will.
I should have Mark Siegler, who is on the Water Advisory Commission and Chair of the Economics Department at Sac State, or David Purkey who is a hydrologist or analysis the economics of projects to explain this to you.
A couple of the variables that people look at is that construction projects wear out over time and have to be replaced so that if you can wait, you will have to pay for extra rounds of replacement if you do a project earlier. Also, technology improves and conditions change so that today’s optimal solution might not be tomorrow’s optimal solution. That is what happened with our wastewater treatment plant, in fact.
On top of all this, there are less grants and outside funding sources available today than we have had in the past. Timing couldn’t get much worse in that regard. When we started to project, staff though we would be able to pay for a large portion of it with grants and outside funding — not so today.
Let me straighten out that sentence:
A couple of the variables that people look at is that construction projects wear out over time and substantial elements have to be replaced, so if you build the project earlier you will have to pay for more rounds of replacement than if you do the project later. Technology improves and conditions change so that today’s optimal solution might not be tomorrow’s optimal solution. That is what happened with our wastewater treatment plant, in fact.
In the end, we all know that the expansion of these plants is to accommodate a Davis population of between 125-150,000, or doubling. The surface water plant was presented throughout the 1990s by the pro-growth CC majorities as a way to provide the water for this larger population, to supplement the well production. When Ken and I and Sue became the CC majority in 2000, and Measure J passed, the growth proponents could see the handwriting was on the wall to reduce the population growth rates, there their stated need for the plant evaporated, so suddenly (yes, it was suddenly), staff and West Yost switched the need for the plant from growth, to “those nasty new state regs” and to “improve the water taste.” Doubling the population suddenly was not listed as a reason.
Saylor and Souza are the two strongest, longest-serving growth proponents we have had in many years, and the surface project is the baby of those two CC members, and West Yost, and the staff who all want to be city-retired consultants making well into the six figures some day. The politicos see the plant as a huge source of money for campaign contributions, and it certainly has been over the years.
[i]The politicos see the plant as a huge source of money for campaign contributions, and it certainly has been over the years.[/i]
Numbers, please? How much? To whom?
Don: wish I could produce an exact number sitting here, but just go look. I read that stuff after each election cycle, and it is community knowledge that Don and Steve have been hugely funded by the development and commercial growth community. Also, Ted, and Ruth, and Susie Boyd, etc. THey have bundlers who bring in envelopes full of checks from the businesses, from staff, from the extended families. If you really parsed it all out, and had interns running down the leads, and exactly what are the background links between those payors and the campaigns, you will find that many of the “retireds” are out of the dvelopment community. I’m not knocking their business plan; it is what it is; if they get the political and legal clout to soak the ratepayers of almost a half of a billion dollars like what almost happened last fall, then bless them.
But please dont be naive that the developer and commercial backers of these large utility projects are just sending money because they like Don and Steve’s smiles, as pleasant as they are.
Why don’t you go look? You’re the one who just said “it certainly has been over the years.”
Also, this:
Per Michael Harrington, old threads:
[i]
• The surface water plant is one of the cleverest strategies I have ever seen: soak the rate payers so the potable water is available for the elitist dream town of 150,000 and for the upzoning of the land around Davis and Woodland.
•I am sure there was a discussion amongst a few elites about 15 years ago, and the surface water system was the chosen way to make sure that Davis had the water for a much larger population while enriching the border land owners.[/i]
has morphed into:
Michael Harrington, current thread:
[i][b]we all know[/b] that the expansion of these plants is to accommodate a Davis population of between 125-150,000, or doubling.[/i]
The one thing we all know is that [b]the voters completely control the size and growth of the city. We all know that. [/b]
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”In the end, we all know that the expansion of these plants is to accommodate a Davis population of between 125-150,000, or doubling.”[/i]
Actually Michael, we don’t all know that. Specifically the water treatment plant as proposed is sized to support the General Plan and 1% Growth Cap. Therefore the populations currently planned for are:
201569996
202073496
202577171
203081029
203585081
204089335
The properly formatted population numbers are:
2015 – 69,996
2020 – 73,496
2025 – 77,171
2030 – 81,029
2035 – 85,081
2040 – 89,335
Don Shor said . . .
“The one thing we all know is that the voters completely control the size and growth of the city. We all know that.”
That is exactly why Measure J was passed and then renewed by Measure R. In addition the 1% Growth Cap provides year by year limits . . . with a very clear “no catch-up provision.” Michael is doing his best Don Quixote imitation.
Remember that Mike Harrington doesn’t have time to do actual research or substantiate anything he says. He has reminded us time and time again that he has a job, a family and other interests that take up his time, unlike the rest of us.
[quote]Sue: “A couple of the variables that people look at is that construction projects wear out over time and have to be replaced so that if you can wait, you will have to pay for extra rounds of replacement if you do a project earlier. Also, technology improves and conditions change so that today’s optimal solution might not be tomorrow’s optimal solution. That is what happened with our wastewater treatment plant, in fact.” [/quote]
I understand this. Homeowners do this all the time. But at 1) what point do you move ahead and stop deferring the project and 2) shouldn’t we collect reserves toward upgrading while we wait?
[quote]”In the end, we all know that the expansion of these plants is to accommodate a Davis population of between 125-150,000, or doubling.”[/quote]Dang, I ain’t no economist, but wouldn’t that mean that each of us blabbing away here would get our water for half-price once these folks move in. We could reopen the swimming pool with their sales taxes. And get a Lowe’s to reduce the cost of our lumber. And, a Popeye’s chicken.
[quote]”George Tchobanoglous wrote a memo detailing why he thought that the article of mentioned by Stephen extolling design build did not apply to this plant.”[/quote]I checked the packet for this memo, but couldn’t find it or any reference to it. How can we track it down? What were his compelling reasons?
I also looked at the summaries and references for the peer-reviewed article Stephen provided, “Alternative Project Delivery Methods – Do They Save Time and Money.” Didn’t spend the money to buy whole thing, but what I read seemed pretty convincing and seemed to pretty directly apply to our project: [quote]”Are there alternative methods for delivering water and wastewater treatment projects that can save time and money without sacrificing project quality? This is an especially relevant question in these difficult economic times. This paper addresses the question by comparing traditional and alternative project delivery methods in terms of their effects on project quality, schedule, and costs. Project delivery methods discussed are traditional design–bid–build and the alternative methods of design–build, design–build–operate, and design–build–finance–operate.”[/quote]
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt, hate to say it, but [b]I remember being savaged by you[/b] and ERM and a host of other project apologists as wrong wrong wrong last fall. I was not, as you know now. I am right about the waste treatment plant; it should be halted until there is a community consensus on what to do with the water supply system, and funding to do it, if anything.”[/i]
Michael, once again you are posting something with no factual basis. I have [u]never[/u] savaged you here on the Blog. I have consistently asked you questions, the most frequent of which was “What is your Plan B?” As you know, you have just as consistently not answered any of those questions, and rather than “savaging you” I have simply pointed out that you haven’t answered the question and then gone on to ask the question again.
[quote]I understand this. Homeowners do this all the time. But at 1) what point do you move ahead and stop deferring the project and 2) shouldn’t we collect reserves toward upgrading while we wait?—[b][b]Ryan Kelly[/b][/b][/quote]The main reason to consider deferring the project now, if we can’t find a more affordable approach, would be because of the huge cost of the waste water plant upgrade. Upgrading to tertiary is unique situation. I agree with you completely about building up the fund. When I suggested the option of phasing in the projects, I suggested raising water rates somewhat to start building up a fund for the surface water project.
Sue, do you realize that we already have one third of the WTP Upgrade already paid for? Further, by the time the WTP Upgrade comes live in 2017 it will be more than two thirds paid for.
To Sue Greenwald: If I speak directly to all these people you have mentioned above (Tschobonoglaus, Shroeder, Purkey, Seigler), are you certain they will agree that your view above of what they said/believe is how they actually see things? Because it is certainly not in keeping with what I have heard any of them say in the WAC…
[quote]@Ryan Kelly:I know that this is the intuitive view, but I learned in economics that it is not really accurate. Inflation doesn’t make projects more expensive unless construction costs outstrip inflation in general, and there is no reason to assume that they will. [/quote]
And how do you know this? HOw do you know finance costs won’t outstrip inflation? HOw do you know labor costs won’t outstrip inflation?
[quote]A couple of the variables that people look at is that construction projects wear out over time and have to be replaced so that if you can wait, you will have to pay for extra rounds of replacement if you do a project earlier. Also, technology improves and conditions change so that today’s optimal solution might not be tomorrow’s optimal solution. That is what happened with our wastewater treatment plant, in fact.
[/quote]
So are you saying put off today what you can do tomorrow? Really?
[quote]we all know that the expansion of these plants is to accommodate a Davis population of between 125-150,000, or doubling. [/quote]
This is an issue the WAC wants to take a look at…
[quote]The main reason to consider deferring the project now, if we can’t find a more affordable approach, would be because of the huge cost of the waste water plant upgrade. Upgrading to tertiary is unique situation. I agree with you completely about building up the fund. When I suggested the option of phasing in the projects, I suggested raising water rates somewhat to start building up a fund for the surface water project.[/quote]
No matter what alternative is chosen to address water issues, be it no project, deep wells only, or some sort of surface water project, our rates would have to be raised to cover the costs of maintaining the current crumbling infrastructure and to meet the new regulatory requirements…
[quote]Sue: “I agree with you completely about building up the fund. When I suggested the option of phasing in the projects, I suggested raising water rates somewhat to start building up a fund for the surface water project.” [/quote]
Why are we then only figuring out an increase in rates as they relate to specific projects. Couldn’t we get a ball park cost and then raise the rates a bit now while we hash out what we need, deal with members of the public who view any water project akin to building out Covell Village, etc.
I’m really worried that we will push this off again and again and then be hit with a huge, unaffordable rate increase. I completely oppose any stance that we should delay and delay and delay any and all action on this. I think it is just irresponsible for people to set us up for a huge financial loss in the future. We should be setting aside reserves.
[quote]I’m really worried that we will push this off again and again and then be hit with a huge, unaffordable rate increase. I completely oppose any stance that we should delay and delay and delay any and all action on this. I think it is just irresponsible for people to set us up for a huge financial loss in the future. We should be setting aside reserves.[/quote]
Excellent point…