Commentary: Proposed Surface Water Ballot Measure Flawed

floating-20On September 6, 2011, the Davis City Council, after narrowly rejecting a more narrow measure, agreed 4-1 to approve the surface water project and accompanying rate hikes that would have taken place this year.

Further scrutiny would show that those rates were flawed and three months later, the council would rescind those rate hikes and put in place a process to evaluate the project, the details, the costs, and ultimately a new set of water rates.

The problem with the way the process unfolded last year was that the Prop 218 process is inherently undemocratic for reasons we have already discussed at length – only property owners could protest the rate hikes despite the fact that 55% of this community are renters, many of whom will have the costs passed on to them.

What ultimately forced the council’s hand was a citizen-based referendum that gained enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.  It was only at that point that the cooler heads of Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson took the more limited approach that they had first advocated on September 6, but for which they failed to get a third vote.

Part of what has ensued is a Water Advisory Committee that has worked hard over the past six months or so to examine the project.  But they need more time to complete their job.  They estimate August 21.

They have already unanimously determined that we need a surface water option, however they have yet to decide the details of that option – the project itself and the rates.

Council and city staff are now in a bit of a quandary.  To put a ballot measure on in November requires an initiative drafted this week and finalized by the tenth of July so that the Board of Supervisors can approve it during their August 7 meeting and it goes on the ballot in November.

The problem is that we do not have rates, and in fact, we do not even know what the project will be.  Right now we have the Woodland-Davis joint water project option, a new option of working with West Sacramento, and a regional option of the three cities working together.

What the city is recommending the council put on the ballot, quite simply, does not cut it.  All the voters will asked to weigh in on is whether we want surface water.  That’s almost a non-issue.

The question at this point is not whether we want surface water – it is what project will we have and how much will it cost us.

The way city staff and the city manager have laid out this process, the decision about the rate structure will not be finalized until September 18, at which point a prop 218 process would weigh in on that.

Simply put, that is not acceptable.  The entire reason that the city of Davis had a referendum drive that was successful was that the Prop 218 process was not sufficient.  This would simply repeat what happened last year.

A scaled-down water project that works with either West Sacramento or West Sacramento AND Woodland, may well be the way to go.  This is not an argument against the project – a project we may well support.

This is an argument to do the election process correctly and, from our perspective, having a separate process to deal with the rates is not acceptable.

That leaves us with some alternatives to suggest.

The simplest is to put the project off a few more months.  From a cost standpoint, our initial discussions indicate that it would have a minimal impact as long as the project is done before new regulations kick in.  And at this point we believe a four-month delay would not be fatal to that.

However, there are some concerns that delaying the project further may force Woodland out of the picture and into going it alone.

There are some suggestions that we could write in language that would include the project decisions and the rate structure that would be determined at a later point.

But that option also has some concerns.  We would be rolling the dice that we could agree to rates in sufficient time to make sure that all of the voters know the rates in advance of the election.  If the Prop 218 process trails the election, as is currently proposed, that presents other risks and challenges.

Right now our concern is that the voters get to the vote on the entire project in one fell-swoop.  They vote on the surface water, they vote on the project, they vote on the costs of that project, and the rate structure.

The city needs to put it all on the table and allow the voters to decide.  The current proposed initiative does not get us there.  The council now has some decisions to make to fix the process, going forward, so that we have a real project, not the theoretical construct about surface water.

As the WAC showed us, that is not really the critical issue.  The critical issue will be what this costs the city and how much it impacts our water rates.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Budget/Fiscal

64 comments

  1. The work of the WAC has been commendable but it needed to get farther along by now to meet the ballot deadline. Anyway that could happen by increasing their workload. Much of the early time was spent forming a cohesive group.

  2. Good question SODA. The straightforward answer to your question is “No.” The reason is that the timeline of the Carollo Engineers evaluation of the West Sac Alternative only arrives at the next WAC meeting (this Thursday) and the Ballot language deadline is only days away at that point.

  3. David Greenwald said . . .

    [i]”There are some suggestions that we could write in language that would include the project decisions and the rate structure that would be determined at a later point.

    But that option also has some concerns. We would be rolling the dice that we could agree to rates in sufficient time to make sure that all of the voters know the rates in advance of the election. If the Prop 218 process trails the election as is currently proposed that presents other risks and challenges.”[/i]

    David, I understand the concerns, and fundamentally agree with them. If I were going to Reno and they were allowing bets on whether the WAC would have rates to the Council early enough for a Prop 218 to happen in advance of the November ballot, I would very gladly bet lots of my own money that we will successfully do that. So bottom-line, yes we will be rolling the dice, but the downside costs associated with not rolling them at this point in time is too great IMHO.

    The Regional Plant alternative at Bryte Bend is much, much less expensive for all parties if the costs are split three ways rather than being split two ways. When we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, “much, much less expensive” is worth paying attention to.

    Further, if the rates can’t be finalized and published in advance of the November ballot, then the vote can be pulled and rescheduled in April. The Governator did that in a recent election, it may not be the perfect solution, but if it worked for Ahnald it can work for us.

  4. Matt:

    It’s easy to bet the house’s money. I’d be interested in language that guarantees that we have really rates a certain amount of days prior to the election and assurances that we have the power to pull the issue off of the ballot if we do not.

  5. You suggested if you went to Reno you would gladly bet lots of your own money on it, but you won’t be betting your own money this.

  6. That is a fair statement. However, you will be in the same position. The difference is that I will be wagering a max of $250,000 of the “house money” (the maximum cost of a special election in April) and you will be wagering upwards of $50 million of the house money on a losing bet.

  7. [i]”From a cost standpoint, our initial discussions indicate that it would have a minimal impact as long as the project is done before new regulations kick in. And at this point we believe a four-month delay would not be fatal to that.

    However, there are some concerns that delaying the project further may force Woodland out of the picture and into going it alone.”[/i]

    It seems to me that if Woodland goes it alone, the cost issue could be significant. The question is what timeline is Woodland on, since their regulatory situation is more pressing than ours.

  8. That is indeed the key question Don. I don’t think we can precipitously walk away from a potential saving of tens of millions of dollars.

  9. [quote]The work of the WAC has been commendable but it needed to get farther along by now to meet the ballot deadline. Anyway that could happen by increasing their workload. Much of the early time was spent forming a cohesive group.[/quote]

    Sorry it has taken so long to respond, but I was on a plane to Washington, D.C. most of today, and am just now checking in on the Vanguard. SODA, I am not following your comment that the WAC could “get farther along” by “increasing their workload”. As Matt pointed out, the WAC will not have the West Sac figures until June 14 AT THE EARLIEST. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by “increasing the workload” of the WAC to get to a decision faster. The WAC has spent countless hours poring over thousands of pages of documents; listened to a number of extremely qualified experts; engaged in vigorous analysis and debate. What more would you like the WAC to take on? And how will that get the WAC to a decision any faster? The reality is the situation is what it is. We will get the necessary information as soon as it is available. Then the WAC will do what is necessary to move forward with the decision-making process at whatever pace it deems appropriate in coming to a reasoned and informed conclusion.

    In regard to your last comment, much of the beginning time for the WAC was spent playing catch-up. Some WAC members were more knowledgeable than others in regard to water/wastewater issues. It was imperative that all WAC members be brought up to speed on basic information. We moved along on three different tracks at the same time: 1) which project to implement; 2) what rate structure; 3) and the DBO process. All of that takes a fair amount of time; and WAC members have been extremely dedicated in making sure to assimilate all the information thrown at them by city staff, consultants and experts in an colossally short period of a few months. Yet this issue has been studied for literally years. I would say the WAC has been very diligent, professional, and working as fast as is humanly possible in the difficult circumstances…

  10. [quote]I’d be interested in language that guarantees that we have really rates a certain amount of days prior to the election and assurances that we have the power to pull the issue off of the ballot if we do not.[/quote]

    As in most things in life, no matter what decision is made, there are always inherent risks whatever one chooses to do. Even if the WAC followed the Vanguard’s advice/embraced the Vangaurd’s ideas of what the best solutions is, there are various and serious risks inherent in the Vanguard’s suggestions. And in the final analysis it may have been the absolutely wrong thing to do. We don’t have a crystal ball; the WAC has to be allowed to do its business as it sees fit; the WAC will have to grapple with weighing the various risks/benefits/costs to determine which solution is best for the citizens of Davis. Ultimately the issue comes down to one of trust – does the community trust the WAC to make its best educated guess in regard to selecting the preferred surface water project and the process by which that decision is reached? Does the Vanguard have any particular reason not to trust the WAC to do what is in the best interests of Davis? If not, why not?

  11. I was manning a transportation forum the other night, and had a number of people come up to me and commend the work of the WAC. I was gratified to know that so many citizens are following the WAC meetings quite diligently. I thank all citizens for their continued interest, and welcome any and all suggestions as we move forward with this process…

  12. It’s a strange question because the WAC is not the ones voting on the language in the initiative and that is the point in question.

  13. But David, that point is some time out in the future, and in order to deal with it now you are in effect butting ahead in line at the movie theater. Why is it necessary to butt ahead? What is your hurry?

  14. So why not wait until Tuesday and see what language the Council settles on. Then if you don’t like what they settle on, have at it. That way you will be dealing with something concrete rather than speculation.

  15. A Staff Report is not a decision. Have you interviewed any of the Council members to see if they agree with the Staff Report language?

    You are treating the Staff’s recommendation as a fait acompli. Do you have a reason to believe it is?

  16. In addition, you are forcing an issue about words, and by doing so you may be costing the City as much as $50 million. Are those words — at this time — worth that much to you?

  17. You have predetermined that the only right answer is a delay [u]NOW[/u]. That delay will almost surely cost the City as much as $50 million, maybe even more. Given that the ballot can be pulled closer to the November date if the “ideal” solution you are campaigning for isn’t able to be done, why is it your desire to force the crisis now.

  18. Davidm one of the core principles of both psychiatry and business management is that for some problems attempting to “fix” the problem only makes the problem worse.

    One of the interesting recent studies of the IT industry found that just under 90% of the problem solutions that are implemented are actually fixing a situation that was created by an inadequately designed and/or impemented solution to a prior problem.

  19. Or said another way, in a perfect world, and we all know there is no such thing as a perfect world, but if there were, what would be your perfect solution?

  20. I didn’t posit a choice, I explained what I viewed the problem with the current proposal, suggested alternatives and addressed the strengths and weaknesses of them.

  21. Woodland’s “deadline” is most likely flexible if they demonstrate that they are actively working to formulate a plan to deal with their water quality issues. The Davis voter has been repeatedly presented with deadline arguments in the past to prevent the voter from being able to gather the facts and consider their position. Remember the Christmas Council vote on the water project which was supposed to have a deadline of December 31? I do not recall any explanation for why TSK would pull out of the deal if this deadline was not met.

  22. That is a good point in a rational world davisite, but the last time you and I talked we were wrestling with the balance of “organizational results” and “personal win.” You very correctly pointed out that lots and lots and lots of decisions are political (i.e. driven by “personal win” motives) and Woodland’s in this case is clearly going to be one of those times.

    Even in an ideal scenario it is going to be hard for Woodland to consider a JPA with Davis and West Sac. Telling them that they have to wait until November to indulge Davis one more time will be IMHO be at the very least one straw too many.

  23. David M. Greenwald said . . .

    [i]”I didn’t posit a choice, I explained what I viewed the problem with the current proposal, suggested alternatives and addressed the strengths and weaknesses of them.”[/i]

    You make a very good sniper.

  24. [quote]”I didn’t posit a choice, I explained what I viewed the problem with the current proposal, suggested alternatives and addressed the strengths and weaknesses of them.” [/quote]

    1) Why do you not trust the WAC to figure out what is best for the citizens of Davis and the process by which to achieve the best choice? What has the WAC done/not done to make you distrust its ability to come to a reasoned and informed conclusion?
    2) How sure are you that your choices will not result in the wrong decision being made, which will end up costing the city millions in wasted dollars? 10% sure? 50% sure? 90% sure? What is your confidence factor?
    3) Have you done a risk/benefit/cost analysis of your suggested alternatives? If yes, how confident are you of the correctness of your analysis? If not, why should we trust that your analysis is any more correct than that of WAC members, experts, city staff, or other citizens?
    4) Why are you unwilling to allow the process to play out first, with all the cards on the table showing so we really know what we are dealing with, before passing judgment? Why the push to game the system to advocate for your preferred solution, or as Matt put it, “butt in line”?

  25. [quote]That was declaring the current proposal unacceptable, not declaring a preferred alternative[/quote]

    I don’t know what I want, but I know I don’t want that? How do you know?

  26. Answers to Elaine’s questions

    “1) Why do you not trust the WAC to figure out what is best for the citizens of Davis and the process by which to achieve the best choice? “

    First of all, the WAC isn’t making this decision the council is. Second, I’m not going to blindly accept anyone’s recommendation on anything without examining it myself.

    “What has the WAC done/not done to make you distrust its ability to come to a reasoned and informed conclusion?”

    It has nothing to do with what the WAC has or has not done.

    “2) How sure are you that your choices will not result in the wrong decision being made, which will end up costing the city millions in wasted dollars? 10% sure? 50% sure? 90% sure? What is your confidence factor?”

    That’s an irrelevant question. I’m not making a choice, I’m only laying out what the process ought to be.

    “3) Have you done a risk/benefit/cost analysis of your suggested alternatives? If yes, how confident are you of the correctness of your analysis? If not, why should we trust that your analysis is any more correct than that of WAC members, experts, city staff, or other citizens?”

    Again see my answer to No.2.

    “4) Why are you unwilling to allow the process to play out first, with all the cards on the table showing so we really know what we are dealing with, before passing judgment? Why the push to game the system to advocate for your preferred solution, or as Matt put it, “butt in line”?”

    Because decision is being made by July 10. If we have had the entire process and then placed it on the ballot, I could easily allow the entire process to play out.

  27. “I don’t know what I want, but I know I don’t want that? How do you know?”

    You’re really not getting this discussion are you? The objection is to what would be included in a ballot measure before the public, not to what might be the result of the process.

  28. David M. Greenwald said . . .

    “First of all, the WAC isn’t making this decision the council is. Second, I’m not going to blindly accept anyone’s recommendation on anything without examining it myself.”

    But David, you simply aren’t waiting for the recommendation. Why is it so important for you to short-cut the process that the Council laid out and suddenly rush to a decision absent the recommendation that the whole effort was designed to create.

    Further, nobody is suggesting that the recommendation should be “blindly accepted.” It has been very clear from the very beginning that the WAC is an [u]advisory body[/u] and that the Council may, or may not, follow the WAC’s recommendation/advice. Similarly, it was also equally clear that the citizens of Davis may, or may not, follow the WAC’s recommendation/advice.

    However, what you advocate is rushing to a Council decision absent that recommendation/advice, and appear to be conveniently ignoring the fact that in so doing that you are advocating for the likelihood that $50 million of Davis citizen money is being thrown away.

    Then you turn around and say you are not advocating at all, “only questioning.” That is convenient fence-sitting at a time when “fence-sitting” is essentially a synonym for “pot-stirring.” I’ve asked you before, what do you think the best solution is for this situation? I’m all ears.

  29. David M. Greenwald said . . .

    [i]”You’re really not getting this discussion are you? The objection is to what would be included in a ballot measure before the public, not to what might be the result of the process.”[/i]

    Actually, David I think you haven’t been hearing the conversation. Both Elaine and I understand fully that you want final language at this time. We both would like final language at this time, but because of the timing of the Carollo study (and the likely activities that will need to happen after that study’s contents are known), having final language at this juncture is an impossibility. Final language isn’t likely to come until September, and will be on the Prop 218 notice, which will be incorporated into the November ballot by reference.

    So, the meat of your discussion really is whether to 1) have patience and wait for the process to continue to unfold, or 2) force the postponement of the November ballot to April.

  30. David Greenwald said . . .

    [i]”That’s an irrelevant question. I’m not making a choice, I’m only laying out what the process ought to be.”[/i]

    . . . and in so doing you are conveniently choosing to ignore the risks associated with focusing exclusively on the process.

    In effect you are falling into the age-old trap of “placing form over function.”

    Both Elaine and I are arguing for [i]”making the best possible decision.”[/i] You are arguing for [i]”making whatever decision is made in the most idealistic way.”[/i] That idealism comes with a price.

  31. Matt and Elaine

    I am confused about what it is that you both would like to see from David in his commentaries.
    The two of you have made statements that he should be willing to wait for the process to fully unfold. This is a position with which I am in agreement, especially since David was a major proponent ( I believe) of a fair and complete analysis of all possible approaches to the water project and its funding.
    However, Matt, you have stated that it is time for David to “get off the fence” and state his preferred alternative.
    I don’t see how he could both do that and wait for the entire process to unfold.

    Or am I misreading your comment ?

  32. medwoman, there is an old adage that “simply pointing out a problem is not enough . . . pointing out a problem (and its parameters) and then proposing one or more possible solutions to the problem is a much more responsible approach.”

    David has ponted out the problem (and its parameters) as he sees it, but he hasn’t as yet weighed in with what he sees as the best approach to addressing the problem he has identified. The net result is what I will call the Tower of Babel effect. Lots of talk, but very little cohesion . . . or even movement toward cohesion.

    The reality of this situation is that we have a bunch of flawed alternatives, and a short timeline in which to choose a way to go forward.

    I’m simply asking David to outline how he would proceed in the next four weeks.

  33. This seems to be the problem:

    “[i]Part of what has ensued is a Water Advisory Committee that has worked hard over the past six months or so to examine the project. But they need more time to complete their job. [b]They estimate August 21[/b].

    …To put a ballot measure on in November requires an initiative drafted this week and finalized by the tenth of July so that the Board of Supervisors can approve it d[b]uring their August 7 meeting[/b] and it goes on the ballot in November.”[/i]

    Can’t the Board of Supervisors act in September?

  34. Good question Don. The answer we have received thus far is, “No.” However, if the language on the ballot makes specific reference to the rate structure in the Prop 218, which should be ready and distributable sometime in September, then we have our cake and get to eat it too.

    Further, if for some unknown reason the Prop 218 rates can’t be published sufficiently before the November election day, then Council would simply make a decision to pull that ballot item off the ballot and reschedule it for April.

  35. It’s obvious David is “positing,” but by claiming he’s not, he eliminates the need to point out the pluses and minuses of the alternatives he doesn’t want. It’s the rest of us who “really are not getting the discussion” and asking “irrelevant questions.”

    Does he accept claim of the potential million-dollar risks in doing what he proposes? Who really knows since he isn’t positing anything? When process changes have consequences, such proposals drive results that need to be considered up front.

  36. Good question Don. Lets say that the cost is something up to as much as $250,000 (depending on how the election is administered).

    There are two scenarios that would cause such an April ‘vote’ to happen.

    1) if Council decides now that there is no way for the WAC to get the necessary information in the next four weeks to allow Council to come up with all inclusive ballot language, and says, lets make the decision now to abandon November and shift to April, or

    2) If Council comes up with language now for the ballot that anticipates a “synergizing” of the ballot language and the eventual Prop 218 language that reflects the final project selection (by the Council after receiving the WAC recommendation) and resultant rate structure . . . but come September Council finds itself either without a WAC recommendation or unable to agree itself on the best way to proceed. In that case Council would take the necessary steps to direct Freddie Oakley to remove the question from the November ballot and reschedule the question for an April ballot.

    My belief is that the election administration costs of 1) and 2) are virtually identical (the $250,000 described above). However, the ancillary costs associated with 1) are potentially tens of millions of dollars higher for 1) than they are for 2).

    Here’s why,

    If the Council chooses 1) then Woodland is faced with yet another time delay due to Davis’ indecisiveness (failure to prepare). I think it is almost a sure thing, that when they receive the notification of this latest delay (with absolutely no guarantee that future delays won’t also be forthcoming), their leaders will say “bleep” Davis, the train is leaving the station, if they want to get on board they will have to catch up on their own.

    What does that do to the alternatives the WAC is exploring? First, it almost surely makes the cost of the WDCWA alternative more expensive for Davis. Maybe not a lot more expensive, but more expensive nonetheless. Second, it radically changes the landscape when looking at a Bryte Bend Regional Water Facility alternative. Why? because the maximum number of Yolo County cities that would participate in a BBRWF would be two as opposed to three.

    The newly updated estimates at the WDCWA website [url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/Agenda_Packet_WDCWA_05-17-2012.pdf[/url] show $179,240,000 for the portions of the project that are comparable to what is already in place at the Bryte Bend plant. If those dollars are split three ways the Davis share is approximately $60 million. If Woodland goes their own way, then Davis’ share is approximately $90 million. Further, the annual M&O costs to run the plant end up being split two ways rather than three ways. The 2011, 2010 and 2009 Water budget amounts for West Sac were $10,312,000, $9, 625,000 and $10,665,000 respectively. I can’t say what the portion of that $10 million annual (rounded) total is for the operation of the Bryte Bend facility, but lets say it is somewhere between 30% and 60% (as a guess). That means between $3 million per year and $6 million per year. Split two ways that is between $1.5 million and $3 million. Split three ways that is between $1 million and $2 million.

    So just on those two factors alone, there is a $30 million capital expense difference and a $0.5 million to $ 1.0 million annual M&O difference if we take a precipitous step of driving Woodland out of the picture. Bottom-line, that is not chump change.

    With that said, there will be additional “ins and outs” so the final number of a three-city BBRWF will vary somewhat, but it is clearly big enough to step with care in the coming weeks.

  37. [i]The answer we have received thus far is, “No.” [/i]

    Um, if millions of dollars are at stake, it seems to me that changing that answer to “Yes” would be the direction to go.

  38. [quote]ERM: “2) How sure are you that your choices will not result in the wrong decision being made, which will end up costing the city millions in wasted dollars? 10% sure? 50% sure? 90% sure? What is your confidence factor?”

    DMG: That’s an irrelevant question. I’m not making a choice, I’m only laying out what the process ought to be. [/quote]

    Hardly an irrelevant question. If you are laying out what the process ought to be, and your suggested process results in a loss of millions of dollars for the city, who will pay for all that loss? In other words, how confident are you that your choice of process is the right decison for the CC to make? 10% confident? 50% confident? 90% confident?

    [quote]ERM: “3) Have you done a risk/benefit/cost analysis of your suggested alternatives? If yes, how confident are you of the correctness of your analysis? If not, why should we trust that your analysis is any more correct than that of WAC members, experts, city staff, or other citizens?”

    DMG: Again see my answer to No.2. [/quote]

    You are dodging the question. What sort of risk/benefit/cost analysis of your choice of process have you done? Because any choice in process here could potentially result in the loss of millions of dollars for the city.
    Why should we trust your advice on process any more than WAC members, experts, consultants, city staff, or other citizens?

    [quote]ERM: “4) Why are you unwilling to allow the process to play out first, with all the cards on the table showing so we really know what we are dealing with, before passing judgment? Why the push to game the system to advocate for your preferred solution, or as Matt put it, “butt in line”?”

    DMG: Because decision is being made by July 10. If we have had the entire process and then placed it on the ballot, I could easily allow the entire process to play out.[/quote]

    In a perfect world, yes it would be nice to see all and know all, but this is not a perfect world and never has been. The reality is:
    1) the decision on whether to fill the Woodland water treatment facility site, a critical path item for the surface water project as proposed, does not need to be made until Aug 21, but as a practical matter needs to be made by then;
    2) however the ballot language decision on which preferred project needs to be made by June 26;
    3) we can finesse these two sticky wickets by having the ballot language that must be decided on by June 26 refer to whatever project is described in the rate structure in the Prop 218 notice, giving the WAC enough time to gather the information it needs; deliberate; and come to a reasoned and well thought out conclusion sometime before Aug 21.

    By making this choice of process as suggested in point #3, it has the potential of saving the city millions and millions of dollars…

  39. [quote]ERM: “I don’t know what I want, but I know I don’t want that? How do you know?”

    DMG: You’re really not getting this discussion are you? The objection is to what would be included in a ballot measure before the public, not to what might be the result of the process.[/quote]

    With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I don’t think you are “getting the discussion”. By insisting on particular ballot language as you have suggested may very well predetermine the result of the process/the preferred alternative – which very well may result in the loss of millions of dollars for the city. Are you sure enough you are correct in your analysis of process that you are willing to risk the city losing millions of dollars if you turn out to be dead wrong? I circle back to my original question – how confident are you that the position you are advocating for is the right one? 10%? 50%? 90%? Did you do some sort of risk/benefit/cost analysis on your choice of process? If yes, show us how you came to your conclusion, and how you arrived at your confidence level.

    As Jay Lund explained to the WAC – 1) we cannot know all, and 2) we have to be prepared we will make the wrong decision. As the WAC moves forward, it is always doing an assessment of trade-offs, a risk/benefit/cost analysis of process, preferred alternatives, rate structures, the DBO process. There are a myriad of variables to juggle and assess, and there will always be unknowables…

  40. [quote]David Greenwald said . . .

    “That’s an irrelevant question. I’m not making a choice, I’m only laying out what the process ought to be.”

    Matt Williams:. . . and in so doing you are conveniently choosing to ignore the risks associated with focusing exclusively on the process. [/quote]

    Precisely…

  41. [quote]Matt Williams: medwoman, there is an old adage that “simply pointing out a problem is not enough . . . pointing out a problem (and its parameters) and then proposing one or more possible solutions to the problem is a much more responsible approach.”

    David has ponted out the problem (and its parameters) as he sees it, but he hasn’t as yet weighed in with what he sees as the best approach to addressing the problem he has identified. The net result is what I will call the Tower of Babel effect. Lots of talk, but very little cohesion . . . or even movement toward cohesion. [/quote]

    To medwoman: What is worse is that David is advocating a position that is ignoring the risks inherent in his choice of process that could 1) lose the city literally millions of dollars, and 2)set us on a destructive path in which we would no longer be in a collaborative relationship w Woodland and it could even limit the city’s options. Is this really the best direction for the city to go, when a little patience and uncertainty may be a much less costly alternative? I keep asking David how sure he is of his position and whether he has done any sort of risk/benefit/cost analysis so that he can have some degree of confidence that his position is the best one for the city. Thus far he has been silent in regard to the issue of his confidence level and level of expertise. It is easy to shoot from the hip, much more difficult to back up positions/assertions with some facts/analysis. There is a lot at stake here, and the WAC must tread very carefully and delicately to get this “right” for all concerned. There will be no easy or simple answers…

  42. [quote]Can’t the Board of Supervisors act in September? [/quote]

    That is not really the issue. The issue is the timing of the language to be placed on the ballot for a November election. The ballot language needs to be finalized by the CC by June 26 bc of the lengthy process required for putting propositions on the ballot. If you are still unsure inre this issue, consult with City Mgr Steve Pinkerton, who can explain it much better than I.

  43. [quote]So what cost would there be, if any, for postponing a city-wide vote and the required Prop 218 ‘vote’ to spring 2013?[/quote]

    Matt did an excellent job of explaining, but I’ll be a bit more succinct as to the risks:
    1) The additional cost of a special election – could be as much as $250K
    2) If Woodland decides to go it alone –
    a) it would remove them as a possible partner in the West Sac option, potentially costing Davis millions;
    b) the relationship between Woodland and Davis may very well sour;
    c) Davis may have to pay a premium to get back into a joint project w Woodland if the West Sac option either doesn’t pan out or becomes infeasible down the road, w an unknown cost to Davis;
    d) it is not totally clear how the water rights would be divided if the JPA is dissolved should Davis decide to go w the West Sac option.

    These are some of the problems I can think of off the top of my head and very late at night. Delay of the ballot measure has potential serious consequences…

  44. I can only imagine how much it would cost if you lose the initiative or if an incomplete ballot measure leads to a competing initiative.

  45. David M. Greenwald said . . .

    [i]”I can only imagine how much it would cost if you lose the initiative or if an incomplete ballot measure leads to a competing initiative.”[/i]

    Lets drill down into that question a bit. I think the risk of the former is [u]extremely[/u] low if 1) the WAC has completed its work thoroughly and 2) passed its recommendation and rate structure on to the Council, and 3) the Council has issued the Prop 218 notice in a timely manner, and 4) the ballot question references the Prop 218 notice language. Extremely low.

    The reason I say that is that the WAC as presently constituted isn’t going to make either an ill-considered decision or a non-transparent decision. Bill and Mark and Michael, and all the rest of the members simply won’t let that happen That is in stark contrast to what happened last September. Further, the current make-up of the WAC will not change going forward.

    If any of those four elements are missing, I would be very surprised if the ballot question isn’t pulled and rescheduled for April.

    Further, if those four elements are in place, I am willing to bet that there is no way that the 3,800 signature threshold will be achieved for a new referendum. The process transparency will trump a huge proportion of the past signatories.

  46. [quote]I can only imagine how much it would cost if you lose the initiative or if an incomplete ballot measure leads to a competing initiative.[/quote]

    No matter what choices are made, there are risks. There is no crystal ball. We can always play the “what if” game. However, that is why we do a risk/benefit/cost analysis on such decisions, so that we carefully weigh the options. Again I ask, how confident are you that your choice of process is the right one? 10%? 50%? 90%? Did you do any sort of risk/benefit/cost analysis to determine that confidence level? Risk is inherent in every scenario, but IMO the risks of your choice of process are unnecessary and are far higher than what is being recommended by the WAC…

  47. Another strange comment – my choice of process is what was agreed to when the decision was made to rescind the rate hikes and forgo an immediate referendum.

  48. [quote]Another strange comment – my choice of process is what was agreed to when the decision was made to rescind the rate hikes and forgo an immediate referendum.[/quote]

    When the decision was made to rescind the rate hikes and forgo an immediate referendum, 1) it was not agreed that by June 26, 2012 the ballot language had to be decided and precisely lay out the preferred alternative and its exact cost; 2) the West Sac option was not on the table; 3)circumstances have changed, and a West Sac option is now back on the table, but the details are not readily available until June 14 at the earliest; 4)a push for a delay at this juncture could precipitate a crisis and cause Woodland to decide to go it alone; 5) finessing the ballot language and holding off deciding when to make the decision as to which preferred project has the potential of saving the city a boatload of money.

    It is important to adjust plans as situations arise and change. To stick to a preconceived position that is no longer applicable to the changed circumstances doesn’t make sense.

  49. David Greenwald said . . .

    [i]”Another strange comment – my choice of process is what was agreed to when the decision was made to rescind the rate hikes and forgo an immediate referendum.”[/i]

    A couple of thoughts . . . first, Elaine’s comment isn’t strange at all, but given the “framing” that you describe in the words after the hyphen, I can understand why you might think it is strange. In effect what you are saying is that the “citizen inclusion” process is what matters most (dare I say the only thing that matters), and what Elaine and I are saying is that water system decision-making process is what matters most. Elaine and I have faith that if the decision process as it has unfolded is allowed to flow through to the logical end, without unnecessary (artificial) suboptimization decisions along the way, then the citizen vote at the end will be merely a formality, because the quality of the decision will stand on its own merits.

    Said another way, you are a pessimist and Elaine and I are optimists.

    Given the events of 2011 it is easy to understand how being a pessimist on this particular issue is easy to do, but just as the quality of the WAC has surprised you, I think the quality of the WAC decision will surprise you.

  50. To follow up on Matt’s comment above, the WAC must tread very carefully to “get it right”. That includes adjusting the water system decision-making process to fit changed circumstances, which means doing a delicate balancing act to keep all parties concerned at a reasonable comfort level so no one does anything extreme or rash before the optimal decision is made. An optimal decision is more likely to result in citizen satisfaction than any unnecessary/artificial suboptimization decision along the way.

Leave a Comment