The Vanguard has avoided taking a clear position on the water situation up until now, primarily because we really do not feel like we have all of the facts at this time. In fact, the more we have learned in the past week, the more complex it has become.
This column is an effort to clarify where we are and where we can go. At the start, there are those who believe that our goal is delay. Actually, our goal is a transparent and open process.
The Vanguard at this time supports a binding ballot initiative that lays out fully the rates and the project, so that the voters are fully informed as to what they are voting on at the time when they cast their ballots.
Unfortunately, while that seems to be a clear and simple goal, it is not. Matt Williams’ column, “No Silver Bullet” lays out the dilemma faced by the city and the WAC in trying to craft a policy that makes sense from a fiscal perspective but that can also be supported by the voters at the polls.
The Vanguard reported yesterday that staff was recommending an advisory vote. The city manager writes, “The language would direct the city to move forward on a conjunctive use project but would provide that the final decision to move forward on a conjunctive use project rests with the Council.”
City Manager Steve Pinkerton told the Vanguard yesterday that one of the chief problems facing the city is that right now they cannot do a binding vote because of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requirements. The problem with CEQA requirements is that the scope of the project would inherently change through the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) process, and so the city could not be bound to what the voters passed.
Now, one possible solution to that is that the city be bound to a no vote, but a yes vote would have to be more advisory. That would cause all sorts of confusion and problems.
The other solution, of course, is that we put off the election until April, at which point we may be able to do an EIR if we go with the West Sacramento option.
The November versus April question comes in on many of these discussions.
An April election likely takes Woodland out of the mix. There are those who believe that having Woodland as part of a regional solution through West Sacramento is the cheapest option.
However, City Manager Pinkerton does not believe that Woodland can wait. Part of the problem is that Woodland does not have any short term options – an oversight, perhaps, on their part.
On the other hand, through various discussions, it does not seem likely that the city of Davis can be ready for a November election.
Yes, the WAC did vote 9-0 with an abstention to advise a November election. They voted to support the following: “We’ll recommend that we have a November ballot, on a conjunctive use project, that will be described in a mailing, with specifics to the project, cost, and rates, similar to what will be mailed in the Prop 218 notice, to all voters. The fact that the project is a conjunctive use project will be described in the ballot language itself with the term conjunctive use clearly defined.”
But how realistic is that? Matt Williams walked me through his proposed timeline. If the WAC completes its work by August 21, which the council voted to allow, the city would have until September 9.
As Mr. Williams wrote yesterday, the voters could be voting on the previously approved Prop 218 rate – yeah, the flawed rates from last fall – if the new rates are not finalized by that September 9th date.
The timeline he proposes could work, but it’s extremely tight and if there is even one hiccup, it would be difficult if not impossible to get everything ready in time for a binding vote in November.
Several people on the WAC have clarified that they believe the timeline is too tight for a binding November vote, but the votes did not exist on the WAC at their last meeting to postpone the election beyond November until the time where there is a defined project and the proposed rates are determined.
Between now and August 21, less than two months, the WAC is going to have to figured out both the project and the rates. There are very few meetings left – even with a number of special meetings added.
Moreover, an August 21 decision by the WAC, with the council on vacations, gives the council limited time to make an informed decision as required for a new Prop 218 rate assessment to be completed.
Not only that, but you would have to somehow have the staff complete a verifiably sound analysis that could sustain legal challenge in time to do a rate mailing by mid-September.
Councilmember Stephen Souza sent the Vanguard and other media entities the Carollo report on the West Sacramento alternative. It is complicated stuff that will take time to wade through. One of the critical questions is whether Davis would be buying into ownership of the water plant rather than simply buying water from West Sacramento.
The most interesting aspect of the West Sacramento Alternative is that there are two options. One has Woodland as a partner, in which an interim measure would be needed to allow Woodland to meet their regulatory deadline.
On the other hand, they believe that in a Davis-only option, it may be possible to delay implementation based on delayed regulatory drivers.
But the bottom line is this: “The total project cost for the Davis-only option is currently lower than the cost of the Davis portion of the DWWSP. In addition, the Davis-only option has phasing advantages over the DWWSP that may allow a delay or slower increase in Davis water rates.”
This is only preliminary analysis and it is a complex situation, but this suggests that the West Sacramento option, with Davis participating but not Woodland, might allow for a slower increase in Davis water rates.
But analysis, by some like Matt Williams, suggests that this might cost Davis more money – perhaps even $50 million more than an alternative that includes Woodland.
The bottom line, it would appear, is that we need to be able to properly analyze these projects, calculate the costs and do a competent rate analysis. A November timeline just seems way too tight to meet those rigorous requirements.
We stop short of questioning, as some have, why we need this on the November ballot. There are primary advantages to the November ballot. One is that it keeps all options open. The second is that it possibly saves the city $50 million.
On the other hand, there are many reasons, some of them practical reasons, to push this to April. Pushing this through too fast and too early might lead to additional distrust. The worst possible outcome is electoral defeat of this measure, which might ultimately kill any possibility of cost savings.
Finally, it is worth noting that the longer we have gone about doing this, the cheaper the cost has become. We should keep that in mind every time someone argues that delay will equate to higher costs.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I realize this is a little off topic, but is the ‘design, build, operate’ option and decision still in play with these other alternatives?
I have not heard anything regarding this from WAC, etc for a long time. Thx.
That is another discussion that needs to happen, though it becomes a different matter if they go the West Sacramento Route.
Good article David. I think you have captured and summarized the complexities very well.
The one addition I would make is that the Supervisors’ decision date for putting or not putting a ballot question on the November ballot is August 12th. It may be the “best” course of action now for the Council to proceed with the kind of language I laid out yesterday, and on August 11th have a joint meeting of Council and the WAC, so that if August 21st isn’t going to end with all in order for September 9th, then the Council can direct the Supervisors to pull the submitted material for the water question from the November ballot.
To SODA: Yes, the DBO option is an issue that will be in play for all options in so far as I am aware.
Generally, I thought this was an excellent article, laying out the difficulties of the ballot process, although I don’t necessarily agree w every point.
[quote]Several people on the WAC have clarified that they believe the timeline is too tight for a binding November vote, but the votes did not exist on the WAC at their last meeting to postpone the election beyond November until the time where there is a defined project and the proposed rates are determined.[/quote]
The WAC took a vote based on the information it had at the time:
6-4 in favor of a binding vote;
9-0-1 in favor of a November ballot
[quote]Between now and August 21, less than two months, the WAC is going to have to figured out both the project and the rates. There are very few meetings left – even with a number of special meetings added.
Not only that but you would have to somehow have the staff complete a verifiably sound analysis that could sustain legal challenge in time to do a rate mailing by mid-September.[/quote]
Yes, the WAC and city staff would have to work hard to get this done in time – but I believe both are committed to doing so…
[quote]The bottom line it would appear is that we need to be able to properly analyze these projects, calculate the costs, do a competent rate analysis. A November timeline just seems way too tight to meet those rigorous requirements.[/quote]
The WAC felt it was doable and a better alternative to delaying…
[quote]We stop short of questioning as some have why we need this on the November ballot. There are primary advantages to the November ballot. One is that it keeps all options open. The second is that it possibly saves the city $50 million.
On the other hand, there are many reasons, some of them practical reasons, to push this to April. Pushing this too fast might lead to additional distrust. The worst possible outcome is electoral defeat of this measure, which might ultimately kill any possibility of cost savings.[/quote]
A November ballot keeps all options open and has the potential of saving the city $50 million dollars. It also enfranchises more voters. To not delay might lead to “distrust”? What makes you think no matter what the WAC does, it will somehow lead to “distrust”? Possible “distrust” seems like a flimsy/vague/unsubstantiated reason to delay, juxtaposed against the solid reasons to move forward w a November ballot…
[quote]Finally it is worth noting that the longer we have gone about doing this, the cheaper the cost has become. We should keep that in mind every time someone argues that delay will equate to higher costs.[/quote]
The problem w this analysis is that it only looks at costs in the short term. Sometimes what is cheaper in the short term may be more costly in the long term. Furthermore, this does not sound like the Vanguard is keeping an open mind. What it sounds like is that no matter what reasons anyone comes up w for a November vote, people should remember that delay has caused the project to be cheaper – which sounds like a position and belief that the longer the city delays, the cheaper this project is going to be. I assure you at some “tipping point” that is not going to be the case…
To clarify on some points:
“Yes, the WAC and city staff would have to work hard to get this done in time – but I believe both are committed to doing so… “
There is no question in my mind that this is the case.
“The WAC felt it was doable and a better alternative to delaying…”
The WAC voted 9-0-1 but talking to several of the nine, it seems that they voted for this out of the sense that they had not yet reached the point where a delay had to occur. And I agree, at this point there is still a possibility of doing it in November.
“A November ballot keeps all options open and has the potential of saving the city $50 million dollars. It also enfranchises more voters. To not delay might lead to “distrust”? What makes you think no matter what the WAC does, it will somehow lead to “distrust”? Possible “distrust” seems like a flimsy/vague/unsubstantiated reason to delay, juxtaposed against the solid reasons to move forward w a November ballot… “
This is a difficult paragraph to digest, not that I have a lot of room to complain.
I think Don Shor debunked the notion of enfranchising voters. Voters are free to vote in any election. There will be considerable ballot fatigue and therefore the number of people who actually vote on a complicated local ballot initiative is going to be considerably less than those who vote for President.
The distrust issue is the sense that voters may get if they perceive the process was rushed through without enough consideration. And yes you’ll say that you gave it plenty of time, but when you factor in the time timeline with the complexity, it’s an easy case to make to the voters.
“The problem w this analysis is that it only looks at costs in the short term. Sometimes what is cheaper in the short term may be more costly in the long term. Furthermore, this does not sound like the Vanguard is keeping an open mind. What it sounds like is that no matter what reasons anyone comes up w for a November vote, people should remember that delay has caused the project to be cheaper – which sounds like a position and belief that the longer the city delays, the cheaper this project is going to be. I assure you at some “tipping point” that is not going to be the case… “
I’ll start where I agree. First, I agree there is probably a tipping point or at least potentially one and as such I do not meant to imply that the more we delay indefinitely the cheaper it gets.
To me, the lead in cost and the ramp up may be more important than the overall long term costs. That will be controversial and I can debate myself on this point as well, but for the sake of argument here, I would say that people can adjust their spending over time, what hurts people are sudden increases in their rates.
In terms of an open mind, I don’t think November is impossible, but the more people I talk to, even those on the WAC, the more I don’t think November will happen. But we’ll see what happens in the next two months.
[quote]The WAC voted 9-0-1 but talking to several of the nine, it seems that they voted for this out of the sense that they had not yet reached the point where a delay had to occur. And I agree, at this point there is still a possibility of doing it in November. [/quote]
The WAC voted 9-0-1 for a November ballot measure…
[quote]The distrust issue is the sense that voters may get if they perceive the process was rushed through without enough consideration. And yes you’ll say that you gave it plenty of time, but when you factor in the time timeline with the complexity, it’s an easy case to make to the voters. [/quote]
What makes you think some voters won’t “distrust” the WAC’s advice no matter when the decision is made? The Vanguard has said repeatedly it doesn’t trust the WAC. Why should I believe that the Vanguard will trust the WAC any more in April than it will in November?
[quote]To me, the lead in cost and the ramp up may be more important than the overall long term costs.[/quote]
I think you may change your mind about that when the long term costs start coming in and have to be paid…
[quote]That will be controversial and I can debate myself on this point as well, but for the sake of argument here, I would say that people can adjust their spending over time, what hurts people are sudden increases in their rates. [/quote]
The reason we are going to have sudden rate increases is because citizens have refused to raise rates over time – in other words by delaying the inevitable…
COnvince me, but I dont see any need for a rush to the November ballot. Take time, get it right, in a public process that protects the voters of Davis.
Handle it like a Measure J/R vote: 1. Specific project with detailed baseline features; 2. specific Environmental Impact Report for that project; 3. Binding rates, specific to that project; and 4. put it all to an up or down vote by Davis voters.
Simple, and a process we all understand and accept, from our history with land development and Measure J/R.