The Davis City Council unanimously granted the motion by the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) to extend their deadlines until August while postponing consideration of the ballot measure options until after the WAC meets this week to discuss these matters.
Elaine Roberts Musser, Chair of the Water Advisory Committee, was unable to attend the meeting, but Matt Williams read her statement to council.
As she notes, this timing places the WAC “in a difficult predicament.” She said, “We are expected to decide which conjunctive use project is the most suitable for Davis by June 20th, in order to accommodate the need for ballot language by June 26th. Yet we will not have had access to all the information for the West Sacramento surface water option until June 14th at the earliest.”
As she argues, “This does not give the Water Advisory Committee sufficient time to obtain all the necessary information, process it, ask the appropriate questions, and come to a reasoned and well thought out conclusion.”
She therefore argued to be allowed until August 17, 2012 to make the decision on the preferred surface water project alternative, but, “To get around the ballot issue, which must be resolved from a practical standpoint by June 26th, we suggest the ballot language directly refer to the language and rate structure of the Prop 218 notice, with any such Prop 218 rate structure and language being directly the result of a specific surface water project.”
However, not everyone on her body is in agreement. Bill Kopper, former Mayor and current member of WAC, argued that the council should wait to put a measure on the ballot until the public can vote on the full measure.
“In order to get a real yes or no, it’s going to be best to wait until you have that project defined,” he told council during public comment on Tuesday.
He referenced Michael Harrington, who he said has “also asked that it be handled in that way so that there can be a clear yes or no.”
The two outgoing councilmembers had extensive comments on the subject, as well.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald argued, “I think it would be a very big mistake to put a binding measure on the ballot to do a project when we don’t have the wording of that project and its cost in the measure.”
“Who would vote to bind themselves to something that… they don’t know what it is that they’re binding themselves to?” she asked rhetorically. “That makes no sense to me at all.”
She then referenced the recent campaign and the attacks by the building unions on her in the mailer.
“I think it should be very clear to everyone after the vicious building union attacks on me during the election that there are agendas behind the current very expensive approach to the surface water project besides the best interests of the citizens of Davis,” she continued.
Last week when we expressed procedural concerns such as the ones raised by Bill Kopper and Councilmember Greenwald with the notion of putting the ballot measure on the ballot without a specific project or rates, there were equal concerns expressed by WAC Chair Elaine Roberts Musser and alternate Matt Williams, that delay could result in adding expense to the project.
Councilmember Stephen Souza warned that if the city pushes the election past November that Woodland will opt to walk away from the JPA and do their own water project.
If we delay the vote on the water project past November, Councilmember Souza said, “The members of Woodland are going to it alone. They’re already poised to do it. They’re ready with the environmental documentation to do it on their own. We’ve heard it. They’ve said it. They couldn’t be any clearer.”
“If that’s the case why did we even analyze a project that included Woodland?” he asked. “They are going it alone. I don’t know how [much] clearer I can be. I talked to every one of them. They all said it.”
“They know what they want,” he added. “We don’t know what we want. We better become clear as a community as to what we want.”
He also argued that this is a complex issue and the committee has taken hours and months to figure out the facts.
“If a committee that is composed of dedicated people have spent twelve meetings, three to four hours, and they need more time to understand, how in the world do we think our community of citizens that have spent hardly any time are going to get and understand it well enough to vote on it intelligently?” he asked.
But Sue Greenwald believes delay could actually save money.
“Postponing the project is more likely to lower costs than higher costs,” Councilmember Greenwald said on Tuesday afternoon.
She noted on Tuesday night that she managed to save the city $100 million on the costs of the wastewater treatment plant.
“I managed to illustrate that West Sacramento really did want to participate in the surface water project which would be much cheaper,” she said. “Let’s give it the time to really happen. Because both those two measures, we could probably get these two projects in some kind of minimally affordable fashion that wouldn’t kill us.”
The meeting this Thursday now becomes a crucial meeting for the WAC as we move forward.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What were the specific motions and votes?
First paragraph paraphrases it, the vote was 5-0.
So no back and forth, substitute motions, etc? Any comments/forshadowing by members?
Michael, there was a motion by Sue that died for lack of a second. She proposed immediately moving th ballot date back to April.
Geez, Sue still has that “I” and “me” thing going. “I did this” and “I did that” and “it was aimed at me”. I, I, I, me, me, me. I sure hope the future council will be thinking, talking, and planning a lot more about “we” and “us”.
-Michael Bisch
The following statement was made in Public Comment by Elaine Roberts-Musser on behalf of the WAC as the WAC Chair.
[i][b]Letter to City Council inre Delaying Decision Date for Deciding Which Conjunctive Use Project[/b]
In spite of all appearances to the contrary, my name is Elaine Roberts Musser. I am speaking for the Water Advisory Committee as its Chair. Matt Williams is reading this letter to City Council members on my behalf. I apologize for not being with you tonight, but I am currently and unavoidably out of town. If you have any questions I canbe reached by telephone at (530) 574-6556
While attending the May 17 Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency meeting, one thing became clear to me. A decision on whether to move ahead with the critical path item of filling in the water treatment facility site in Woodland will not be made until August 21 of this year. However, it is also obvious the ballot language for a vote on which surface water project, needs to be decided by the City Council members on June 26th.
This places the Water Advisory Committee in a difficult predicament. We are expected to decide which conjunctive use project is the most suitable for Davis by June 20th, in order to accommodate the need for ballot language by June 26th. Yet we will not have had access to all the information for the West Sacramento surface water option until June 14th at the earliest. This does not give the Water Advisory Committee sufficient time to obtain all the necessary information, process it, ask the appropriate questions, and come to a reasoned and well thought out conclusion.
In consequence, by unanimous vote of the Water Advisory Committee, we are asking to be allowed until August 17th in making a decision on which surface water project is the preferred alternative for the City of Davis. To get around the ballot issue, which must be resolved from a practical standpoint by June 26th, we suggest the ballot language directly refer to the language and rate structure of the Prop 218 notice, with any such Prop 218 rate structure and language being directly the result of a specific surface water project. We assume our city attorney Harriet Steiner can settle the matter of exact wording legally sufficient to satisfy all the requirements of Prop 218.
Up until this moment, all crucial decisions of the Water Advisory Committee have been unanimous, despite it being difficult to achieve unanimity. However, as close to a unanimous vote as possible is what I believe is optimal for purposes of public outreach and public confidence in whatever decision the Water Advisory Committee formulates. Should the Water Advisory Committee be held to making a decision prematurely, it is likely to result in destructive divisions within the Water Advisory Committee itself and likely the Davis community as a whole. My concern is the Water Advisory Committee will decide, on a split vote, to advise the City Council it cannot come to a reasoned decision within the time frame allotted of June 20th. Such a result will be of little value to the City Council.
I hope all City Council members will continue to strongly support the efforts of the Water Advisory Committee. We have spent hundreds of hours poring over thousands of pages of documents. Many members have done extensive research on their own. City staff and consultants have made themselves extremely accessible and available to answer a myriad of difficult questions. Outstanding experts have taken the time and trouble to allow Water Advisory Committee members to avail themselves of their top notch expertise. I respectfully request the City Council to allow the Water Advisory Committee the extra time it needs to come to the best decision possible for Davis citizens – by extending the Water Advisory Committee’s deadline for a final decision on which project alternative is preferred until August 17th. [/i]
Further, WAC member Bill Kopper also spoke in the 6:30 Public Comment with a number of excellent suggestions regarding the wording of a number of the Whereas clauses in the Staff Report ordinance language. Given the ultimate action by the Council, I am sure that Bills suggestions will be discussed by the WAC and I would be surprised if they were not incorporated in their entirety. Of course that is my personal opinion and in no way speaks for the WAC as a whole.
I forgot to mention there was one little side bar to last night’s meeting that was interesting to watch where Mike Harrington and Ernie Head took a page from the Chamber PAC’s playbook.
During the 7:10 Public Comment period, Mike stationed himself in the back of the chambers room clearly appearing to be on the cusp of joining the commenters, but in the end he didn’t come forward, just lurked there, and eventually left the meeting without saying anything.
Later in the meeting Ernie arrived with his trademark headset on and stationed himself in an aisle seat on the left side of the aisle for a bit less than a half hour, then rose and returned the headset to the audio/video crew and left the meeting without saying anything.
I couldn’t help but chuckle.
Matt: I was there with my family. Your personal comments are disgusting.
Also Matt, just read your snide comments about a senior citizen wearing a headset in order to hear so he can participate in local government. You should be ashamed.
Interesting choice of words Michael . . . disgusting. How is an observation about your presence in the Council Chambers “disgusting”?
Not snide at all. I happen to be hard of hearing myself Michael and fully appreciate just how facilitative such electronic aids can be. For anyone who doesn’t know Ernie, the ability to know who he is is made much easier with that landmark. No different than Steve Souza’s Hawaiian shirts . . . a distinguishing characteristic.
I think you must have eaten paranoia flakes for breakfast.
Well, Mike, why did you come to the meeting at all, if you didn’t want people to notice or mention that you were there?
Several comments pulled due to personal content.
Sue: thank you for making the motion to postpone the matter until April, which is MHO is about right.
[quote]Mike Harrington’s posting of 6/12/2012: Ryan Kelly: Lighten up. Last fall, you and your buddies lost the fight to stick us with the huge and bogus water rate increases. Get over it, unless you just want to broadcast your bitterness over and over for the Vanguard readership?
Funny that you would trash Richard Harris for possibly proposing a tax increase for the schools that is a small fraction of the annual rate increases you tried to dump on every house and business in Davis. It tells me that you are anti-schools, or at least want something for nothing.I am not for, or against, the Harris/Taylor proposal: I don’t even know what it is. Give them a fair chance before you trash them for trying something new.Call me anytime to discuss so you can get your fall 2011 loss off your shoulders and move on. 759-8440. I won’t charge you fees. [/quote]
This posting was OK with the blog moderators.
But when someone mention that Mike Harrington came to the City Council meeting, stood at the top of the isle during public comment as though he was going to speak during public comment, but left without doing so was deemed “disgusting” by Mike Harrington and the moderator pulls the posting due to “personal content.”
Questions or concerns about moderation actions can be addressed to me at donshor@gmail.com.
I ran into this interesting piece of history . . .
[i]”Friday, July 20, 2007
City Needs to Examine Water Issues Before the Final Bill Hits the City Ratepayers
The water issue is not an issue that has resonated with the Davis public just yet. In part, perhaps, because I think most people simply just are not aware of the magnitude of the increase in service charge they are facing in the coming years. Many families will be looking at a two to three fold increase (at minimum) in the coming years. We are talking about paying $2000 per year just in water.
Tuesday night the Davis City Council approved a resolution adopting the Yolo County Integrated Resource Water Management Plan (IRWMP). This is a regional plan that is broad in scope. In fact, so broad that the city produced a large and thick booklet. That booklet was delivered on Friday afternoon to the Davis City Council members–full of complex water-related issues.
Councilmember Lamar Heystek questioned the staff for delivering such a thick and dense document at such late a point. And while staff was apologetic about the completion time, there are a number of issues that could be brought up just from this fact. The Brown Act requires that all public meetings receive 72 hours notice. The city council agenda and packet are generally complete sometime on Friday afternoon. In technical terms that is around 96 hours plus in advance.
However, from a practical standpoint, there are problems with such timing. The basic information about agenda items is indeed available well in advance. However, anything dense or complicated has practical limitations. For instance, a member of the public probably would not be aware of the existence of this particular bound report until Monday. Thus from a practical standpoint, the public for some things really only has 24 to 36 hours notice. The weekend serves as time from the standpoint of the Brown act, but also as a dead zone in terms of the ability to learn about some of the more complex agenda items.
While all considerations have to be balanced with a practical understanding of the duties and tasks of city staff, a Thursday delivery date would push the time forward by 24 hours, but allow people time both during the week prior and the week of to more fully explore the council’s agenda items.
Councilmember Heystek also introduced a substitute motion on Tuesday, to exclude from the report material related to the proposed but not passed water supply project. Though both Councilmember Heystek and Mayor Sue Greenwald made a valiant effort to convince Councilmember Stephen Souza onto their side, in the end, that substitute motion failed by a 3-2 vote and the main motion passed by a 3-2 vote.
In practical terms, this vote probably was only symbolic. Councilmember Stephen Souza made the point that this does not authorize anything new, and he is correct. On the other hand, as we have seen with this issue, much of what has been pushed along has been done either without votes from council to change course, or by piecemeal votes. One wonders if there will actually be a final vote on such a project or if at some point it be brought forth bit by bit into fait accompli status.
There are a number of questions about this project that need to be addressed. The first question is whether or not we need to have the water supply project at all. The city maintains that the water quality is not suitable presently. In fact, the water quality is perfectly suitable for drinking, what it is not suitable for is outflow back into the environment. That in itself begs a number of questions–chief among them, is whether we cannot deal simply with the present water supply.
The next question is whether we can, as Mayor Greenwald claims, rely on deep well aquifers to supply water for the next 30 to 50 years. That time, would allow for a number of things including allowing us to pay off the water treatment center, so that the residents of Davis are not hit with a double whammy of rate increases. The Mayor has especially objected to the lack of study from independent consultants and experts about the feasibility of such an alternative plan.[/i]
. . . continued from above
[i]”In part there needs to be a healthy skepticism about the current arrangement between the city and their hired water experts and consultants. Part of that skepticism is based on the idea that the same people asked to evaluate the water situation are the same people who would profit from the city adopting a water supply project.
Mayor Sue Greenwald has repeatedly suggested that the “experts” she has talked to have presented very different findings than have the city paid engineers and consults. Perhaps it is time that they come forth and speak before the public.
We also must question the size of the water supply project. As Councilmember Heystek suggested, the supply is far larger than the city’s current needs, and he wondered aloud if the actual goal was to enable and facilitate growth rather than to fix a water supply problem.
Finally, we must again question the judgment of councilmembers such as Councilmember Don Saylor, who has voted each time to support and push this project ahead while at the same time, members of the West Yost Associates consulting firm have attended his campaign announcement party and undoubtedly in part helped to bankroll his re-election bid.
That leaves us with the vexing question as to whether we are getting the best governance or simply the best governance that money can buy.
It seems to me, that in the end, this entire water supply system might be our only choice. But it is estimated at this point to cost around $300 million. My guess is that the actual price will only be higher. I would like to see a concerted effort by city staff and our elected officials to take as many measures as possible to ensure that the solution that we have selected is the only reasonable alternative that we can take. It may end up being the course that we are presently on, but I would like for us to ask all the tough questions. In the meantime, I would like to see the same answers from people who will not financially benefit from these decisions as West Yost Associates will. In short, I want to hear from Mayor Greenwald’s experts, it is time for her to stop talking about what they are saying and actually have them come forward and show us all what they have apparently told the Mayor. The public has the right to know.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Posted by David M. Greenwald at 4:57 AM “[/i]
I remember this article
Its obvious.The council should put it on the ballot in November when the most voters will participate. A special election is an obvious loser because the no on everything vote will turn out disproportionately as we have seen with special elections since Arnold came to power. If you want a fair accounting of the voters you do it during the general election. Despite the remaining technical decisions there will be plenty of time to inform the voters. While unusual the timeline dictates the electoral reality. Davis voters are smart enough to become informed before the vote. if anything the doubts should be a disadvantage for the yes side so there should be no opposition to having a vote that is early for ballot writing but not to early for an informed population to vote.
Well said Toad . . . well said.
[i]Several comments pulled due to personal content.[/i]
Damn… now all I am thinking about is what were the comments deleted?
Jeff: ya, you hear some skittering in the closet and wonder what’s in there, huh? Well, only Don knows, and he ain’t telling.