Council Asked to Take Steps to Preserve the JPA Until the Time Comes to Dissolve It –
Last week, the WAC unanimously voted to delay the city’s water ballot measure until the spring of 2013. This week, the council will meet to formalize the ballot timing for March 5, 2013 as well as set forth other policies.
Under the current plan, the city would also adopt a resolution that authorized the city to pay its share of the additional cost necessary to raise the Regional Water Treatment Facility (RWTF) site out of the flood plain.
These resolutions would add to the city’s current costs. According to the staff report, “The estimated cost to the City for the additional construction to raise the site is $527,576. The estimated incremental additional cost to prepare and receive the alternative bid for a Woodland only project is from $200,000 to $500,000. The City has sufficient funds in the approved budget to cover these expenses.”
City Manager Steve Pinkerton explained last week that these costs are necessary to preserve the Woodland-Davis option for water as the WAC makes a full and complete determination of the West Sacramento option.
At the meeting last week, Steve Pinkerton explained that the City of Woodland has deadlines that fall much sooner than Davis’ deadlines. As such, Woodland does not have the time that Davis needs in order to make a fully informed decision on the project.
Woodland’s timeline requires it to send out bid requests by December, and it is these bid requests that Davis will pay for in order to preserve the possibility of a Woodland Davis project.
According to the staff report, the city has the option of a binding or advisory measure.
“These measures essentially ask for the electorate’s input and provide direction to the City. Possible language for an advisory measure asks whether voters want the City to proceed with a surface water supply project and increased water rates. The actual language for an advisory measure can be determined by the Council so long as the ballot measure is phrased as a yes/no question,” staff writes.
They add, “A ‘binding’ measure functions like an initiative in many respects. This measure, also requiring a yes/no response, would direct the council to adopt an ordinance, which would be available to the voters as part of the election materials.”
A November election would mean “that the measure would need to ask the voters whether they want the City to move forward investigating various alternatives for a surface water/conjunctive use project that will involve water rate increases.”
On the other hand, a March election would allow for more information to be known at the time. For instance, by then, the WAC would have made a preferred alternative recommendation to the city along with a rate structure and rate costs.
“This would provide more information to the voters and, staff believes, provide a more definite answer from the voters,” staff writes.
On March 6, 2012, the Davis City Council approved the final engineering to place engineered fill on the site of the Regional Water Treatment Facility (RWTF) to raise the facility building pad elevation out of the flood plain.
When the city decided to reconsider water utility rates last year, Dennis Diemer, the General Manager of WDCWA (Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency), created a revised schedule that pushed the issuance of the DBO (Design-Build-Operate) RFP (Request for Proposals) to December.
Staff reports that on July 3, the Woodland City Council approved paying for the cost to fill the site. “Their council action allows for the site to be filled for a joint facility if Davis approves paying for the portion of the fill that would be required to accommodate a regional plant,” staff reports.
On July 12, 2012, the WAC deliberated the payment to place engineered fill on the site to raise the facility building pad elevation out of the flood plain.
Critically, however, staff reports that the WAC “did not support going ahead with the site fill until they had personally been briefed by senior members of the CVRWQCB [Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board] and determined the certainty of the enforcement actions against Woodland for noncompliance in accordance with the aforementioned schedule. In the end, the WAC approved a motion to recommend to the City Council not to pay for the site fill.”
Staff says they do not agree with the WAC recommendation here. They argue that this issue is critical because of the issue of seasonal constructability.
They add, “It is contemplated that Woodland can proceed with the construction of a Woodland only site pad and that Davis can add fill at a later date. However there are several concerns with the constructability.”
The total construction cost estimate to fill the site is $3,252,193. When the site is turned over the JPA, then Davis would be obligated to pay their JPA percentage of this cost or 46.1% of the total site fill project estimate for an amount of $1,499,261.
The current schedule for the WDCWA to send out a Request for Proposals to the Design-Build-Operate (DBO) teams is December of 2012, staff reports. If the city of Davis delays their decision, this would delay issuing the RFP.
“The City of Woodland has set their rates to support the project and is preparing the treatment plant site for construction. Woodland is not able to delay the project any longer because of regulatory time constraints,” staff reports.
The project could stay on schedule even if the city delays a decision by issuing the RFP in December and “and asking the DBO teams to prepare an additional proposal alternative that would cover the facilities needed for a Woodland only water project.”
This would cost the DBO teams additional amounts, between $200,000 and $500,000.
Staff reports that the project would have to allow Woodland to meet its 2016 start-up schedule and it must be acceptable to “the DBO teams that have been shortlisted so that they will continue to participate.”
On July 12, 2012, the WAC deliberated the decision of whether the city of Davis should direct funds to the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency that will cover the cost of preparation of an additional proposal alternative for a Woodland only project.
Staff reports that the WAC “approved a motion to recommend to the City Council not to pay for the preparation of alternative bids until such time that the City Council decides definitively to go forward with the Woodland-Davis project.”
Once again, staff does not agree with the WAC.
“Staff feels it is necessary to preserve the relationship with its business partner in the JPA, as well as preserve the relationship with the prospective DBO firms shortlisted so that they will continue to participate,” staff writes.
They add, “While we have no indication that requesting alternative bids may cause any or all of the prospective DBO partnerships to drop out of consideration, it may signal a lack of commitment.”
Staff’s bottom line is that Davis must remain committed to the JPA until such time that it elects to go forward with a superior option.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If CC approves this and we give that money to JPA and end up with West Sac option, the money is gone right?
It will be interesting to see if CC goes with staff or WAC on this. I felt watching last week’s WAC that Steve was somewhat short with members’ questions.
Once again I ask how much money have we paid to JPA and how much is ongoing? Has the JPA staff been trimmed while we are waiting for an option or does it continue full strength?
Also how much are we incurring by having all the consultant reports to the WAC?
“Once again staff does not agree with the WAC.”
The tension between the city staff and the WAC was obvious at the last council meeting, with the council members tripping over themselves to assure the WAC that their opinion is valued and Pinkerton discouning the WAC role. Elaine was very courteous, considering how she was put on the spot, literally and figuratively.
SODA asks some good questions about historic and current funding issues, including the costs of maintaining options and staffs while we keep mulling over things. These items should be up front in staff reports so the council keeps costs in mind.
The West Sacramento is most certainly far, far less expensive than the Woodland/Davis project. The only reason that two small, rural towns are building their own totally separate system rather than opting for a regional system was based on false information given to the council.
I was the only member of the last council who was on the council when the decision to switch from a Davis/West Sacramento to a Woodland/Davis project was made. We were told point blank that West Sacramento pulled out of the deal, and hence we were going to proceed with a different project with Woodland. There were no qualifications and we were presented with no options. We were given no other reason for changing course other than that West Sacramento had pulled out.
When I learned recently that we had been misinformed, Steve Pinkerton followed up with West Sacramento, and it turns out that West Sacramento is very interested and very committed to serving Davis and/or Woodland.
When proper estimates are made, the West Sacramento option will turn out to be much less expensive, and also will likely be less likely to result in major cost overruns since the plant and intake are already built and we will know the buy-in costs.
Woodland is free to join us or to go their own way. It is up to them. They will save a lot of money if they join us. As to Woodland’s deadline — they will save so much money that risking some fines will be the smart thing to do from a fiscal perspective. Fines are negotiable and Woodland has done their due diligence and they have proven that they are serious about compliance. The board will surely take that into consideration.
Woodland is in so much trouble with discharge in large part because they have not properly developed their groundwater sources over time. If you go to the department of Water Resources website and read up on their 2013 water plan update, you will see that they predict that, with diminishing snowpack, the assumption is that there will have to be more, not less, reliance on groundwater in the future. Conjunctive use means developing both surface and groundwater and Woodland, unlike Davis, is still largely in their intermediate wells.
I think a March election could be premature because it is important that the election results be meaningful, and hence the costs and rates should be completely nailed town before the ballot measure is written. I hope that the council will at least keep its options open regarding the scheduling of the election.
I certainly hope that the council follows the recommendation of the WAC and holds off on the landfill expenditure. We have thrown far too much money down this bottomless pit due to false information provided to the council in the past.
[quote]I was the only member of the last council who was on the council when the decision to switch from a Davis/West Sacramento to a Woodland/Davis project was made. We were told point blank that West Sacramento pulled out of the deal, and hence we were going to proceed with a different project with Woodland. There were no qualifications and we were presented with no options. We were given no other reason for changing course other than that West Sacramento had pulled out.
When I learned recently that we had been misinformed, Steve Pinkerton followed up with West Sacramento, and it turns out that West Sacramento is very interested and very committed to serving Davis and/or Woodland. [/quote]
Did you follow up at the time you were told West Sac was not interested and talk with West Sac to get their viewpoint? If not, why not, if you believed such an option was a much better choice? You have certainly been persistent on other issues to your credit, so I don’t understand why you would not have followed up on this issue if you felt strongly enough. Because it is my understanding that the development landscape has drastically changed for West Sacramento, because of the economic downturn, and is the reason they have had a change of heart. With the slow down in development and the installation of meters, they currently are not in need of all the capacity in their water treatment plant. However, that may not be true in the future…
[quote]When proper estimates are made, the West Sacramento option will turn out to be much less expensive, and also will likely be less likely to result in major cost overruns since the plant and intake are already built and we will know the buy-in costs. [/quote]
The West Sac option could be more expensive in the long run depending on what sort of deal we can strike w West Sac. In so far as I am aware, they only wish Davis to be a customer. For how long we don’t know – a very crucial point. If they are only willing to sell us a 10 year contract, that is highly problematic. If they are willing to strike a deal much has Tracy has, with a 40 year contract with a option to renew another 40 years, and another 20 years after that, then we have a whole different ball game. Negotiations are ongoing at this point. Then we have the ozonation issue, which for many appears to be a deal breaker. Another issue that needs to be properly vetted by the WAC, as does sizing of both the West Sac and Woodland options. The final data is not yet in to do an apples to apples comparison of these two down-sized options. It is far premature to make decisions without knowing all the data…
[quote]I think a March election could be premature because it is important that the election results be meaningful, and hence the costs and rates should be completely nailed town before the ballot measure is written. I hope that the council will at least keep its options open regarding the scheduling of the election. [/quote]
How long, in your estimation, does the WAC need to make a decision? The WAC on a 9-0-1 vote has set a deadline for itself of no later than June 30…
Thank you, Sue, for the historical view.
The Staff Report reads like a Chicken Little pamphlet: if we dont rush and throw another + $1.0 million at the JPA and its favorite contractors, felony-indicted United Water and questionnable Veoela Water, we are somehow going to lose money, or the sky might fall, or maybe Berryessa Dam might break.
Please …. this was the same crap that was thrown at the public last summer and fall, to support the JPA and its affiliates who funded the hit piece on Sue Greenwald.
We will work overtime to stop Davis from participating in a project with those people and companies.
United Water is indicted in Indiana, and going to trial next year, over allegations by the US Dept of Justice that they falsified testing standards for the water output from a plant they were managing.
Unfortunately, Mayor Krovoza as JPA Board Member voted to keep United Water in the bidding process, backed up by Souza.
Come down to the City Council tonight and demand that Mayor Krovoza stop participating in the JPA and supporting United Water and its ilk.
I understand that the CC is going to appoint a new CC member to replace Steve Souza on the JPA Board. I respectfully request that the CC honor the spirit of the WAC vote to stop Davis payments to the JPA, and refuse to replace Souza. And Mayor Krovoza should resign from the JPA.
Mike, The election is 8 months away. What is your excuse for being “loud and shrill” now?
Ryan: It’s not just me who blows the whistle.
Google the felony indictment against United Water: USA v. United Water Environmental Services, Inc. and its water plant manager, Case. No. 2:10-CR-217 (N. Dist. Ind., filed 4/11).
The US Dept of Justice has ben vigorously pursuing the indictment alleging United Water employees faced a high e coli laced system, so when they needed to take the water samples for testing, they spiked the chlorine levels to kill the e coli, then took the samples, then lowered the chlorine. The poor residents were faced with drinking unsafe water, then spiked chlorine levels, then high e coli contaniments.
I have the documents from the JPA when United Water was approved by the JPA Board as one of the three bidders on the JPA project. I provided the Indiana information to Krovoza and Souza BEFORE the JPA votes, and they brought United Water in anyway.
The Court issued a ruling on August 24, 2011 denying United Water’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and I also sent that opinion to the JPA and our trusty CC and the press. Souza and Krovoza charged ahead anyone, with no comment to me. The Court’s opinion is fairly damning, if the evidence cited holds up with a jury. (But United Water is innocent, until proven guilty, right?)
Ryan, the problem you have is the facts and law and political stream are all running against your blind support for the JPA and the company it chooses to keep.
What is your proof that the JPA funded the hit piece on Sue?
What is your proof that the California branch of United Water is involved in what happened in Indiana?
I’m assuming that you never fly with an airline that has ever been found at fault for something in the past or is under investigation for something. (Delta is trying to deal with needles in sandwiches right now, so I’m assuming that you won’t fly with them.) Just looking for consistency on your part.
Ryan, you used to make sharp comments. Give me a call sometime.
Does anyone eat plane food anymore? I pay the highway robbery cost at the vendor near the gate, and carry it aboard.
Good friends of the JPA and the build-em-big-and-expensive surface water project funded the piece that was intended to take her out (it did not) and boost Souza (it did not). See David’s excellent series of articles outing Burchill, his trades union clients, Li and colleagues.
And, United Water is all the same company, whatever the regional label.
Again..I’m assuming that you never FLY with an airline that has ever been found at fault for something in the past or is under investigation for something.
Just looking for consistency with your logic.
[quote]In the end, the WAC approved a motion to recommend to the City Council not to pay for the site fill. [b]- DG[/b][/quote]Davis should not pay to fill a site that we may not use. If we use it, I am sure that we will pay to fill whatever additional area must be filled.
Thank you, WAC.
[quote]Steve Pinkerton explained that the City of Woodland has deadlines that fall much sooner than Davis’ deadlines. As such, Woodland does not have the time that Davis needs in order to make a fully informed decision on the project. [b]- DG[/b][/quote]This is a good example of problems that arise from partnering with a neighbor city that has a metaphorical gun to its head. Although the interests of Woodland and Davis are aligned in seeking a viable water supply, our interests are quite different in terms cost/benefit decisions related to timing. Other potential differences in our interests and decision-making may arise from our geographical locations For example, Woodland is closer to the JPA-proposed intake (near the Colusa Drain) and farther from West Sacramento. If they participate in a joint project with Davis and West Sacramento, they might end up paying for more miles of pipeline than they would pay for under the current plan.
[quote]WAC “approved a motion to recommend to the City Council not to pay for the preparation of alternative bids until such time that the City Council decides definitively to go forward with the Woodland-Davis project.”[b]- DG[/b][/quote]Makes sense. Thank you again, WAC.
[quote]Mayor Krovoza should resign from the JPA. [b]- Mike Harrington[/b][/quote]Mike brings up an important point here. If our city council is to impartially assess the best water supply options for Davis, do we really want our mayor sitting on the board of the JPA – an agency that is committed to one particular project come hell or high water (pun intended)?
[quote]We were told point blank that West Sacramento pulled out of the deal, and hence we were going to proceed with a different project with Woodland. There were no qualifications and we were presented with no options. We were given no other reason for changing course other than that West Sacramento had pulled out. [b]- Sue G[/b][/quote][quote]Did you follow up at the time you were told West Sac was not interested and talk with West Sac to get their viewpoint? [b]- ERM[/b][/quote]Councilmembers should be able to trust what they are told by staff. It is only over the past few years that the magnitude of half-truths and baked-in biases that have been delivered by staff to the city council over the years have really come to light. The new city council will be well-advised to do their own due diligence and demand full disclosure from staff.
[quote]Mike, The election is 8 months away. What is your excuse for being “loud and shrill” now? [b]- Ryan Kelly[/b][/quote]Ryan, would you not agree that had it not been for Mike’s effort in pushing for a referendum, the City would be stuck on the JPA railroad with no consideration of the other options that are currently being examined?
Whether you agree with Mike’s tactics or not, I think that all but the staunchest advocates of the JPA plan would agree that the process that has resulted from opposition to the pre-September actions of the city council will result in a better and more affordable project. The WAC has put in orders of magnitude more brain-hours than the city council (and frankly, probably the city staff) ever could – and done so with far less vested interest than some members of the council and staff. This process would not have come about without Mike’s efforts in organizing the referendum signature drive.
[quote]What is your proof that the California branch of United Water is involved in what happened in Indiana? [b]- Ryan K[/b][/quote]To my knowledge, Mike has not alleged that the California branch of United Water was involved in the Indiana case, only that this company has been indicted for allegedly falsifying test reports.
[quote](But United Water is innocent, until proven guilty, right?) [/quote]
Yes, the presumption of innocence is still the rule in this country…
[quote]The Staff Report reads like a Chicken Little pamphlet: if we dont rush and throw another + $1.0 million at the JPA and its favorite contractors, felony-indicted United Water and questionnable Veoela Water, we are somehow going to lose money, or the sky might fall, or maybe Berryessa Dam might break. [/quote]
That is not even remotely what the staff report says…
[quote]I understand that the CC is going to appoint a new CC member to replace Steve Souza on the JPA Board. I respectfully request that the CC honor the spirit of the WAC vote to stop Davis payments to the JPA, and refuse to replace Souza. And Mayor Krovoza should resign from the JPA.[/quote]
In other words take the Woodland option off the table? What if the West Sac option doesn’t pan out?
We are known by the friends we keep.
The Woodland JPA crowd, and their consultants, and supporters, and political friends like Saylor and Souza who needed the developer and trades union money for their political careers nearly rolled our little cash-strapped city with a project that realistically would have pulled over $500 million in ratepayer money out of the pockets of Davis and Woodland. These are not friends I want around our city government, and I do not want to ever again do business with them. I feel that I have the vast majority of Davis voters at my back, and you will see it if the Davis CC ever tries again to force through a deal with Woodland for that Taj Mahal project; it is dead.
Stop paying money to the JPA! Why is our staff recommending that we fund United Water?? What is wrong with this picture??
[i]We are known by the friends we keep.
[/i]
Who built the West Sac facility?
Anyone want me to copy and paste in the United Water indictment papers from Indiana? Or you can Google them and read for yourself. Again, they are innocent until proven guilty.
Interesting that there is a full-court press on to dump the Woodland-Davis project and go for the Sacramento project before the WAC has even done a direct comparison and analysis. Talk about rushing to judgment.
Thank you, David Suder. Much more of a calm explanation and not muddied by shrill accusations and denigration of people. I will acknowledge that Mike Harrington’s referendum forced people to take another look at the project. Regardless of how distasteful I found his personal actions during that campaign(false accusations, personal attacks on people and, even, neighboring cities, etc.), it did have that result. I applaud Krovosa and the City Council for responding to the community and moving forward on a different route. Just because Mike led the referendum campaign does not make him a good source of accurate information about what we should do instead. It is difficult to read his postings because they are peppered with false accusations and personal insults, which I find offensive. Mike had no plan B and doesn’t truly want one. Matt Williams made the point that a plan B has now evolving through the efforts of others, while Mike continues his attacks. I appreciate their efforts to work through the muck.
[quote]Councilmembers should be able to trust what they are told by staff. It is only over the past few years that the magnitude of half-truths and baked-in biases that have been delivered by staff to the city council over the years have really come to light. The new city council will be well-advised to do their own due diligence and demand full disclosure from staff. [/quote]
Sue has always done her own homework, and never trusted staff. If she had doubts about the West Sac option as she claims, why not ask questions of West Sac at the time? I agree that it is incumbent on city council members to do their homework if they have doubts… no one is infallible…
[quote]Interesting that there is a full-court press on to dump the Woodland-Davis project and go for the Sacramento project before the WAC has even done a direct comparison and analysis. Talk about rushing to judgment.[/quote]
Well said!
[quote]Interesting that there is a full-court press on to dump the Woodland-Davis project and go for the Sacramento project before the WAC has even done a direct comparison and analysis. Talk about rushing to judgment. [b]- Don[/b][/quote]I think it’s fair to say that there is currently more than one “full-court press.”
We should not rush into a Sacramento project any more than we should rush further into the JPA project. Given the late start for serious consideration of a Sacramento project, it would be reasonable to spend more time currently investigating that option in order to develop the level of information previously developed for the JPA project. Is that happening? I don’t know.
[b]
I have another question.[/b] We’ve heard that the JPA has in the past spent quite a bit of money on PR or “outreach” to promote that project. Given that Davis is considering alternatives (including a non-JPA project), [b]is any Davis money currently being contributed to JPA PR efforts?[/b] In other words, are we paying the JPA in part to lobby and campaign for their project? IMHO, we should not be.
As a Woodlander, I have absolutely no problem with what Davis is doing concerning the WAC and looking into other options. It is regrettable that you all did not do your homework before (this issue has been going on since I was at Emerson, and most of the same concerns that have been shared here were answered by our WAC). However, if Davis decides that it does not want to pay its share as per the JPA agreements and the West Sac option becomes a non-option. You can believe I will be the first person in front of my City Council demanding that if Davis wants to rejoin the joint project they will pay their share of the cost of the build out in the inflated dollars of that time.
“Interesting that there is a full-court press on to dump the Woodland-Davis project and go for the Sacramento project before the WAC has even done a direct comparison and analysis. Talk about rushing to judgment.”
Don: The term full court press is a basketball term which generally involves using three or four defenders to press the team with the ball in hopes of causing a turnover. In this case, it seems to be one person pressing to dump the JPA. By definition that is not a full court press.
David: the WAC voted 9/0 to stop spending money on the JPA for now.
I could put up You Tube and Varsity video clip ads of the Woodland City Council Fab Five berating our electeds and wagging their fingers at us on December 6, and probably win any citywide vote to disengage from the JPA.
Hey, Michael, why don’t you wait until the WAC [i]actually compares the different project plans[/i] before you continue your campaign against the Woodland-Davis plan?
Let me see: hwo can I win the hearts and minds of the Woodland residents? I have an idea: let me round up our five CC members, send them north in tractor pools, and have them lecture the Woodland CC live on streaming video.
Totally brilliant idea Councilman Marble had.
These are the brilliant people who way oversized that Taj Mahal project and have failed to use the deep aquifer as an excuse to overcharge their residents for a plant that to us appears mostly to be all about surplus water for massive amounts of future sprawl. Check out the huge green shaded area all around Woodland as the geo-area they intend to develop to use that new water.
(David, I sent that water supply area map to you; please post it sometime if you want to shock your readers. I can provide if anyone asks me.)
[quote]Did you follow up at the time you were told West Sac was not interested and talk with West Sac to get their viewpoint? If not, why not, if you believed such an option was a much better choice? — [b]Elaine Musser[/b][/quote]What a snippy little comment, Elaine. Of course I believed staff when they said that West Sacramento had pulled out. To this day I am astonished that we would be misinformed about a factual matter with such profound implications.
Davis has sent contingents north to Woodland to lecture and berate people about land planning issues. I have no problem with anyone coming to speak to the City Council during the public comment. They planned according to agreements that they thought were made and Davis was changing course. Their appearance and message is not offensive. What Mike has been spewing about their city is. How dare he try to limit people’s access to speak before our City Council.
Ryan: it’s a free world. Every elected and former elected in Woodland can come on down and berate us and our CC. Bless ’em all. Load up those tractor wagons and stop by Davis City Hall.
But if they think there won’t be a push back, especially when the facts, law, money, and politics all line up against their Taj Mahal Project that obviously strips their own ratepayers of the little money those people have left in their pockets after the Great Depression, then our Woodland elected friends who came down to trash us should certainly not be surprised at the outcome.
Ryan: let me show you what this water mess is really all about. Tell me where I can send to you the JPA plant’s water supply map dated in Feb 2011, showing a green outline for the geo area that can legally demand and use water from this plant. Check it out: the huge new areas around Woodland that could be developed with the new water. Same for Davis. It’s a roadmap to massive sprawl. Please tell me where I can email it. Or stop by, and I will give you a copy so you can see for yourself. You obviously are informed, but somehow have missed that map.
[quote]”I have another question. We’ve heard that the JPA has in the past spent quite a bit of money on PR or “outreach” to promote that project. Given that Davis is considering alternatives (including a non-JPA project), is any Davis money currently being contributed to JPA PR efforts? In other words, are we paying the JPA in part to lobby and campaign for their project? IMHO, we should not be”[/quote]As I remember, the JPA hired a professional firm (rather than hiring staff) to facilitate public participation for the project planning and public information. This is a typical government agency operation, aimed at improving openness and providing information to taxpayers. That’s not to say that everyone appreciates government spending money on this function.
“Outreach” is different than “promoting, “lobbying” and “campaigning.” In any case, I wouldn’t expect we’d be able to quit paying our share of any of the JPA operations unless and until we commit to another option. Doesn’t it always cost more to try to go two directions at the same time?
[quote]David Suder: We should not rush into a Sacramento project any more than we should rush further into the JPA project. Given the late start for serious consideration of a Sacramento project, it would be reasonable to spend more time currently investigating that option in order to develop the level of information previously developed for the JPA project. Is that happening? I don’t know.
I have another question. We’ve heard that the JPA has in the past spent quite a bit of money on PR or “outreach” to promote that project. Given that Davis is considering alternatives (including a non-JPA project), is any Davis money currently being contributed to JPA PR efforts? In other words, are we paying the JPA in part to lobby and campaign for their project? IMHO, we should not be. [/quote]
The answer to your first question is yes. The answer to your second question is no.
[quote]Don: “Interesting that there is a full-court press on to dump the Woodland-Davis project and go for the Sacramento project before the WAC has even done a direct comparison and analysis. Talk about rushing to judgment.”
dmg: Don: The term full court press is a basketball term which generally involves using three or four defenders to press the team with the ball in hopes of causing a turnover. In this case, it seems to be one person pressing to dump the JPA. By definition that is not a full court press. [/quote]
I think most of us fully understood what Don was getting at… and believe me it feels like a full court press…
[quote]M Harrington: the WAC voted 9/0 to stop spending money on the JPA for now. [/quote]
The WAC did not vote any such thing…
[quote]erm: Did you follow up at the time you were told West Sac was not interested and talk with West Sac to get their viewpoint? If not, why not, if you believed such an option was a much better choice? — Elaine Musser
Sue Greenwald: What a snippy little comment, Elaine. Of course I believed staff when they said that West Sacramento had pulled out. To this day I am astonished that we would be misinformed about a factual matter with such profound implications.[/quote]
Why would you believe staff on this issue, when you have not believed staff on almost every other issue? You have always been extremely diligent in questioning staff…
Mr. Harrington, if you want to “win over the hearts and minds of the people of Woodland,” let the WAC finish their work, is the extension of time going to put a strain on the relationship, yep it sure will. Now the only question is are the people of Davis looking for a quick fix that has a low upfront sticker price, or do they want to fix the problem that they are facing? The truth of the matter is Davis is just a little ways behind Woodland in the regulatory issues facing ALL cities in the State. At some point in the near future, Davis’ wastewater and ground water will be deemed unacceptable by Federal and State standards and something will need to be done. Is Woodland looking to grow, yes, it needs to, granted past development planning has been spotty at best, but we need to grow the tax base. So we are planning the infrastructure to handle that growth, that seems reasonable, if not, dare I say it, showing some common sense to the approach. In addition, the Woodland Water Rate Advisory Committee proposed and if was accepted by the Woodland City Council, to blend both surface water and ground water to be able to extend the life of our wells.