The op-ed by Woodland’s representatives on the JPA, Mayor Skip Davies and Councilmember Bill Marble, drew a response on Monday from the Vanguard.
As we argued, reading through the lines it is clear that their patience with Davis is wearing thin. Indeed, they seem to suggest that they will only consider cost-sharing after Davis commits to the project.
“Our actions will be based on the best interests of Woodland. We take seriously our responsibility to our ratepayers and are firmly committed to delivering the project so it provides the greatest benefit at the lowest possible cost,” they wrote.
The Vanguard interpreted this piece as a line in the sand and a shot across Davis’ collective bow.
Most pointedly, the piece seems to suggest that Davis cannot get an agreement with Woodland, it would appear, on cost-sharing without agreeing to continue the JPA, and they cannot get additional information to even consider a West Sacramento project without committing to a West Sacramento project.
However, many commenters, if not outright defending the Woodland leadership’s piece, saw it as more blunted and intended for a Woodland audience.
Matt Williams, an alternative on the WAC wrote: “I think it is a whole lot more than a signal. I read it as a very clear statement that they both have in the past and will going forward work with Davis. There is nothing subtle about it. The history of the JPA and its predecessor agreements shows regular and consistent evolution of the partnership sharing between and among Woodland, Davis and UC Davis.”
But later he writes, “I don’t see it as saber-rattling. Their public comment at City Chambers clearly was saber-rattling, but in this case the message isn’t to Davis, it is to their constituents in Woodland.”
He added, “I do not believe the OpEd has appeared in the Enterprise. It is in the Daily Democrat. The number of Davis residents who read the Daily Democrat can probably be counted on two hands, so if they wanted Davis to hear any rattling they would have published the OpEd in the Enterprise.”
As a result, he added, “I actually think that they are sending a message to their own rate payers advising them that this ‘consideration process’ may be coming down the road, and that they have enough accrued savings as a result of cost reduction efforts to be able to afford the adjustments in partnership terms and cost sharing without going back to the rate payers for more money.”
However, that defense has now been undermined by the apparent fact that the op-ed is now set for publication in today’s Enterprise.
No longer can it be claimed that this was simply a message to Woodland. Now it must be read as a clear message to Davis, as well.
Back in December, all five members of the Woodland City Council came to the Davis City Council Chambers to argue that we need to adhere to our agreements.
They continue in a more subtle way: “We have been patient with our partners in Davis and will continue to work with them. However, we will not do so at the expense of our ratepayers.”
They add: “In good faith we entered into a partnership agreement with Davis almost three years ago. It was determined then that the partnership would result in significant cost savings. We continue to feel the partnership provides the best long term value for both communities. We have always been committed to fair and equitable sharing of the costs with our project partners.”
Is this line in their op-ed a signal that Woodland will work with Davis on this point, or that they believe they already have?
Because of the downsizing of the plant capacity from 40 mgd to 30 mgd, with Davis’ share reducing from 18 mgd to 12 mgd, Davis is seeking to negotiate on this point what the city considers a more equitable 60/40 cost share percentage in order to reflect the newly configured anticipated reliance on the treatment facility. In addition, Davis is seeking to “share in the cost of the pipelines to convey the treated water to the city limits of each city.”
We continue to see this next line as troubling: “Woodland has been and will continue to be consistent in its message to Davis. We will consider discussion of prior mutually agreed upon partnership terms, such as cost sharing, once Davis determines it will continue as a partner in the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency and concludes discussions and negotiations for an alternative project!”
The implication is that they will discuss the cost-sharing only if and when Davis determines it will continue its partnership with Woodland. From Davis’ perspective, the cost-sharing ought to be a key component in the consideration of whether or not to continue that partnership.
As we noted on Monday, Woodland has committed to going it alone: “Should our partnership with Davis dissolve, Woodland can and will proceed independently. If we must go it alone, we will downsize to a solo project and will do so within the rate structure already approved by our ratepayers. With or without our partner, Woodland is prepared to move forward and will continue to explore and pursue every possibility for reducing costs and minimizing rate impacts to our residents.”
In a more mixed conclusion, in which they conveyed their hope of preservation of their commitment to their residents, they add: “While we value and hope to preserve the historic partnership, our commitment and responsibility remains first and foremost to our residents and our community.”
The Chair of the WAC attacks the purpose of the Vanguard‘s public analysis, arguing that “one unfortunate byproduct of this article will be to create more animus between Woodland and Davis.”
She added, “I agree [with] Matt [Williams] that this op-ed was meant as reassurance to Woodland folks that there will be no more delay – Woodland will go it alone [without] Davis if necessary to avoid heavy fines and increasing costs of labor and construction.”
However, the Vanguard believes that we did not make the decision to send all our entire contingency of councilmembers to their chambers, and Woodland certainly could have explained to their ratepayers in a way that did not call Davis.
However, the view that this op-ed was strictly meant to reassure Woodland is now undermined by the decision to publish the op-ed in the Davis Enterprise.
Still, the message here is delivered loud and clear. The decision time for Davis is rapidly approaching. The city of Davis is stuck in an unenviable position – we cannot get an agreement, it would appear, with Woodland on cost-sharing without agreeing to continue the JPA and we cannot get additional information to even consider a West Sacramento project without committing to a West Sacramento project.
Some will argue that we are out of time and options and that it’s time to make a deal. I simply continue to lament the fact that we had several years to be doing this stuff and the previous council steadfastly refused. We are where we are. And it is left to us ratepayers to pay for our previous leadership’s intransigence.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It’s more of the same “chicken little, sky is falling, have to do a deal with Woodland now or suffer $50 million loss,” that we heard during the City’s attempted justification for the Sept 6 bogus rates, and from Elaine throughout the referendum, and now as Chair of the supposedly neutrual Water Advisory Committee.
The JPA structure is just added expensive bureaucracy and not necessary.
We should stop allowing ourselves to be yanked around by Woodland’s politicial leaders who are taking those poor amd middle class rate payers over the fiscal cliff, take a step back, and continue the discussions with West Sacramento about buying water from them as a custome. Or include Woodland, and buy water from them.
Let’s get a formal, transparent bidding process started, and ask our two neighbors for proposals where we would buy water on long term contracts.
The fact is: we hardly need any water anyway, and not for many years at that.
The JPA is one big con job on the rate payers of Woodland and Davis. We cannot stop Woodland from bankrupting their city, but we can stop Davis from doing it.
Evidence? Easy. Last year, Elaine and other supporters of the JPA banged and banged on how we NEED million gallons a day NOW, or the sky will fall. One year later: suddenly they admit that we only NEED 12 million gallons a day. Why the sudden drop? Because that extra 8 mgd was for speculative development projects around the Davis city borders, going up towards Woodland. I rest my case.
The 12 mgd is at least twice too much, and even 4-5 mgd is not needed for many years.
We should just buy the water, when we need it.
you sound like a broken record Mike.
At the end of the day, Woodland will go for an extension if Davis puts its JPA process on hold until it has completed its negotiations with West Sac. It is hard to believe that the cost to Woodland for going it alone would not be significant enough for them to wait for Davis to complete its evaluation of a Davis- West Sac option and attempt to negotiate the better deal for Davis. Threats and arm-twisting will only guarantee a defeat for Woodland in a future Davis referendum.
91 Octane: because the facts are the facts, and I report them.
Not facts, Mike, just opinion. And we’ve heard it before…many times before.