Yesterday’s article on the water deal had a rather egregious error reporting that the new Sacramento offer was the 30-year, 30-year renewal option agreement, when in fact it would be a permanent agreement.
That represents a non-insignificant change to the previous offer, where West Sacramento had offered the city water service only until 2032, with Davis being responsible for funding the costs of a capital improvement to add 12 mgd to the West Sacramento plant at a future date.
The problem at this time is one of costs. Right now, the permanent connection fee offer stands at $19.4 million. That represents a considerable step up from what the WAC was willing to offer – which was a $6 million connection fee offer to West Sacramento for a 30-year term with a 30-year renewal. It also represents an increase over what Carollo Engineers came up with during their assessment, where they believe a $12.56 million connection fee was fair and equitable.
At this point, it appears that at $19.4 million, the cost of buying water from West Sacramento, is not much less than the cost of owning the JPA plant.
One of the things we need to assess is whether such there are enough advantages of the West Sacramento arrangement in which we would be a customer – granted, a permanent customer with absolutely no say over water policies.
It is possible, perhaps even likely, that the answer is no. On the other hand, perhaps the time has not yet come to make that decision.
Last week, we got what seemed to be a definitive answer from West Sacramento. The answer seemed to be that while there was some interest in the staff side to pursue an agreement, there was no support from the elected officials in West Sacramento.
Part of the reason may have been the language and actions of the WAC. Indeed, as Matt Williams, an alternate on the WAC notes, West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon has now acknowledged formally that it was the WAC and not the Davis City Council that was responsible for his belief that Davis was not seriously considering the West Sacramento alternative.
It turns out, as some have insisted for some time, that the answer depends not only on what the question is, but how it is asked.
Some have pointedly suggested that we made an agreement with Woodland and that we need to honor that agreement. They argue it does not matter from Woodland’s perspective why we are being inconsistent, it only matters that we are.
However, embedded within that point is the notion that somehow we are breaking our JPA agreement with Woodland. In fact, we are not.
It should be noted that built into that agreement are decision points, in fact, multiple points where either party may rightly withdraw from the JPA agreement.
In fact, we are at one such decision point. The biggest one is the agreement to finance and construct. As City Manager Steve Pinkerton told the Vanguard last week – once we agree to that, once we take out the bonds, we are committed to the project. Until then, according to our agreement, we have the right to withdraw.
Now, how does it break our agreement with Woodland, if within our agreement we agreed that either side can unilaterally withdraw from the agreement at any point up until we agree on the finance and construction?
My point for the last several weeks has been that the Davis City Council really has to get this thing right at this point. We have an election in March, we had a referendum that qualified for the ballot last fall, and unfortunately, the previous council was way too far ahead of the public.
Woodland Supervisor Matt Rexroad makes the point, “Your duly elected Davis City Council took action. Woodland is not to blame for that.”
That is correct. Woodland is not to blame for that.
He continues, however, “The people of Davis need to understand that the City of Davis jointly entered into an agreement with the City of Woodland, Continued erratic behavior by Davis makes it less and less likely that anyone would want to partner with you in the future.”
Perhaps the last part is true, but Davis is currently adhering to the agreement and, in fact, has the right to withdraw.
Moreover, while Woodland is not to blame for the fact that the duly-elected council took action, there are things that Woodland has done that they are to blame for.
First is the decision by the five members of the Woodland City Council, along with Mr. Rexroad himself, to come to the Davis City Council last December to ask the city to live up to its agreement.
Can you imagine what Mr. Rexroad’s reaction would have been if the five members of the Davis City Council, along with Supervisors Don Saylor and Jim Provenza, came up and tried to tell Woodland how to run their city? That would have been the end of any partnership right there.
Now imagine if Mayor Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Brett Lee published a threatening piece in the Woodland Daily Democrat as Bill Marble and Skip Davies did in the Davis Enterprise.
Woodland has the right to move forward with their project, but Davis is well within its rights under this agreement to explore all options at this point in time.
If Woodland wants to spend an extra $30 million (and probably more) they can do so. Davis no longer has the luxury of simply moving forward – they have to satisfy their electorate and that means doing all due diligence to make sure that this is the best deal.
Some maintain that the JPA is the best deal – that Davis would pay only marginally more, would have far more control, would have a more philosophically-aligned partner, and get better quality water.
But just as the first answer we got from West Sacramento was not the final offer, as it turned out, perhaps this is not the final offer either. At this point, I see nothing to lose by at least trying to figure out what the best deal is for Davis – just as Woodland and West Sacramento must operate in the best interests of their communities.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
One thing I haven’t seen discussed explicitly is the politics behind the route of the treated water supply line. Water from West Sac would logically come in along the north side of the railroad and join the Davis system at or near the East Area storage tank. The unincorporated properties adjacent to Davis that the supply line would pass wouldn’t be markedly enhanced by the addition of the line, since the tank and booster pump are already close by. On the other hand, the unincorporated properties north of the city along Road 102 don’t have the same advantage. The current city infrastructure in that area is limited to a 12″ line coming through Wildhorse. Adding a large-diameter supply line along Road 102 would provide access to water for development of those properties without having to build a lot of additional infrastructure.
I’m just thinking out loud here. I don’t know the magnitude of any such advantages; it may not be big enough to affect anyone’s political calculus. But I’d be willing to bet that any politicking along these lines won’t show up in public, yet could result in pressure on the JPA and/or West Sac to do or not do certain things.
.
Purchasing water as needed and agreeing to pay for part of any future expansion of the surface water processing system to supply Davis with more water puts this cost “transparently” as an impact fee that developers would potentially be required to pay for approval of their large residential development agreements in Davis. Development agreement impact fees have historically been totally inadequate as they have been influenced by developer political deep-pockets on the make-up of our Council. Purchasing water as needed would make it much more difficult and politically untenable to evade this potential clear impact fee of future large residential developments.
[quote]Can you imagine what Mr. Rexroad’s reaction would have been if the five members of the Davis City Council along with Supervisors Don Saylor and Jim Provenza came up and tried to tell Woodland how to run their city? That would have been the end of any partnership right there.[/quote]
You may be right in your assessment of what Rexroad and company’s reaction would have been. However, this point is completely irrelevant. I would like to think that our city’s decision would be made on something more mature and substantive than the probable emotional response of our neighbors to the north.
And while on the subject of neighbors, another aspect of this subject that I have not seen dealt with is as far as overall water supply, what makes the most sense for the entire region. We have heard much, perhaps too much about what is in the best interest of Davis, Woodland, West Sac and the university, but virtually nothing about the most efficient way to secure water for all involved parties. I see it as very shortsighted to look at an essential commodity such as water through the prism of individual cities when clearly decisions that are made for each will affect all. Have I just been missing this discussion ? Or has it not taken place ?
“I would like to think that our city’s decision would be made on something more mature and substantive than the probable emotional response of our neighbors to the north.”
I think it was. But we’re still stuck in a quandary.
davisite2 said . . .
“Purchasing water as needed and agreeing to pay for part of any future expansion of the surface water processing system to supply Davis with more water puts this cost “transparently” as an impact fee that developers would potentially be required to pay for approval of their large residential development agreements in Davis. Development agreement impact fees have historically been totally inadequate as they have been influenced by developer political deep-pockets on the make-up of our Council. Purchasing water as needed would make it much more difficult and politically untenable to evade this potential clear impact fee of future large residential developments.”
Interesting point davisite; however, if the City adopts the Consumption-based Fixed Revenue Rate Structure that Frank Loge and I have developed and the Chamber of Commerce has endorsed, the constraints of current rate structures in handling impact fees would be almost completely eliminated.
Even if you can quantify the fiscal cost in the manner that you describe, the real challenge is translating that cost into fees that will comply with the dictates of Prop 218. In effect Prop 218 puts a cap on the revenues that can be realized to offset the marginal costs of adding capacity/demand to an existing system. Our rate structure eliminates that functional cap.
If anyone is interested in the Consumption-based Fixed Revenue model go to the Video website for Thursday’s Water Advisory Committee meeting at [url]http://archive.cityofdavis.org/media/wac-2012-10-11.ram[/url], click on the blue arrow, and the presentation starts at the 28:00 point in the video.
“Part of the reason may have been the language and actions of the WAC.”
The Council majority recognizes that this will be a politically hot decision and would not act to approve the JPA plan unless they got WAC approval,AKA political cover.
The WAC has given them that with their majority support for the JPA project and the Counicl adding one last theatrical gesture in an attempt to placate/neutralize the opposition. The ‘deadline” is to get this on the March ballot. Why March? because Woodland threatens to go it alone. As I surmised before, it makes no sense for Woodland to go it alone without waiting/negotiating further with Davis. They can easily avoid further penalties and would be looking at significantly greater costs and probably another 218 vote for higher rates. I would guess that the wording of the Council’s March ballot measure will suggest that this is the final and last chance to partner with Woodland but will leave the door ajar for a Davis-Woodland project if the Council ballot measure fails.
“…comply with the dictates of Prop 218”
If developers are assessed impact fees in their development agreement, am I incorrect that there then can be little/no need for Prop 218 considerations?
davisite, the WAC did not give them their majority support for the JPA project. The WAC motion approved 7-3 was only conditional support, and the conditions were substantial, amounting to between $15 million and $20 million. Further the WAC’s conditional support opened the door for additional refinement of the fiscal components of the West Sacramento alternative. What was not specified was what would happen if both West Sac and Woodland met the WAC’s conditions.
When you say “[i]As I surmised before, it makes no sense for Woodland to go it alone without waiting/negotiating further with Davis. They can easily avoid further penalties[/i]” what is your source of that opinion? Based on everything I know there is 1) no way Woodland can change its discharge compliance situation, and 2) no way to mitigate the significant nitrates problem they have in a number of their wells that place those wells in imminent danger of being shut down under the terms of State regulations. I realize it is possible that I am wrong, so I look forward to adding information from your source(s) to the information I have gathered from my own independent research.
Regarding impact fees there are several issues that need to be considered. Correct me if I am wrong, but the collection of the revenue from impact fees takes place in the City’s General Fund, but the costs associated with providing the water takes place in the Water Fund. How do you propose to deal with that disconnect between an enterprise fund and the general fund?
Matt: interesting analysis as to what money comes from which fund
Can you clarify and amplify for us ?
Also, Jim Frame, would the JPA pipeline passby the Covell Village site and supply water at citywide ratepayer expense to subsidize the developers’ profits? Suggests a reason why the Covell Developers have had one or more representatives lobbying the WAC at nearly every meeting ?
[quote]would the JPA pipeline passby the Covell Village site and supply water at citywide ratepayer expense to subsidize the developers’ profits? [/quote]
I’m not an engineer, but my guess is that the existing water infrastructure is adequate — or nearly so — to serve Covell Village. I was thinking about the parcels north of the city’s current sphere of influence.
.
Jim, this archived Vanguard article may be germane to your question.
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=765:will-lafco-changes-to-davis-sphere-of-influence-open-the-door-to-growth-on-the-periphery&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86&cpage=30[/url]
as would this SACOG Rural to Urban Connection Strategy paper
[url]http://www.sacog.org/rucs/wiki/index.php/Land_Use_Working_Paper[/url]
In addition there is a “Greenline” MOU between Woodland and Davis that protects most of the land Jim is referring to. Road 29 is the east-west road that goes to the Yolo County Landfill. As provided on http://daverosenberg.net/artic…cDavis.htm the wording of the “Greenline” MOU is as follows:
[i]”The undersigned Chairman of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, Mayor of the City of Davis and Mayor of the City of Woodland, on behalf of our respective Board of Supervisors and City Councils, and on behalf of the constituents whom we represent, do hereby enter into this Memorandum of Understanding. We declare and affirm our mutual commitment to the protection and preservation of agricultural lands and open space, our desire to avoid urban sprawl, and our intent that there shall be no urban development North of County Road 29 and South of County Road 27 as between the communities of Davis and Woodland. This Memorandum of Understanding shall not preclude further actions by our respective Board and Councils, nor further memoranda of understanding to preserve agricultural lands and open space, to avoid urban sprawl and to curtail urban development as appropriate.” [/i]
After quoting the MOU wording Dave Rosenberg concludes his article with the following words:
[i]”The result is, frankly, awesome. By our signatures, some 11,623 acres of agricultural land and open space between Davis and Woodland will be protected from urban development. While the MOU is “non-binding”, it is an important symbolic step for the county and the cities. The MOU now joins a long list of actions by our cities and the county to protect agriculture including a County and City General Plans, funds for agricultural preservation easements, a Pass-Through Agreement between the County of Yolo and the City of Davis, and land use policies that protect farmland.
Yolo County is rightfully proud of its agricultural heritage. However, we must continue to be vigilant and imaginative if we are to withstand the challenges of future urban sprawl, and protect agriculture into the 21st Century.” [/i]
Oops! The link to the MOU is [url]http://daverosenberg.net/articles/HistoricDavis.htm[/url]
Matt:
The “greenline” is completely bogus, as any professional planner knows. If you set an “urban limit line” around a city, what happens is the developers view that as a target, and they and their well-funded electeds push development right up to the limit. THen …. they want to expand it, and push past the limit line.
Leading up to the Davis 2001 GP, the developers and some staff wanted an “urban limit line” rather than the Measure J, and the latter was chosen as the way to limit urban growth from overwhelming the ag and open space and habitat around the city.
What the “greenline” between Davis and Woodland does is … create the appearance that any open space between the cities and that greenline rectangular parcel is fair game for development. The very establishment of the greenline intellectually pre-determines that the greenline is to prevent the urban development to exceed that limit, but anything up to that limit is ok.
I voted against the “greenline,” but it passed 4/1.
Also, that rectangular area is the dumping ground for ag/open space/habitat mitigation that our and other city planners are using to promote growth at our borders.
For example, Parlin Development tried to develop the Wildhorse 25 acreas. The city made them buy/option at least 2-3x acres in the greenline rectangle, rather than at our borders.
Bascially, the greenline area is a feel-good for our local Developer Democrats to use for political and PR cover for their projects. It invites and facilitates urban growth and sprawl up to the greenline, from the north and the south.
Jim Frame: My understanding is that the current city supply system was over-stretched to handle just the 25 acres at Parlin/Wildhorse, and there was a lot of internal city concern that the 25 acres of new homes was too much.
I understand that Covell Village may have water on the 440 acres. However, I dont think they can develop without the new surface water plant.
Staff are condemning our current well system, so if what they saying is true (and many of us disagree with that), CV cannot rely on ground water for its nearly 2000 new homes, assuming they come back with a plan someday.
One of the principals of CV Partners is Bill Streng, and almost more than anyone else, he has attended most of the WAC meetings, and is heavily pushing the JPA option, not West Sacramento. The JPA pipeline will run right past his 440 acres, and it’s obvious that those partners view the surface plant as critical to their development of those acres.
BTW, the Con Agra project suffers from the same water issues. They have a well on site now, but if you assume staff’s trashing of our current well system is correct, then Con Agra should not be relying on the wells for its water. Con Agra is 4x bigger than the Parlin 25 acres, and I do not think the CIty has the water for Con Agra, if you believe staff reports about our well system.
Does everyone see the contradiction here?
Stop the water project with the JPA! It’s all about supplying water for new growth around Davis and Woodland.
“[i]I understand that Covell Village may have water on the 440 acres. However, I dont think they can develop without the new surface water plant.[/i] “
They also can’t develop that without a vote of the public. Which makes all your other discussion moot. Unless you are afraid the public will suddenly support a new Covell Village proposal.
Don, good points. But: the surface water project, being paid for by all ratepayers, will highly subsidize the providing water to CV units if and when they ever get a project together again.
Right now, they don’t have the water, and they don’t have a bat’s chance in heck of ever getting this thing through the city and the voters if they don’t already have the guaranteed water supply in place.
I think ConAgra is in similar circumstances, but we shall see how they choose to process and get it through. They had better put it on the ballot for a citywide vote, or there will be another referendum.
From the March 2012 project description for ConAgra:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/ConAgrawater.png[/img]
Well # 33 is high capacity at 2500 gpm. I’m going to assume the developers have factored the capacity of that well into their housing and lot design.
Don: I am sure they have, but they have a dilemma: the CIty is trashing the midlevel aquifer, and poo-pooing the ability of the deeper aquifer from producing a long term supply of well water. They are doing this in order to justify the need for the surface water plant.
Meanwhile, over in the Planning Dept., they are supporting the ConAgra project with the usual well water supply system.
I dont think the city can have it both ways: the Water Dept trashes the well supply system in order to justify the need for the surface water; the Planning Dept certifies the water supply for ConAgra based on those same wells supplying high quality potable water for the foreseeable future.
“The truth shall set you free.”
I dont think the City and the developers can have it both ways.
Don, BTW, you would support a citywide vote on CanAgra, right?
Anyone else have thoughts about such a vote? Parlin had to do it, CV had to do it, so why not ConAgra?
So, what is your solution, Mike?
You seem to state that well-water is sufficient and we don’t need to access surface water. But then use the argument that there isn’t adequate well water to support anything beyond the current status quo, ignoring that there used to be a huge cannery on that site. So, what is your solution?
ConAgra doesn’t need a City-wide vote because the site is within the City limits, Mike. You should know this, so why ask? Additionally, I suspect that any residential development on the site might likely be less than the water previously used by Hunts cannery.
(Note: I would like to see that site as remaining industrial, personally, in the interest of creating jobs beyond the short-term construction jobs that building houses might provide.)
Ryan: Thanks for the comments. I know all about ConAgra, having voted for the current zoning. I still think it should stay the same.
I know it is technically within the city limits, and that Measure J/R does not apply, but I am contending that politically it should go to a citywide vote.
(Mayor Krovoza: if you dont put it to a Measure R type of vote, and we succeed with a referendum, than you burn up 25% or more of your political goodwill that you will need to pass it. So why not just put it on the ballot? Target was put on the ballot by the CC, and Measure K passed. Whatever you do, we will be ready.)
Ryan, you might know that there are about 400-500 legally entitled lots for building within the current city limits? If there is a big demand for homes, those would have been developed long ago.
No, I like ConAgra for the current zoning. Even if I was for residential on ConAgra, I would still push it off 5 years or more, and let the current lots be built out first.
Also, I think that ConAgra should be viewed like a Measure J/R, and the parcel should donate 2/3rds of the land on the outside border, sealing in the 1/3 of development touching Covell Blvd. This “sealing” of the urban development “wound” would slow or eliminate growth to the north or the east, and would stop any “breakthrough” to Covell Village.
Whitcomb resisted the 2/3rds on-site mitigation ten years ago, and look what it cost those partners? Still farming and looking nice from Covell and Poleline.
Anyone who supports ConAgra 100 acres for residential/mixed use necessarily factually and politically supports growth to the North, and to the East (Covell Village). That’s the way it appears politically, and on the ground.
I do not support the taking of privately owned land by the government, unless it satisfies a community need and the landowner is compensated. Demanding a “donation” of land in exchange of approval of a plan is extortion. And just stopping the future development of land owned by others is not a community need. This may have worked for you when you were on the City Council, but you don’t have a vote to sell now, only a threat of a referendum stopping their project.
You still haven’t answered the question about water sources. Is the answer “no on Covell Village?”