Council Seems Poised to Set Binding Water Vote For March

COMMENTARY – On Sunday the Vanguard had the privilege of sitting down with Councilmembers Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson.  Both of them were very clear in their belief that a binding vote was the right thing to do, and that they wanted the election in March to be on the merits of the project and not on process.

That interference continues now with staff’s insistence on an advisory vote, staff’s interference into the discussion on rate structures, and staff’s overall political tone deafness toward the public.

If you want the clearest explanation about why an advisory vote doesn’t work, read the title to Bob Dunning’s column this morning: “Advisory vote would be meaningless.”

It is an easy message and Bob Dunning makes the point clearly: “[I]f our esteemed City Council takes the advice tonight of both city staff and the city attorney and makes March’s water project ballot ‘advisory’ only, count me out … in fact, cancel the election and save all of us the time, money and grief such a charade would cause.”

I take Rochelle Swanson at her word that an advisory vote, for this council, would be binding.

But Bob Dunning’s discourse is more persuasive as he continues “… assurances that the council will follow the ‘will of the people,’ even if the vote is advisory, are meaningless … if you plan to follow the ‘will of the people’ anyway, then make the vote binding and eliminate all doubt in the minds of the electorate … one-issue ballots are already plagued by historically low voter turnout … making this one-issue ballot advisory as well will dramatically suppress voter enthusiasm and participation, especially on the ‘no’ side …”

The council can make all the assurances it wants but Bob Dunning nails the problem – go advisory, and what happens if the result is 51 to 49, a nail biter against the project.   As Mr. Dunning puts it, the council can simply say, “We understand there is some concern in the community and we hear it loud and clear, but we’ve studied this issue long and hard and we feel the best course for the city is to move ahead with the project.”

Again, I believe that Rochelle Swanson is a person of her word.

But I’m also a realist.  This is a $119 million project – AT LEAST.  City staff is going to be barking and there is going to be tremendous pressure to go forward with a close and undecisive vote.  I’m not about to argue that Councilmember Swanson will go back on her word, but why put her in that position?

I don’t believe for a second that “the council [intends] to thumb its nose at the intelligence of the electorate,” but I do believe it will expose them to a tremendous amount of pressure behind the scenes to craft something slightly different and push forward, arguing the stakes of not doing so.

We know the stakes, and at the end of the day, you have to trust the people.

As Bob Dunning writes, “The council wants the public to ‘trust’ it to make the right decision … that’s backward … the council needs to trust the wisdom of the fine and knowledgeable citizens of this community … a binding ballot measure is the only way to go.”

Yes, I understand that the legal advisors and city staff are pressuring the council to do the advisory vote, but that’s exactly the point.

Mr. Dunning quotes Matt Williams, who argues the advisory vote would “kill off virtually all public engagement and dialogue on virtually all the key issues we have been wrestling so hard with at the WAC meetings. In spite of all the attention the WAC has focused on the issues, there are still huge portions of the community that are in the dark on what the implications are regardless of what direction we go. This community needs to thoroughly discuss both the implications of a ‘yes’ vote and the implications of a ‘no’ vote. What will be the immediate next steps the council will take if it passes, and what they will do if it fails. Anything less is a huge community mistake.”

This entire conversation is really academic exercise.  As we reported yesterday, Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson have come on board supporting the binding vote.

Joe Krovoza emailed Bob Dunning, stating, “I support a binding vote in March on water. Period.”  That is three votes, and my guess is that neither Lucas Frerichs nor Brett Lee are going to oppose a motion for a binding vote.

Nevertheless, this is not the only speed bump ahead.  The water rate structure has not been settled and the fact that no rates will be on the ballot under this proposal is a bit troubling.

The Prop 218 process will run concurrent, or closely concurrent, but the final decision on that comes at the end of March.

This troubles me.  Once again, I see a problem here of creating a procedural debate, when the council wants a debate on the merits.

Writes Bob Dunning: “… contrary to the expectations of much of the electorate, there will be no actual water rates proposed on the March ballot … many folks, in fact, assumed the March vote would be strictly about rates … in other words, are you willing to pay X-number of dollars per month to support the Davis-Woodland Joint Water Project? … that proposal will not be on the ballot, advisory or otherwise …”

Mr. Dunning notes that the WAC has not finalized a proposed rates structure.

Bob Dunning goes further arguing, “[F]or my money, any rate structure that doesn’t take into account household size is dead on arrival.”

I am not sure that will be the case – I understand Bob Dunning’s concerns, but I am not sure enough people in this community would be affected by that to make a difference.

He argues that “… each citizen in our town should have the right to a basic amount of water for everyday needs before moving into a punitive ‘tier,’ where the cost of the same gallon of water spikes dramatically … higher tiers should be reserved for those who clearly waste water … large families, or those who have taken in mom and dad or uncle Charlie in their later years, should not be punished … the current system does exactly that …”

That said, my understanding is that the water usage is probably more closely tied to external watering of plants, and perhaps pools, rather than internal personal water usage.  Moreover, the number of families impacted by this in the way Mr. Dunning describes is unlikely to tip the balance.

Bob Dunning follows the Vanguard‘s suggestion of delaying the vote.  He writes that “… the WAC’s inability to reach consensus on a water rate structure in time to put it on the ballot makes me wonder if once again we’re rushing to judgment on this project … instead of tossing something together tonight to meet the county’s deadline for printing a sample ballot, why not delay the vote a couple of months and give the WAC time to get it right? … as it is now, we’ll all know almost nothing about how much this project will cost us individually when we mark our ballots come March …”

This is a huge procedural problem for the city.  It is an easy argument for Mr. Dunning, the Vanguard and Michael Harrington to make – about the issue of rushing the vote.

Proponents of the water project point to the length of time that this process has taken, but critics and skeptics will rightly note that, at critical times, critical decisions have been rushed through and this is potentially one of them.

The council wants an election on the merits, and if you put a water ballot measure on prior to the rates being set,  you open the door for the rushed argument.

In terms of the timeline, a two-month delay probably makes zero difference in terms of the bidding or the overall timeline.

With all that said, there is one major obstacle to that logical approach . . . Woodland Councilmember Bill Marble.  Everyone the Vanguard spoke with this weekend cited his name as the one factor that could “kill the deal.” He is prepared to “go it alone.” The irony is that, contrary to what people have said, a Woodland-only project probably means an additional cost to Woodland of at least $30 million, possibly  $70 million, perhaps even $90 million.

And yet, Bill Marble, perhaps by himself on the council in Woodland, is probably ready to cut bait with Davis if there is another delay and Davis knows it.

So now you have an issue that could complicate the election.  If Davis loses the election, they are out of the project and Woodland is going to be holding the bill.  You would think Mr. Marble would be more understanding of Davis’ dilemma, but apparently that is not the case.

So that means that March is in, and if Davis loses the election because they hadn’t crossed all of the T’s, blame it on Bill Marble.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Categories: