COMMENTARY – On Tuesday, the Davis City Council fixed the most glaring and immediate problem facing them – they shifted course, really without much incident, to support a binding resolution similar to one the Vanguard suggested, giving the council the authority to move forward with a yes vote and binding it to not move forward with a no vote.
One problem was therefore solved on Tuesday night. But the proceedings will, if anything, complicate matters down the road, as it is quite clear that council was forced to move forward despite all indications that they were really not ready.
This dilemma was conveyed early in the meeting by Councilmember Brett Lee.
In his comments, he expressed discomfort in moving forward with ballot language, “We don’t have the rate information from the WAC. The WAC is advisory so we could move ahead with ballot language and await what the WAC recommends on Thursday but I think the bigger issue is that we don’t have clarity on what the cost-sharing agreement is with our partner Woodland on this project.”
“Agreeing to put something on the ballot at this stage before we even know what the cost is, what the general outlines of the deal are, I think’s problematic,” he continued. “I’m a supporter of having an additional supply of water, so it’s not that I’m opposed to it. But I don’t know how we move forward today by putting something on the ballot when we don’t even know what the cost-sharing is.”
Brett Lee would at least craft some language to deal with these concerns. On the ballot language front he simplified the motion to simply authorize the council to move forward. Meanwhile, he was able to gain support for a pullback mechanism, should Woodland not agree to the cost-sharing that Davis believes to be fair and equitable.
Councilmember Lee was forced into these compromises, it would seem, by the extremely tight schedule facing the council.
“We are at a point where we can no longer compress, edit or adjust the design-build-operate schedule and still meet that 2016 completion deadline,” said JPA General Manager Dennis Diemer.
Davis City Manager Steve Pinkerton suggested that even a two-month delay in the election would result in a year delay in the project.
But, given the schedule laid out by Mr. Diemer, which required issuing an RFP in December and completing that process by August, it is unclear how delaying the vote from March to May would impact that timeline – assuming Davis simply asked the JPA to remain on schedule.
However, Brett Lee’s points remain well-taken. The council has essentially pushed forward the election language – vague and generic as it needs to be to allow future flexibility, while locking in the critical cost component through the Prop 218 vote.
Nevertheless, the council took a leap of faith. A leap that the WAC is going to be able to resolve what at times have been bitter disputes over the rate structure, with charges by some members of the staff sabotaging discussion of the appropriate rate structure – to the point where one of the members of the Loge-Williams rate structure model did not even attend the last meeting of the WAC.
As Brett Lee would argue, “I think there’s an opportunity for us to reduce the costs to the residents of this process.”
He argued that the community use the Prop 218 process on these projects because “it’s unusual to lose a 218 process because the 218 process just assumes that whenever somebody doesn’t send back in their protest that they’re a yes voter.”
“For our community because of the referendum process, we’re going to have a community-wide vote on it. So we’re going to be putting this to the voters anyway,” he continued.
He then dropped what could be an interesting suggestion, as he suggested that a portion of the project be financed through an assessment of a parcel tax.
“By putting part of the costs on a parcel tax it allows that to be deductible on people’s tax returns for those who itemize,” he said. A portion of the costs of the water project could be deducted. He argued this could produce some very significant savings.
No one on staff and no other councilmembers addressed this point.
Brett Lee expressed his discomfort with the process.
“On October 23 we decided we wanted to move forward with our partnership of Woodland,” Councilmember Lee said. “Now here it is… November 13 and it seems like it would be a fairly straightforward thing to agree upon the cost-sharing. I’m a little puzzled and dismayed that here we are on the 13th, and we have a JPA coming up in two days… and I was thinking we could get the cost-sharing agreed up and finalized it at the JPA and move forward.”
He argued, “I think we’re asking for some trouble within the community, since we’re kind of acting on hope.”
All of these points will feed into the notion that the project has been rushed. Proponents of the project will protest, citing the length of time of this entire process, the fact that we pulled back from the September 6 vote and engaged in a year-long community discussion on the project and studied the appropriate rates.
They will have a point, but it will be countered by critics and perhaps opponents, who can now point to the fact that the ballot language was devised before we had a cost-sharing agreement in place, and before we had agreement on the rates.
The fact that the Prop 218 will run concurrently with the election and be finalized after the election presents another problem. Legal counsel argues that it needs to be done that way because there is no referendum mechanism to overturn the Prop 218 process.
At the same time, they acknowledged that citizens could overturn the rates through an initiative.
Citizens would have benefited from this all being laid out neatly and deliberated in due time. That was not to be.
The biggest issue, of a binding vote, was decided appropriately – the rest remains a murky and potential pitfall.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I thought it strange that no one commented on Brett’s suggestion of parcel tax. Do you think he surprised them?
I am more and more impressed with Mr Lee.
Mr. Lee:
“By putting part of the costs on a parcel tax it allows that to be deductible on people’s tax returns for those who itemize,” he said. A portion of the costs of the water project could be deducted. He argued this could produce some very significant savings.”
IMO this isn’t true, it’s my understanding that special parcel taxes aren’t deductible on your both your Federal and State income taxes and going forward are going to be more scrutinized by the Feds and State. For instance, school parcel taxes aren’t deductible.
“Special Assessments”, including everyone’s favorite tax–the parcel tax. None of these is deductible because they are not ”based on the assessed value of the property”. Rather, they are assessed uniformly across all property in the district. They are not even capital improvements that you can add to your home’s basis.”
Although I do not know whether or not the parcel tax idea is a viable solution, I do think it is a fine example of ” out of the box” solution oriented thinking. Like SODA I am increasingly impressed with Mr. Lee.
[quote]Mike Harrington post a few days ago: “The Water Referendum Committee will write an article this week to try and address your concerns.” [/quote]
I’m still waiting for this promised article regarding their solution on the proportionality issue with the rates, which is making it difficult to decide on a rate model. Or is this just another “wait and see” response from Mike.
don’t hold your breath kelly, harrington is not leading on this, he’s sitting back praying for a mistake. there’s a reason he’s not the on the council – he’s not leader, he’s an opportunist at best.
Didn’t the DE report last week that the delay and changes to the project have already saved the Davis ratepayers up to $60 million?
Ryan and and Growth: why are you attacking us ? What have either of you done to save the community even a $1.0 million ?
Excuse us for being confused.
Ryan: sorry to disappoint your interest in an updated report, but it will appear in due time.
call it as i see it harrington. how many of your properties have been foreclosed on? how much has that cost our community?
I’ve just removed a post. Please stick to the water topic. Thanks.
Mike – You promised it THIS WEEK. Now you delay. Why am I not surprised?
I will repeat my earlier post:
[quote]Mike would like to see residential users of the lowest tiers to pay more – pay higher rates to offset the lowering of commercial rates. This is what he means by disproportional rates.
If this plan to adjust the proportion of rates for the lowest level of consumers is approved, then Mike can rally these voters to protest and quash the whole project, which is what he wants really. He is a liar.
I am really tired of Mike Harrington’s baiting of others on this blog. When asked for specifics, his response is invariably vague or a direction for others to research the topic or to find the documents or to “just wait and see.” I suggest that we boycott Mike – give him no attention. [/quote]
Ryan: your anger is disappointing. There’s still a lot of money that needs to be saved on a project. You seem like a conservative, thrifty fellow. Why don’t you come by and talk? I won’t reveal your ID. Maybe you’d like to apply your civic spirit and energy helping us to reduce the project price tag even further ?
harrington – since my other post was deleted… i voted for you twice, i’m not a conservative but when you say a lot of money needs to be saved – i don’t want rhetoric, i don’t want you’ll tell me later, i want specifics. you promised an article earlier this week and one never materialized. please, let us know.
Growth: we have gotten the ratepayers up to $60 million
Trust us: you won’t be disappointed
TheCC delayed the finality of the project and rates, do just be patient
While is sometimes necessary to name names, and sometimes accusations are true, the level of personal attack in this thread makes those making the attack more negative than those they are attacking, in my eyes.
Keep it professional and people will listen.
Thanks. Like, did the DE misstate staff report’s conclusion that the 2011 water referendum forced the City to save up to $60 million?
Or, by forcing Woodland to shrink it’s project, it saved those relatively poor Woodland rate payers how much? Tens of millions for sure.
Why dont people write about this?
Or, that at the last WAC meeting the staff acknowledged that our current rate system is unconstitutional in that it violates Prop 218’s requirement that the City charge all users the same? Check out the online video and listen and watch.
Ryan, maybe you should attend those meetings, watch the video, and then post?
Like I promised in the fall of 2011, the city can do better on this project.
And now, I make the same promise: the city can do better. Much better. You shall see.
“Trust us: you won’t be disappointed “
why? show me the money and i’ll give a fair read, i’m not going to trust anyone without specifics.
Mike, you still have not addressed my concerns that efforts to fix what you see as illegal proportionality in the rate structure will have the greatest impact on the lowest level (lowest income) of consumers . Maybe I should find my answer from another source than you, is that what you are saying? Or I should just wait and see? Or I should just be happy with the gains already made, be thankful/grateful for your efforts, and ignore this concern? Are these your answers?
Hi Rusty,
You may have overpaid on your last tax returns:
[url]http://www.caltax.org/homepage/041312_franchise_tax_board.html[/url]
[u]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/12-0018.pdf[/u]
Disclaimer: I am not a tax professional and the above does not constitute tax or financial advice specific to you or your situation.
Growth and Ryan: show me your track record of saving up to $60 million (and it’s actually a lot more) for the public. All I can say is I have the track record, and just watch.
I am still waiting for that bottle of wine from the CV partners for helping to keep that parcel from possibly going BK in the 2007-2012 real estate meltdown.
And, I think Woodland owes us a bottle becuase the referendum saved them boats of money when they re-plumbed their water project and made it smaller, among other adjustments.
It was sad last night, watching the 5 CC members soak up the line that staff were giving them about the rush, delay, costs adding up, etc etc.
It’s just like in 2011, but now they at least are no longer pushing the BS about Davis and fines.
It was especially sad to know, for sure, that not one of those Davis CC members were representing the poor and middle class in Davis. he project is not needed for years and years; it’s too big; too soon; and too expensive.
And also disturbing to watch was how those “new” CC members so easily voted the city along towards a radical change in city governance of its water supply, including allowing those Woodland CC politicos and private JPA proponents to interfere with our direct democracy in terms of our water supply.
I miss Sue’s vote up there. We certainly had our disagreements and ups and downs, but at least on the big issues, I knew that she almost always got it right, and that I had a voice up on that dais. And 100% of the time, right or wrong on a particular issue, Sue stood up for the little guy, the neighborhoods, the poor and middle class. Now, there is not one CC member up there who can be counted on to do the right thing for these groups. Last night’s water project vote proves it beyond a doubt.
Brett gave it up, and went all in with the water interests and developers and staff who want that new source of water so badly.
I really can’t understand why you Vanguardians are giving Mike such a hard time. We owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. After all, he saved us $60 million on this developer-driven boondoggle (Mike’s savings were actually a lot more, truth be known). Never mind, staff and city council all along stated that they would continue to work to reduce costs, right-size the project, and seek federal grants to reduce the impact on Davis residents. It’s a well known fact such savings aren’t actually realized until somebody who had nothing to do with it claims credit. My heartfelt thanks to Mike for stepping up.
-Michael Bisch
“Sue stood up for the little guy, the neighborhoods, the poor and middle class.”
No she didn’t. She fought for homeowners who had equity by restricting supply and driving everyone else out who wasn’t rich enough to afford Davis but who wanted to buy a home. She was great for landlords too.
Did I just say “all in”? Sorry !!
So, it’s “all of the above” with “be grateful to Mike” the primary one. I will stop waiting for Mike’s promised article.
Ryan: Michael Bisch works hard for this town. He volunteers, goes to civic meetings, goes to CC meetings and sits through them, lives and works downtown, and is raising two nice kids, all in the middle of the worst economic meltdown since my mother was born in 1933.
Everyone knows Michael and I do have our moments and we do sometimes respectfully disagree about policy, but the point it that he puts himself out there in public. Same for Don Shor, ERM, etc etc.
Like it not, I do the same. As do the CC members.
Maybe you do things besides post on the DV. If so, I’d like to know what they are. It would give you more standing to trash people who do put their resources into civic life, over and above sitting at a computer and attempting to create “zingers.”
add “rather than just” over and over ….
Oh, and add “I’m better than you” to the list of answers.