Measure I Opponents Discuss Criticism of Water Project – Most regular Vanguard readers are familiar with the arguments in favor of the surface water project that is going to be on the March ballot for Davis residents. However, many are wondering how the opposition to the water project will make their case.
As our opening coverage of the water project election, the Vanguard sat down with three representatives of the No on Measure I campaign – former Councilmember Michael Harrington, WAC Member Mark Siegler, and Pam Nieberg, a longtime community activist.
Questions about the project
While the representatives on the campaign remained circumspect on a number of critical issues, the overall theme advanced was that they did not feel there was enough study about the need for the project and the details of it.
“It doesn’t really say much,” Mark Siegler told the Vanguard, referring to the ballot measure, “It says do you support this project. The question is, what are you supporting?”
For Michael Harrington, “The project lacks fundamental baseline features,” as you would see in a Measure J or Measure R process.
“Here you have a water supply project that’s never received great scrutiny by the residents of the city. It’s been a staff, consultant driven project for years and years and years,” Mr. Harrington said. “Look at what they almost did to us last fall. The rate system was pulled out of thin air by Paul Navazio, Jacques DeBra and then you had some kind of consultant helping them. There was no independent WAC review, there was no real solid analysis.”
“It almost made it through,” he said, noting that they barely were able to qualify the referendum that ultimately froze the process while the city council, new staff and the WAC reviewed it.
“The basic project design, the baseline features, have had no independent review,” Mr. Harrington argued. “The WAC has not studied in detail this plan. It’s not been presented to the WAC.”
While Mark Siegler voted as a WAC member to support conjunctive use in general, he had a question about the timing and the need to do this right now. Long term, he said, conjunctive use would be good as it would give the city multiple sources of water.
Michael Harrington has a problem with the JPA structure, which he argues undermines the city’s autonomy.
“This whole JPA structure, we a piece of our city’s governance and our democracy that the people in Davis are used to by going with a JPA process that was set up years ago by Don Saylor and Steve Souza,” he told the Vanguard. “It’s a double layer of extra bureaucracy. It’s expensive. It makes no sense and the people of Davis are not going to be controlling their own water supply. It’s going to be controlled partly by the Woodland City Council if you can believe that.”
$114 Million Project?
Mr. Siegler argued, “We’re quoted this $114 million price, but if you talk to Matt Williams and others, once we do operations and maintenance, it’s $30 million a year in revenue after five years. That’s a tremendous cost to the community and I’m still not convinced that we need it right now.”
Mr. Harrington noted that the price tag figure was false. “That’s omitting the debt service on the project,” he said clarifying that it is 2.5 times the cost of the capital investments.
Mark Siegler jumped in. “Let’s say it’s $114 million and calculate what our monthly payments would be on the debt service over 30 years, you get something far far lower than what you’re building into the rate structure.”
He did the math on the fly. He said, “You have 16,000 customers. They’re assuming that number of customers is going to grow because you’ve got half-percent population growth for five years and one percent thereafter.”
He said he could not remember the exact figure off the top of his head, but the figure came to well over $20 million a year. “So why do you need to take in $20 million in revenue a year if all you’re really doing is paying for something that costs $114 million. You bring in far more than that even with debt service.”
He wasn’t sure what was driving up the costs and when he asked Bartle Wells to provide their assumptions, “I haven’t seen them.” The city has refused to provide those assumptions.
Lack of Data
Michael Harrington said he had attended most of the WAC meetings since the spring, and Mark Siegler has consistently asked to see the raw data only to be rebuffed by city staff.
“They don’t produce that stuff,” Mr. Harrington said. “They just pull these numbers out of thin air and you really don’t know where it comes from.”
“There’s been no independent audit of a project designed by people who are going to make money by building it,” he stated.
Mark Siegler felt that the numbers that were used were unverified and based on very loose assumptions.
“It could have been anything,” he said. “I don’t know how anybody could have independently judged the accuracy of that.”
The question invariably turns to what the alternative is to going forward with this project. Those hoping to hear the details of an alternative, however, are bound to be disappointed.
“I think the alternative is to get somebody in here who doesn’t have a conflict of interest,” Mark Siegler stated. He doesn’t believe the world will end if Davis doesn’t vote for this in March.
The studies, he said, were inconclusive on the deep level aquifer and you might be able to tell in twenty years, fifty years, or it might even last forever.
“Show me the evidence that our deep level aquifer is being overdrafted,” Mr. Siegler continued. “The quality of our water has actually improved because we’ve dug some new wells.”
“Why not talk about ramping up gradually, maybe we’ll need 12 million gallons at some time,” he said. “When they do their peak capacity, I think some combination of more storage, more deep wells, conservation, intermediate acquifer, getting someone in here who doesn’t have an incentive, who can just look holistically at our water and wastewater.”
“Cities our size don’t do these things both at once unless they absolutely have to,” he said.
Lack of Need
According to Michael Harrington, the water plan was put on the 1988 General Plan because there was an explosion of population growth that was definitely coming and the city needed the ability to meet that capacity.
“They’re coming, we must build this plant,” Mr. Harrington said they argued. “Then in 2000, we got Measure J in there and we got a progressive majority on the council. We got a 2001 General Plan that took Covell Village off.”
“Suddenly they didn’t have a planning document to justify the water project,” he said. After that point, the debate shifted from population growth to taste and state regulations. “So the reason for the plan shifted within ten to twelve years… They’ve changed the justification for this plant as the conditions suited their analysis over the years. “
The capacity they are planning, Mr. Harrington argues, is now far in excess of what we reasonably need in the foreseeable future.
For Michael Harrington, this all comes back to the decision made on September 6, 2011.
He said that the same people arguing for the March election said, “We have to have the September 6, 2011 rates now. We have to do it now, if we don’t do it now, we’re going to be out of compliance. The sky’s going to fall. The same people.”
“There’s been no independent analysis other than the WAC, and a lot of the WAC members are quite concerned about it,” he said.
The Vanguard asked the opponents to the water project whether they believed that there would not be a water quality compliance issue, or whether they simply believed there would be another way in which to deal with that issue.
Mr. Harrington refused to address that question, stating, “When you say compliance issue, I’m not sure which one you’re talking about. I’m not prepared to get into a detailed legal technical environmental analysis of some testing quality or standard right here.”
However, he did say, “They never looked at how much water the Davis well system will generate for years in the future in terms of quality and costs and how much is the city really going to need.”
He argued that the one percent future growth rate is way off, “but they’re using the one percent to drive the need for this project.”
He said that they are not asking these questions, so we have no idea how much water we might need to add to that in the future.
“That’s a fundamental question that has never been answered,” he said.
Mark Siegler argued that these are questions that we should know well before putting a project on the ballot.
“They’re basically assuming that we’re going to replace a well again,” he said. “That we’re just going to let our whole infrastructure just go. They’re using very conservative assumptions about how long wells are going to last.”
He said that the city’s plan is to let the wells die and replace them with surface water.
“Now is that the best thing to do?” he asks.
The scope of the project started with a 40 million gallon per day project between the two cities, with Davis receiving 18 mgd of that. Now it is down to 12 million and a 30 mgd plant.
Mark Siegler argued that it was a very cursory review that was able to reduce the size by one-third.
“If it’s so easy to save whenever anybody squawks a little bit,” he said. “That tells me that there are people out there who aren’t looking out for our best interests.”
Michael Harrington believes that the referendum saved the city no less than $60 million by forcing them to scrutinize the size and scope of the project.
“Just the referendum alone has saved the city taxpayers out of pocket, $210 million, if the 2.5 times interest figure is correct,” he said.
“We’re not even experts,” Mark Siegler added. “We’re just basically saying this doesn’t seem right.”
When that happens, staff has consistently found ways to cut back. He said that’s a double-edge sword, good that staff has been responsive, but “if it’s that easy to find that, how do you know you need what you got?”
Maybe, he said, they can still cut the size of the project.
Rushed Analysis
“We’re just taking everything on faith,” Mark Siegler said. He said that some members of the WAC have gotten angry at his lack of faith in the consultants, but that comes from years of experience on commissions and knowing that you need to continually check the figures given out by staff.
“Just the speed of this, I just sit there in awe,” he said. He feels like they did the best they could do looking at these things for twenty minutes in one meeting. “But if you really had people who were experts who didn’t have financial interest, who could independently look at a whole bunch of stuff that hasn’t even been examined yet.”
“I can’t even answer the fundamental issues right now today, what proportion of our water system is paid by residential, what proportion is irrigation, what proportion is commercial,” he said. “Very basic stuff. I’m saying people haven’t looked at it. I’m saying the Water Advisory Committee hasn’t looked at it. I’m also not saying if I had forty hours a week where I was doing nothing, and I kept pounding on it, that I could get this information.”
“But I’m saying that should be public information, all this stuff should be public and it’s not,” he added.
“All of the process has been rushed,” Mark Siegler continued, though he was unsure whether this was an intentional thing. “I don’t think the WAC really had time to look at what the fundamental issue, what the fundamental tradeoffs were.”
The rush, he noted, was because Davis was adhering to Woodland’s timeline.
“That’s not our fault,” he said, noting a number of analyses he would have liked to have done but did not have the time. “I just don’t see what the big rush is.”
Mark Siegler noted the fact that the city is also doing the wastewater treatment project and the state of the economy is such that unemployment statewide is still over ten percent.
“I just think this is a really bad time for Davis to do it,” he said.
West Sacramento Option More Viable Down the Road
He believes that Davis might be in better position to bargain with West Sacramento and others down the road.
Mr. Siegler also believes that Davis will have more options with West Sacramento down the road. Part of the reason for that is that West Sacramento has not gotten water meters yet and so they use almost twice as much water per capita as Davis does.
“I think a lot of that is that if there is no cost to an additional unit of water, go ahead,” he said. “Once they get priced for their water usage. Once growth pressures… are going to be a little bit less than what they think they are going to be, they are going to have a ton of water.”
Mark Siegler was skeptical about how hard Davis negotiated with West Sacramento.
“I think West Sacramento is going to have far more capacity than what they want to sell us right now,” he offered.
Opposing Initiative
Michael Harrington told the Vanguard, “We view this basically as a public works proposition. This is their proposal.”
He likened it to Covell Village where the developers came out with Measure X as their first proposal to the city. “The city said no thanks, at least at this time,” he said. “The city didn’t say no development there, they just said this isn’t going to cut it.”
If the Covell Partners want to go forward with another project, they can come back, he said and he believes it would be a lot better project than the original proposal.
“The first crack that the city had at this was September 6, 2011 and the referendum stopped them for a moment,” he said.
The city established the WAC and the WAC has analyzed the project over the course of this year.
“The project still isn’t ready,” Mr. Harrington argued. “It’s been rushed too much by Woodland.”
He sees the opposition to Measure I as Referendum 2.0.
“We’re going to say, just say no, and continue working on a better project,” he said. “We have a strategy to improve all of this. We’re not going to let the council do this again. We’re going to establish a process for it.”
“The burden is not on us,” Mark Siegler said. “It really shouldn’t be. The burden is on the people who want this to be something that Davis residents are going to have to pay for, for the next thirty years.”
“What I see still is bobbing and weaving in terms of why we need this now,” he said about the size and particulars of the project.
“Davis water is deteriorating in quality and quantity,” he said. “I want to see that data.”
“[Data] is what I think it needs to be based on,” Mr. Siegler added. “They are certainly doing this based on evidence that I don’t feel comfortable making a decision of this magnitude on.”
Mr. Harrington brought it back to their proposed initiative, that he said would “establish a good public process for analyzing any proposed large utility project that would be either water or sewer.”
When? the Vanguard asked.
Mr. Harrington responded, “Soon.” He refused to specify a timeline more tightly than that.
Soon would not be March.
“Legally we couldn’t put an initiative on the March ballot,” he stated. “It will be publicly launched shortly.”
They do not have the text just yet. Mr. Harrington said that they had to get the No on Measure I campaign started first.
“We think the voters will see that they actually have a choice. They don’t have to go with this Taj Mahal project. They actually have a choice and they have study period run by independent experts,” he said.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Here is the link to some of the City of Davis water documents and links to some of the hydrological studies of the deep aquifer. If this is not enough reading there is plenty more conducted by UCD researchers.
[url]http://public-works.cityofdavis.org/water/documents[/url]
[url]http://public-works.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF/PW/Water/Documents/Phase-I-Hydrogeologic-Investigation-Deep-Aquifer-Study-1999.pdf[/url]
[url]http://public-works.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF/PW/Water/Documents/Phase-II-Deep-Aquifer-Study.pdf[/url]
[url]http://public-works.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF/PW/Water/Documents/Groundwater-Management-Plan.pdf[/url]
[url]http://public-works.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF/PW/Water/Documents/Davis-WQ-TM040512.pdf[/url]
I’ve heard project proponents on two occasions cite their new mantra: “it’s for our children.”
My response is: what is for our children? Incumbering our little town with a huge debt for a project that is rushed because of some other jurisdiction’s mismanagement of their public utilities?
Mike: [i]”because of some other jurisdiction’s mismanagement of their public utilities?”[/i]
You keep repeating this, but you never give evidence of Woodland’s “mismanagement” of their water supply. They haven’t mismanaged them. It’s yet another false assertion.
[i]The studies, he said, were inconclusive on the deep level aquifer and you might be able to tell in twenty years, fifty years, or it might even last forever.
“Show me the evidence that our deep level aquifer is being overdrafted,” Mr. Siegler continued. “The quality of our water has actually improved because we’ve dug some new wells.”[/i]
That set of statements is rather amazing. I will be happy to provide information about the deep aquifer, but I’ll just summarize the answer. Stephen Souza has provided useful links above.
Long-term use of the deep aquifers is unsustainable and irresponsible. The experts who testified before the WAC, and all the consultants who have analyzed our water situation, urge that the deep wells not be a long-term water source.
As to whether the quality of the water “has improved,” that depends entirely on which constituent you are referring to. The deep water has more boron. for example. I doubt the water quality has improved sufficiently to get most people who use water softeners to discontinue them.
Perhaps Mr H, and Roger Rabid should be ignored… called “shunning” in some cultures/communities. And yes, I understand I just violated my own suggestion.
Another thing that is important to remember: the successful 2011 water rate referendum demanded that voters be able to vote on the water rates. Here, due to the rush caused by Woodland’s own scheduling problems, the Davis CC has split the rates from the Measure I ballot.
The way the CC did it, the voters are asked to consider a vague project, uncertain costs, and no rates on the ballot. Look at the City Attorney Impartial Analysis: there is no firm cost boundary listed.
In other words, the City is asking for a blank check.
We know that the $116 million is too low, and omits many project and infrastructure items that will jack the cost up, but AFTER we are knee-deep in concrete and cannot pull out.
[quote]the successful 2011 water rate referendum demanded that voters be able to vote on the water rates.[/quote]Gee.. I’ve voted in every election since 1972… did you, Mr H, mean the “threat” of a referendum? Or are you just lying?
“[i]the successful 2011 water rate referendum[/i]”
Successful? How so? It qualified for the ballot by the narrowest of margins. Not exactly a mandate.
Why don’t you try using facts for a change Michael? Then you might actually add something of value to the conversation.
[quote] It qualified for the ballot by the narrowest of margins. [/quote]If it qualified, why has it not been voted on?
To the shrill and unyielding critics of Mike H., such as Don S., Mark West et al.
1) Do you agree, as many do regardless of their other positions, that the city mishandled the water rate increase in late summer 2011? If so, is it not possible that the council and staff can screw or rush the details of such a big project even with another 15 or so months to try and get it right? And, did not the city staff and council screw up on a host of other major issues from Covell Village to the first proposed waste water treatment plant.
2) Critics of Mike H. repeatedly berate him for not answering their questions. Yet, his critics are equally, or more, guilty of ignoring his questions. To take but two points: a) Does it make sense to have Measure I on the ballot without a rate structure? b) What will the long term overall costs of this project be, and where is the evidence that we can be sure it will be $113 million? People so ready with the evidence and web links are deafeningly silent on this question, among others.
3) Critics of Mike H. try to ridicule him as some eccentric nutcase fighting a lone battle crazy battle to serve his own personal ego or his long term political interests, how then to explain the support he has from people such as Mark Siegler, Michael Bartolic, Pam Nieberg, Walt Sadler, to name just a few.
Since the criticism of Mike H has been so harsh, critical, and intemperate, let me respond in kind: Many of Mike Hs critics sound like paid henchman of Matt Rexroad, Bill Marble and others with a strong interest in the passage of Measure I.
To the shrill and unyielding critics of Mike H., such as Don S., Mark West et al.
1) Do you agree, as many do regardless of their other positions, that the city mishandled the water rate increase in late summer 2011? If so, is it not possible that the council and staff can screw or rush the details of such a big project even with another 15 or so months to try and get it right? And, did not the city staff and council screw up on a host of other major issues from Covell Village to the first proposed waste water treatment plant.
2) Critics of Mike H. repeatedly berate him for not answering their questions. Yet, his critics are equally, or more, guilty of ignoring his questions. To take but two points: a) Does it make sense to have Measure I on the ballot without a rate structure? b) What will the long term overall costs of this project be, and where is the evidence that we can be sure it will be $113 million? People so ready with the evidence and web links are deafeningly silent on this question, among others.
3) Critics of Mike H. try to ridicule him as some eccentric nutcase fighting a lone battle crazy battle to serve his own personal ego or his long term political interests, how then to explain the support he has from people such as Mark Siegler, Michael Bartolic, Pam Nieberg, Walt Sadler, to name just a few.
Since the criticism of Mike H has been so harsh, critical, and intemperate, let me respond in kind: Many of Mike Hs critics sound like paid henchman of Matt Rexroad, Bill Marble and others with a strong interest in the passage of Measure I.
[i]1) Do you agree, as many do regardless of their other positions, that the city mishandled the water rate increase in late summer 2011? [/i]
Yes, they should have passed the [i]actual[/i] 14% rate increase, which was one of their options.
[i]If so, is it not possible that the council and staff can screw or rush the details of such a big project even with another 15 or so months to try and get it right? [/i]
The WAC process answers that question.
[i]And, did not the city staff and council screw up on a host of other major issues from Covell Village to the first proposed waste water treatment plant. [/i]
Covell Village was not a “screw up.” The voters disagreed with the council members and voted on it. Sue Greenwald and others deserve credit for modifications to the waste water treatment plant. The WAC process is giving similar scrutiny to the water project.
[i]2) Critics of Mike H. repeatedly berate him for not answering their questions. Yet, his critics are equally, or more, guilty of ignoring his questions. [/i]
My criticism of Mike Harrington is that he repeatedly makes false assertions, repeatedly vilifies staff, councilmembers, public official in Woodland, and those of us who disagree with him.
[i]To take but two points: a) Does it make sense to have Measure I on the ballot without a rate structure?[/i]
Yes, so long as information about the rate structure is readily available and understandable to the voters.
[i] b) What will the long term overall costs of this project be, and where is the evidence that we can be sure it will be $113 million? People so ready with the evidence and web links are deafeningly silent on this question, among others.[/i]
Need me to post a link? It will be, as presently configured, about $113 million plus the cost of financing it. How can we be sure? We can be relatively sure, not absolutely sure, because it is a large public works project. There are standards for those things. People with expertise in engineering and construction could independently assess the project if you feel that the costs are being understated. Cost overruns do occur.
[i] 3) Critics of Mike H. try to ridicule him as some eccentric nutcase fighting a lone battle crazy battle to serve his own personal ego or his long term political interests, how then to explain the support he has from people such as Mark Siegler, Michael Bartolic, Pam Nieberg, Walt Sadler, to name just a few.[/i]
I will leave it to them to explain why they are endorsing his repellent political practices of character assassination and constant repetition of untruths. It does not speak well to their values. I guess the end justifies the means. And for the record: I’m not sure all of those individuals are on board with Mike Harrington’s positions or tactics.
[i]Since the criticism of Mike H has been so harsh, critical, and intemperate, let me respond in kind: Many of Mike Hs critics sound like paid henchman of Matt Rexroad, Bill Marble and others with a strong interest in the passage of Measure I.[/i]
Please be specific when you malign people. Do you mean you believe that I have received payments from anybody?
This is why transparency is so necessary and the rates should have been part of the March 2013 ballot with the project itself. It is my understanding that although the rates will not be on the ballot itself, that we will know what they are going to be by then if the project passes. If that is the case, one can vote accordingly rather than try to deal with the rate component by the separate 218 process.
MY ORIGINAL POINT
What will the long term overall costs of this project be, and where is the evidence that we can be sure it will be $113 million? People so ready with the evidence and web links are deafeningly silent on this question, among others.
DON’S RESPONSE
Need me to post a link? It will be, as presently configured, about $113 million plus the cost of financing it. How can we be sure? We can be relatively sure, not absolutely sure, because it is a large public works project. There are standards for those things. People with expertise in engineering and construction could independently assess the project if you feel that the costs are being understated. Cost overruns do occur.
MY RESPONSE TO DON’S RESPONSE
People with much more expertise and time than myself are working on much more realistic cost estimates which I have seen and likely will be made public shortly. They, like me, are a lot less sanguine than you, Don, about the possibility of cost overruns on a public project. With a little research I could reel of countless examples of MASSIVE cost over-runs on public projects from the new Bay Bridge to??? The difference is that if there is a major miscalculation we don’t have the state or federal government to bail us out.
AND YES DON, IF YOU APPARENTLY CONCEDE THE LACK OF A TRULY INDEPENDENT ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE OF THE PROJECT, YOU SHOULD SURELY URGE A NO VOTE ON MEASURE I UNTIL SUCH AN ESTIMATE HAS BEEN MADE. ANY OTHER POSITION IS THE HEIGHT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY AS MIKE. I, AND MANY OTHERS HAVE ARGUED FOR AGES.
I’m waiting for you to withdraw your absurd allegation at the end of your post.
I will be interested to see the opposition’s cost estimates, as well as their underlying premises and the credentials of their experts.
“The WAC process is giving similar scrutiny to the water project.”
Don – one of the arguments Mark Siegler made is that they did not have sufficient time to delve into issues other than the rate structure. What do you think of that complaint?
Seems to me they covered a lot of other topics.
Keeping it simple, it was very telling and of great concern to me that city staff were told not to discuss the possibility of water conservation vs. undertaking this hugely expensive project.
Don: That’s why I said, “one of the arguments”
Don, I am waiting for a direct answer to my question about whether it is responsible for you to advocate for a project for which there has been no expert independent cost assessment. Until you respond you will be as guilty as Mike of not answering a simple and direct question. BTW, Mark Siegler is by no means the only person with expertise to question whether we have a good and realistic cost estimate.
As for my last allegation, my point was in large part metaphor. And knowing you, Don, if not well, you’d be the last person I would suspect of corruption.
That said one can dredge up numerous examples of corruption on public projects in countries as diverse as China, the US and W. Europe.
Of course, for obvious reasons, most cases of corruption are hard to prove and are not proven. And, yes, without proof one should not throw out serious charges, which I did not intend to do. That said, be it Covell Village or a major water project there are vested interests (economic and otherwise) that stand to gain from the approval of such a measure and it’s reasonable to point that out.
But, at the end of the day, Don, I think the “corruption” argument is a red herring that I should never have tossed out. There are much more important and substantiate arguments to be had based on simple logic and the weight of evidence.
Herman: [i]I am waiting for a direct answer to my question about whether it is responsible for you to advocate for a project for which there has been no expert independent cost assessment. Until you respond you will be as guilty as Mike of not answering a simple and direct question.[/i]
Yes. We will have a full cost estimate when the bids are received, which will happen after/if Davis agrees to remain in the WDCWA. The competitive bid process, unless you think the competing firms are going to collude, acts as a check on the cost assessment.
I appreciate your explanation. I’m disappointed, though, to realize I’m not going to get a check from Matt Rexroad.
eagle eye: I have no idea if staff were told not to discuss conservation, but in any case it wouldn’t solve the underlying problem of water quality and discharge issues.
To clarify, a public works staff person did indeed tell me that city staff were ordered NOT to discuss water conservation while this project is being considered.
Maybe I am being naive here, but if it is really the case that you can only get a good and accurate cost estimate when the bids are all in, then should we not wait till they are in before voting? It’s like putting down a huge amount of money on a house or car and signing a binding contract without knowing how much the house or car will cost? If I am wrong and this is not a back to front way of doing things, then surely there are ways to get an independent cost estimate? It’d surely be worth the small investment. But no, you don’t want to wait for that you want to go with Woodland’s timetable whatever the risks and costs.
I know it’ll be tough getting by without that check from Matt, and that whenever I go to RB business is not exactly teeming, but I think you’ll get by, Don, and if you don’t I am sure the Vanguard will put on a “whip round” for you.
Herman said . . .
[i]”To the shrill and unyielding critics of Mike H., such as Don S., Mark West et al.
1a) Do you agree, as many do regardless of their other positions, that the city mishandled the water rate increase in late summer 2011?
1b) If so, is it not possible that the council and staff can screw or rush the details of such a big project even with another 15 or so months to try and get it right?
1c) And, did not the city staff and council screw up on a host of other major issues from Covell Village to the first proposed waste water treatment plant.
2) Critics of Mike H. repeatedly berate him for not answering their questions. Yet, his critics are equally, or more, guilty of ignoring his questions. To take but two points: a) Does it make sense to have Measure I on the ballot without a rate structure? b) What will the long term overall costs of this project be, and where is the evidence that we can be sure it will be $113 million? People so ready with the evidence and web links are deafeningly silent on this question, among others.
3) Critics of Mike H. try to ridicule him as some eccentric nutcase fighting a lone battle crazy battle to serve his own personal ego or his long term political interests, how then to explain the support he has from people such as Mark Siegler, Michael Bartolic, Pam Nieberg, Walt Sadler, to name just a few.
Since the criticism of Mike H has been so harsh, critical, and intemperate, let me respond in kind: Many of Mike Hs critics sound like paid henchman of Matt Rexroad, Bill Marble and others with a strong interest in the passage of Measure I.”[/i]
Herman, you ask good questions, and let me try and address them from as unbiased perspective, leaning neither toward Mike nor toward his critics.
My answer to 1a) is, [i]”Arguably yes”[/i] They had lots of help from the Enterprise in doing so though.
My answer to 1b) is [i]”Anything is possible, so possibility may not be the best of criteria in this case. For me a better criteria is whether the 13 months of the WAC process has been transparent enough and thorough enough to mitigate any risk of such a possibility.”[/i] To drill down into the issue you raise, I would encourage everyone to read the following Vanguard article [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5874:are-you-being-served-by-the-wac-&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url]
My answers to 1c) are [i]”I don’t know. I wasn’t close enough to the Covell Village analysis to know if Staff produced bad information or not. What bad information did Staff provide vis-a-vis Covell Village?”[/i] and [i] “No, Staff absolutely did not mishandle the first proposed waste water treatment plant. The steps taken [u]thanks to Sue Greenwald[/u] to reduce the estimates down from $240 million to $95 million included the removal of major valuable functions like water resuse from the design of the project. In metaphorical terms there was a whole lot of “muscle” that was carved out of the project to bring its costs down. Further there was a significant impact of the economic downturn on cost estimates. In the end, the T-S Charette’s plan carved some “fat” out of the project by downsizing it from 7.5 mgd to 6.0 mgd, but that 7.5 mgd size was the one that Council asked Staff to come up with a design and costs for. If you want to point the finger at anyone, it isn’t Staff or the consultants to whom you should be pointing, it is Council” [/i]
My answer to 2a) is [i]”California Election Code restricts the number of words for a ballot measure to 75 words. Describing a rate structure with 4 customer classes and bith Fixed rates and Variable rates in 75 words is an impossibility. Even if you could so describe the rate structure, would there be any words left in your 7r word limit to describe the project?”[/i] When we walk into the ballot box (literally or by proxy) we have to live with the limits that State Law imposes. That is why we have a Sample Ballot mailed to us each election.
My answer to 2b) is a question to you, “How do you propose to get more accurate numbers than $113 million?”
Your point 3) is just the nature of politics. Mike has shown that he has a resilient personality that almost thrives on the criticism, and he clearly is not a lone voice in his concerns. On that subject I again point you to the Vanguard article at [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5874:are-you-being-served-by-the-wac-&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url]
I hope that the above comments are as objective and unbiased as I intend them to be. Thank you for listening, and I look forward to your feedback.
Regarding the comments about the deep aquifer, the presentation at the March 24 2012 meeting gives a good overview: [url]http://archive.cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-03-24-item4-presentation-deep-aquifer.pdf[/url]
Herman said . . .
[i]”Maybe I am being naive here, but if it is really the case that you can only get a good and accurate cost estimate when the bids are all in, then should we not wait till they are in before voting?”[/i]
You are not being naive at all. The estimates that have been provided to the WAC are in fact both good and accurate as far as they can go absent actual bids. Many years of engineering experience throughout the World over the years has caused the engineering industry to establish standards for including risk contingencies in project estimates at various stages of information gathering. At this stage in the process in the numbers provided to the WAC as part of the comparisons of the WDCWA alternative to the West Sacramento alternative out of the $116.9 million estimate at that point in time for the Davis portion of the surface water plant, $16.5 million is risk contingency. As a point of comparison, the West Sac alternative had $12.9 million in risk contingency dollars.
So absent actual bids, following industry standards, the current $113.77 million is actually both good and as accurate as history allows.
One additional point that is worth noting is that when firms bid on a project they look at the risk that they might not get paid and factor that risk into their bids. If Davis does not have a five-year rate structure in place at the time that the firms submit their bids, they will no doubt inflate those bids by a percentage to account for the “not getting paid risk.” I don’t know what that risk might be, but it isn’t unreasonable to guestimate that it might be somewhere in the same ball park as the $16.5 million that is the engineering industry standard. Not unreasonable, but still at best a gues.
Hope that helps.
Good questions Herman.
There is quite a bit of logical gymnastics going on in this piece, it’s hard to know where to begin. But let’s start by dispelling a few myths being perpetuated.
MYTH: “Here you have a water supply project that’s never received great scrutiny by the residents of the city.”
FACT: Alternatives were thoroughly evaluated over an exhaustive process and this was determined to be the best way to do the project. Opponents simply don’t want the project and will claim we “need more study” as a tool to kill the project.
MYTH: “The people of Davis are not going to be controlling their own water supply”
FACT: Davis and Woodland have formed a regional partnership, like the one called for in the No on I ballot statement. Our partnership with Woodland has lowered the cost of the project by over $25 million.
MYTH: “Davis will have more options with West Sacramento down the road.”
FACT: The WAC ruled out becoming a customer of West Sacramento. The No on I folks are arguing that “the people of Davis are not going to be controlling their own water supply” with this project, but then they urge us to become customers of West Sac? That makes no sense at all.
Matt: “resilient personality”??
Downsizing verbiage to my aviation mechanics level, you meant to say “hard headed”? True !!
As my Mom used to say in Memphis, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
For the record —
Woodland City Councilman Bill Marble is an honorable guy that would never have paid henchmen.
My henchmen are not focused on Measure I — yet. We just found out about it. We are from Woodland so things are moving a little slower for us.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
Matt: if you don’t send your henchmen to Davis, we won’t send ours to Woodland. But wait, you guys already came down, on Dec 6, 2011 !
So we need to load up the Volts and come up for a holiday visit?
Herman: “[i]To the shrill and unyielding critics of Mike H., such as Don S., Mark West et al.[/i]”
[i]1) Do you agree… that the city mishandled the water rate increase in late summer 2011? [/i]
Certain members of the City Council certainly did when they misstated what was in the Staff report, and the staff clearly erred by not immediately correcting those mistakes. Other than that, no.
[i]If so, is it not possible that the council and staff can screw or rush the details of such a big project even with another 15 or so months to try and get it right? [/i]
I believe that we have the best project already so I see no reason to continue to argue about it, but let’s put that aside for a moment and answer your question with a statement of fact and a question in return.
Fact: We have been working on this project for more than 10 years.
Question: How many more decades do you think we need before we ‘get it right?’
[i]And, did not the city staff and council screw up on a host of other major issues… [/i]
I have not seen any factual evidence to support your assertion, but even if your assertion is true, I don’t see how that has anything at all to do with this issue. From my perspective this is just another attempt to defame members of the City staff without any factual basis.
[i]2)a) Does it make sense to have Measure I on the ballot without a rate structure? [/i]
Yes. Our rates will have to go up regardless of which approach we take for our water project, and in all cases the increase will be relatively the same. With that fact in mind, having the rates on the ballot is superfluous and will simply cloud the important issue, which is simply do we go forward with the project that the WAC as determined to be our best option.
[i]b) What will the long term overall costs of this project …? [/i]
I honestly don’t understand why this is troubling to you. Why should our knowledge of this project be any different than any other major project we perform? I have remodeled my house twice in the past 20 years, each time started with a detailed estimate for the final cost, and each time the estimates were wrong, due to unexpected changes and unforeseen problems. So what? There is simply no way of knowing the final costs until they have been incurred and totaled up. This is normal. We start with a professional estimate (or more) and accept that things will change. Only a fool would expect otherwise.
[i]3) Critics of Mike H. try to ridicule him as some eccentric nutcase[/i]
Not at all. Mike is welcome to be an ‘eccentric nutcase’ (your term, not mine) if that is his goal in life, though I doubt very much that is what he aspires to. Michael is welcome to his opinions, and he could be a valuable asset to the community if he focused his attention on the facts of the situation and asked probing, insightful questions. Unfortunately, what he has chosen instead over the past year has been to defame past and present City Council members, city staff, and our neighbors to the north. He makes false statements, unsupported allegations and then chooses to be ignorant of the facts, and treats his own unfounded opinions as if they were the truth. While he is welcome to his own opinion, he is not welcome to make up his own set of facts.
[i]”how then to explain the support he has from people such as Mark Siegler, Michael Bartolic, Pam Nieberg, Walt Sadler, to name just a few.”[/i]
Their opinions and reasons are their own and I value their contributions to the discussion.
[i]Since the criticism of Mike H has been so harsh, critical, and intemperate, let me respond in kind: Many of Mike Hs critics sound like paid henchman of Matt Rexroad, Bill Marble and others with a strong interest in the passage of Measure I.[/i]
I am sure that my spouse would be very happy to hear that I was in the employ of someone else, but alas that is not the case. As to the individuals you named, to my best recollection I once attended a dinner where Matt Rexroad was the guest speaker and I may have greeted him afterwards. I have no recollection of ever meeting Bill Marble, and would not know him if he greeted me on the street. My comments are entirely my own, and unlike some here, I sign my name to them. I respect Michael for doing the same.
Mark West
Don and Mark W: I sleep great at night, knowing I and my friends have saved over $210,000,000 of ratepayer money in the 17 months we have worked on the water rates and project. What have you guys done lately for the voters and poor ratepayers?
Oh, ya, forgot. We also forced a 5-0 CC to put this on the ballot , defective as their ballot measure is.
Darned memory. Forgot: the CC had to form the WAC after we forced the repeal of the fraudulent rates.
Such a simpleton tonight! Forgot that when our friends on the WAC such as Bill Kopper and Matk Siegler outed the staff for a grossly large subsidy of the Woodland rates, fearing for its ballot measure, the CC sent two of its own up to Woodland for a better deal. They proudly came home, clutching the giveaway from Woodland reducing our subsidy to Woodland, paying only 30% more per gallon!
Sorry I forget all these things. Just means I’m occupied with how to win on March 5.
Come on, you haters: tell me what you have done lately for the voters and ratepayers.
If people go to the doctor and she tells you that smoking a pack of cigarettes every day is going to give you a bad disease, you can argue that you haven’t “seen the data” and therefore, don’t have to accept the crackpot diagnosis. Relying on ground water, especially deep aquifer water, as a supply guarantees you will run out of water someday. That’s what hydrogeologists tell us and I believe them. PG&E tells us that pumping water is one of the most expensive things you can do with an electric motor. I also believe them. Pumping from deep wells and the use of fossil fuels to run the pumps is likewise irresponsible in this ere of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Dumping extra salt into our wastewater stream to offset the undesirable and destructive properties of the poor groundwater isn’t something I like doing, but I also have faucets that are working well after I installed them 15 years ago, clothes that get clean with less detergent, etc. It will never be a good time to do things differently, but now is better than later.
I believe we need this project to be responsible to the environment, responsible to future generations. I believe the cost estimates are reasonable and that a very good rate structure that is both educational as well as fair has been developed to match the cost. To those who want to fight over this project, I value your watchdog ethic, but even a good watchdog needs to let the postman deliver his mail now and then.
Michael, Michael, Michael we have had this conversation many times. Highly problematic handling of the rates discussion = Yes. Fraudulent rates = No.
Your continued use of the word “fraudulent” is simply theater. You are the master of hyperbole.
Davehart: ha! Love that comment about the postal delivery. This project is not ready for delivery, sorry to say. You will see a project again after the initiative process, and I think you will like the snappy box and contents.
Matt: those Sept 6 rates were fraudulent. There are three types. I’ll email you sometime about them and how they fit what nearly happened to us.
I thinkit’s time for the DV to hear from more opponents and skeptics. I think most of my buddies have been content to read me and Don or Mark West bantering but I think it needs to broaden out.
Davehart: I’m going to address your substantive concerns raised in your thoughtful comments. But not tonight.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Such a simpleton tonight! Forgot that when our friends on the WAC such as Bill Kopper and Matk Siegler outed the staff for a grossly large subsidy of the Woodland rates, fearing for its ballot measure, the CC sent two of its own up to Woodland for a better deal. They proudly came home, clutching the giveaway from Woodland reducing our subsidy to Woodland, paying only 30% more per gallon!
Sorry I forget all these things. Just means I’m occupied with how to win on March 5.
Come on, you haters: tell me what you have done lately for the voters and ratepayers.”[/i]
I’m not a hater Michael, but I am confused. Help me understand your calculations.
What follows are the total project costs at this juncture
[b]Cost of Water[/b]
–Regional Capital Costs
—-Environmental & Permitting = 1.57
—-Land/ROW Acquisition = 5.30
—-Pre-Design = 6.15
—-Capital Contingency = 7.59
–Construction Costs
—-Joint Raw Water Intake (Agency Portion) = 7.52
—-Joint Raw Water Intake (Pump under DBO contract) = 5.61
—-Raw Water Pipeline (Transmission Mains) = 25.66
—-Regional Water Treatment Facility (RWTF) = 105.03
—-Permit Fees & Construction Counsel = 2.91
–Regional Project Admin Costs
—-Agency Administration = 3.53
—-Program Management = 3.42
—-Water Supply = 1.70
–Costs Expended From June 2009 – June 2011 = 7.49
[b]Total Cost of Water = 183.49[/b]
[b]Getting the Water to the Local Distribution System[/b]
–Davis Treated Water Pipeline = 25.33
–Woodland Treated Water Pipelines = 6.18
— Local Costs
—- Woodland Local Mains and Valves = 16.38
—- Davis Local Mains and Valves = 14.66
[b]Total City Specific Distribution Costs[/b] = 62.54
[b]Davis Portion Cost of Water[/b]
–Regional Capital Costs
—-Environmental & Permitting = 0.77
—-Land/ROW Acquisition = 2.00
—-Pre-Design = 2.85
—-Capital Contingency = 7.59
–Construction Costs
—-Joint Raw Water Intake (Agency Portion) = 3.30
—-Joint Raw Water Intake (Pump under DBO contract) = 2.56
—-Raw Water Pipeline (Transmission Mains) = 10.47
—-Regional Water Treatment Facility (RWTF) = 42.86
—-Permit Fees & Construction Counsel = 1.45
–Regional Project Admin Costs
—-Agency Administration = 1.71
—-Program Management = 1.65
—-Water Supply = 0.38
–Costs Expended From June 2009 – June 2011 = 3.48
[b]Total Cost of Water[/b] = 76.88[/b] = 41.896%
[b]Getting the Water to the Local Distribution System[/b]
–Davis Treated Water Pipeline = 22.24
–Woodland Treated Water Pipelines = 0.00
— Local Costs
—- Woodland Local Mains and Valves = 0.00
—- Davis Local Mains and Valves = 14.66
[b]Davis Share of City Specific Distribution Costs[/b] = 36.90
So Davis is paying $76.88 million for cost of water and Woodland is paying $106.62 million. A pure 60-40 split would be $73.40 million and $110.09 million respectively. So even if you insist on a pure 60-40 split, Woodland is paying $3.48 million less than they would, and $3.48 divided by $110.09 = 3.2%
Even if you insist that Davis pay for the local costs of the upgrades to mains and valves in Woodland and vice versa, as well as Woodland pay for 60% of the Davis treated water pipeline and vice versa, Davis is paying $113.77 million and Woodland is paying $132.26 million. A pure 60-40 split would be $98.41 million and $147.62 million respectively. So even if you insist on a pure 60-40 split on the total project, Woodland is paying $15.36 million less than they would, and $15.36 divided by $147.62 = 10.4%
So you can see why the 30% subsidy claim confuses me. Can you help me out?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”I think it’s time for the DV to hear from more opponents and skeptics. I think most of my buddies have been content to read me and Don or Mark West bantering but I think it needs to broaden out.”[/i]
I agree Michael. I hope we can have a productive and respectful dialogue here on the V.