City Staff Mistakes Feed into Negative Perception by Some in the Community – The Vanguard spent quite some time attempting to get data from the city of Davis as to what the revenue requirements would be for the city to build a surface water project versus no project.
We first requested the data way back right after the New Year. There were claims at that time made by the opposition to the project about the cost of the water project per year producing much more revenue than the $113 million surface water project plus loan repayments should have cost.
At the same time, there were claims being made by proponents of the project about the costs of not doing a project and how much rates were likely to go up even absent a project.
It took just under three weeks to get the data from the city. It was explained to us first that the city was busy preparing the Prop. 218 for the city council on their January 15 meeting. Then following that meeting they had to revise their numbers to accommodate the council decision to implement an all-debt scenario.
In the process, however, the city made a mistake and it was not a small mistake. They estimated the costs of no project, at the time of the Prop. 218 on January 15, to be about a 50% increase on rates.
It turned out that this figure did not include the $37 million in capital expenses that were associated with maintaining the existing infrastructure.
This led some of our readers to question why should we believe the numbers. And now Bob Dunning has jumped onto this error, as well.
He calls it new math, and cites a friend he calls “K.K.”
Mr. Dunning, quoting K.K,. writes: ” ‘In your article the other day you cited that the city said rates would only go up by 50 percent without the project.’ … indeed, that’s what I said and I have the facts to back up where in the city hierarchy those figures came from … adds K.K.: ‘Now today I’m learning that the city is now saying rates are going up 100 percent without the project. Which is it?’ “
Bob Dunning correctly notes, “[H]ere’s what we know … two weeks ago city staff presented to the City Council a proposed Prop. 218 notice that said ‘Fees Without the Water Project – If the surface water project is not approved by the voters at the March 5 election, the city will not proceed with the project, but water service fees will still need to be increased by about 50 percent; increasing the average bill from about $34 to $50/month by 2018.’ “
He writes, “… you do the math and that comes out to a relatively small yearly increase of $3.20 a month from now until 2018, which just might convince a number of citizens to vote “no” and stick with what we have until the economy turns around.”
Mr. Dunning then seizes the advantage, using the city’s error to cast doubt on the entire process. In so doing, he questions the character of the city manager, his staff, and ultimately the city council.
“Perhaps realizing the effect such a small increase might have on the voting public, the city suddenly came out with a new set of numbers that dramatically increases the cost if the surface water project is not approved,” he writes.
He continues: “… now the city says ‘If the surface water project is not approved by the voters at the March 5 election, the city will not proceed with the project, but water service fees will still need to be increased by about 97 percent; increasing the average bill from about $34 to $67/month by 2018.’ “
He gets the explanation for the discrepancy partly correct.
“There is, of course, an explanation for the new calculation,” he writes. Presumably quoting from the city, he continues: “The water utility is currently running at a deficit due to the deferral of rate increases scheduled for 2011. Also, without an alternative surface water supply, the city must still invest in additional groundwater production facilities and infrastructure as well as demand management tools to meet consumer demands.
“The rate increases cover the cost of operations and maintenance, repaying of the line of credit that was obtained to continue operations without rate increases over the past 18 months, meter replacement fees, debt payment on two of our existing wells and the new 4 million-gallon tank, automated meter reading and other capital improvement projects.”
Mr. Dunning then returns to K.K., who writes, “Why the change in forecast from the city after such a short length of time? How did they get it so wrong in the first place?”
K.K. concludes: “I don’t know whom to believe anymore.”
Mr. Dunning adds, “… join the club, my friend …”
Mr. Dunning thus takes advantage of the city’s error to cast doubt on the entire process, playing on the distrust that was built up over the years.
As I have argued, this might be an effective strategy because it plays on this distrust, built up over the course of six years of council majority actions from 2004 until 2010.
While the council in the past two years has attempted to rebuild that trust, it is clear that they stumbled along the way, particularly with the decision to push through on September 6 on a water process that few, even on the council, truly understood.
It is ultimately that reason that this line of attack might prove effective. Try convincing the distrustful, who had been burned multiple times by Don Saylor and his council majority, that these are merely honest mistakes.
Many of them do not see a difference from the current council to the Don Saylor council. To them, this is all just proof that the Who was right when they sang, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Maybe there is a better way, but the city needs to think about this every time they fumble a public policy in a public setting.
It seems to me that, while this is a complex process, the city has had an inordinate amount of fumbles and missteps along the way. These all add up.
At the same time, Mr. Dunning appears to disagree with another topic of discussion on the Vanguard – the amount of peripheral costs associated with the poor quality of water that would be reduced should we go with the surface water project.
“[I]t has been suggested to me that the sky-high rates necessitated by the proposed surface water project will be substantially mitigated by the assumption that Davisites won’t have to buy bottled water or use their water softeners anymore,” he writes. “That may be true for a handful of people, but old habits are hard to break.”
He continues, “I suspect most people will remain tethered to their water softeners and virtually no one will give up drinking bottled water, whether they buy it in those massive glass jars delivered right to their doorstep or in the handy 30-pack of plastic bottles at Costco … of course, for those hardy souls who have neither water softeners nor bottled water, there will be no ‘savings’ at all.”
He continues, questioning the quality of Sacramento River water, as well.
“For that matter, anyone who bothers to scoop up a bucketful of Sacramento River water in the nearby town of Grimes (hey, I didn’t name it) will go screaming to the bottled water aisle of their favorite supermarket and buy everything in sight,” he writes. “I realize that river water will be purified six times to Sunday before it starts spurting from our taps, but some images are hard for the mind to shake … the murky, muddy Sacramento is one such image.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It would help relations with the public if the CC would send out Prop 218 protest ballots again, like in the summer 2011.
Personally I’ve always felt that drinking well water was a better and cleaner option than river water, but that’s just me. The Sacramento river is basically a sewer for runoff from farm fertilizers, pesticides and city drain systems.
[url]http://www.cacoastkeeper.org/news/storm-runoff-and-sewage-treatment-outflow-contaminated-with-household-pesticides-[/url]
Michael, what’s your response to the change in the city’s calculations on how much our rates would increase without the project?
I’m not sure. But I would like the City to mail those ballots again.
[i]Personally I’ve always felt that drinking well water was a better and cleaner option than river water…. farm fertilizers, pesticides[/i]
But if I said the well water you are drinking contains arsenic, chromium 6 and selenium, you’d probably accuse me of fear-mongering.
Woodland has taken a very appropriate step to address this problem by creating a permanent Woodland Water Utilities Rate Committee made up of a cross-section of members from all parts of the Woodland community. They work closely with staff and consultants to provide substantial input into the utility rates that the Woodland Council approves to provide the revenue needed for their water utilities. They are currently beginning a wastewater rates evaluation and recommendation process.
I think it is important to note that mistakes do get made in all walks of life. After all we are all human. If Davis had a permanent Utilities Rate Advisory Committee (URAC) like Woodland does, most mistakes would get caught transparently during the URAC discussions, and as a result we would have fewer “public” events like the ones David has described in his article.
I strongly urge Council to add the creation of an URAC onto their agenda as soon as the WAC is formally disbanded.
The monitoring of Sacramento River water is extensive and will continue to be. I have included a few links below.
[url]http://www.sacriver.org/files/documents/roadmap/report/WaterQualityMonitoring.pdf[/url]
[url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/CityCouncil/Documents/PDF/PW/Water/Water-Quality/Sacramento-River-Water-Quality-Assessment-for-the-DWWSP.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6569[/url]
The last few days there has been a lot of talk on this blog about cost. I think the discussion is backwards. The heart of why we need to change our primary source of water is to me about savings. Both in dollars and environmental stewardship. First and foremost is we should let our actions match our words. What we discharge into the delta should be far better than what we do now. Fish do not drink water they breathe it. Yesterday I posted some of the indirect savings from softer water. Here are some more:
[url]http://www.lvnwater.com/softwater.html[/url]
[url]http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0093-01.pdf/$file/EE-0093-01.pdf[/url]
[url]http://digitool.library.colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS8xMjM2MA==.pdf[/url]
Perhaps the “public” should not be trusted…. there are the few who are very “active”, but care not how their fellows feel… there will be one poll that matters… let’s see how the vote goes…
Stephen Souza writes: “The last few days there has been a lot of talk on this blog about cost. I think the discussion is backwards. The heart of why we need to change our primary source of water is to me about savings”
Mr. Souza raises a good point here because it is not my goal or purpose to lay out the need to change our water source. Rather, I am attempting to lay out the facts as we know them in answer to questions burning in the community.
Cost is one issue that clearly is on the minds of many. But as I read Dunning, I realize it wasn’t just cost driving this, but trust. Part of the reason for the disconnect in the discussions is that at the end of the day, many on the No on I side of ledger, have arrived there because they fundamentally do not trust city governance.
They see council as tools for developers as they were four years ago in the eyes of some. They see city staff stumbling around not as honest mistakes but as signs of nefarious intent. And finally, they see the experts as subservient to the water community.
There is no trust and where there is no trust, there can be established no common ground or common facts upon which to rely.
If they don’t trust city officials, who do they think should run the Davis water system?
hpierce: You raise an interesting point, but I want to turn it around on its head. I think we have address the issue and not just for water, but over all, how do we re-establish trust in local governance, because it is becoming quite apparent that trust is a real issue. It’s fundamental not just in my work but in Dunning’s work. Errors are an inevitable part of human existence, how can we get to the point where an error is seen as a mistake rather than evidence of malfeasance?
Don, you are not considered by rusty to be an objective source of information.
The Kennedy-Jenks Consultants / Brown and Caldwell assessment of the Davis water system says the following:
[i]Deep wells are assumed to require treatment in the next 20+ years as drinking water quality limits for various constituents are added or modified by the federal and state legislators, and regulatory agencies (USEPA and CDPH). The most likely constituents of concern are Arsenic and Chromium 6. USEPA has indicated that they are evaluating Arsenic health impacts in drinking water and have indicated that revisiting the current standard of 10 ug/L could occur in the future, with a likely new numerical standard of 5 uq/L. In addition, both CDPH, USEPA, and federal/state legislators are evaluating establishing a drinking water standard for Chromium 6, which currently has a Public Health Goal (PHG) of 0.06 ug/L. There has been published discussion of reducing the PHG to 0.02 ug/L. It is anticipated that a drinking water standard could be set at 0.06 ug/L with a PHG of 0.02 ug/L.[/i]
There is plenty in those K-J C/ B&C words to please rusty because the time horizon of their concern. There is plenty in those K-J C/ B&C words that supports your contention as well. The key question regarding what to do about these important constituents is one of timing. Since our deep aquifer well water is untreated, any Arsenic and Chromium 6 flows from ground to tap to our bodies.
David:
“There is no trust and where there is no trust, there can be established no common ground or common facts upon which to rely.”
Bingo!
Don: “If they don’t trust city officials, who do they think should run the Davis water system?”
You are asking the wrong question, it goes back to my question to hpierce and how we re-establish trust not what the alternatives are if we are distrustful.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Bingo!”[/i]
rusty, what would you propose as a solution to that problem?
Is it a problem that is worth solving/addressing?
Our upcoming initiative will go a long way with re-establishing trust in city government.
It rests on the policy of President Regan as to the Soviets on arms control:
“Trust but verify.”
Never again will we allow what has happened with our public utilities.
And where are the protest ballots? Mayor Joe, you made it happen one time … Make it happen again. Give the ratepayers a voice.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. It is clear that Mike H. does not trust….well, anyone. But, I’m assuming that the rates/cost will be sorted out by the time we are asked to vote or approve the rates. I think most people in town are happy with our current Council.
Hey, folks, this might help some of you:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/VanguardInstructions.png[/img]
Steve Souza, Don Shor, Don Saylor, Ryan Kelly, Matt Williams, Joe, Dan, Rochelle, Brett, Lucas: I know all of you want this project, and are working hard to get it built.
However, if you care about fair, open public process, and I know many of you do, then you should all support the immediate issuance of protest ballots on the pending Prop 218 rates. The CC instructed staff to mail them in the summer 2011, and it was exactly the right thing to do.
Mailing them again, now, would send the right message to the community.
I know all of you want to “win,” and are determined to build this JPA plant, but mailing the protest ballots would send a good message to the public that all of you actually do care about the public process, and the rights of voters and ratepayers.
After all, you stripped most project specifics and costs and rates from the March 5 ballot, so the least you can do is mail those Prop 218 protest ballots.
Please let me know what you think?
Mike, I’m a grasshopper on this issue.
Joe Friday
Matt: meaning, you take bites out of whatever leaf you land on? LOL
LOL Mike. That is probably true. Joe Friday likes to deal with those objective facts near the fulcrum, while the sturm und drang takes place out at the ends of the respective arms of the balance beam.
What is also true is that there is a time for patience.
Speaking of trust of our city government, I have yet to see anyone at the City take responsibility of those bogus Sept 6, 2011 rates.
Or even more importantly: when challenged, why did staff, after spending years telling us that we were all going to die of thirst or poisons in our well water, suddenly conclude that we did not need the 18 mgd plant, and a smaller 12 mgd was enough?
Or: it was OK that we heavily subsidized Woodland’s costs, and when challenged, suddenly Davis leadership was able to reduce that subsidy to “only” 30%
And recently, on January 15, the CC instructed staff to drop the pay-go, which was supposed to save 15% of the immediate rate increase, and staff tried to issue the rate notice with rates that were different than the CC direction?
Dozens of the City leadership pushing the JPA plant as “needed” have read this article and my requests for the city to mail the Prop 218 ballot protests, yet not one of them has responded on this Blog, or to my cell or email, as to mailing those protest ballots.
David, your article talks about a lack of trust. Why don’t you list all of the things the City leadership has done or not done to earn that lack of trust with respect to the water project and rates? Give us a hard-hitting article.
Time to take off the gloves.
Mike H is of the same ilk as Rand Paul – imagining power he has not earned.
Curious minds want to know:
1.What is Dennis Diemer’s total yearly compensation package?
2.Where does he live? Do we supply him with a company car or is he given a vehicle compensation package?
3.How many hours per week is he actually in the office?
4.If he is under contract as a consultant how much money did he receive in 2012?
[i]Steve Souza, Don Shor, Don Saylor, Ryan Kelly, Matt Williams, Joe, Dan, Rochelle, Brett, Lucas[/i]
Just the right number for a softball team. I’ll take center field!
[i]Curious minds want to know:
[/i]
Why do you care?
Curious minds what to know:
#1-4: What the heck do craised’s questions have to do with this thread?
Back on topic. My take on the trust complaint is it sound a lot like sour grapes. Staff and the council make some goofy statements from time to time. That doesn’t seem to bother the strident minority when staff and council are doing their bidding. But when staff and the council aren’t doing the strident minority’s bidding it’s due to some devious plot. Gimme a break.
-Michael Bisch
You could substitute the last two words in the title of this article to contract negotiations. C.C. And Mr Dunning are spot on.