by Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson
At this Tuesday’s City Council meeting staff is recommending that the council disband the Water Advisory Committee (WAC). They argue that “the work of the Water Advisory Committee has reached a conclusion,” and that the Council should form a broader “Utility Rate Advisory Committee (URAC)” to advise on all utilities – not just water.
As the two Councilmembers who led the community in forming the WAC, we have some concerns about this proposal. We formed the WAC for two main reasons: (1) to provide independent, expert oversight of the city’s effort to obtain surface water, and (2) to provide a public forum for its discussion.
In so doing, the WAC was a critical component of our efforts since 2011, begun even before the referendum qualified, to strengthen the community’s process for addressing this important issue – a process that led ultimately to the adoption of Measure I.
The WAC exceeded even our own (admittedly high) expectations. We are so deeply appreciative of the countless hours each one of those 15 members has spent volunteering for our community and seeking to make it better.
It’s because of dedicated residents just like them that our community is so strong.
But just because our community (thankfully!) has passed Measure I, we do not feel the WAC’s work has yet reached a conclusion.
Significant issues loom, including analyzing the RFP, the possibility of moving to a DB (versus DBO) model, analyzing the contract and the selected contractor – besides, of course, analyzing how the rate structure performs and any necessary changes to it.
Not having the WAC’s trusted gaze on these and other issues would not be advised.
As such, it’s our desire to keep the WAC in place through 2013. We do recognize that a number of members on the WAC would like to step down.
In addition, we recognize that two of our colleagues – Brett Lee and Lucas Frerichs – have not had an opportunity to appoint any members to the WAC.
Because of that, it’s our recommendation that the Council set in place a reconstituted WAC by May 1, 2013, and work over the next few weeks with staff and the community to do so.
In the long-run, we agree about the desirability of having the URAC in place to advise the Council on all utility matters, including drinking water. But not now.
First, with such a broad charge, the URAC will not be able to maintain as thorough a focus on water.
Second, its charge needs to go beyond just “rates.”
Lastly, while there is arguably a need for URAC at some point, outside of drinking water it’s not clear to us why it has to be set up now, not later.
Instead, we would recommend putting the URAC in place by January 1, 2014, right when the WAC disbands. (The Council would begin constituting the URAC over the summer and fall.).
We also suggest adding/emphasizing “and” in its name – the Utility AND Rate Advisory Committee – to make sure the focus will be on both rates and on the multitude of potential “utility” issues noted above, broadly and into the future.
We trust our colleagues and the community will see the value in this alternative approach.
Dan Wolk is Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Davis; Rochelle Swanson is a member of the Davis City Council.
Forming the WAC was one of the best CC council decisions I have seen and I feel that disbanding it at what could be a critical juncture would be premature. I favor your proposal to keep the WAC in place at this time and the development of a URAC in the future.
I would hope tha members opposed to some of the WAC decisions would continue to serve.
[i]analyzing the RFP, the possibility of moving to a DB (versus DBO) model, analyzing the contract and the selected contractor – besides, of course, analyzing how the rate structure performs and any necessary changes to it.[/i]
How would these individual efforts interface with city staff having some of the same responsibility?
Staff Report says . . .
[i]”Staff has conducted some preliminary investigation regarding the implementation and success of URACs within the state. Two prominent examples of functioning URACs are in Sacramento, and Fresno. [b]The City of Sacramento URAC has purview over water, sewer, garbage, recycling, yard waste and street sweeping services[/b] and requires its members to have [b]expertise in one or more of the following areas: accounting, auditing, construction management, engineering, environmental, finance, law, science, sewer collection and treatment, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage collection, and water supply and distribution.[/b] A copy of the Frequently- Asked-Questions regarding duties, authorities and requirements obtained from Sacramento’s URAC website is enclosed with this report. Fresno’s URAC functions similarly.
In addition, Staff consulted with [b]existing members of the WAC, including the WAC Chair. They felt that collapsing all utility rate oversight into one advisory committee had significant merit. There remains interest among those consulted in continuing to serve the City in this advisory role.[/b]
If the Council wants rate oversight but does not want to create a new committee, as an alternative, the City Council could elect to consolidate rate oversight into one of the existing City Commissions such as the NRC or Finance and Budget Commission.
If Council feels that its residents would benefit from the formation of a URAC, then staff recommends that the work of the existing WAC be concluded and that its functions be reconstituted in the formation of the URAC. Staff has attached a resolution to be approved by the City Council acknowledging the WAC for its service and ending the WAC in favor of a URAC. In addition, Staff respectfully requests input from the Council regarding the number of appointees, method of solicitation and possible minimum qualifications of candidates. Staff anticipates returning to Council at a later meeting to formally recognize and thank the WAC members for their service and to provide an authorizing resolution for a URAC.”[/i]
Conspicuously absent from Staff’s recommendation above is simply amending the original charge provided to the WAC by Council to add a Davis version of the bolded purview. I do not know a single currently sitting WAC member who does not robustly meet the expertise criteria list. Further, there is a considerable amount of “institutional knowledge” built up within the WAC as it is currently constituted. That considerable knowledge will be very important in the next six months as the DBO bids are received and Bond ratings from the underwriters give Davis significantly more clarity about what the actual bond interest rates are likely to be. I for one want Alf Brandt, Helen Thompson, Frank Loge, Steve Boschken, Jerry Adler, Jim West, Elaine Roberts-Musser, Michael Bartolic, Bill Kopper and Mark Siegler weighing in on those issues.
The incredibly intense workload that the WAC has shouldered to date is a thing of the past. In the next six months the likelihood of more than six actual WAC meetings is quite low. So I encourage those WAC members who very rightly feel “tired” by the 2012 pace, to look at continued service over the next six months from the perspective of what is likely to happen, rather than from the perspective of what has already happened. The journey has a bit farther to go, and nobody knows how to deliver transparent deliberation on the key issues of water better than the 10 men and women who have been on the firing line these past 18 months.
The continuation of the WAC seems like a good idea, though why any of the members would continue, after the knocks they took from this forum and others, is hard to imagine .
I am also very much indebted as a voter and citizen to the WAC and very happy that the CC has decided to keep it intact. The WAC certainly has the experience in working together and knows that whatever it decides will be picked apart from the sidelines. I have total faith they are just now really able to do this work with eyes wide open and with maximum efficiency. And I echo the sentiment that it is important that the skeptics on the committee stay on.