It is three months to the day that the council made the decision to ignore 4800 protests on the water rate hikes, to reject a proposed compromise by Councilmember Dan Wolk and to instead go forward with 14% rate hikes, that really were not 14%, without even having a rate study to determine appropriate rates and their impacts on the community.
A group of citizens put the water on the ballot, and were opposed by a sitting city councilmember and some other citizens who attempted a counter to the signature-gathering. The referendum no sooner qualified for the ballot before the city attorney argued it was improper.
We have accusations and counter-accusations. We have had acknowledgements that perhaps the city pushed this too fast without proper study. And we have accusations that the 14% is a fictitious number, relying on unrealistic assumptions that will threaten the well-being of families in this community.
Today we stand at the crossroads between peace and war. We can choose to move forward as we have and put this matter up for a vote. We certainly believe fairness and democracy would ask that as a minimum.
However, if we go down that path we will end up with six months of the most contentious and back-biting battle we have seen in some time. This has the potential to make the Covell Village and Measure P campaigns look like Sunday School Picnics.
This is not a mere housing development that would inconvenience us – the stakes are so much higher. On one side are those who argue that our future depends on the ability of this community to have a reliable and affordable and, most importantly, clean water supply.
On the other side are those who will question the timing of this proposal during the heart of the worst economic downturn most of us have experienced. They will question the costs and impacts on the economy and our pocketbook. They will question the process and operators.
It will be war and it might be a war that all of us lose because, unfortunately, we have so many other very critical issues that could get swept aside.
There is an alternative. It is not an alternative that anyone will find ideal, but it is a compromise between two unyielding positions.
“It is clear a significant portion of the community needs more information as reflected in the referendum, as well as the number of protest votes,” Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson said in a statement to the Vanguard last week.
“As someone who has tirelessly worked to find a middle ground on this issue, I have been very disheartened by the divisive and acerbic nature of the debate surrounding it,” Mr. Wolk said.
Their proposal calls for the rescinding of the ordinance that was passed on September 6, 2011. Instead, they want to direct staff to bring back a one-year Prop 218 motion, based on the needs to cover current deferred maintenance and ongoing needs, rather than being based on the surface water project.
They would then direct city staff to return within nine months with a report on all options for funding a surface water project. This could include a formal rate study, that the city never undertook when it launched its initial rate hikes.
At that time, they would also consider a full public vote for a long-term rate increase, in connection with the water project.
As Councilmember Wolk told the Vanguard, “For a number of reasons, I don’t believe putting the ordinance on the ballot is wise. Instead, we need to work together to forge a better path forward on this issue.”
He said that was his intent on September 6, and “we need to try again at this one.”
Those supporting the referendum probably would prefer the project be put off for a longer period of time, if not indefinitely, and there are undoubtedly many who believe that we do not need that project.
On the other hand, there are those supporting the project who believe that this will have a tremendously negative impact on the project. It may force Woodland to try to go at this alone, though we are not sure that they can really do that. It would put a stop to the Design-Build-Operate and bid process. It would set this project back by two years.
Those two years would possibly inflate the costs.
However, Rochelle Swanson told the Vanguard that she believes we can wait without compromising the project.
“After prolonged discussions with the City Manager, I feel assured we can in fact take some time to institute the measures in the original motion I seconded on September 6. It was clear then, by the number of protests, that the community was requesting more information regarding an increase,” she said.
The compromise does delay the project, but there would seem to be a good deal of upside to that delay. It would give us time to do a proper rate study, that most involved agree was a critical oversight.
It would give the oversight committee, such as it is, time to look at the project anew and see if there are ways to cut costs.
It will allow us to better grapple with the ethical and other concerns about the DBO process and legitimately explore a SMUD-type public option.
And it would address problems that have bedeviled this project since September 6, where mistakes and inexperience have created a boondoggle from poor planning (lack of a rate study) to poor communication (advertising 14% rate hikes when they clearly were not).
The biggest problem appears to be inexperience. As we argued on Sunday, we have a mayor who on September 6 was in office barely a year. We had an interim city manager, with a new city manager only taking over on September 2, four days before the water meeting. The head of the JPA, Woodland’s city manager, took a new job and the new head has barely been on the job.
We have an interim public works director who replaces Bob Weir, who probably knew more about this project than anyone. And Jacques Debra is apparently less than ideal to head this up within the city, and it is not clear how the rate structure was actually computed.
Bottom line, that is less than the ideal situation and the idea of pulling back and doing a do-over makes some sense, particularly when the Vanguard, much like Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson, received assurances from Bob Clarke, the interim public works director, that a small delay would not be fatal to the project.
Is the compromise ideal? No. People on both sides probably would like to get more than they are getting – that is what makes this a compromise.
We can go forward with a referendum, there will likely be an initiative, and I think there is a good chance both could pass. If Joe Krovoza or Stephen Souza want to go against this initiative, that is probably not great from their standpoint, but they can try to do so.
They will be running the risk that the voters will pass the referendum, and possibly an initiative, that would tie council’s hands considerably.
Moreover, it takes three. Right now the Wolk-Swanson proposal positions them in the middle between the Mayor and Councilmember Souza on one side, Sue Greenwald on the other. As long as they stick together, there is really no way to get a coalition of three to oppose them.
Mayor Pro Tem Swanson and Councilmember Wolk hold the cards, they hold the middle ground where most of the public is, and the only question now is whether we choose the path that leads us to compromise and a chance to find a harmonious way forward, or one that leads to a bitter and divisive election.
Make no mistake, that’s what an election would be, and it would probably mean that we cannot find a way forward on the budget and or economic development this term. Those are the stakes, and now it is up to the office holders to determine which future this community takes.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Those two years would possibly inflate the costs.[/quote]
Possibly? One report I was indicates a 1 year delay will inflate costs by $1.7 million. A 4 year delay will inflate the costs by $4 million. And that doesn’t take into account the costs of fines. Make no mistake. Delaying the project is going to make this project more costly.
[quote]Is the compromise ideal? No. [/quote]
Precisely. The compromise solves nothing. All it does is “kick the can down the road” for another 9 months. As opponents have pointed out, 9 months is not nearly enough to vet all the issues. Which will inevitably mean opponents will want to “kick the can down the road” for considerably more time/indefinitely until the surface water project is no longer a viable option…
[quote]We can go forward with a referendum, there will likely be an initiative, and I think there is a good chance both could pass. [/quote]
How can you know this?
[quote]Mayor Pro Tem Swanson and Councilmember Wolk hold the cards, they hold the middle ground where most of the public is…[/quote]
How could you possibly know where the public stands on this issue without it going to a vote?
Correction: One report I SAW indicates a 1 year delay will inflate costs by $1.7 million. A 4 year delay will inflate the costs by [b]$80 million[/b].
Please explain how a “rate study” is going to somehow obviate the fact that if the city decides it needs to do the surface water project, it must raise the needed capital to pay for it within the necessary time frame to avoid being fined beginning in 2017, when the new water quality standards kick in?
[quote]On the other hand, there are those supporting the project who believe that this will have a tremendously negative impact on the project. It may force Woodland to try to go at this alone, though we are not sure that they can really do that. It would put a stop to the Design-Build-Operate and bid process. It would set this project back by two years.[/quote]
If Woodland goes it alone, I have to wonder what the repercussions to that will be… for instance build a smaller project that serves only Woodland to save them money, for instance? Davis could then not opt in at its leisure…
What I am trying to point out is there are repercussions to delaying the project that the public needs to be aware of…
This is a bit off-topic, but related to water conservation funding opportunities. The US Bureau of Reclamation has 2 separate grant funding opportunities available. I encourage the city of Davis to consider applying for some of this available federal grant money. Grants are available for:
[u]Groundwater Recharge[/u]: Projects that provide savings when surface water
storage evaporation is reduced and/or surface runoff is intercepted for
recharge. Projects include, but are not limited to:
o Installing recharge ponds
o Installing surface runoff interception systems
o Removing impervious surfaces
[u]Landscape Irrigation Measures[/u]: Projects that provide water savings by
reducing outdoor water usage. These measures include turf removal, Smart
irrigation controllers (weather or soil-moisture based) and high-efficiency
nozzles (sprinkler heads). These measures are typically promoted by water
entities through rebates or direct-install programs. Projects include, but are not
limited to:
o Removing turf
o Installing Smart irrigation controllers
o Installing high-efficiency nozzles (sprinkler heads)
[u]High-Efficiency Indoor Appliances and Fixtures[/u]: Projects that promote
installation of high-efficiency indoor appliance and fixtures to provide water savings for municipal water entities where there is significant potential for replacing existing non-efficient indoor appliances and fixtures. This is typically promoted by water entities through rebates or direct-install programs. Projects include, but are not limited to:
o Installing high-efficiency toilets, clothes washers, dish washers, faucets, etc.
For more info, see the URLs listed below:
WaterSMART Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program Construction Grant Funding Opportunity Now Available Grants Provide Construction Funding to Sponsors of Congressionally Authorized Title XVI Projects
[url]http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=38384[/url]
WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grant Funding Opportunity Now Available Grants Provide Funding to Make Water Management Improvements in the West:
[url]http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=38383[/url]
Elaine could you reference the 80m figure. That a typo? Hard to believe 3 more yrs would multiple 1.7 to 80.
[quote]Elaine could you reference the 80m figure. That a typo? Hard to believe 3 more yrs would multiple 1.7 to 80.[/quote]
Yes, I was very tired this morning, so made a glaring mistake – and apparently more than one error… Sorry about that, and thanks for raising the question. I will quote from the Dec 3, 2011 technical memorandum I obtained this information from:
[quote]”…any delay of the project is expected to increase the cost to both cities, with longer delays resulting in the largest increases. The increase is more significant when looking at inflation adjusted dollars. A one-year delay…could increase total program costs by approximately $17.7 million (inflation adjusted dollars). A five-year delay… could increase total program costs by $80.4 to $131.0 million (inflation adjusted dollars)…”[/quote]
1 year delay: possible $17.7 million dollar cost increase
5 year delay: possible $80 to $131 million dollar cost increase
Must also add the costs of any fines incurred.
The entire technical memorandum document can be found at:
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/pdfs/2011.11-DWWSP-Alternatives-Summary-Memo.pdf[/url]
Thanks eastdavis for the information!
“As Councilmember Wolk told the Vanguard, “For a number of reasons, I don’t believe putting the ordinance on the ballot is wise. Instead, we need to work together to forge a better path forward on this issue.'”
David, I infer from your lack of response to this remark and the tone/context of your article, perhaps incorrectly, that you agree with Dan Wolk that it is not a good idea to put the issue on the ballot. First, what are the reasons DW, gave for not putting this issue to all Davis voters, and if you agree with some of them, what are they?
From the very beginning I think an issue of this importance should have gone to all voters. And in the light of the 218 protest vote and the referendum signatures, I think it is a moral imperative that any future surface water project go to the voters. Is it that Dan, or even you, do not trust the voters of Davis to make a responsible decision WHEN we have a few good independent studies. As one of the core people involved in the ref. drive I am prepared to concede that eventually there may be compelling evidence that we need a surface water project, but I want to know how urgent that need is, and I want to be sure we are really getting the best project that can be obtained at the best price. And, yes, I would like the City of Davis to operate that system. Further, I would like an option that avoids partnership with Woodland. If that should prove essential we Davisites need cast iron guarantees such as the potential forfeiture of Matt Rexroad’s personal property and assets along with that of all Woodland council members. I am only half joking, maybe not even half.
Finally, I think it is desirable that the issue goes to an election, and preferably one that coincides with the Council elections (i.e June 5, 2012), SO THAT FOR ONCE WE CAN SEE WHERE THE MAJORITY OF OUR COUNCIL (AND ANY OTHER CANDIDATES REALLY STAND ON A CRUCIAL ISSUE AND SO THAT WE DON’T GET MORE KROVOZAS WHO WAFFLE ON THE ISSUES AND GET ELECTED BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NICE AND TO BE “EXPERTS.”
Herman: [i]I would like the City of Davis to operate that system. Further, I would like an option that avoids partnership with Woodland.[/i]
The WDJPA provides water to the cities.
The cities own their own water systems. They operate them separately, publicly or privately as they choose. You can read the Joint Powers agreement:
”The Individually-Owned Project Facilities (as described on Exhibit A) may be included as part of the Project and financed and constructed by the Authority. Upon completion of construction of any Individually-Owned Project Facility, the Authority will convey all of its right, title and interest in the completed Individually-Owned Project Facility to the Project Participant that is served by that Project Facility (as shown on Exhibit A) and that Project Participant shall accept the conveyance of the completed Project Facility and thereafter be responsible for the ownership, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, modification and improvement of that Project Facility. The Authority shall have no obligation to operate, maintain, repair, replace, modify or improve any Individually-Owned Project Facility.”
Authority = WDCWA Project Participants = Woodland, Davis, and UCD (subject to a separate agreement).
Individually-Owned Project Facility = each city’s water system.
They will build it. They will then hand it over to each city. Each city is then responsible for it.
It would not make economic sense for Woodland and Davis to run separate intake facilities.
Thanks for the info Don. I did not express myself clearly. My concern over partnership with Woodland (or for that matter any other city) does not relate mainly to operation of the system, it relates primarily to the ability to pay the capital costs of the project. We have argued this before but to briefly state again: I think, and the data shows, the project, and the water rate increases it will entail, which could do anything from multiplying our water rates by a factor of 2.5 to 5.0 will impose a hardship on a significant number of people in Davis. If that’s so, it will be much harder on many more people in Woodland where incomes are significantly lower.
The sheer bravado of the Woodland City Council on the issue amazes and demonstrates the massive level of irresponsibility that is typical of Woodland politics. That is because, as in so many communities, the local populace, for reasons I’ll not explicate, is almost totally disengaged. I have talked to at least ten well educated and reasonably informed Woodlanders in the last three months and they seem to know nothing at all about the surface water project. When I last checked, admittedly 6-8 weeks ago, I could find very little about it in the Woodland Democrat. If people don’t get info from their local newspaper on key issues affecting them, then tell me where they are supposed to get it??? Don, you are a great researcher and often provide many good links. Prove me wrong and give us several links to show there has been any kind of real discussion, or even debate, of the water issue in the Woodland Democrat or any other forum likely to teach a large audience–and I don’t mean informational meetings called by city council and their advocates. Thanks.
DG writes: “….most importantly, clean water supply.”
I thought that this myth had been put to rest. Sacramento river water is no “cleaner” than Davis groundwater. On the contrary,Davis groundwater, while containing more dissolved solids and salts, is probably “cleaner” with regard to contaminants that are considered harmful to human health. The argument, in this regard for Sacramento river water that is that there is no statistical epidemiological health effect found below certain levels. This belies common sense which is that the probability of harm does not go to zero when these chemicals are present but the water quality standards.
I agree with both Herman and davisite2 on the issues noted above.
I am aware of only a couple of blogs in Woodland (The Woodland Journal and Yolo Sun). WJ posts on the topic get 0 comments.
The Daily Democrat has had some articles about the project (Geoff Johnson has the byline) over many months that I can see in the archives. They have a comment feature, and at least the articles in the last month get no comments. Most of what you find in the archives is just Bulletin Board notices of meetings.
The Yolo Sun blog is very concerned about Petrovich and redevelopment issues. Nothing about the water project that I could find.
Like you, I won’t try to explain why Woodlanders are disengaged on this topic. The same could be said about growth topics there.
Neither Davis groundwater nor Sacramento River water is unsafe. I would like that myth to be put to rest on both water sources.
In the hope that Woodland residents may be following the issue on the Vanguard, here is a link to a low-income assistance program for the water rate increases: [url]http://www.cityofwoodland.org/gov/depts/cd/redev/community_development_block_grant_(cdbg)/water_assistance_program.asp[/url]
One has to wonder just how serious the Wolk-Swanson proposal is. It lays out a list of items that, if seriously investigated in-depth with consideration of alternatives, would essentially deconstruct the entire current plan and redo it. This is,IMO, impossible to do in the 9 months that they have set as a deadline(including several summer douldrum months).Pursuing a variance is one item on the list but how vigorously this is pursued by Council and staff and the time allowed is critical to any chance of obtaining such a variance. Of course, this goes for the entire “laundry list” of issues that make up the Wolk-Swanson proposal. Davis PW Director Clark publicly opined recently that the only way that a variance had a chance was if there was a citizen vote that stymied the Surface Water project rate increase. Clark’s reported recent statement that a short delay(the Wolk-Swanson timeline?) would not do “harm” without ever laying out what inevitable “harm”(always to be balanced by potential positive results)would occur if no deadline was established suggests,IMO,that more candid independent observations will likely not be forthcoming from the DPW director.
[quote]most importantly, clean water supply.– [b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]David, I am disappointed that after so much discussion, you are still conveying the false impression that well water is “dirty” and Sacramento River water, which is downstream from a number of sewage outlets, is “clean”.
No David, well water is clean and safe, and river water is safe after treatment. Both sources have constituents that some people worry about.
Please stop implying that well water Sacramento River water is “clean” and that well water is “not clean”. This is plain wrong; it is misinformation; it should be corrected and not reinforced.
I expect more from you, David.
“….have talked to at least ten well educated and reasonably informed Woodlanders in the last three months”
This was also what I learned when talking to a Woodland ‘water engineer” at the Farmers Market some months ago. When asked how engaged and how informed Woodland voters were on the surface water project, his answer was minimal engagement and information.
Just to clarify what Rochelle and Dan proposed.
From the Davis Enterprise:
“It includes the following measures:
* Rescind the water rate increases;
* Recommit to other recommendations in the Sept. 6 motion, some of which are in place;
— In 12 months, and every year thereafter, the City Council must revisit the rates and vote on whether to lower them;
— Formation of a technical advisory committee appointed by the City Council to review the project, bid process, bond terms and any other financial matter related to the construction and operation of the water project (in progress);
— Ensure that any significant decision by the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency joint powers authority be brought before the council (in effect);
— Analyze and make recommendations on possible public operation of the project;
— Seek flexibility on the timelines for the project and raising capital, including requesting the assistance of the city’s legislative delegation, with the goal of stretching out the rate schedule. This includes seeking a water quality compliance variance, if possible;
— Seek guarantees to ensure that the project will use only local and regional businesses and labor, to the maximum extent feasible;
— Utilize — and lobby for — as much federal and state funding as possible, including state water bonds and potential delta restoration dollars directed toward the Yolo Bypass. Look also at utilizing other local dollars besides user fees;
— In addition to the city’s current conservation efforts, access state and federal funds if feasible to offset the costs to residents of implementing water conservation strategies or replacing equipment.
— Provide for regular community meetings and updates (in progress); and
— Explore the creation of a rate-subsidy program for low-income households (in progress).
* Direct staff to bring back a one-year Prop. 218 rate to cover current deferred maintenance and ongoing needs, not based on the surface water project.
* Direct staff to return within nine months with a report on all options for funding a surface water project. The advisory committee would be fully engaged in this process.”
“The sheer bravado of the Woodland City Council on the issue amazes….”
Nothing amazing about such bravado, in fact, it is the required rhetoric when an enterprise is tittering on the edge… Enron,IGA,Morgan Stern, the list could go on and on.