In the end, compromise won out. Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk got the repeal of the water ordinance and the rest of the September 6 motion that had been passed by council. Joe Krovoza got the public vote in June that he desperately wanted. The only question now is whether the public will get the specific rates that would be required for them to make a real decision on the water project.
However, she argued strongly against an election in June – arguing both that she did not want the council election to become a single-issue election when there were other crucial issues on the ballot, and that we are not voting for real rates until there is a project.
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson quickly moved the first component of the compromise deal that Dan Wolk seconded, which moved for a repeal of the water rates passed on September 6. While that proposal had three votes with Sue Greenwald joining them, it was not acceptable to either member of the JPA Mayor Joe Krovoza or Councilmember Stephen Souza, both of whom ironically pressed for a public vote.
“I believe that it is unrealistic for this community to repeal the ordinance and conclude a five-year rate setting process in one year that would give this council the option, the option of being able to continue this project without substantial increases in cost,” Mayor Joe Krovoza said.
“I also believe that this community sooner or later wants and deserves a vote on this project,” he added. “I believe there is a middle ground here that allows the community to vote on this process in June. I believe that until rates are on the table it just is not the case that people will take the time to learn about a very complex issue – pro or con.”
Both Mayor Krovoza and Councilmember Stephen Souza acknowledged mistakes. Councilmember Souza argued that he believes the community wants a new water source and believes that surface water is the best way to provide safe and reliable water.
However, Mr. Souza acknowledged that what was put forward on September 6 “was so darn confusing it was pathetic” and therefore agrees that we need to change the structure.
He agreed with the Mayor that “at some point in time, the public needs to vote on this” and if we do not, then he referenced a comment from Ernie Head, who threatened during public comments to referendize the issue to death.
Joe Krovoza also admitted mistakes, arguing, “We didn’t do a good job of communication – it was confusing.”
During public comment, all five members of the Woodland City Council came to speak before the Davis City Council, along with Supervisor Matt Rexroad who represents Woodland. They urged the City of Davis to move forward with their commitments, ignoring the public’s clear call for a vote on the matter.
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson, at the beginning of her remarks, said to those leaders of Woodland, “We didn’t do the things that you did,” referring to rate studies and public outreach.
“I can’t support a rate going [up] that doesn’t have a rate study behind it,” the Mayor Pro Tem said. “That was a mistake, I regret not sticking to my guns in September and only doing the one year.”
She said that, while she was not opposed to a June vote, “I would hate to see a June vote be about a rate structure that is clearly untenable.”
Councilmember Dan Wolk said, “We’re really faced with two choices right now, we can either repeal the ordinance or put it to the ballot. I don’t think putting that ordinance to the ballot is a good policy.”
“I think it will just worsen the already divisive and bitter debate on this issue. I’ve worked hard to find common ground on this and I believe that kind of politics belongs in the past,” he stated.
“There is obvious frustration or confusion about what the council did or didn’t do on September 6 in terms of the rate,” he added.
Councilmember Greenwald, however, was the only holdout in the end, arguing that she could not support an election in June.
“I am not in favor of an election in June, because while this issue is incredibly important, I think that we are much more than one issue,” she said. “There’re so many big issues in front us, I don’t think we should make a circus out of June.”
Mayor Krovoza, in a substitute motion, moved to direct staff to bring back an ordinance that would repeal September 6’s water rate ordinance and return to council by mid-January an initiative the council would place on the ballot on an up or down vote on the surface water project.
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson argued that it would need to have specific rates that people could vote to support or oppose.
“I would need to have [assurance] that it’s concrete,” Ms. Swanson said. “If somebody votes yes for the surface water project, they are also saying my rates are going up by a specific rate and whatever the structure is with that, so that folks truly know what they will be paying if they support the water project.”
“They would also be approving a rate so that when this is done, they know what they are getting into,” she added.
Sue Greenwald interjected, “It’s illogical, we have no idea what the project is really going to cost. These are the roughest estimates out there.” She added, “We don’t know what the water rates are going to be until we know what the two projects are going to cost.”
“We’re going to have to pay whatever it costs to pay off the bonds that we’re going to issue,” she stated.
“In general, that’s absolutely correct,” Mayor Krovoza responded, but then noted, “We’re in a catch-22 here, until we have a project and get bids we are not going to know what the project is going to cost… Until we know what the project is going to cost through bids, we’re not going to know exactly how we’re going to set our rates.”
Councilmember Greenwald argued that we ought to get the bids first to see what the project is going to cost and then set the rates.
“Firms will not bid on a $325 million project of two communities without knowing that the communities have the capacity to pay for the project,” Mayor Krovoza responded.
In the end, the public got their vote, Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson got their pause, in this and the other portions of the September 6 motion.
Critically, the council did vote to direct staff, along with the Water Advisory Committee, to look into options for funding and commissioning a water rate study, which has become the centerpiece for those who argued that the water rate process was rushed forward.
There will also be a possibility of a Prop 218 rate hike, not related to the surface water project.
Some will see this as kicking the can down the road, but what everyone misses is the fact that the council had to respond to the public who signed the petition to put these rate hikes to a vote. They had really no choice on that matter. The only question was how to go forward.
While I sympathize a bit with Sue Greenwald’s concerns about water monopolizing the June vote, that is precisely what the voters who signed the referendum petition were voting to do anyway.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Leadership by populism, eh ?
Now Souza and Krovoza want a vote?
My how things change.
Ernie Head made it crystal clear at the end of Public Comment that he will not stop until the voters get a chance to vote. I think faced with Ernie’s clearly stated commitment (and for other factors as well) both Joe and Steve saw the wisdom of a vote sooner rather than a vote later.
One thing that is well worth noting. The whole evening was conducted in a remarkably orderly, respectful and civil way. There were still differences of opinion, but other than a little bit of sparring between Joe and Sue over Sue’s well-practiced tendency to ask her questions in the form of a statement, the differences were aired in a very positive way, both by the Council members and by the audience.
Councilmember Greenwald argued that we ought to get the bids first to see what the project is going to cost and then set the rates.
“Firms will not bid on a $325 million project of two communities without knowing that the communities have the capacity to pay for the project,” Mayor Krovoza responded.
Wrong.Competitive bidding involves taking the project as proposed and returning with the lowest bid to effectively complete the task,period. Bids that are based upon what the capacity to pay(read willing to pay) will always approximate that number.
Watching the discussion last night was like watching someone’s teeth getting pulled… it was a difficult decision for all parties concerned. Is it an ideal solution? No, of course not. But the City Council had to come to some decision between the five of them that would pass with a majority vote. So there was a compromise.
Frankly, listening to the discussion, I didn’t get the feeling Council members Swanson, Wolk nor Greenwald were in agreement with each other on a lot of the issues. The only two that seemed to be on the same page were Mayor Krovoza and Council member Souza. That is perfectly understandable, since Krovoza and Souza are more intimately involved in the water issue. It also showed that at least the City Council is asking the right questions and looking at the issue critically.
However, make no mistake, this does “kick the can down the road”, and most likely will result in an increase in cost of the surface water project, if the voters do decide they want the project. Already we will have the increased cost of doing a water rate study (which I am squarely in favor of by the way – it will be interesting to see if the resultant rate schedule is markedly different than what was approved). But since it is the voters who have to pay for the surface water project, why shouldn’t they be able to decide by a vote if they want it? But if they do, expect water rates ramped up at a steeper rate bc of the delay…
“I think it will just worsen the already divisive and bitter debate on this issue. I’ve worked hard to find common ground on this and I believe that kind of politics belongs in the past,” he stated.
The Swanson-Wolk proposal, carried out diligently and conscientiously, with no deadlines but rather in-depth deconstruction of this project with conscientious consideration of alternatives,major efforts at on-going transparency and changes in the JPA and citizen advisory commission membership that adds credibility to this diligenct and conscientious effort on behalf of the Davis citizens is the best path to bringing all parties together about this project. One has to wonder what Krovoza and Souza are afraid will be unearthed if the Swanson-Wolk proposal would indeed be implemented and this project, for the first time, is fully and investigated and analyzed with full transparency. I agree with Councilperson Wolk here that this “compromise” which essentially cancels the surface water rate hikes(temporarily),offers vague rhetoric about pursuing options and ask the voters whether they want surface water without any more information as to the potential future impacts upon them. This “compromise” is the worst of both of the paths out of this morass. Let the initiative signature-gathering begin.
Davisite: No decision has been made on the initiative, both WOlk and Swanson made it clear it had to have real numbers. It would behoove people to wait to see what the council comes up with before putting a competing initiative on the ballot, I would think.
“both Joe and Steve saw the wisdom of a vote sooner rather than a vote later.”
Joe and Steve’s “wisdom” is to offer a vote with a plan that allows for the control of information and political narrative, right out of the political playbook when populist resistance threatens to challenge unpopular and undemocratic decisions.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”While I sympathize a bit with Sue Greenwald’s concerns about water monopolizing the June vote, that is precisely what the voters who signed the referendum petition were voting to do anyway.”[/i]
I agree David. The Budget and Water are the two big elephants in the room.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuDG1scNyJ4[/video]
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”Joe and Steve’s “wisdom” is to offer a vote with a plan that allows for the control of information and political narrative, right out of the political playbook when populist resistance threatens to challenge unpopular and undemocratic decisions.”[/i]
davisite, I am 100% sure that if the davis voting public feels that they are being forced to vote on an issue where the promised information has not been provided, then they will vote “No.” I am sure both Joe and Steve were aware of that.
To clarify, I said that we need to know the true cost of the project before we hold an election.
“both WOlk and Swanson made it clear it had to have real numbers.”
But these “real numbers” will remain highly speculative. The crunch factor in all of this is that no one on the Council, with the exception of Sue Greenwald ,wants to halt the progress of this project at this time until the highly speculative nature of the fiscal “facts” and potential alternatives are addressed. The needed information concerning this project cannot be adequately addressed in 6 months, actually much less since the facts must be available well before June for the results to accurately reflect the will of the voters.
“before putting a competing initiative on the ballot..”
A November 2012 initiative ballot measure may be a better choice as this June election Council initiative will probably not resolve the problem and only increase voter dissatisfaction with the Council’s handling of this.
[quote]The needed information concerning this project cannot be adequately addressed in 6 months, actually much less since the facts must be available well before June for the results to accurately reflect the will of the voters.[/quote]
I tend to agree with you. Far more than 9 months is needed to vet all the issues. However, there is no reason we cannot start collecting the funding now that would either pay for the current crumbling infrastructure or to build the surface water project. But to continue to allow Davisites to pay too little for water will come back to bite them in the end. To continually delay the inevitable will make it that much harder and the ramp up rate increases that much steeper in the future…
“But these “real numbers” will remain highly speculative. “
There’s no way around that. So you build in the best numbers you can come up with and adjust them later.
“A November 2012 initiative ballot measure may be a better choice as this June election Council initiative will probably not resolve the problem and only increase voter dissatisfaction with the Council’s handling of this. “
Nothing happened last night that would preclude that possibility.
I would have thought Sue would want this on the same ballot as the council election. i am surprised that she would prefer it not be on the same ballot.
Taking a much broader perspective,without disparaging the motives of our Council and staff, there is little reason to believe that part-time citizen politicians and Davis city staff with limited expertise in this area,relying on “expertise” from those who have personal self-interest, financial or otherwise, will be successful in protecting Davis’ vital interests. Like the CA energy deregulation fiasco when Enron and PG%E experienced negotiators licked their chops when they understood how they outmatched the State’s reps across the table,we may be well served by stepping back and considering Nancy Price’s excellent suggestion,made some blogs back, that Davis approach the non-profit public owned San Francisco water agency to see if their experts could offer both consultative expertise and the possibility of some sort of cooperation with a Davis public owned/run surface water system.
The Davis community has demonstrated good will in our effort to conform with water quality regulations. Obviously, the project is extremely complex and requires much more homework before Davis ratepayers are willing to pay for it. I believe the time has come to [i][b]apply for a variance[/b][/i] to avoid penalties. What we are doing is not “kicking the can down the road”. What we are doing is called due diligence.
“Ernie Head made it crystal clear at the end of Public Comment that he will not stop until the voters get a chance to vote. I think faced with Ernie’s clearly stated commitment (and for other factors as well) both Joe and Steve saw the wisdom of a vote sooner rather than a vote later.”
Unfortunately, what I think Mr. Head made crystal clear is that he will not stop at all. He said there would be a referendum, and then he said he would continue to put forward initiatives one after the other. This leads me to believe that perhaps Mr. Head’s intent is the same as that stated previously by Mr. Harrington, that he intends to stop at nothing to stop the surface water project. This would appear to be the case regardless of what “the voters” want.
A point that I did not hear brought forth in the public comment last night was that there are highly involved and committed community members on both sides of this issue. To hear many of the commenters you would have thought that only the referendum supporters were engaged and cared about the democratic process. What didn’t get mentioned in the comments of the woman who organized the paid signature gatherers was that “only 35% “
represents more than one of three signatures were obtained by a paid gatherer. This referendum would never have made the requisite number of signatures had there not been significant money behind this “grass roots” effort.
Neither side owns the high ground with regard to “democratic process” and neither side represents “the will of the voters” or the “will of the people”. This is nothing more than distraction and an attempt to portray one side as somehow more caring than the other. If people have spare money to spend influencing the democratic process, perhaps they could consider spending some of it helping to subsidize the people who will doubtless be affected by the increased rates, and even more so if these endless delay tactics end up costing the city more in the long run.
“I am sure both Joe and Steve were aware of that.”
Matt… The current “compromise” plan is a no-lose proposition for Joe and Steve’s position. They cancel the rate hike which would have been cancelled by the referendum vote anyway. This may make it more difficult to obtain a variance since Davis’ argument cannot now be that the citizens have rejected the rate hike. Now, what we have is the Council temporarily canceling the surface water rate hike while they now attempt to make the June initiative shaped as a simple question to the voters.. do you want surface water or not?… accompanied by rhetoric and half-baked analysis and figures put together on the fly in short order. We are learning quite a bit about our new mayor as he now repeatedly keeps saying that he hears the voice of the people but then just blithely goes ahead without any real evidence that this is the case. It is no surprise in Councilperson Souza’s case as his public record on the dais is replete with arrogance and dismissal of Davis voter’s desires.
As Dan Wolk pointed out, we have to city budget to worry about, and a parks tax to pass in June. Having the parks tax renewal and a water initiative on the same ballot would not be wise, IMHO. We absolutely need that parks tax renewal, and it could be a challenge as it is.
davisite2
” do you want surface water or not?… accompanied by rhetoric and half-baked analysis and figures put together on the fly in short order.”
Your commentary seems to be ignoring the fact that whether we want surface water or not is the core issue. The manner of obtaining it, whether or not it is done independently or collaboratively, over what period of time we proceed to obtain it , and how we structure the funding are vital, but secondary issues to whether or not we want it. At least some of the referendum supporters have stated their goal is to block the project. If they are asking the CC to “slow down” then how can their be an objection to posing the fundamental question of ” do we want surface water”?
As for ” figures put together on the fly in short order” if you are referring only to the rate structure, you have a case. If you are referring to options and alternatives regarding the need for surface water and the means of acquisition, I would hardly call 10 + years of investigation, analysis, and discussion ( both private and public) as ” in short order”.
davisite2
“We are learning quite a bit about our new mayor as he now repeatedly keeps saying that he hears the voice of the people but then just
blithely goes ahead without any real evidence that this is the case. “
Perhaps I am the only one that is irritated by the repetitive use of the term “vice of the people” from those who oppose the surface water project or who simply favor questioning its means, or who simply don’t want higher rates. There is no unified “voice of the people” in Davis over this issue. There are as in most issues in life, two opposing and strongly held points of view and I suspect a wide array of intermediate positions.
I for example, felt I was already adequately represented by the CC we had elected and the 218 process and did not favor the referendum which I see as a likely stalling tactic. Those who cite ” the voice of the people” actually mean the voice of the people who agree with them. So, the referendum process means that this component of our city will get another opportunity to be heard. Fair enough, that is how the system works.
But please, stop pretending that your favored position , represents ” the voice of the people” . There are many voices, and the mayor and the CC
Are charged with the responsibility of listening to all, and considering all. They are not charged with the duty to agree with a particular faction.
[quote]one of three signatures were obtained by a paid gatherer.
– medwoman[/quote]
With the very short 30-day limit for gathering signatures for a Prop 218 referendum, it would be crazy not to use paid gatherers. Every initiative uses them. But the wisdom of any petition group on a tight time limit forgoing the use of paid gatherers would be like showing up for a gunfight armed with a Swiss army knife.
One way to reduce the use of paid signature gatherers would be to eliminate tight time limits for gathering signatures for referendum petitions.
[quote]Those who cite ” the voice of the people” actually mean the voice of the people who agree with them. So, the referendum process means that this component of our city will get another opportunity to be heard. Fair enough, that is how the system works.
But please, stop pretending that your favored position , represents ” the voice of the people” . There are many voices, and the mayor and the CC
Are charged with the responsibility of listening to all, and considering all. They are not charged with the duty to agree with a particular faction.[/quote]
Extremely well said!