As we said on Saturday, both the Woodland Daily Democrat and Sacramento Bee came out with scathing editorials, giving it to Davis for the delay on the water project.
The Woodland Daily Democrat called it a “short-sighted view on water in Davis,” and argued, “A majority of the Davis City Council bowed to political expediency and decided to repeal a 14-percent increase in water rates approved only three months ago.”
They added, “It was a short-sighted decision by the Davis council which could easily come back to haunt it in years to come.” Moreover, they added, “A number of vociferous Davis residents objected to the rate hike and the expense…”
The Sacramento Bee made similar assumptions and mistakes about Davis, when they wrote, “Is Davis set to scuttle Woodland water deal?”
The Bee wrote, “The city of Davis faces a moment of reckoning: Does it want to back away from a water deal with Woodland that is vital to the future of both cities?”
Yesterday Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning joined in the criticism of the Sacramento Bee’s editorial, noting, “The Bee did fall for the city’s long-ago discredited ’14 percent’ rate hike figure in an editorial, blasting our esteemed council for rescinding the water rate increase in response to nearly 4,000 signatures on a referendum petition.”
As Mr. Dunning notes, “Had The Bee done its homework before coming across the river, it would have learned that even the city of Davis has now admitted the 14 percent figure was a work of pure fiction.”
He cites an op-ed from the City’s interim public works director Bob Clarke, who “issued an official mea culpa last month in the form of an Enterprise op-ed where he wrote, ‘References to rates rising an average of 14 percent per year were thus in error.’ “
Added Mr. Clarke: “As many people have correctly observed, the maximum rates shown in the Proposition 218 notice and adopted by the council represent more than a 14 percent increase for each year.”
“Good for Clarke for owning up to the obvious,” Mr. Dunning snipes, “too bad it took him so long to do so.”
Writes Mr. Dunning, “Simply put, while there were several rate increases of varying size depending on which ‘tier’ you find yourself in, the very lowest increase was from $1.50 per ccf to $1.90 per ccf in year one … I’ve done the math on that increase at least 100 times and every time I do, it comes up to 26.67 percent … but I did that one in my head with the assistance of my daughter, the third-grade math whiz, and maybe The Bee has more sophisticated calculators that can chop that rate down to 14 percent to fit their editorial argument …”
Mr. Dunning notes that the rates range from 26.67% to 64%.
The Bee editorial noted, “Under Proposition 218, it appears the city will be forced to hold a June election on the rate increase.”
As Mr. Dunning correctly notes, there is no such Prop 218 requirement to do that and, moreover, by rescinding the rate hikes, the council also took the referendum off the table.
Instead, “What the council actually did is to voluntarily agree to put this whole project to a vote of the people, presumably because all those signatures on petitions convinced a majority of council members that pumping Sacramento River water into Davis faucets might not be something the citizens of this town wish to pay for … Proposition 218 didn’t ‘force’ anything … in fact, it had absolutely nothing to do with the council’s action …”
Notes Mr. Dunning, “Democracy can be a messy business and it sometimes produces disastrous results… but it’s the best system we’ve been able to come up with … I mean, if you can’t trust the people, then by default you have to trust the politicians …”
I cannot emphasize this point enough. Where the Sacramento Bee, Woodland Daily Democrat, Woodland City Council and Supervisor Matt Rexroad all get this wrong is that the city council screwed up, not the citizens of Davis. And the citizens of Davis, at least 3800 of them, called them on it.
The rates upon which this was based were phony. The council and papers said it was a 14% rate increase. It was not. It was nearly 27%, at the lowest.
As the dictionary defines rate, it is “the cost per unit of a commodity or service.”
The water rate is not the bill, it is the cost per unit cost. The cost per unit cost, at the lowest level of usage, goes up from $1.50 per unit to a $1.90 per unit. The city wanted to claim that because the bill, if the person conserves 20%, will only be 14% higher, that that means there is only a 14% rate increase. That was a falsehood.
The idea that the average cost or bill would only go up by 14% is ridiculous and has no basis. That is why, in order to go forward, we need an actual rate study which will properly set the rate and assess the impact.
And that is the bottom line.
“I can’t support a rate going [up] that doesn’t have a rate study behind it,” Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson 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.”
That is the bottom line – the rate structure was untenable because it was fraudulent and needed to be fixed. Until someone’s comment from out of town addresses this point, I’m not going to give it any credence.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Fraudulent?
That’s a bit of a stretch David. Where was there a single fraudulent statement made (ideally in writing, but lets include verbally) by a Council member about the rates?
Dunning is beating a dead horse IMHO, and so are you.
The next chapter of the book is being written as we all speak. Hopefully we will get this one right.
Will the water advisory committee mtgs be televised?
Matt: good luck. The same people who gave us the false rates are the ones who will be feeding data to the water committee
“. I mean, if you can’t trust the people, then by default you have to trust the politicians …”
This philosophy completely disregards the fact that “the politicians” are selected democratically by these supposedly infallible voters who rise up when they do not like what their democratically chosen leaders are doing. This constant back and forth of election and obstruction is, in my opinion, largely responsible for the failure of our communities, state, country to actually accomplish much. We’ both politicians and private citizens, have become so entrenched in our own positions that we see our side “winning” as the primary goal, not what might actually be best for the community. A few current examples local and broader, from both sides:
1) Mr. Harrington’s unwillingness to come forth with any constructive discussion, information or facts, but willingness to publicly make charges and accusations and threaten endless roadblocks until his side has won
2) Teachers unions for years blocking attempts to adopt any evidence based standard of performance
3) Republican leadership essentially disregarding the fact that President Obama did democratically win the election, and stating that their top priority was, not to move the country forward, but to defeat him. Talk about “not trusting the voters”! Has their ever been a more blatant example?
Oops, yes I guess there was when a Supreme Court decision was necessary to decide the presidential election.
Medwoman: what is so hard to understand about: the same water consultants and/or City Staff and/or JPA Staff made this CC look terrible on September 6. At least publically, so far, there has been no accountability. The same people who set up the CC and the public with this mess are still there, assisting the WAC.
I am sorry, but until there is an independent study of the ground water system’s fiscal and technical feasibility for the long term, the band aid approach by the CC and the WAC, all fed data and analysis and recommendations by the same people who set this debacle up in the first place, I really dont have much else to say, other than the referendum committee and its many supporters will continue to monitor the situation and do our work as needed. Best, and Happy Holidays to all!
Matt: I think this is a dead horse at all. The key question going forward is what is going to be the rates. In order to get them right, we have to understand what went wrong previously.
This is what Bob Clarke wrote on November 3:
“The confusion and the misperception that the city has been less than forthcoming stems from the way in which the rate increase was characterized in staff reports. While staff attempted to point out in our reports and at our dozens of communitywide and interest group meetings all the factors impacting the rates, we didn’t do a very good job of differentiating clearly among the actual rate increase, the increase in customer water bills and the total increase in revenue.
The overall amount an individual household’s bill will change varies based on usage. As many people have correctly observed, the maximum rates shown in the Proposition 218 notice and adopted by the council represent more than a 14 percent increase for each year (14 percent was cited in a staff report as being the average annual rate increase for single-family residential users). “
The problem with 14% as the average rate increase, except for one problem – there is no basis for that assertion. Moreover, it is not a rate increase, it’s bill increase.
Rochelle is a bit more equitable than I am and chose to use the term “untenable” but I think there is was an effort to minimize the rate increase.
Does that matter? Yes. It matters in understanding why 3800 people signed the petition, it matters in understanding Rochelle and dan’s actions, and it matters going forward in the amount of trust the council will engender on this product.
From the outside, it looks like you can trust this council to bend with the wind of popular opinion, science and facts be damned .
Biddlin: What real choice did they have? Face referendum? Initiative? recall? Moreover it’s not like there were not problems with the rate structure going forward. How should they have corrected these problems in your opinion?
Michael Harrington
” what is so hard to understand about: the same water consultants and/or City Staff and/or JPA Staff made this CC look terrible on September 6. At least publically, so far, there has been no accountability. The same people who set up the CC and the public with this mess are still there, assisting the WAC.
There is nothing at all hard to understand about this.
What is hard to understand is:
1) Since you have no trust in the city leadership, why would you trust them to design, build, and run a project independently
2) Who would you propose conduct an “independent study”? Would it only be considered “independent if you approved of the groups composition ?
3) At what point would you, and Mr. Head, and any others involved, say ok, we agree that the majority of Davis citizens want this project to go forward and will stop obstructionist activities. I think the voters deserve transparency from both sides of this issue.
“Fraudulent” is too simple a description to describe the totally inept(one would think that a more difficult lie to uncover would be generated from our high-priced city staff) attempt to regain control of the surface water project narrative that was spinning out of the control of those who had been so diligent for the past decade in pushing this project forward under the political radar of the Davis voters to a point where they believed it would be unstoppable. The leadership of city staff and Public Works Dept. did not resist this Saylor Council Majority plan and became their accomplices. Now, Saylor, Emlen and Weir are gone and the new Council, City Manager and Public Works Dept director have their work cut out for them in regaining the trust of the voters. Regaining this trust and their credibility on this issue will take a lot longer than the few months that they appear now willing to give this effort.
Davisute2. Amen. You nailed it.
David: the surface water project problems are much much deeper than botched rates.
[quote]…have become so entrenched in our own positions that we see our side “winning” as the primary goal, not what might actually be best for the community.[/quote]
Medwoman, thank you for your thoughtful and insightful post. This has indeed become a battle of egos and wills, not issues. Harrington et al do have some legitimate complaints about the city fogging the cost and rates, but in their desire to punish the city by defeating the project, what will they have won? I suppose the city would be able to limp along for some years on the wells, and maybe Sue is correct that the water rights will still be available. Maybe our friends in Woodland will fund a project big enough for us to tap into a decade or so down the road, but I don’t think I’d count much on that one. What then?
As I said in an earlier post, I see the real issue as being “No one asked me what I thought. I didn’t get to vote on this.” We live in a town where a lot of folks want to govern, but don’t want to go through the work of running for office and willing. This combination of time, ego, and money is fairly common in university towns; I saw it in Berkeley when I lived there. Things will work out. Or not.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt: I think this is a dead horse at all. The key question going forward is what is going to be the rates. In order to get them right, we have to understand what went wrong previously.”[/i]
David, I respectfully disagree. IMHO the key question going forward is what the costs to run the water/wastewater integrated system are going to be. The revenue that needs to be generated by a rate structure will be determined by those costs.
In order to properly determine the costs, the WAC will have to look at possible alternatives. However, before even looking at any alternatives, I believe the WAC needs to start by defining the water/wastewater issues our community faces, and in the process begin building a community consensus that those are the issues we face and we that actually need to do something about them. Here’s my take (with the help of others) on a draft of just such an issues statement.
[i][b]The City of Davis Water/Wastewater system is facing challenges in meeting the present and future water quality and water supply needs of its customers. In this first draft (for community discussion), we believe those challenges are:
1) Providing a reliable water supply to meet existing and forecasted future needs.
2) Improving the quality of water dispensed from the “inside” water fixtures inside each customer location, including, but not limited to drinking water.
3) Improve the quality of treated wastewater effluent discharged by the City of Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant to meet the current and anticipated future requirements of any and all discharge regulations and/or operating permits, including, but not limited to requirements associated with public health and environmental responsibility.
4) Address the above three issues with a maximum of fiscal responsibility.[/b][/i]
Thoughts?
The city council might as well ignore Michael and his supporters such as davisite, since they will not be satisfied with any analysis or study or commission which doesn’t block the surface water project for many years, if not entirely. [i]All [/i]of the council members support going forward with the surface water project. Four of them are on record as strongly supporting going forward on it as soon as possible.
The one-year rate delay is not intended to dramatically change the surface water project. Rochelle stated as she introduce her motion that she strongly favors the surface water option. Her concern, reviewed in detail at the meeting, was whether delaying by a year would get the project off track and increase costs. Satisfied that it wouldn’t, she and Dan went forward with their proposal.
The commission they have appointed is not intended to review the basic assumptions of the surface water project, it is intended to determine the management structure (public v private) and seek to reduce costs wherever possible.
Staff is directed to return with another rate proposal. The [i]only[/i] thing they can do that will be politically palatable will be to spread the necessary rate increase over a longer period. For example, they could return with an actual 14% rate increase. They will have to build in different assumptions about conservation (there would be less with lower rates). So they can calculate for the council how long it will take lower rates to pay for the project: obviously it will take longer to pay for the project. This is essentially a political calculation, not an engineering one. None of this requires more than a few months. The only thing that would require longer would be a complete abandonment of the surface water project and an attempt to cobble together some other solution.
David, coming up with a rate [u]structure[/u] that is “fair” can be done in a parallel track by the WAC while they explore the alternatives and their costs in the other “track.”
A fair and workable rate structure will match fixed costs to fixed revenues and variable costs to variable revenues so that the effect of water conservation will be comparable in both revenues and costs.
A fair and workable rate structure will adjust for factors such as number of residents in the household.
A fair and workable rate structure will provide opportunities for residents of Davis to increase their water conservation without economic penalty.
A fair and workable rate structure will provide opportunities for providing help to families in need.
[quote]Will the water advisory committee mtgs be televised?[/quote]
No. The WAC is meeting in the Davis Senior Center where there are no cameras. Televising the meeting was discussed, but the WAC members didn’t care to be on camera. Not surprising, since many people are self-conscious about that sort of thing…
So far, it seems they’ve got a referendum and initiative(s) ahead . What I would wish,as I do with KJ and the CMs here in Sac, is that after study and reflection, based on legal requirements and scientific evidence, they would have the backbone to lead . Despite Sue Greenwald’s optimism regarding special dispensation from regulators and the adequacy of the well system, virtually all of the experts who will be named agree that the water project must go forward . The council was remiss in not educating the citizenry about the necessity and the rate increases . That opened the door for the political soap opera still being played out . This “exercise in democracy” as some have characterized it will only increase the cost and delay the inevitable .
[quote]The commission they have appointed is not intended to review the basic assumptions of the surface water project, it is intended to assess the management structure (public v private) and seek to reduce costs wherever possible. [/quote]
As it turns out, the WAC can look at pretty much everything, including all underlying assumptions about this project…
Denying Councilperson Greenwald a seat on the JPA board speaks volumes to the cynical calculation that was made to keep strict control over the surface water project narrative as she would have brought knowledge, experience and skeptical critical thinking skills to the monolithic surface water project story line.
[quote]David: the surface water project problems are much much deeper than botched rates.[/quote]
Let’s get down to the nitty gritty of your “position” if you really have one: What is your stated position on the surface water project? Under what circumstances would you support it, if ever?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”David: the surface water project problems are much much deeper than botched rates.”[/i]
Actually Michael, I agree with your statement. However, you didn’t go far enough. the groundwater problems are much deeper as well.
Bottom-line, the Water Advisory Committee and the citizens of Davis need to become intimately familiar with the four available alternatives for dealing with Water/Wastewater.
1) — We can choose to change our water sources by proceeding with the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) project. With better source water we would then be able to proceed with a Wastewater Treatment plant upgrade approach that capitalizes on the significantly reduced levels of certain components that exist in our current groundwater (sourced from wells).
2) — We can choose to change our water sources by choosing not to proceed with the WDCWA project, and then proceed with a well head treatment approach that removes the significantly elevated levels of certain components that exist in our current well water at each of the 21 individual wells. With better source water we would then be able to proceed with a Wastewater Treatment plant upgrade approach that capitalizes on the significantly reduced levels of certain components that exist in our current untreated groundwater (sourced from wells). This second alternative will have several possible tactical approaches to choose from.
3) — We can choose not to change our water sources (not to proceed with the WDCWA project), and then proceed with a significantly more expensive Wastewater Treatment plant upgrade approach that must address the significantly elevated levels of certain components that exist in our current well water. This third alternative will have several possible tactical approaches to choose from.
4) — We can choose to change our water sources by pursuing a solution that will take advantage of either water swapping opportunities for Clear Lake or Lake Berryessa water, or working with Solano Water District as an alternative source for water.
These four options each have different Capital requirements. Contrary to Michael Harrington’s assertions to the contrary, I believe solid data is available from independent sources that the Water Advisory Committee can access to both A) help them in their decision process and B) educate the Davis residents.
[quote] It matters in understanding why 3800 people signed the petition, it matters in understanding Rochelle and dan’s actions, and it matters going forward in the amount of trust the council will engender on this product.[/quote]
Do you concede at all that a lot of “misinformation”/spiteful vitriol was put out there by some opponents of this project that was also responsible for poisoning the well, and may have had something to do with people signing the petition for a referendum? I have been told by some who signed the petition had they known what some opponents had told them was not true, they never would have signed…
@Davisite writes “[b]Denying Councilperson Greenwald [/b]a seat on the JPA board speaks volumes to the cynical calculation that was made to keep strict control over the surface water project narrative as she would have brought knowledge, experience and skeptical critical thinking skills to the monolithic surface water project story line. “
@Davisite the problem with that statement is that it’s impossible to seaprate Sue Greenwald the personality from Sue Greenwald the position. The reason they didn’t put her on the JPA is no one in this county wants to deal with Sue Greenwald the person. Talk to any of them in private and they’ll say the same. Sue Greenwald’s personality defeats her own effectiveness. The best you’re going to get is a push to put Rochelle or Dan in her place. I’m sorry that’s just reality.
Elaine: No I don’t concede that because I believe most people signed it because of the rates and I think few people could even tell you what Mike Harrington said let alone agree with it.
Matt: I urge you to remove (4) from even being considered, as there is not sufficient water available that way from any source that I am aware of, that could be considered long-term. “… working with Solano Water District as an alternative source of water” is not even remotely possible for the amount of water Davis needs.
I’m not sure why you would bother to list (2) either, unless you just want to explain how much more expensive it is and what the associated environmental problems are. That’s been done.
Ditto for (3) as to costs.
I think listing unfeasible options may give false hope to the opponents of the surface water project who read this blog.
It’s worth repeating: independent experts who have no stake in the outcome reviewed the options, and came to the conclusion that the surface water project is the way to go. There is no expert who has publicly supported any other option.
The fact is, this whole project has been studied in great detail.
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/independentwaterprojectreview.pdf[/url]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/Summaryofwateralternatives.pdf[/url]
“The only thing that would require longer would be a complete abandonment of the surface water project and an attempt to cobble together some other solution.”
Not so…. a variance could be sought to POSTPONE the surface water project. IMO, , after all of the political contortions have been tried, both the US and EU will be turning on the printing presses,in the next 2-3 years, to get their economies going. Federal and State monies will begin to flow to infrastructure projects. This is not the time for Davis voters to commit to taking on themselves the commitment to paying off the bonds that will be necessary to cover the cost of this project.
Elaine and David, does it really matter how and why the signatures happened? We all need to simply accept the fact that they happened and move forward toward an informed solution. I see the rates debacle and the signature gathering as “sunk costs.” They are input data to the process going forward, but they definitely do not define the process . . . unless we let them do so.
davisite, to whom would you direct your variance application, and what would your proposed variance be seeking a variance from?
Don, for someone like you, who is fully informed, alternative 4 may seem untenable, but for the typical Davis voter it is important to feel that the alternatives were not so narrowly defined as to guarantee that there is only one answer. That alternative was proposed by a very well respected water professional, and if it is indeed untenable that will come out in the WAC’s process pretty quickly IMHO.
Don can you edit my post above to put a blank line between 2) and 3) as well as between 3) and 4). That will make for easier reading.
@ Matt: from the text of the resolution as reported by the Davis Enterprise:
“— 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;”
[quote]Elaine: No I don’t concede that because I believe most people signed it because of the rates and I think few people could even tell you what Mike Harrington said let alone agree with it.[/quote]
So you will not concede that misinformation by the opposition was put out there? That flies in the face of reality and the anecdotal evidence I heard…
To Matt Williams: The only reason this issue is important is bc I suspect we are going to get more of the same misinformation/vitriol if the WAC comes up with anything that disagrees with the opponents view of things. Citizens need to be aware that misinformation can happen on both sides of an issue, no matter how well intentioned either side is/both sides may be…
“So you will not concede that misinformation by the opposition was put out there? “
I feel that you intentionally attempt to twist and distort my words. I’m not sure why you do this. What I said, was that I do not concede this as a cause for people’s signature. I also do not believe that information was intentionally put out there that was misinformation.
[i]”I also do not believe that information was intentionally put out there that was misinformation.”[/i]
You can’t be serious.
What information was put out that there that you can prove was intentionally misleading?
Verbatim:
•We just found out that our partner in the project, Woodland, has been hiding its fiscal commitment from the voters
•Now it has morphed into a deal with just Woodland, and their finances are extremely shaky.
•If Woodland voters turn down their share, Davis will be stuck with all of it.
•The Davis CC hid from us the fact that its partner, Woodland, was duping the voters to get their share of this project.
•Those wells will “suddenly” be viable again after the surface plant is done, and guess what? 68,000 plus 85,000 equals 153,000.
• The surface water plant is one of the cleverest strategies I have ever seen: soak the rate payers so the potable water is available for the elitist dream town of 150,000 and for the upzoning of the land around Davis and Woodland.
•I am sure there was a discussion amongst a few elites about 15 years ago, and the surface water system was the chosen way to make sure that Davis had the water for a much larger population while enriching the border land owners.
•the City CC, staff, and others can be very punitive withough being overt about it.
•I also will point out that the very people who have been pushing surface water or bust for 15 years are the ones who designed, set up, conducted, and interpreted the studies that have been done that are allegedly supportive of surface water being the only viable option.
•My take on it is the water interests are alrady spending to oppose the referendum via various hidden channels using community members.
•No more interference by Woodland Councilmembers Marbles and Dotes in our Davis water supply system!
•Tskapolous will have his hand on the spigot that controls the amount of water flowing through the surface water pipeline.
Don: I think you are mistaking opinions that you disagree with, with intentionally misleading voters.
David, respectfully, the line of demarcation is at best very thin.
However, talking about signature gathering tactics isn’t going to move us forward toward community engagement and community awareness. I say put those very grey details in the past and focus on getting good information shared so that the WAC can do its job and the voters in Davis can feel comfortable with the information the WAC is processing and digesting.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”To Matt Williams: The only reason this issue is important is bc I suspect we are going to get more of the same misinformation/vitriol if the WAC comes up with anything that disagrees with the opponents view of things. Citizens need to be aware that misinformation can happen on both sides of an issue, no matter how well intentioned either side is/both sides may be…”[/i]
Elaine, I 100% agree with you that the voters of Davis are going to be exposed to the same kind of misinformation/vitriol. The only way that that won’t happen is if this suddenly stopped being a political issue, but that is impossible, because for some water isn’t and issue in and of itself, it is indeed only a political proxy for “no growth”.
Woodland was hiding its financial condition? Davis would be stuck with the whole project? The wells will suddenly be viable? There is a secret plan to build Davis to 153,000? Water interests are spending via hidden channels?
David, those aren’t “opinions that I disagree with.” I can charitably call them distortions. Some are provably false. If that is what people were willing to sign their names to, imagine what they were saying to prospective voters when they were tabling.
Don: The distinction you are not making here is between something that turns out to be inaccurate and something that is knowingly told that is inaccurate. There was a real sense that Woodland was hiding its financial condition and a fear that Davis might be stuck with the whole project.
I don’t think there’s a secret plan to build Davis to 153,000 but I think there are those who see the water project as a way to facilitate growth and I certainly think there are water interests pushing this project.
[quote]Woodland was hiding its financial condition? Davis would be stuck with the whole project? The wells will suddenly be viable? There is a secret plan to build Davis to 153,000? Water interests are spending via hidden channels?
David, those aren’t “opinions that I disagree with.” I can charitably call them distortions. Some are provably false. If that is what people were willing to sign their names to, imagine what they were saying to prospective voters when they were tabling.[/quote]
Having had a long conversation with a paid signature gather, I can tell you that these things were indeed said in an effort to obtain my signature. Considering that the signature gatherer wasn’t from Davis, he had to of been told by his employer (the secrete committee to confirm my voter rights – Mike Harrignton and unnamed company) to repeat these morsels of misinformation.
Don: I stand by my comments.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”I stand by my comments.”[/i]
Michael, if you didn’t stand behind your comments, what would that make you?
Matt: the same people (or group think mentality) who are pushing the surface water plant are the ones who wanted to widen the Richards Undercrossing, who wanted to defeat Measure J, who wanted Covell Village left in the 2010 General Plan, who supported Measure X for approval of Covell Village for urban development. Each and every time, the mantra was “the sky will fall if we dont approve this new project or development RIGHT NOW”. SO what’s new? Nothing. Same old, same old.
Sorry, but the “same old, same old” who gave us and the hapless City Council the debacle of September 6 are the ones supporting and feeding the WAC.
You and your colleagues do what you will; we will monitor or participate as we see fit, and act accordingly as needed.
Far too broad a brush stroke Michael. Do you always prejudge issues based on the people rather than the data/facts?
You love to stoke the fires of passion. Have you ever tried to [u]dispassionately[/u] approach each issue presented to you with your head rather than your heart? Try it some time. it might surprise you.
“…are the ones who wanted to widen the Richards Undercrossing”
Remember the “death trap” scenerios that would be inevitable if the Richards underpass was not widened to allow semis to go directly downtown form 80 and would have led to widening the streets immediately downtown exiting the underpass? How many years now without incident that they foretold? The strange widening of the 80 entrance to the Richard’s underpass is a monument to Caltran believing that the Davis voters would “buy” the scare tactics launched by then mayor Wolk’s political cadres.
I support the water project.
I opposed the widening of Richards.
I opposed Covell Village.
I support Measure J.
… and I opposed Wildhorse Ranch.
[quote]Mike Harrington: “Matt: the same people (or group think mentality) who are pushing the surface water plant are the ones who wanted to widen the Richards Undercrossing”[/quote]
Huh? I’m sure that you also think that these same people are responsible for global warming, 9/11, the Vietnam War and the death of Jesus. Again and again your statements prove that you don’t understand the project or public finance. If you did, you would answer the questions repeatedly posed. Who would be “independent” enough to evaluate the current system? Why would you push for City owned and run on one hand and state that City employees are incompetent? and more. C’mon, Mike. Answer the questions. Otherwise, everyone will just start ignoring you as you have nothing to contribute.
I think davisite2 and Mike Harrington are the same people posting under different names.
Here’s a suggestion. Developers are just waiting for the market to change to develop a Winters-size residential development project that has been approved by the Woodland Council. If,as I am surmising, these developers cannot build without the water supplied by the surface water project, how about Woodland building the surface water project and assessing the developers directly for a good deal of the cost of bringing surface water to Woodland since their property would be worthless for residential development without it. Davis could then do what UCD is doing, join the project later, negotiating payment for water they would need at the point when new Davis development begins and we can assess our developers in the same fashion.
Not sure you are trying to be funny or serious, but davisite2 and Mike Harrington are two different people.
I support solving our water/wastewater issues (best solution to be determined).
The widening of Richards came before my time, but if it came up today I would oppose it.
Covell Village came before my awareness of Davis Land Use politics, and untill Davis creates a whole lot more jobs its 1.02 Jobs to Housing Ratio is wel below the 1.5 that a sustainable, healthy city of Davis’ size should have. Said another way, jobs before housing.
I support Measure J.
… and I initially supported Wildhorse Ranch for its energy innovation, but cooled on it when the number of unanswered questions slowly grew.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Not sure you are trying to be funny or serious, but davisite2 and Mike Harrington are two different people.”[/i]
I am 100% sure I have spoken to each of them in person, and agree with David they are indeed different people.
@ davisite: we need the surface water long before any major development is likely to come to Davis. With the possible exception of the cannery site, which will require a water source regardless of whether it goes residential or commercial.
And “assess” [i]what[/i] developers? The surface water project for Davis has nothing to do with any future residential development. Is there some large development proposal you’re aware of for Davis?
And, just out of curiosity, what is this “Winters-size project” Woodland has approved?
“[i]…join the project later…”[/i]
Are you assuming Woodland would build sufficient intake capacity for Davis to connect? Would we buy the water from Woodland? Would be build parallel intake and separate facilities?
” what is this “Winters-size project” Woodland has approved?”
…calling it an approved development project may not have been quite accurate. Going back to the 04’Covell Village campaign, a large Woodland area north of Davis ,in which the Silverlake development was being built,had been approved for residential development and when built out was described as being the size of Winters.
Oh, I see. You’re referring to Spring Lake, I think. The plan was approved in 2001. They were able to verify the water source for that. I think it’s about half built, but it’s definitely behind schedule.
[url]http://www.cityofwoodland.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=10054[/url]
By the way, the soils and drainage there are terrible.
David, I appreciate the discussion of rates.
It is going to be difficult to tweak the rates when the total cost is so high. I was examining a spread sheet on Monday which showed our total water fund revenue projections by year. These are the revenues that the water fund needs in order to pay for our water costs.
The total water fund revenues in FY 2010/20ll were $9,583,557. The total revenues in 8 years, i.e., FY 2018/2019, are projected to be $38,822.
These are all draft figures, and I have not been able to get detailed answers as to what these figures reflect, but it is reasonable to assume that the FY 2010/2011 figures were are actual revenues from rates, and that $38,822 represents the revenues that need to be collected seven years from now. If so, then it represents a need to increase rates fourfold.
If rates are increased about fourfold, it will be hard to tweak the rates to be “fair”. The average rate will have to be quadrupled over today’s rates. Today, seniors get a break due to variable rates while large families pay more. If, for example, we try to keep the bills of families from quadrupling from today’s rates, then the rates for seniors will more than quadruple – significantly more.
I don’t see any cost savings that we could reap (aside from the very important debt service costs)other than postponing the project’s completion, that will significantly change this picture.
I have spent yearssounding the alarm and trying to get total project costs down. I was instrumental in decreasing the cost of the total water/wastewater project by 25% by convincing the council to hire the right people to review the wastewater treatment plant design, but there are no comparable savings left to be achieved as far as I have been able to tell.
I have talked with top engineers, and the biggest savings so far that I have been able to identify would involve decreasing the size of the surface water treatment plant, but this would probably save only about 15 or 20 million out of our $300 million in new total capital improvement and acquisition costs, which in turn are only one component of the rates, so this type of cost containment would only decrease rates by about 3% or 4%.
I hope that the advisory committee can clarify what the total increase is going to be, and give people in various groups from large families to seniors on fixed incomes a sense of whether their bills will be doubling, tripling, quadrupling or sextupling.
Well said Sue.
So if woodland qualifies a referendum. Will our entire CC caravan up there and speak as a group?
All those poor and middle income voters in woodland might wake up ?
Would that be the water consultants’ “nightmare on Court Street”?
Extereme riches gone? What a shock they had in Davis. Time for Woodland?
If the June vote offers a rate hike that is approved by the voters, even with the provision included to “seek” a variance to postpone the need for the surface water project, it is hard to see how voter acceptance of a proposed rate hike on the June ballot does not completely undermine the variance argument that to meet the proposed standards now would be fiscally untenable for Davis voters. This was the gist of an opinion offered by interim PW director Clark in what may prove to be one of his last independent and candid statements.
So your suggestion is that the rate hike not be put before the voters until after a variance has been sought? Also, I don’t think the June vote was intended to be on the rate hike, I think Mayor Krovoza intended it to be on the water project itself.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”If the June vote offers a rate hike that is approved by the voters, even with the provision included to “seek” a variance to postpone the need for the surface water project, it is hard to see how voter acceptance of a proposed rate hike on the June ballot does not completely undermine the variance argument that to meet the proposed standards now would be fiscally untenable for Davis voters. This was the gist of an opinion offered by interim PW director Clark in what may prove to be one of his last independent and candid statements.”[/i]
davisie, what exactly are you seeking a variance from? What constituents? In what time frame?
Correction:
Someone pointed out that I left out a few zeroes on one of the numbers, so here is the corrected segment:
[quote]It is going to be difficult to tweak the rates when the total cost is so high. I was examining a spread sheet on Monday which showed our total water fund revenue projections by year. These are the revenues that the water fund needs in order to pay for our water costs.
The total water fund revenues in FY 2010/20ll were $9,583,557. The total revenues in 8 years, i.e., FY 2018/2019, are projected to be $38,822,000.
These are all draft figures, and I have not been able to get detailed answers as to what these figures reflect, but it is reasonable to assume that the FY 2010/2011 figures were are actual revenues from rates, and that $38,822,000 represents the revenues that need to be collected seven years from now. If so, then it represents a need to increase rates fourfold. [/quote]
David: “[i]I also do not believe that information was intentionally put out there that was misinformation.”
“What information was put out that there that you can prove was intentionally misleading?”
“Don: I think you are mistaking opinions that you disagree with, with intentionally misleading voters. [/i]”
David, If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it probably isn’t a turkey.
It is well past time for you to be honest, with yourself if not with your readers.
“Not so…. a variance could be sought to POSTPONE the surface water project. IMO, , after all of the political contortions have been tried, both the US and EU will be turning on the printing presses,in the next 2-3 years, to get their economies going. Federal and State monies will begin to flow to infrastructure projects. This is not the time for Davis voters to commit to taking on themselves the commitment to paying off the bonds that will be necessary to cover the cost of this project.”
davisite2 is on to something here. There are any number of scenerios that might come to pass to save our bacon on this water thing. UCD scientists might breed a cow that produces clean water instead of milk. We receive a visit from Martians gifting us some as yet unknown, free water purification technology. These are but 3, including davisite2’s scenario, of a limitless number of scenarios that we can bank our future on. Of course, we still have all of Harrington’s scenarios to bank on, but we’ll have to wait for the trial to hear them because Harrington’s won’t reveal them on a blog of all places. Including Harrington’s scenarios, that’s more than a limitless number. Math isn’t my strong suit, nevertheless, I’m sure that’s a pretty big number of scenarios. Worse case scenario, we do as Sue says, wait 16 years and get the surface water project for free.
DT Businessman aka Michael Bisch
“I also do not believe that information was intentionally put out there that was misinformation.”
I think David is on to something here. The project opponents were not intentionally misleading the community, rather, they were misguided, the paid signature gatheres in particular, and their boss, and David, and Bob, and Sue. I for one fully support misguided public opinion makers and community leaders.
DT Businessman aka Michael Bisch
“Here’s a suggestion. Developers are just waiting for the market to change to develop a Winters-size residential development project that has been approved by the Woodland Council.”
I agree with davisite2 and Harrington on most things, but I think they got this one wrong. I’m not suggesting that they’re intentionally misleading the community in stating that the surface water project is being pushed by developers. No way. They’re merely misguided, which, as I stated earlier, is why I support them. I have it from multiple sources, I can’t say who they are, but they’re reliable, indeed, they’re the same sources that Sue refers to, that the project is being pushed by Yolo County farmers. They’ve got it figured out that if the water rates are increased 14% p.a., er, I mean 28%, shoot, I’m not real clear on whatever the hell the cooked-up number is that Public Works intentionally lied about, Davis and Woodland residents will be forced out of their homes and move to other CA counties where the water is much cheaper. See, those conniving farmers want our urban land for row crops, or nuts, I can’t remember which. I kid you not. That’s the scheme. Worse yet, the environmentalist are in on it with them. That’s how we’re going to get to carbon neutrality. Jacques de Bra is a Mitch Sears puppet.
DT Businessman aka Michael Bisch
“I think Mayor Krovoza intended it to be on the water project itself.”
IMO, Mayor Krovoza’s “intention” was/is to regain control of the project narrative by offering a citizen vote on this project in a time frame that permits little opportunity for challenges to the again revised rate hike or careful examination by the already “stacked” WAC. The important other portions of the Swanson-Wolk proposal also have been sidelined by time constraints even if they are given rhetorical support in the wording of the ballot measure. As I noted before, the Council withdrawing the current rate hike eliminates the “strength” of the argument in favor of variance approval to delay implementation of Davis penalties with regard to its water supply,i.e., that it would have been a citizen vote that rejected the rate hikes, not a political temporizing action of the Council.
[quote]David, If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it probably isn’t a turkey.
It is well past time for you to be honest, with yourself if not with your readers. [/quote]
Well said!
[quote]IMO, Mayor Krovoza’s “intention” was/is to regain control of the project narrative by offering a citizen vote on this project in a time frame that permits little opportunity for challenges to the again revised rate hike or careful examination by the already “stacked” WAC. The important other portions of the Swanson-Wolk proposal also have been sidelined by time constraints even if they are given rhetorical support in the wording of the ballot measure. As I noted before, the Council withdrawing the current rate hike eliminates the “strength” of the argument in favor of variance approval to delay implementation of Davis penalties with regard to its water supply,i.e., that it would have been a citizen vote that rejected the rate hikes, not a political temporizing action of the Council.[/quote]
Instead of casting aspersions and theorizing what might happen or what people’s motives are, why don’t you wait and see how things play out. You may be pleasantly surprised – unless you have taken a firm and fast position and the facts be d_mned…
[quote]I think David is on to something here. The project opponents were not intentionally misleading the community, rather, they were misguided, the paid signature gatheres in particular, and their boss, and David, and Bob, and Sue. — [b]DT Businessman, AKA Michael Bisch, President of the DDBA[/b][/quote]Michael Bisch, this is disgraceful slander (and illiterate slander at that). I had nothing to do with the referendum.
Sue, as an illiterate, I’m not picking up on what part of my poor sentence structure led you to believe that you had anything to do with the referendum. I wrote that you were a misguided project opponent. As I stated previously, I think that’s an admirable quality, which is why I and others support you. And you’ve reaffirmed it with your post just now. Who else but a misguided politician would accuse their strongest supporters of slander? If that’s not misguided, I don’t know what is, which as I’ve said, I find very compelling.
While I support you as a compelling misguided politician, I think it unlikely that the DDBA shares that view. You might consider refraining from adding “President of the DDBA” to the end of my quotes when I take positions contrary to those of the DDBA. Besides we supporters of compelling misguided politicians would be put-off by a DDBA endorsement anyway. It hurts your cause to bring the DDBA into this type of discussion. Ah, yes, I see what you’re doing. You’re exhibiting more misguidedness. Clever!
DT Businessman aka Michael Bisch
@DT Businessman AKA Michael Bisch
I had nothing to do with the referendum, so please refrain from saying that I did.
Sue, he didn’t say you had anything to do with the referendum. He said you were a project opponent.
DT Businessman
We seem to have fallen into a similar ” bloggers trap”. You with regard to the “misguided ness ” of some elected officials, and me with regard to economic foibles. Given wide variations in senses of humor, sometimes our attempts to inject a little levity back fire.
In your defense, you actually made me laugh out loud this morning on an otherwise pretty bleak day for me, so I thank you for that !
I don’t quite know what to make of the kerfuffle my comments have created. I may be illiterate, but I’m not super duper illiterate. Sue clearly has a listening and written comprehension deficiency. Fortunately, her very minor flaw is far outweighed by her defining, admirable trait, “compelling misguidedness”, which is an underappreciated quality in politicians and public opinion makers. I for one highly prize this quality in a politician because it benefits the community more than any other, it got us reduced water rates for instance. That is the single most important reason why I’m a steadfast Sue supporter. However, I don’t want her resting on her outstanding water rate laurels. Please Sue, turn your attention to these ridiculously high gasoline prices. They’re killing me!
medwoman, it’s not clear to me which “blogger trap” I have fallen in, but I want out. However, I do not want out at the expense of my integrity. I will not remain silent as project opponents are falsely accused of lying and intentionally misleading the community. It is a proven fact that only city staff lie and mislead the community and we all know that none of the project opponents are city staffers, or are they? Well, maybe they are, I’m not real sure, but I don’t think so.
Anyway, Don Shor has created a real quandry with his list of false statements made by project opponents. Since we know the project opponents are not city staffers, and therefore the opponents are not accomplished liars, yet they’ve made numerous false statements to the community, they’re obviously misguided. All of which is a very good thing! The community does nothing but benefit from all this misguidedness and David has once again been proven right. It’s a win, win, win!
DT Businessman aka Michael Bisch
I super duper enjoyed that, bloggers trap or not 🙂
DTB is on a blogging riff, and it’s even better that he’s got the situation fairly well sized up.