by Michael Harrington, Pam Nieberg, and the Leadership Committee of the 2011 Water Referendum
The referendum was born to ensure that the water rates approved 4/1 by the Davis CC on Sept 6, 2011 were either put to a citywide vote, or repealed. The referendum qualified, and the CC thankfully repealed the rates on December 6, 2011.
The referendum was a very intense team effort by dozens of local voters led by Pam Nieberg, Michael Harrington, and others who wish to remain anonymous due to the ongoing political and economic power of the surface water project proponents.
The referendum was developed, papers drawn up, executed and submitted in about four weeks. We all went into the September 6, 2011 CC meeting expecting that the CC would vote to table the proposed rates for a year, or at least not raise them by more than about 14% on average. Thankfully, Sue Greenwald would not go along with a motion that gave a chest-thumping endorsement of the Woodland JPA project, leading to a 4/1 vote to implement the rates that were causing so much public concern. She also wisely moved to put the water project on a ballot, with the rates; her pro-direct democracy motion failed for lack of a second. Not a single CC member besides Sue thought that the project and rates should be put to a citywide vote. This led to a surge of community concern, led by Nieberg, Harrington, The Vanguard, Bob Dunning, and the Editors of the Davis Enterprise. Everyone thought that such a large expenditure should be approved by the voters; everyone, that is, but senior water staff and four Davis CC members.
The CC established the Water Advisory Committee, and they recently requested that the CC provide them with more time to issue their recommendations. It appears that the CC is going to vote 5/0 for postponing the November 2012 ballot to sometime next year.
The Leadership Committee of the 2011 Water Rate Referendum appreciates the changes and improvements being discussed or made by City staff and the CC, but we remain very concerned that the process is being rushed too much, again. We recommend the following:
1. As is known to many, the current water rates are probably unconstitutional and water is being sold at disproportionate rates to different customers. The WAC is looking into this problem, especially being led by Matt Williams and colleagues. The current rates have nothing to do with a proposed surface water project; the rates simply have to be fixed and made legal. We are not critical of the City at this time; we are just pointing out that they have to be made legal. The WAC needs to focus — now — on those rates, and developing a system that conforms to law. Then, put out the Prop 218 notice of the change to the rate system. The purpose of this is NOT to raise rates, but just to make them conform to law; hopefully, this means the rates will be lowered, or kept the same. This needs to be done this fall; there shouldn’t be any need for a citywide vote on this remedial program to conform to law.
2..Second, the current water supply system needs a complete evaluation for maintenance, function, and longevity, with a rate system that will support that system. As a senior water system manager for the City told Harrington last year, the current supply system has never received the kind of long range planning for a system that will be with us for many years. Harrington was told that because the political leadership had told them for over ten years that the wells were going to be replaced or phased out by surface water, there was no need to spend the money to fully and independently evaluate the well and supply system like it was going to stick around. (Why spend money on a car you are trading in next year?) The Referendum Leadership demands that the City produce a comprehensive analysis, done with the charge that those wells are actually needed and important to the residents and good health. Instead of band-aids, study the system as one we need, intend to keep on line as long as possible, and will maintain appropriately. Once the City has that independent study that can be fully vetted by the WAC, there should be costs applied to that long term maintenance plan, and a fresh set of rates developed. This system longevity maintenance and operation plan, including any baseline features and fixed rates, will almost certainly involve more money, and it must be put to a citywide vote. We expect this vote could be held late next spring or the fall, and we do not anticipate a problem with passage, so long as the voters have confidence in the research and rates.
3. Third, while working on the above, the WAC should continue on its research concerning a conjunctive water system to supplement the wells, not replace them. Once we know how much water the well system can actually generate, and at what cost, we will know what size of surface water system we need to supplement the well system. Pursuing and forcing in a surface water system without knowing reliable data about the current well system is madness, and we predict will be soundly rejected by the voters if the CC continues to try to push the city to a premature surface water system.
4. Fourth, we believe that the Woodland Davis Project JPA should be immediately terminated, and the JPA disbanded. That project has been completely discredited, sized far too large for current and reasonably foreseeable population growth, and is outrageously expensive. Besides, we believe that the Davis voters will reject being politically-bound via the JPA to the Woodland City Council, whose members descended en mass at the Davis CC meeting on December 6th, and trashed our city five different ways for wanting to take a timeout and look at our options. The Referendum Leadership do not believe that it is worth “keeping our bargaining options open” with Woodland and the JPA, as their project has been thoroughly researched and the conclusion reached that it is not right for Davis. We should not throw good money after bad. West Sacramento overbuilt their surface water plant over the past few years, expecting huge population increases, and the Great Recession has killed those expansion plans for years in the future. West Sacramento is cash-strapped, needs to sell its surplus, and Davis ratepayers undoubtedly would open their checkbooks to pay a reasonable price for water whose need has been justified. We could build a pipe along the Yolo Causeway and buy the water by the unit, just like any other liquid commodity. We do not need to own any part of West Sacramento’s plant; we do not need to give away a piece of our political sovereignty to West Sacramento; we just need to be good neighbors and buy what they really need to sell, and we kinda need to buy, but not so much once the City finally commits itself to maintaining the well system as our primary supply. It may be a bit old, but the “car” is paid for and just needs some new parts to keep rolling.
5. Fifth, for a host of good reasons, including that river water is full of chemicals and harmful substances not found in our well water, we believe that the use of river water to supplement our pure well water should be approached with the greatest of caution. Many of the rather horrible things found in the Sacramento River water are not removed or treated by any surface water plant now on the drawing board, and the WAC needs to be very careful about this issue. For example, the river flows with antibiotics, birth control, and pesticides as we are downstream from the outflows of other communities and the farms.
In conclusion, the Leadership Committee of the 2011 Water Referendum thanks the CC for repealing the discredited Sept 6, 2011 rates, establishing the WAC, and (we hope) postponing the November ballot and providing additional time to the WAC to continue its research. We ask that the CC and WAC work together to: 1) fix our current disproportional water rate system, but with no net increase in current rates (Prop 218 process only, this fall); 2) independently study our current well and supply system with the mandate that it should be our primary water supply system over the foreseeable future, prepare a budget to fix and maintain it, put it to a full vote and Prop 218 process (next spring or summer); and 3) complete the planning for a conjunctive use water system, if necessary, that is meant to supplement, and not replace, the well system, complete the baseline project specific features, complete a project specific EIR, complete project specific rates, and put the package to a citywide ballot (late next fall, or 2014).
“deja-vu all over again”
For the many Davis voters who were not around in 2004. The Planning Commission requested additional time and information in their consideration of Whitcomb’s massive residential development project.
The Commission request was denied and a vote demanded that very evening. Bill Emlen, was Davis Planning and Development Director taking his “marching orders” from the Saylor(Asmundson) Council.
==
“fix our current disproportional water rate system, but with no net increase in current rates (Prop 218 process only, this fall);”
Of course there will be winners and losers in such a change. Who are the winners? Who are the losers?
“independently study our current well and supply system with the mandate that it should be our primary water supply system over the foreseeable future,”
I think the problem is that currently it is the only system due to the obstinance of previous generations.
“Many of the rather horrible things found in the Sacramento River water are not removed or treated by any surface water plant now on the drawing board, and the WAC needs to be very careful about this issue. For example, the river flows with antibiotics, birth control, and pesticides as we are downstream from the outflows of other communities and the farms.”
L.A. doesn’t seem to mind and will buy all it can get. What do they know that we don’t?
Mr Toad: LA also makes alien movies; maybe it’s the water ?
[quote]We could build a pipe along the Yolo Causeway and buy the water by the unit, just like any other liquid commodity. We do not need to own any part of West Sacramento’s plant; we do not need to give away a piece of our political sovereignty to West Sacramento; we just need to be good neighbors and buy what they really need to sell, and we kinda need to buy, but not so much once the City finally commits itself to maintaining the well system as our primary supply. It may be a bit old, but the “car” is paid for and just needs some new parts to keep rolling.[/quote]
1. I do not see how partnering in a joint venture with another community equates with giving away “a piece of our political sovereignty whether the partner would be Woodland or West Sacramento.
2. I would like to emphasize that second sentence: we just need to buy what they really need to sell, and we ‘kinda need to buy’. Maybe for now, but possibly very short sighted as it is not unusual for conditions to change as provided by your example of West Sacramento overbuilding for growth they anticipated, but did not pan out due to the recession. I do not believe that the issue of partial ownership vs purchasing should be trivialized. Our national dependence on foreign oil has not been a trivial issue, and I don’t think we should assume that purchasing water on the local level will always be a non issue.
How much has Davis paid to JPA to date and on an ongoing basis?
[i]”….once the City finally commits itself to maintaining the well system as our primary supply.”
[/i]
This idea has been completely discredited by every expert that has testified before the WAC. It would be unbelievably irresponsible and risky and wouldn’t address the regulatory issues. Everyone who studies this issue knows this. Even the inclusion of this sentence in this essay largely discredits the remainder.
This blog post is largely a political polemic, laying the groundwork for one of the various referenda that Michael Harrington has threatened. Pam should be embarrassed that her name is attached to this. Any “business leaders” who are too afraid to come forward on this topic have no credence, if they actually exist.
SODA: I believe JPA is rate-payer funded. But again, the city staff email Matt Williams posted on an earlier thread would be the place to get answers to that question.
Don: let me think … The same people who gave us the Woodland Davis JPA project and it’s Sept 6 rates are the ones who set up the studies that told us we need that project ?
What’s wrong with that picture ?
We need an independent opinion
You have independent opinions. They’ve been presented to the WAC. The need for a surface water project has been verified. Davis well water won’t solve the regulatory problems.
“We need an independent opinion”
That’s what the WAC and Herb Niederberger are for. Have you talked to Kopper?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Don: let me think … The same people who gave us the Woodland Davis JPA project and it’s Sept 6 rates are the ones who set up the studies that told us we need that project ?
What’s wrong with that picture ?
We need an independent opinion”[/i]
Mike, I don’t disagree with your idea in principle and engaged it very specifically in my July 1st OpEd in the Enterprise. The reality is that the WAC has solicited and received independent opinions from Rob Beggs from Brown and Caldwell, Graham Fogg from UCD, Jay Lund from UCD, Steve Bayley from the City of Tracy, John Woodling from the Regional Water Authority (of Sacramento, and Rob Sawyer from Best, Best and Krieger. Is that not independent enough for you?
I think that would have been a good criticism of the process last year, I’m not sure that it still applies.
[quote]In conclusion, the Leadership Committee of the 2011 Water Referendum thanks the CC for repealing the discredited Sept 6, 2011 rates, establishing the WAC, and (we hope) postponing the November ballot and providing additional time to the WAC to continue its research. We ask that the CC and WAC work together to: 1) fix our current disproportional water rate system, but with no net increase in current rates (Prop 218 process only, this fall); 2) independently study our current well and supply system with the mandate that it should be our primary water supply system over the foreseeable future, prepare a budget to fix and maintain it, put it to a full vote and Prop 218 process (next spring or summer); and 3) complete the planning for a conjunctive use water system, if necessary, that is meant to supplement, and not replace, the well system, complete the baseline project specific features, complete a project specific EIR, complete project specific rates, and put the package to a citywide ballot (late next fall, or 2014).[/quote]
In response to this article, I would note the following:
1. The WAC is currently looking at the issue of water rate structures, to make sure whatever is decided upon is fair and equitable to all concerned. However, if there are “no net increases in current rates” as is suggested in this article, where will the money come from to repair our current crumbling infrastructure? It is naive to think Davis can continue with such a low rate for water as we are currently paying – because it does not cover the costs to run the current degrading system. Many of our wells are very old and will need to be taken off line, old pipes need replacing, etc.
2. Our well system should not be our primary source of water supply for the foreseeable future. This became painfully apparent to the WAC after hearing from a myriad of independent experts, among them Graham Fog, Jay Lund, George Tchobanoglous, Steve Bailey, John Goodson, etc., and after reading numerous studies done on the deep water aquifers (see city website). The dangers of overtaxing the deep aquifer, the uncertainty of the quality of deep aquifer water, more stringent future regulations, etc. make this solution of using only wells extremely unwise. The WAC UNANIMOUSLY decided there was a need to move forward with some type of conjunctive use project (using both well and ground water). I would urge the authors of this article to review the WAC meetings dealing with this subject, and explain how they could possibly come to the erroneous conclusion the city should use only well water into the foreseeable future in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
3. The authors seem to inexplicably contradict themselves, and suggest a conjunctive use project “if necessary”, but not until 2014. Delay, delay, delay seems to be the key theme throughout this entire article. Why do the authors seem unwilling to allow the WAC to carry out its mission, and allow its processes to move forward at whatever pace the WAC deems appropriate?
I am also troubled by the mention of “unnamed sources” in this article, as there is no way to verify who these unnamed sources are and what exactly they have said. Second hand hearsay is extremely unreliable.
We shall see.
What I am saying is don’t scrap your tried and true Ford for the Mercedes
Or…. I view the long term maintenance of our well system as demolition by neglect, which is the reason we lose sound old buildings because the developers say. “it doesn’t pencil out to fix it,” after they letUHF go to seed for decades.
The surface water Taj Mahal was first conceived in the late 1980s and staff have been told by electeds every year since that they plan to junk it as soon as that big Taj is built
[quote]We do not need to own any part of West Sacramento’s plant; we do not need to give away a piece of our political sovereignty to West Sacramento; we just need to be good neighbors and buy what they really need to sell, and we kinda need to buy, but not so much once the City finally commits itself to maintaining the well system as our primary supply. It may be a bit old, but the “car” is paid for and just needs some new parts to keep rolling.[/quote]
And if Davis is only a customer of West Sac, what happens if West Sac decides to expand its residential/commercial development as the economy improves, and chooses to no longer sell us the surface water we need because it now needs it for itself? What then?
ERM: it’s called contract law and getting a good contract
Let me see … What would a Superior Court judge do if West Sac breached its contract to supply water to us?
“
And if Davis is only a customer of West Sac, what happens if West Sac decides to expand its residential/commercial development as the economy improves, and chooses to no longer sell us the surface water we need because it now needs it for itself? What then?”
You’re an attorney, that’s why you sign a contract. I believe Tracy is a good example, 40 year contract, 40 year extension, 20 year termination option, so they have a 100 years basically locked up.
[quote]You’re an attorney, that’s why you sign a contract. I believe Tracy is a good example, 40 year contract, 40 year extension, 20 year termination option, so they have a 100 years basically locked up.[/quote]
That is precisely why I asked Mike Harrington the question. His article seems to preclude even the West Sac option in favor of wells only if you read exactly what his article says:
[quote]we just need to be good neighbors and buy what they really need to sell, and we kinda need to buy, but not so much once the City finally commits itself to maintaining the well system as our primary supply. It may be a bit old, but the “car” is paid for and just needs some new parts to keep rolling.[/quote]
[quote]Let me see … What would a Superior Court judge do if West Sac breached its contract to supply water to us? [/quote]Most likely, support West Sac. In general, Superior Court judges and juries favor “anybody but Davis”. Suspect Mr Harrington knows this.
Compare and contrast our situation 40 years from now:
Contract with West Sacramento, their infrastructure, their water.
WDJPA, our infrastructure, our water.
Which choice is better for the next generations of Davisites?
[quote]Or…. I view the long term maintenance of our well system as demolition by neglect, which is the reason we lose sound old buildings because the developers say. “it doesn’t pencil out to fix it,” after they letUHF go to seed for decades. [/quote]
Do you have any idea how old many of our city wells are? Do you know the repercussions of trying to drill a lot of new deep wells? I strongly encourage you to get yourself informed…
And I will repeat my question to you:
[quote]Why do the authors seem unwilling to allow the WAC to carry out its mission, and allow its processes to move forward at whatever pace the WAC deems appropriate? [/quote]
[quote]ERM: it’s called contract law and getting a good contract[/quote]
Do you have any idea of what type of terms in a contract we can get w West Sac?
Mr Harrington’s car analogy is amusing…. FORD = Fix Or Repair Daily.
Here are the ages of our existing wells. We will be retiring the shallow wells as they age, or using them just for landscape irrigation. Note the ages of many of them. If we plan to use deep wells for most domestic water for many years, we’d need more deep wells. We can’t dig more deep wells without contravening our agreement with UC Davis (those pesky contracts again). So the assumption has been that the shallow wells are going to be phased out, and the deep wells will be interim water supply. We are just barely at capacity if we go to the deep wells, and would have to run them at an unsustainable rate (pumps running 24/7, basically). Or we’ll have water shortages. And if anything goes wrong with one of them, we have a water shortage. And if we just build the West Sac supply to barely enough, we have a water shortage.
I begin to think the opponents of the WDJPA want to build to less than capacity to force conservation.
I’d like to see a movie made with giant toads in the LA River like the ants in THEM. I guess that would make Mike into a character like James Arness. Sorry Mike you’re no Matt Dillon and I’m actually not a toad but the water in question is the same water LA is willing to buy so instead of being dismissive you could try to argue and defend your statement on the merits.
And if the West Sacramento option in the end proved to be a viable option is it totally impossible to re-structure the JPA as a joint powers of the two cities? What prevents us from being an owner customer rather than just a customer?
David Thompson
[quote]What prevents us from being an owner customer rather than just a customer? [/quote]
West Sacramento has thus far made it unequivocal they only want Davis as a customer and not a partner. Negotiations are ongoing…
The same people who Trashed the Referendum’s challenge to the bogus rates are going after us for suggesting we need to ensure we use our wells as long as fiscally and technically feasible. I don’t get it; what’s behind the attacks ?
I’m waiting to hear from Burchill and friends again.
The Woodland JPA is dead and should be buried this Tuesday by the CC
ERM: just set up the long term contract, maybe like David’s suggestion per Tracy
We don’t need to partner or own the West Sac plant. Just buy water per standards
We pay and own the pump and the pipeline and we fix up our circulation system about town. We. Set up our own conjunctive well system
Elaine
[quote]West Sacramento has thus far made it unequivocal they only want Davis as a customer and not a partner. Negotiations are ongoing…[/quote]
Do you feel that part of the reason that West Sacramento would not want Davis as a partner but only as a customer
would be the perception ( not unreasonable from my point of view) that Davis has proven an unreliable partner in the past ? And for part two of this question, do you think their might be a willingness to reconsider given the many recent changes in city leadership ?
[i]The same people who Trashed the Referendum’s challenge to the bogus rates are going after us for suggesting we need to ensure we use our wells as long as fiscally and technically feasible. I don’t get it; what’s behind the attacks ? [/i]
Perhaps your long history on this topic is part of the problem, Michael.
We are using our wells as long as fiscally and technically feasible. There is zero need for any independent study of our well system. That is simply another delaying tactic on your part.
Your statements about the hazards of Sacramento river water are flat-out scare tactics.
Your statement that “the mandate that it should be our primary water supply system over the foreseeable future” is irresponsible and ignores all the available expert evidence that has been presented.
In short, you are not, and never have been, a credible speaker on the subject of Davis water. The only thing we need to know is which of your myriad threats you actually plan to follow up on, so we know how much you will delay the inevitable development of a surface water system and can plan accordingly.
I would also like to address your constant use of the term “bogus rates” and your demonization of staff on that issue. That decision was entirely the responsibility of the council.
They were presented with three options. One of those options was a straight, clear 14% across the board rate increase. The option that staff recommended, which the council accepted, was the 14% ‘effective’ rate increase, subject to the assumption about rate increases yielding conservation.
But the council had in front of them an actual 14% increase. They had the information. They (like all of us who read the staff report) knew it was contingent on assumptions about conservation. They also knew, as did staff, that the ‘actual 14%’ increase would take longer to pay down the cost.
You keep blaming staff, in terms that I consider reprehensible, for the council decision. Lesson to council members: read your staff reports more carefully, and don’t automatically go with staff recommendations. But this continued criticism of the staff is unwarranted. It was a council decision.
Michael Harrington said . . .
“What I am saying is don’t scrap your tried and true Ford for the Mercedes
Or…. I view the long term maintenance of our well system as demolition by neglect, which is the reason we lose sound old buildings because the developers say. “it doesn’t pencil out to fix it,” after they letUHF go to seed for decades.”
Actually Mike, both the City staff and the WAC are very much on the same page as you are (both collectively and individually). The following link will take you to the most recent independent analysis that the City commissioned to help them maximize the usage and longevity of the existing wells. [url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/pdfsDavis-WQ-TM040512.pdf[/url].
Further the information Dianna Jensen has shared with the WAC proposes a 12 mgd surface water source, the existing 11 mgd deep aquifer groundwater source and 9 mgd of tank storage to meet peak demand at any point in time during a maximum demand situation. That 11 mgd of groundwater is absolutely crucial if we are not going to encounter water reliability problems in peak conditions. The graphic below shows the Excel model I created to validate the 12 mgd surface water need that Dianna had shared with the WAC.
[img]http://s1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/[/img]
Here is the rate recommendation the council acted on Sept. 6. Note the options. [img]http://davismerchants.org/water/waterratesordinancesept6.png[/img]
Here’s Matt’s link: [url]http://s1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/?action=view¤t=DemandCapacityScreenshot.jpg[/url]
Don and Mike, there are plenty of dirty fingerprints to go around on all fronts, and I really don’t think that rehashing events (that we are long past) does any of us any good. The reality is that the referendum has caused us all to do more due diligence, and there is a lot more due diligence to do. Another reality is that a number of the key players who helped get us to the 14% rates situation are now out of the picture. The Council is 100% different than it was 2 years ago. We have a new Public Works Director. Lets try and focus on the positive.
With that said, 1) there is no way that the August 2011 rates were either bogus or fraudulent, but they also were nowhere close to being a 14% ‘effective’ rate increase. There is a huge difference between rates and revenue. Based on the assumptions of the Staff Report there was a 14% revenue increase projected, but that required a combination of increases in both projected water conservation and projected rates. The word ‘effective’ needs to be followed with the word ‘revenue’ not the word ‘rate.’
Thanks Don for fixing the link.
[quote]ERM: just set up the long term contract, maybe like David’s suggestion per Tracy [/quote]
That is fine if West Sac is amenable, but thus far I haven’t seen that…
Don: Thanks for your comments. I just respectfully disagree. Going forward, you have an outline of a plan. I’m sure things will change and improve. My job is to talk about it and try to get the best project at least cost. My focus for the short term is fix our rates then the current technical system then the surface water system. The Woodland project is in the rear view mirror It’s not complicated
Did’nt Harriet Steiner advise the Council on the August 2011 water rate structure?
My memory is that the rate adopted by the Council was sold to us as one formula but was actually a different formula?
And did the WAC decide they did not want Harriet continuing to advise the WAC on water rates?
If that is so what did all of that cost the City?
The referendum fed on a lack of trust in the City’s plan given the numerous errors or misleading statements.
A lot of us are still suspect.
I do thank members of the WAC for looking critically over staff’s shoulders.
The water issue is a birthright issue and the rain belongs to all uf us to share. Let’s stay as far away as we can from privatizing what comes out of our taps.
David Thompson
Michael Harrington said . . .
“Don: Thanks for your comments. I just respectfully disagree. Going forward, you have an outline of a plan. I’m sure things will change and improve. My job is to talk about it and try to get the best project at least cost. My focus for the short term is fix our rates [b]then the current technical system[/b] then the surface water system. The Woodland project is in the rear view mirror It’s not complicated.”
Mike, regarding your bolded words, what makes you think that the current groundwater system is in need of enough fixing to warrant the singular focus of your second step?
BTW, I’d like to note one thing that has evolved over the months since you started the referendum. Specifically, I asked you many times what your Plan B was, and you regularly chose not to answer that question. The reality is that the way things have panned out, Plan B has organically evolved, and is still evolving. Given that, I owe you props for having the courage of your conviction to believe that putting a halt to Plan A would result in Plan B emerging. So, please accept those props from me.
Matt: thanks. Winanely had about three weeks to slow and divert a program that had lumbered along below the publics active radar for over 15 yrs.
Also. I could not say much publicly for sometime because I could not try this case inpublic
I thank the current CC for their good efforts and I really hope they bury the Woodland JPA for good and move on.
Drat this iPhone ! “we only had about …”
David Thompson said . . .
[i]”My memory is that the rate adopted by the Council was sold to us as one formula but was actually a different formula?” [/i]
david, it was not that. The major problem was that the Enterprise reporter who ran the story did not read the Staff Report and therefore the summarization that was published was different than the details that the summarization was based on. That publishing error should have been corrected, but it wasn’t. The end result was a perception of change that wasn’t correct. However, there is an old expression, “perception is reality” and the City didn’t do enough to correct the erroneous perception.
David Thompson said . . .
[i]”And did the WAC decide they did not want Harriet continuing to advise the WAC on water rates?
If that is so what did all of that cost the City?”[/i]
No the WAC did not make that sweeping decision. What the WAC did decide was that certain Prop 218 and Water Rights legal questions needed to be addressed by lawyers who were specialists in those fields, which Harriet isn’t.
[quote]Winanely had about three weeks to slow and divert a program that had lumbered along below the publics active radar for over 15 yrs. [/quote]And, so where wer you during those 15 years while the rest of us were following and supporting the project? “Late hit”?
I told water staff in about 2001 that sooner or later we would put it to the voters. Finally the day came, and the CC repealed the rates. Of course it should be voted on, right? Blame the Saylor CCs for not putting it on the ballot in about 2005 I just did my job when the time arrived.
The WAC has been so effective that I think we should putinplace a standing public utilities commission to watch these issues year after year Comments, anyone ?
One more thing before saying goodnight: all of you readers know, right that it was internal city policy to avoid a public vote on the surface water project or the rates? Saylor went around in August asking for large sums of cash in order to try and stop the referendum. They treat the public like village idiots
Mike Harrington said “My job is to talk about it and try to get the best project at least cost.”
Your job? Odd phrasing Mike. Did someone appoint you or hire you to do this? Where did you get the job description? Or did you mean your objective is…..?
Dear Matt:
Thanks for your answers and the work you do on WAC.
However, on the BBK web site Harriet Steiner holds herself out to be;
Ms. Steiner’s practice focuses on public law …Her areas of specialty include … wastewater and municipal water…
In addition, Ms. Steiner advises public agencies on …Proposition 218 compliance. She has represented public agencies in CEQA …and Proposition 218 litigation.
Seems like municipal water and 218 are her specialities so would still like to know more about why the WAC appeared to not want her advice when she claims those are her specialities?
Given she knows so much about 218 why did the Prop 218 component appear to be a mess when Council adopted her advice?
David Thompson
David, I have no desire to be an apologist for Harriet, but what was it about the Prop 218 component that you feel “appeared to be a mess”? I believe that if you drill down into the “mess” you will find that the legal aspect was not the culprit.
The rates did not match Dan Wolks motion on sept 6. If we had lost the referendum, we had the option of a legal challenge. The rates were defective and did not conform to the Wolk motion.
Mike, I could be wrong but I believe Dan’s motion referenced the rates that were in the Staff Report, so in reality the words that Dan used to reference the rates did not actually change the rate structure from the one that was in the Staff Report. His motion would have needed to be a whole lot more detailed and specific to have accomplished what he thought he was accomplishing.
I’m not in any way criticizing Dan. The amount of confusion that existed at that early morning hour was huge. 20/20 hindsight says that Council should have tabled the discussion and rescheduled it for a subsequent meeting, but we all know that that did not happen . . . and we got the chaos that we got. There is a lesson there . . . don’t decide important matters after midnight. This Council appears to be on the road to following that lesson.
[quote]My focus for the short term is fix our rates then the current technical system then the surface water system. The Woodland project is in the rear view mirror It’s not complicated[/quote]
How do you “fix the rates” before knowing what “project” you will be choosing to do? After all, the rates are what pays for whatever project is chosen; the rates are what pays for whatever repairs must be made to the current system…
[quote]There is a lesson there . . . don’t decide important matters after midnight. This Council appears to be on the road to following that lesson.[/quote]
Amen!