The quote that stands out in the recent meeting of the Water Advisory Commission (WAC) comes from the chair, Elaine Roberts-Musser, who said, “It isn’t that there isn’t going to be pain. It doesn’t matter which project you pick, there’s going to pain. Very big pain.”
The problem is that statement becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Assuming that any option will involve big pain seemingly justifies any rate hike and structure because, after all, pain is unavoidable.
In our view, that is the wrong approach. One of the goals of the city council, as well as the WAC, should be to examine the different options to determine which options have more and less pain.
One of the problems that we face is that we never were able to get the kinds of specifics needed to have a true comparison between West Sacramento and Woodland.
As the summary of the meeting between Joe Krovoza and Brett Lee with their counterparts from the City of West Sacramento indicates: “The City of West Sacramento felt that preliminary discussions were appropriate at this time, but did not feel that any expenditure should be made on their part for more in depth feasibility studies until the City of Davis had a better sense of which direction it planned to move forward on.”
Basically, the City of West Sacramento is unwilling to put resources into this option when it is unclear which way the city of Davis is headed.
Matt Williams referred to this as a catch-22 scenario, “They want a commitment in order to get specific and we need some specifics in order to decide if a commitment is appropriate.”
But, in fact, it is quite a bit worse than that. West Sacramento has no incentive to put resources into a project so long as the WAC is already putting motions on the table to stick with Woodland.
Some members of the WAC incredulously suggested that we have been studying this project for 25 years, but the fact remains that there are key pieces of information remaining out of our hands that would make for a better decision, and our ability to get that information now has been compromised.
While Alf Brandt’s motion includes a provision that the project must be bid on as a Design-Build rather than strictly a DBO, the problem is that our source continues to believe that the ship for the Design-Build bid has already sailed.
Pain is a relative term. However, the discussion of pain in terms of rate hikes needs to look at more than just the longer term costs.
We have argued that the biggest impact on ratepayers is not, in fact, the absolute dollars that they will pay, but rather the rate of increase. The logic behind this claim is that people over time can adjust their spending to accommodate gradual increases, but short-term bursts are difficult to deal with.
It is a reason why people will defer costs so as to avoid a huge one-time hit, even as it means that in the long run they pay more.
From that standpoint, we believe that the main alternative – at least with the rates structured as they were last week – is the most difficult for ratepayers, especially when we look in terms of current dollars (i.e. inflation adjustment).
The cost of that Woodland option rises most rapidly and hits ratepayers hardest in the first six years of the project.
It is true that those alternate projects are most expensive in the long run, as we pay about $2 million more per year after 2022.
However, from a rate chart, those projects appear to cost the ratepayer only about $10 more per month than the main Woodland option at its peak differential from 2027 to about 2032, after which the rates all appear to converge.
The phased projects ramp up rates more gradually and, in constant dollars, they never reach the heights of the main Woodland project.
Matt Williams argues that these are simply cash flow issues and could be controlled. We hope that will be one of the major considerations for both the WAC and council – minimize the short-term hit that ratepayers would receive.
The differences are not insignificant. The main Woodland option would see the rates nearly triple in the first five years, while the delayed project and phased project would see the water rates go up between 100 and 150 percent. For the West Sacramento project, the rates would merely double.
Doubling the rates is clearly painful, but not nearly as painful as tripling the rates.
For this reason, it seems logical for the city of Davis to keep both options on the table. In the meantime, we need to get a better idea what underlies the cost assumptions of the West Sacramento option versus the Woodland option. We need to get a better sense of what an agreement with West Sacramento ought to look like.
We need to understand if we are locked into a DBO process where there are substantial problems with two of the bidders. We need to understand if we have the alternative of public operations.
Finally, we need to better understand if we can mitigate cashflows to even the distribution of pain over time so that there is not an immediate sticker shock for ratepayers who see their rates triple in just five years.
It is hard to imagine that the voters will be willing to approve a project that will triple their rates.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]dmg:The quote that stands out in the recent meeting of the Water Advisory Commission (WAC) comes from the Chair, Elaine Roberts-Musser who said, “It isn’t that there isn’t going to be pain. It doesn’t matter which project you pick, there’s going to pain. Very big pain.”
The problem is that statement becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Assuming that any option will involve big pain, seemingly justifies any rate hike and structure because after all pain is unavoidable.[/quote]
There is nothing “self-fulfilling” about my statement. It is a simple truth. It doesn’t matter which project the city selects; or if no project is selected. The fact of the matter is the cost of water is going to go up drastically because of the new clean water standards handed down by the federal gov’t. I understand the Vanguard does not like the new reality in regard to the water world, but it is in fact the new reality… every city across the country is wrestling with this same problem, as the experts have told us time and time again. In fact there was an article written by expert Jay Lund on this very subject recently in the Sac Bee, that was dispersed to WAC members. Don’t know if it is posted on the city’s website or not. To quote from the article:
[quote]The structure of our water house is changing, and even those seeing the value and need for change are concerned or fearful about its direction and details.
Like most home remodeling projects, remodeling CA’s water systems will take more time and money than anyone hoped, change our water home in fundamental ways, and impose a period of family strife…
But in the end, after the dust settles and bills come under control, most residents will be glad the remodeling was done, even though they will forever grumble about its details and cost. And like household remodeling, in a few decades, it will be time to remodel again.[/quote]
[quote]dmg: While Alf Brandt’s motion includes a provision that the project must be bid on as a Design-Build rather than strictly a DBO, the problem is that our source continues to believe that the ship for the Design-Build bid has already sailed.[/quote]
The Vanguard keeps repeating this business about “the DBO bid has already sailed”, yet discussion of DBO is still very much a part of the WAC’s long range calendar. The reader can decide who to believe…
[quote]dmg: The cost of that Woodland option rises most rapidly and hits ratepayers hardest in the first six years of the project.
It is true that those projects are most expensive in the long run as we pay about $2 million more per year after 2022.[/quote]
But what about the red line? Look at the chart again. So you are conceding the West Sac option may not be the “cheapest”? Unfortunately all of this is a risk/benefit/cost analysis, with many, many factors to take into consideration. It has always been a risk/benefit/cost analysis. And the “cost” portion of that analysis is very complicated, depending on rate structure, how the debt financing is done, etc.
[quote]dmg:For this reason, it seems logical for the city of Davis to keep both options on the table. In the meantime we need to get a better idea what underlies the cost assumptions of the West Sacramento option versus the Woodland option. We need to get a better sense for wha an agreement with West Sacramento ought to look like.[/quote]
Here is the catch-22 in this scenario. West Sac won’t commit until Davis commits, meaning Davis is going to have to expend money to help plan the West Sac option. Meanwhile to keep the Woodland option open, Davis will have to expend money on filling the water treatment facility site. So in other words to keep both options open Davis is continually paying costs for both, making both options more costly as Davis tries to make up its mind… At what expenditure point $$$wise does the Vanguard suggest Davis fish or cut bait?
[quote]
dmg: The differences are not insignificant. The main Woodland option would see the rates nearly triple in the first five years, the delayed project and phased project would see the water rates go up between 100 and 150 percent. The West Sacramento project the rates would merely double.
Doubling the rates is clearly painful, but not nearly as painful as tripling the rates.[/quote]
I’m not following you here. If we take the year 2020, with the biggest spread between the rates of the Woodland project and the West Sac project, look at the Water Bill Comparison chart. The West Sac project rate would be approximately $68 and the Woodland project would be approximately $88, according the the Water Bill Comparison chart. The current rate is about $34. So the West Sac project rate in 2020 would be about twice what your current bill is, and the Woodland project would be about 2.5 times what your current bill is, or about $20 a month for the average monthly single family residential user…
By the way, I’ve put some questions in to staff about this chart and the Comparison of Revenue Increases table…
Two points Elaine…
“The fact of the matter is the cost of water is going to go up drastically “
The question is how much it will go up and over what period of time, this was made clear in this piece…
“At what expenditure point $$$wise does the Vanguard suggest Davis fish or cut bait? “
The point at which it can make an informed decision.
“The Vanguard keeps repeating this business about “the DBO bid has already sailed”, yet discussion of DBO is still very much a part of the WAC’s long range calendar. “
Have you asked Dennis Diemer about this yet?
I do not find it surprising that West Sac wants more than our assurance we are serious before proceeding since I am sure they have watched our actions with the JPA. That said, it would seem to me that putting some money forward to have them investigate the possibility is well spent given the huge cost we will incur. And let’s not forget we continue to pay for ??JPA activities and salaries while we are deliberating. I continue to ask how much that is but do not get answers. What would it take to research West Sac?
Correction: or about $20 a month MORE for the average monthly single family residential user
I know this is off topic, but I hope for obvious reasons this comment will remain here. The Senior Citizens of Davis special meeting to vote on the proposed bylaws will take place this morning at 10:45 am. If you are an SCD member, please attend…
vanguard: “Have you asked Dennis Diemer about this yet?”
Mr. Diemer has been out of action since you threw him under a bus.
Octane: Are you saying the DV threw Diemer under a Veolia Yolo Bus ?
Do you all know that Veolia employed the texting train driver that ran the red light and killed all those commuters in LA area?
The way I see it: when will the WAC fully study the issues, including West Sac options; or, when will the CC instruct the WAC to do so; or when will the voters instruct the CC to instruct the WAC to study all options and issues?
It’s the way it is … Alf and the Saylor JPA Taj Mahal Team, just accept that the Davis voters will demand that all opttions be studied thoroughly and independently before a project is placed on the ballot.
Just thought this bore repeating:
[quote]erm: Here is but one aspect of the “cost” of doing no project from the SWRCB:
“If a community is not moving forward with a project that will aid in meeting wastewater discharge standards as set forth in an adopted permit, the RWQCB can assess discretionary fines up to $10,000 a day, plus $10 a gallon for every gallon discharged. Under state law, the RWQCB may also collect the amount of money saved by not coming into compliance, ata a minimum (the cost of a project, for example).”[/quote]
[quote]The way I see it: when will the WAC fully study the issues, including West Sac options; or, when will the CC instruct the WAC to do so; or when will the voters instruct the CC to instruct the WAC to study all options and issues? [/quote]
And how long to you propose the WAC take to study “[u][b]all[/b][/u] [b]options[/b] and [u][b]issues[/b][/u]”? This is particularly true because there are many issues/questions that are unresolvable/unanswerable, and time is money. The longer the city puts off a decision, the more the city expends in keeping both options open, the more the costs of financing and construction are likely to go up, the more likely Davis is to lose its water rights (see report from SWRCB above). Remember Berryessa, when the city opted to not take water from there because the city didn’t want to pay the price? Big, big mistake… and we are paying for it now… and paying for it dearly. The longer we put off the inevitable, the more costly it will be…
I agree with SODA. Not surprising that West Sacramento is not willing to spend any money, given Davis’ track record. There is a cost to the way that Davis conducts business. However, with that said, does anyone have any idea how much West Sacramento would save/make if Davis became a customer? Obviously it is a function of the ultimate deal structure, but is there a minimum amount that is simply an allocation of a share of the costs that West Sac is footing the bill for entirely right now? If it is not insignificant, which I imagine would be the case, perhaps West Sac also is unsure whether a deal with Davis is clearly the better deal for Davis. West Sacramento would presumably want to push what it charges Davis up beyond its actual “fair share” of costs since West Sacramento owns the system, presumably stopping at a point where it would still make sense for Davis to take its water through West Sacramento, if there is any such extra value to Davis of routing through West Sacramento. Does anyone know what it would cost Davis to treat the West Sacramento water to the same standards as the proposed facility with Woodland, so we are comparing apples to apples?
[quote]I do not find it surprising that West Sac wants more than our assurance we are serious before proceeding since I am sure they have watched our actions with the JPA. That said, it would seem to me that putting some money forward to have them investigate the possibility is well spent given the huge cost we will incur. And let’s not forget we continue to pay for ??JPA activities and salaries while we are deliberating. I continue to ask how much that is but do not get answers. What would it take to research West Sac?[/quote]
This is certainly an possibility – we could expend more $$$ to keep both options open. It is just a question of how much more $$$ are we willing to expend before making a decision? Because ultimately those $$$ are going to come out of the ratepayers pocket…
Elaine
Again I ask, how much have we contributed to JPA and more importantly perhaps, how much are we continuing to spend on JPA while we deliberate?
It appears penny wise and pound foolish to have come this far and not explore W Sac fully. The summary Brett gave indicated to me willingness on the part of W Sac. The door was not closed, correct?
I believe Matt previously has provided some focused questions, legal and otherwise as to how to approach the W Sac viability. In fact some may not even need financial backing, at least to W Sac, to explore, e.g., water rights, legal issues, water treatment issues, etc.
With climate change irrevocably under way, glaciers melting top and bottom,
how is climate change going to affect surface water levels and these proposed water plant operations?
SODA: [img]http://davismerchants.org/water/wateradmincoststodate.png[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/wateradmincoststodate.png[/url]
eagle eye: more rain, less snow.
One of the problems I have with the WAC analysis is very early on, the WAC refused to really deal with the water softener use in Davis, and informing the public of the true costs and impacts of those systems.
Also, the WAC early on gave up on really looking at how the city can mitigate the growing nitrate pollution of our middle leveal aquifers by over use of fertilizers by homeowners, businesses, and farmers. Instread, the WAC just went with the program that led to more deep wells, and the surface water plant. I am sure most residents do not know that it is city policy to basically walk away from the middle level aquifers that have sustained this city for most of its life, due to human caused environmental pollution. The JPA-led solution: take water from our rivers at huge cost to the residents whom mostly do not have a clue what water softener use is doing to our budgets, and the overuse of fertilizers wiping out our long-term reliance on middle level aquifers, leading to the huge cost of even a medium sized surface water plant.
I expect more from the WAC, but it appears that the WAC is close to rubber-stamping via Alf’s motion the Woodland JPA Taj Mahal project.
I think the ratepayers expect more from the WAC, and I think the CC does, too.
Mike; Comments like the one you made at 12:43 make me wonder if you have done any research whatsoever on the water quality issues in Davis. Almost every part of that comment is complete nonsense.
Don: I respectfully disagree with you. Sorry, with all due respect. There are many issues still unresolved, and I just listed 2-3 obvious ones.
Gov. Brown has just posted a web site about global warming.
We all know the mountains are going to get a lot less snow, and more rain. THis will greatly decrease the amount of summer water from the snow pack coming down the Sacramento Rivers.
So the city has abandoned any discussion with the voters of the water softener issues, and has abandoned any discussion about the nitrates filterning inot and polluting our middle leval aquifer. Sort of: “we wrecked our water supply due to decades of hidden city and county governmental negligence, so let’s just charge the rate payers a ton of money to go deeper into an aquifer that has thousands of years old water that we don’t understand how long it will last, and use river water that is disappearing in climate change, and leave the downstream plants and animals even more dried up and polluted.”
In effect, is that what you are saying, Don?
We have a long, long way to go with engaging our community about these issues. We respectfully ask that the WAC settle down, look at all of the issues, and engage the community in these all important issues that are critical to the sustainability of our community.
There is no rush to build the JPA. If there are, that is WOodland’s issues caused by their terrible planning, not ours. Don’t make their troubles ours.
Take the time to get it right, is what Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk said from the Dais and in his Sunday op ed piecce last fall.
What I am saying, Mike, is that your statements about the reasons Davis went to the deep aquifer are ridiculous nonsense. I give up on being respectful. It is no longer worth trying to refute your nonsense. I don’t even know what your motives are for posting stuff like this. Are you advocating that we return to the mid-level aquifers? Are you suggesting we should try to remove the nitrates and keep using the mid-level aquifers? It’s pointless.
Process wise, I have an idea. I think the WAC has a long haul ahead of it. Since Alf and some others have been determined to vote to move the JPA forward, and since it is clear this should not happen, may I suggest that those members who simply cannot get their heads around the idea that the WAC needs to slow down and get it right should resign, or members who thought this WAC gig was going to be a fast rubber stamp of the Saylor JPA Taj Mahal Project should resign, and let the new CC appoint members who are objective, and want to take the time to do something innovative, in “the Davis way.”
Any comments? Alf and fellow JPA rubber stampers, can you stick around on the WAC and be objective? Want to rise above the last 10 years of ghastly Davis and Woodland city planning, move ahead of those bogus Sept 6 rates, and reach out, and do something really nice for the community?
Don: I am saying the voters have no idea about these issues and choices and cost benefit analysis. If the WAC does not get into it, and put it to the wider community, then the WAC is basically going with what I heard Alf say on tape a couple of months ago.
He was arguing hard for the November 2012 ballot to be advisory, and he basically called the voters idiots, in effect, because the water ins and outs are too complex for voter brains to comprehend. (Alf: it’s on the WAC tape; you over reached on that one in the heat of the battle over that advisory vote issue. It will be one of the tools we will use if this goes to the ballot in a contested manner.)
Thank goodness for Elaine and Matt stepping up to their places in civic history, and supporting the 6/4 motion to make the ballot vote and rates binding on the city.
Don, the WAC has to step up for the best interests of the poor, seniors, and middle class residents of Davis, and make sure to take the time to get it right.
[i]So the city has abandoned any discussion with the voters of the water softener issues, [/i]
Because that would be a pointless waste of time.
[i]and has abandoned any discussion about the nitrates filterning inot and polluting our middle leval aquifer.[/i]
Because that would be a pointless waste of time. Nitrates are only one of eight substance at issue in our water.
[i]Sort of: “we wrecked our water supply due to decades of hidden city and county governmental negligence,[/i]
Complete nonsense. Nothing was hidden. There was no negligence. You are making false accusations. Again.
[b]The main constituents of concern in the mid-level aquifers occur there naturally. [/b]
[i]so let’s just charge the rate payers a ton of money to go deeper into an aquifer that has thousands of years old water that we don’t understand how long it will last,[/i]
Glad you finally admit that the deep aquifer is not a reliable long-term source.
[i]and use river water that is disappearing in climate change,[‘i]
River water is not disappearing in climate change. This is more nonsense.
[i] and leave the downstream plants and animals even more dried up and polluted.”[/i]
It wouldn’t. This is more complete nonsense. You may have set a record for one paragraph. And to what end? Are you seriously advocating that we continue to use the mid-level aquifer?
“more rain, less snow. “
I believe more accurately: more rain, less water
Depends on which watershed you are looking at. It isn’t that simple.
Water softeners: A city staffer in public works told me that he raised the issue of water softeners and water rationing/conservation and was
quickly ordered not to bring these issues up, even within the city offices.
This raises the question of how many people stand to gain from the water plants, esp indirectly. It kind of smells bad.
[quote]Process wise, I have an idea. I think the WAC has a long haul ahead of it. Since Alf and some others have been determined to vote to move the JPA forward, and since it is clear this should not happen, may I suggest that those members who simply cannot get their heads around the idea that the WAC needs to slow down and get it right should resign, or members who thought this WAC gig was going to be a fast rubber stamp of the Saylor JPA Taj Mahal Project should resign, and let the new CC appoint members who are objective, and want to take the time to do something innovative, in “the Davis way.” [/quote]
May I suggest that you want anyone removed from the WAC who does not agree with your view, whatever that may be at the moment. Your views waffle from one extreme to the other, from one issue to another without any logic or sense. This latest statement is probably one of the most outrageous you’ve made to date IMO. Secondly, it is in direct contradiction to many statements you have made in public that the WAC is doing a “wonderful job”. Apparently the WAC only does a “wonderful job” if it takes YOUR position, which changes with the wind…
I don’t normally get this abrasive, but your comment really took the cake/irritated the heck out of me……… it has been a long day so I am going to try and chill… 😉
ERM: may I recommend chilling with a cold ….. Bottle of Davis city water?
Elaine
Best to not engage. Try to be an impartial and noncommittal chair. Know that’s hard on the DV but think you will be happier!
Soda: “[i]Elaine Best to not engage. Try to be an impartial and noncommittal chair. Know that’s hard on the DV but think you will be happier[/i]!
False statements and unsubstantiated allegations should always be challenged by those who have the facts. Certain critics think that restating a falsehood often enough will make it true, at least in the eyes of the uninformed. It is critical that those who have the data refute the falsehoods, each and every time, so that we may make decisions based on facts rather than delusions.
Mark West .. Please spare us. A vote to cut off a promising study of West Sacto is not logical and is facially not in the best interests of Davis ratepayers. Therefore, such a vote is raw politics, and benefits those who fiscaly and politically benefit from the JPA project
Thank you for proving my point Michael.
David G: What pain? The only pain for several years is that felt by these JPAers when the voters knock down the JPA and tell them to go study West Sacto and other options. I am totally ready for the campaign, and so is the team.
Go ahead, Alf and Saylor : make it easy for us. Cut off West Sacto research.
Certain individuals like to “spit-ball”, and like to throw excrement at the wall to see what “sticks”. Feel free to consider me one of them.
Eagle eye… your comment regarding “quashing” a PW employee comment re: water softeners, raises some interesting issues… does the PW employee know what they are talking about (many wouldn’t)? I for one doubt whether they were knowledgeable, and I more seriously doubt whether anyone in authority would suppress an opinion unless (and even then, probably not) it was complete and total BS. That is, of course giving you the courtesy that YOU are telling the truth.
[quote]Elaine
Best to not engage. Try to be an impartial and noncommittal chair. Know that’s hard on the DV but think you will be happier![/quote]
I have been extremely patient w Michael, but when he called for the ouster of anyone from the WAC who did not agree w him, it was just the last straw that broke the camel’s back – after a very long and difficult day dealing with the SCD issue. What I should have said is that the closer the WAC comes to making a decision, the shriller the voices of dissent against any surface water project become… 😉
And one more thing – you would not believe the amount of work WAC members have put into their deliberations – literally hundreds of hours of painstaking work behind the scenes. I tend to bristle at those who would baselessly sling mud at very conscientious people who have taken many, many hours out of their busy lives to assist in this monumental endeavor.
ERM: see my comments about this in today’s article. The WAC is a politically created body. I can work with that.