For much of the night, it appeared that the Water Advisory Committee was headed to a divided vote of 7-3 or 6-4 to go to the Main Woodland Option. It was also clear that a couple of the swing voters in the middle were uncomfortable with such a split.
In the end, it was a compromise move that appeared to be engineered by Bill Kopper and Frank Loge, with support from Alf Brandt, that gave both sides enough of what they could live with to produce an 8-2 vote on the compromise motion, with only Jerry Adler and Helen Thomson, who oppose even looking at a West Sacramento option, dissenting.
Alf Brandt got his motion, Bill Kopper added a provision to that motion that would advise the city council to attempt to make an offer to West Sacramento to see if there would be even a possibility of keeping that option alive. Chair Elaine Roberts Musser added a friendly amendment that would smooth the rate increase to avoid the type of spiking that the Vanguard was most concerned with.
The compromise motions maintained Alf Brandt’s motion, with the exception of the portion on DBO, which was removed entirely.
Frank Loge explained, “Bill’s language directing staff to seek a proposal from West Sacramento to them on providing a hook up fee of $6 million,” which he explained as a connection fee.
The motion would call for the agreement for 30 years with a 30-year extension.
“I’m willing to go along with this,” Alf Brandt said, despite still believing that Woodland was the way to go, “It is for city staff to make a proposal [to West Sac] to let’s see what happens… This is what we’d be willing to pay up to $6 million, 12 mgd, for 30 years with a 30 year extension.”
He noted that it would take some time to alter the Woodland arrangement to reflect the work of the WAC anyway, so he said, “It’s going to take a while to develop this recommendation to reflect all that we’ve contributed through these months talking about a lot of things that may have to happen. So as that’s going on, let’s see what happens with West Sacramento. Put something out there, and see if they can do it.”
Throughout the night, the WAC was cognizant of the need to get more people than a bare 6-4 or 7-3 majority on board as a way of avoiding the likely acrimony of a bitterly-divided electorate come next March.
Nevertheless, Alf Brandt and others expressed a strong skepticism that West Sacramento would be viable.
Elaine Roberts Mussers noted that if the council approved this recommendation, they would likely spend the half million toward filling the site, which as she put it, would mean that they would be leaning more toward the Woodland option anyway.
“Chances are West Sac isn’t going to do what we want them to do and we’ll end up with a Woodland project anyway,” she said. “I just feel like that’s where we’re headed.”
Despite the compromise motion that puts a lot of the critical decisions in the hands of the city council, there was a good deal of division and acrimony during the evening.
One side, notably, Mark Siegler argued that there should be a much greater gap in the cost of the project and accused the consultants of having a conflict of interests. Others defended Carollo as having no stake in the process and then accused some members of the committee of attempting to do anything to delay the project.
Jerry Adler noted that going to West Sacramento would require us to obtain water rights, transfer them to West Sacramento and he said they were warned by consultants and attorneys, “There’s a good chance we would lose our water rights” and in six years from now we will be left without options.
Mark Siegler took exception to the comments stating, “I just think… those are scare tactics. Point to anybody who has lost their water rights in that amount of time. We’re not talking about a delay in years.”
Early Mr. Siegler said, “We really do have a conflict of interest. The very people who are going to benefit from the project are telling us what the costs are going to be.”
He added, “There is a good deal of uncertainty today, but there might be a heck of a lot less uncertainty a year from now.”
Matt Williams took exception to this comment, “It’s pretty insulting to the gentleman from Carollo Engineering who has been working on putting together the West Sac numbers to say that Carollo has something to gain by the numbers that they’re putting together on West Sac. You may be able to make the argument regarding Woodland, but I think that that’s really crazy.”
At the same, others dismissed comments from Mr. Siegler as aimed at delay of the project.
Michael Harrington’s comments stirred tensions as well. He noted that when they started to run the referendum, “Everyone that was pro-JPA at the time hammered us… $50 million. We’re going to lose $50 million, the train is leaving the station. We have to do it now. We have to have the rates now.”
He noted that 20 mgd is now down to 12 and that the WAC has saved the city millions in costs.
As his comments went over three minutes, the chair attempted to cut him off. There was a motion to allow him an extra minute, that was defeated 5-5 and Mr. Harrington was prevented from finishing his comment.
Despite what was a clear divide in the thinking among members of the committee, the compromise keeps both options on the table. It is clear that 6 or 7 members of the committee favor Woodland, and many do not believe West Sacramento is a viable option for a lot of reasons ranging from ownership to quality of the water.
Next week, the council will take up the issue of the water project and the WAC will discuss the DBO process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I believe that the Woodland portion of the motion also made stipulations about the pipeline sharing cost and the % of cost to each city? And that DBO was to be considered as DB or am I wrong?
No the DBO/ DB part was removed but the cost-sharing remains.
Before the blog gets busy, I just wanted to point out that City staff went to a lot of trouble and expense to haul all that video and sound equipment over to the Senior Center for last night’s WAC meeting. Thanks to Steve Pinkerton and his staff for the extra effort to ensure these important meetings are fully available to the public.
Editor: it’s Carollo Engineers, not Corolla Engineers.
[quote] City staff went to a lot of trouble and expense to haul all that video and sound equipment over to the Senior Center[/quote]
City staff may have been involved, but it was DMA folks who were running the show. It wouldn’t surprise me if that was all DMA crew and equipment.
.
Jim, in the Staff Report for last night’s meeting the pipeline mileage was clarified as,
“The Davis treated water pipeline associated with the JPA project (JPA pipeline) is 38,600 lineal feet (LF) long, or 7.3 miles, extending from the water treatment plant near Woodland to just south of the photovoltaic facility on Road 102. The Davis treated water pipeline associated with the West Sac alternative (West Sac pipeline) is 49,000 LF long, or 9.3 miles, extending from the West Sacramento treatment plant to Mace Boulevard.”
That makes sense to me. When I initially rough-measured West Sac I straight-lined it and came up with about 8 miles, but later I ran it along a more logical route and it came out to the 9.3 figure.
.
Surprised this is so quiet. So I want to know what Elaine, Matt Williams, Mike Harrington and Sue Greenwald think of this compromise?
Growth Issue: The CC has this on the Tuesday agenda. Hard to say what the city leaders in West Sacto will do. They could use some cash from us for paying off bonds on that overbuilt plant, but remains to be seen what they offer.
Are you closer or further to putting on your own initiative? Do you think the WAC did a good or bad job?
Very nice coverage of the WAC meeting, dmg!
Here is the exact motion:
[quote]Motion: Move the WAC direct City staff to draft a recommendation to City Council to adopt the DWWSP Option A, WAC Alternative 4b: 30 mgd DWWSP Project; Woodland: 18 mgd, Davis: 12 mgd with the following criteria:
a. That both cities share in the cost of the pipelines to convey the treated water to the city limits of each city;
b. That the cost share percentages of the entire project change to reflect the current anticipated reliance on the treatment facility;
c. The WAC maintains the ability to discuss and make recommendations on DBO;
d. City staff be directed to make a proposal to West Sacramento to provide a hook-up fee to the City of Davis that does not exceed $6,000,000 and provides the processing of 12 mgd per day for 30 years and a 30 year renewal option, at a fixed processing rate. Davis to provide upgrades that it desires. Negotiations to 60 days from Davis Council approval of this motion.
e. This motion includes the possibility (for either project) of deferred costs via financing methods in order to smooth out any rate spiking.
[/quote]
Growth: Initiative status? Under consideration. It’s a good government process thing.
Did it take over a minute to decide 5-5 not to allow Mike Harrington to speak for another minute?
Alan it would have been quicker to have let him finish. It’s not like he was filibustering.
From my view, Elaine as chair practice unequal application of her discretion. For instance, she admonished Harrington and Sue, at one point shouting, ‘be quiet’ to Sue, but then when her own son was taunting Harrington loudly, she failed to act reciprocally.
Were the proceeding captured on streaming video?
Someone please explain the logic to me as I am clearly missing something. West Sac accepts the deal and we get to buy water from them for 60 years. Then what?
At 60 years we don’t have any water and we have lost some or perhaps all our water rights. Is the thinking that everyone who votes on this will be dead so it will be someone else’s problem? I thought the idea was to solve the problem, not kick it down the road.
Mark, if the City of Tracy situation is a template, then the extension past 60 years will be negotiated at the time that the second 30 year period is exercised.
Even in the worst case scenario it will not take 60 years to 1) split the two water rights now held by the JPA, and 2) add a Bryte Bend point of diversion to the Davis portion of the two rights. I’m a firm believer that there is significant water right risk in the five year period from late 2012 to 2018, but that water right risk evaporates when the five year period is expanded to be a sixty year period.
In addition, having Davis put a bona fide offer on the table to West Sac should give West Sac the necessary signal it needs to begin the application process for expanding the place of service of their two water rights to include Davis.
[quote]Were the proceeding captured on streaming video?[/quote]
DMA staff recorded the meeting. I don’t know what their schedule is for releasing the video, but I expect it’ll be available for streaming at some point.
Matt Williams: “[i]Mark, if the City of Tracy situation is a template, then the extension past 60 years will be negotiated at the time that the second 30 year period is exercised.[/i]”
Matt: Any extension will be at the mercy of West Sacramento. If they need the water processing capacity for themselves then what does Davis do?
[i]then the extension past 60 years will be negotiated at the time that the second 30 year period is exercised.” [/i]
It’s been just about 60 years now since the last major water acquisition blunder was made by Davis city leaders.
Don: Berryessa, right?
[quote]From my view, Elaine as chair practice unequal application of her discretion. For instance, she admonished Harrington and Sue, at one point shouting, ‘be quiet’ to Sue, but then when her own son was taunting Harrington loudly, she failed to act reciprocally.[/quote]
This is a completely inaccurate portrayal of what occurred, including full context from the meeting prior. I don’t care to go beyond that because I don’t want to embarrass anyone – it would serve no useful purpose. However, you are completely and utterly wrong on this issue…
[quote]Were the proceeding captured on streaming video? [/quote]
It was videotaped by Davis Media Access, and will be posted on the city website soon…
[quote]Someone please explain the logic to me as I am clearly missing something. West Sac accepts the deal and we get to buy water from them for 60 years. Then what?
At 60 years we don’t have any water and we have lost some or perhaps all our water rights. Is the thinking that everyone who votes on this will be dead so it will be someone else’s problem? I thought the idea was to solve the problem, not kick it down the road. [/quote]
Very good question. And it doesn’t make the West Sac option necessarily the “least costly” in the end, does it? Again, it is weighing trade-offs…
[quote]Matt: Any extension will be at the mercy of West Sacramento. If they need the water processing capacity for themselves then what does Davis do? [/quote]
My understanding is we build more capacity at the West Sac site – at more cost…
Elaine: I sat right behind your son, he said things loudly and you did nothing to stop it. You didn’t hesitate to jump down the throats of people you disagreed with.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”Matt: Any extension will be at the mercy of West Sacramento. If they need the water processing capacity for themselves then what does Davis do?”[/i]
Since West Sacramento would be gazing into a 30 year crystal ball, what reason would they have to not grant another 30 year option? What would it cost them? In a word . . . nothing.
I’ve had a lot of experience with long term contracts in the Industrial Gas industry and in Healthcare IT. In all cases the party in the same position as West Sac is in is always much more eager to extend their revenue stream, than the party in the same position as Davis is in is to extend their obligation to pay the revenue stream.
Further, if Davis actually does go forward with the West Sac option, then they will surely add Bryte Bend as a point of diversion for Davis’ two water rights. West Sac would see a huge benefit to themselves if there are four water rights with a diversion point of Bryte Bend rather than two water rights. if they chose not to renew with Davis, then the functional application of Davis’ water rights would leave the Bryte Bend point of diversion.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”My understanding is we build more capacity at the West Sac site – at more cost…”[/i]
Elaine, I think that is only true if Davis needs more water than 12 mgd. As long as we do not exceed that delivery amount (demand amount) then Davis will not have to contribute to the building of more capacity.
[i]Elaine, I think that is only true if Davis needs more water than 12 mgd. As long as we do not exceed that delivery amount (demand amount) then Davis will not have to contribute to the building of more capacity.[/i]
12 mgd is our current usage.
[quote]Elaine: I sat right behind your son, he said things loudly and you did nothing to stop it. You didn’t hesitate to jump down the throats of people you disagreed with.[/quote]
Again, this is a blatant mischaracterization of what happened, and repeating it again will not make it true. I will not be baited into stating what actually happened, as that would require embarrassing individuals, and I see nothing positive coming from doing so.
I could transcribe the recording I have if that will settle things? I remember mike Harrington going over time and David Musser shouting to sit down at some point
[quote]I could transcribe the recording I have if that will settle things? I remember mike Harrington going over time and David Musser shouting to sit down at some point[/quote]
Trust me, you don’t want to go here…
I guess I’m missing something…
To everyone: If anyone even cares about this issue, just watch the videotape and judge for yourself. And unfortunately to put it in full context, you really need to watch the tape of the meeting prior to that, and to some of the earliest taped meetings. ‘Nuff said…
Here’s what I observed: Mike’s first minutes were articulate, on point and respectful, even gracious at times. However, he knowingly went over his time limit. (Whether the time limit was necessary or even desirable is another question.) As Elaine was engaging Mike in an effort to enforce the limit in her role as chair, there was considerable direct back-and-forth between Elaine and Mike. During that exchange, an adult male (presumably Elaine’s son) made some loud — and what I would characterize as hostile — remarks directing Mike to stop speaking. In the midst of the hubbub I doubt that Elaine even heard them; she was appropriately focused on retaining control of the meeting.
I spoke with Mike after the meeting, and it was clear that he felt that past interactions between he and Elaine had carried over, and that he felt she was being rude. I’ve seen Mike in action many times, both on the dais and off, and know that he can be rude himself; soft-spoken he ain’t. (Maybe it’s an attorney thing. At least one attorney on the WAC has a well-known ability to hold the floor in the face of determined efforts to make him yield it.)
I personally believe that Mike had nothing to gain in jousting with Elaine; his views on the subject are well-known, and he wasn’t going to change the minds of any WAC members by speaking beyond his 3 minutes. To me it was a personal battle, and one that I found somewhat embarrassing. However, it was hardly anything out of the ordinary in the history of Davis politics, and thus not particularly notable.
.
[quote](Whether the time limit was necessary or even desirable is another question.)[/quote]
This is the additional context which is necessary. In early meetings, I was more lenient about time limits, but some members of the public took advantage and began to filibuster. So a strict time limit was set at 3 minutes from then on, with the City Manager keeping time. For more added context, look at the videotape of the Aug 9 meeting.
And there is additional context that I am not at liberty to disclose at the moment…