For a moment I have to hearken back to a Davis city council meeting from spring of 2010. The council was about to approve a one-time water rate increase. The increase was modest, but still generated anger and anxiety from a few dozen people.
This would be yet another incremental step of pushing forward the surface water project. The council had the votes to ram it through, but at the time, there were warning signs on the wall about which a responsible council would have taken better note.
I warned the council at the time, that when the project’s 20 to 26 percent rate hikes came to light, the room would be packed with angry ratepayers. Lamar Heystek, on his way out, warned the council they were dumping a massive problem into the laps of future councils. Already it was clear that neither Mr. Heystek, Mayor Ruth Asmundson nor Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor would be allowed to pay the piper.
On Tuesday night, not one person sitting at the dais was there on that fateful day that was barely two years ago and, in many ways, those days seems like a lot longer ago than just two years.
We can imagine – if we had only done then what we are doing now – fully exploring the surface water projects with a public body in a painstaking and meticulous fashion. Going above and beyond the call of duty to forge consensus in an issue that is just waiting to explode again – after it exploded after September 6 when the council at that time implemented by a 4 to 1 vote the messy process and, by extension, the project that they had inherited from the previous regime.
For those who want to criticize Mayor Joe Krovoza, and there are plenty of reasons to do so, at the same time, he acknowledges errors.
“We should have conducted a full rate study before proceeding with the Prop 218 rate-setting,” the mayor acknowledged.
“I was very pleased that before the council proceeded with the Prop 218 process that led to the September vote, it insisted on full, multi-year rates, not a one-year rate that wouldn’t have shown the public the full magnitude of what was coming,” the mayor said. “However, I take responsibility for not seeking a major rate study at that point.”
Another problem was the lack of public outreach.
“During the 218 process, the public information and community forums were quite good for those that took time to look in on them. But the public outreach and detailed rate work should have been far more extensive before the rates were submitted for a Prop 218 vote,” he said.
“The lessons, however, run deeper,” he said. “I believe the community’s rate concerns during the 218 process were fueled by an underlying unease with the project itself. Clearly, a more extensive public process is needed when the magnitude of community cost is so high.”
It is not clear at this point where the water project will end up. Woodland seems the more likely outcome, but the council went out of its way to keep the West Sacramento option alive.
When Stephen Souza was not reelected, Mayor Joe Krovoza had a number of choices to fill the vacancy on the JPA. He chose Brett Lee to fill that vacancy.
It was an interesting and bold decision, because Brett Lee had worked to gather signatures for the water referendum. It was a move that showed that the mayor and the council were not operating under their previous rules of engagement and instead wanted to foster openness and support a variety of viewpoints.
Brett Lee has quickly earned the respect of his colleagues for his thoughtful approach, out-of-the-box thinking, and shrewd negotiating. He will be an important point person as they explore the West Sacramento project. He quite nearly ended up on both negotiating teams, but there was a level of discomfort with potentially upsetting the Brown Act applecart.
Still, the tone and tenor of the meeting was night and day from the councils of the past – finding ways to reach common ground even on issues of distinct difference.
Those who have watched previous councils bicker and play power politics could take heart at the thoughtful and considerate approach.
I don’t want to whitewash this, however. The water issue remains as explosive and volatile as it ever has. While both the council and the WAC last week went out of their way to forge consensus even in areas of difference, in the end, choices will have to be made.
In the end, despite the best efforts of all involved, the battle over the March ballot may still be intense. The water rates hikes, at this point, will still be steep. The decisions about the JPA, the DBO and other issues remain contentious.
But something has clearly changed for the better here. If we are able to take the sting out of some of the disagreements, then maybe even when we do not get exactly what we want, we will all be better for the process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
We only have to analyze our national political issues and media behavior to understand the difficulty of building national consensus on major issues of governance. Even the Vanguard is a component of this dysfunctional process for making tough decisions. It would be interesting to survey everyone participating in the debate about our water works direction to see if they have changed their opinion. My guess is that few have.
I don’t have any problem requiring an effort of due diligence equal to the complexity and potential fiscal impacts of the issue. But, at some point out elected officials need to make a decision and accept the fact that no good deed will go unpunished.
For all the brain-power in this town, I do not see any evidence that big efforts in public consensus-building buys us enough to justify all the stalled decisions. In the end there will be just as many residents pissed off that the decision did not go their way.
The better approach in my opinion is to for staff and the council to gather as much expert advice as possible, and then do what they are elected to do… and make a decision. Frankly, I think the popularity of a politician – or any leaders for that matter – has more to do with their luck for not having to deal with difficult challenges than it does their ability to do so through consensus building. The alternative method for maintaining popularity is to divide and conquer… like the national Democrats are doing with help from the left-leaning media. That strategy will likely not work in this town.
So, considering that neither consensus-building nor divide-and-conquer will move the needle much in making political friends related to difficult decisions, I suggest the council just collect enough information to make an informed decision and accept the inevitable wrath of those voters angry that things didn’t go their way.
JB said:[quote]The better approach in my opinion is to for staff and the council to gather as much expert advice as possible, and then do what they are elected to do… and make a decision.[/quote]
I thought that was what we just did with the WAC – consensus building and expert advice. I went to Tuesday’s CC meeting expecting a crowd, but it was obvious from the many empty seats that the action has all been at the WAC meetings.
My hunch is that there are still bomb throwers who will work to defeat the consensus that the WAC seems to have achieved, but as far as the process goes, the last ten months (and probably the next few) have been time well-spent. I think this is one of the strengths of Davis that we [i]can[/i] do this.
Jeff: you sound just like the No on Measure J campaign and Susie Boyd in the 2000 campaign. Basically, their pitch, supported by some of those now on the WAC, was land decisions are too complex for voters to decide, so let the CC and experts make those decisions.
Fast forward to Fall 2011: same thing. The water project is too complicated for voters, so let the CC and experts decide. A member of the WAC said as much on tape a couple of months ago, again.
Well, it’s obvious for all to see that Davis voters usually get the right decision, when given fair data and analysis.
The voters will decide the water project, so relax and enjoy the ride.
rdcanning: [i]”My hunch is that there are still bomb throwers who will work to defeat the consensus.”[/i]
Michael Harrington: [i]”The voters will decide the water project, so relax and enjoy the ride.”[/i]
I think this comparison helps underline my point.
rdcanning, I agree that the WAC process has helped with expert advice, but I don’t think it has done much as a consensus-building device. I could be wrong there, but my sense is that the issues are still to complex for the average voter to take the time to learn about and understand, and those intimately involved haven’t changed their opinion. It will be interesting to see if Dunning’s needle moves as a result of all our community work to vet this decision. My thinking is that more voters are influenced by what he writes than are influenced by the work of the WAC… unfortunately or not.
Mike: I think the issues are too complex for the voters to decide. Frankly, I think the issues are too complex for you and me to be inserting ourselves into the decision process other than to demand expert advice to staff and the council.
I don’t think issues are too complex for voters. It’s all in how it is framed. I believe the WAC process has been a good consensus-building process.
I’m not as sanguine as Harrington about the voters being the final arbiter of all things political. They may be for some but elections are not a panacea. There are a lot of propositions in the last thirty years or so that in hindsight have caused a lot of problems and cost the citizens a lot of money. (There are also some that have been quite helpful.) When one can qualify a referendum on a shoestring and gather enough signatures (by paying to have them collected) by playing the Chicken Little card then one can submit most things to the voters. That doesn’t make it in the best interest of the citizenry. This is one of the reasons that I believe that we should ban paid signature gatherers from the proposition process and why I do not sign them if the gatherer is being paid to gather them. There is something about the money that sours the process for me.
rdcanning: Measure K passed, allowing Target. It should not have, but certain progressive leaders decided to put their efforts into promoting Charlie Brown for US Congress on the other side of Sacramento, rather than opposing Measure K. People make their choices, and the results happen. Target predictably has hurt the downtown and existing shopping centers.
Sometimes I have to shop at Target; there are so few stores left in Davis now in the downtown that we simply cannot get some items from local stores that we used to get. Target is expensive, and many of their products are of poor quality. I hate shopping there, but unless I drive the family to Woodland or Dixon, we simply dont have certain basic products left at other stores that were wiped out, partially by Target coming in.
If Pam Nierg and Nancy Price and I and friends had not done the referendum last fall, the water bills would have skyrocketed early this year, and the school parcel tax would have probably failed. And there would be no WAC; there would not be a reduction of the 20 mgd allocation for Davis down to 12 (still double what we really need); and the voters would never have a choice coming up. Keeping the water plant away from a citywide vote was part of at least a ten year plan by the project proponents, and they almost succeeded in doing to Davis the fiscal damage that Woodland is doing to its residents because those poor people are not organized or politically active.
Did we want to use paid signature gatherers? NO. But we had to, and we did what we had to do to protect the ratepayers and the voters from what was going to be done to them with this water project.
I don’t see there being any chance that the surface water project research will be done in time for a March 2013 ballot. I wish the CC would recognize that now, and grant staff, the WAC, and interested persons time to get it right.
[quote]”…who wants us to go with 100% surface water so he can grow azaleas, rhododendrons and camellias here in Davis.”[/quote]Camellias do fine with our current water supply, and if fact grow more rapidly than I’d like them to. In order for [i]any[/i] vegetation to survive at the Suder residence, it must be able to survive neglect, mediocre gardening skills, and a diet of Davis groundwater.
My guess is that Brett Lee will squeeze every possible dollar of waste out of the project. The mayor appointing him was quite shrewd.
Michael Harrington says:[quote]Did we want to use paid signature gatherers? NO. But we had to, and we did what we had to do to protect the ratepayers and the voters from what was going to be done to them with this water project. [/quote]
Given all the hot air in the past few months and a lot of the disinformation about deep aquifers, midlevel aquifers, surface water, etc. I’m not so inclined to see using paid signature gatherers as so high-minded as much as a small group of folks pushing their agenda. Given the recent deliberations and recommendations of the WAC it seems as if the original plans for the projects – if not the rates and their timing – are very similar to the project as originally proposed. There was enough noise on the rates and the 218 process that it seems likely, in hindsight, that the CC would have restructured that anyway. Given the number of folks who vote in this town and the number needed to get a referendum on the ballot, a few people with a few thousand dollars can push an agenda that is not necessarily in the long-term best interest of Davis.
[quote]rdcanning, I agree that the WAC process has helped with expert advice, but I don’t think it has done much as a consensus-building device. I could be wrong there, but my sense is that the issues are still to complex for the average voter to take the time to learn about and understand, and those intimately involved haven’t changed their opinion. It will be interesting to see if Dunning’s needle moves as a result of all our community work to vet this decision. My thinking is that more voters are influenced by what he writes than are influenced by the work of the WAC… unfortunately or not. [/quote]
WAC has not gotten to the issue of public outreach yet 😉
I went to the JPA meeting today. There were about 25 people at CC Chambers. Besides me, I only counted 1-2 “interested” residents. There were 5 politicos (the 4 member Board, plus Don Saylor), and the rest were paid staff, and obviously paid professional consultants and attorneys in the bleacher seats. It was fascinating: the JPA is just lumbering along as if there is not a care in the world. Planning permits, studies, construction, bids, etc. It’s driven not by logic, or the obligation to delivery safe water at an affordable price, but by a roomful of professionals who can retire on this project.
I commented that I thought the City of Woodland should just deal directly with Davis and see if we can be their customer, and dispense with the JPA as an extra layer of expensive staff and legal structure.
Davis should step back, and develop a detailed RFP, and see what each city comes up with.
There is no hurry; we have plenty of water for many years; the rush is all about Woodland.
And: Woodland needs us far more than we need them. The Davis CC for political purposes makes it seem like the Woodland train is leaving the station, we must rush rush rush for a deal, but in fact Woodland is sitting there, gazing south, hoping and praying we chip in and save them from their planning errors.
[i]WAC has not gotten to the issue of public outreach yet[/i]
Awesome!
I don’t know why I didn’t think to expect this. We need a good community outreach plan to help education my neighbors and friends.
What I hear… many people sounds like they are still getting over having their water metered, now we they will to pay HOW MUCH? That is type of comment I am hearing. I don’t think they understand all the risks for non-compliance and waiting, and the benefits for moving to a surface water system.
To Jeff Boone: Yes, there is going to have to be a lot of honest public outreach that takes place. However, you can start the ball rolling in your neighborhood by discussing the issues – you represent a “conjunctive use ambassador”, if you will 😉