The WAC has weighed in on the critical issue of going forward with the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) project, and now the council is being asked by city staff to rubberstamp that recommendation. The question is whether they will.
Staff recommendation is fourfold. First, to accept the recommendation by the WAC, the DWWSP (Davis Woodland Water Supply project) Option A, WAC Alternative 4b: 30 mgd DWWSP Project; Woodland: 18 mgd, Davis: 12 mgd with two stipulations. One that both cities share in the cost of the pipelines to convey the treated water to the city limits of each city and second that the cost share percentages of the entire project change to reflect the current anticipated reliance on the treatment facility.
Second, they recommend acceptance that the city consider mediation to resolve the allocation of costs to achieve proportionality. Third, they recommend acceptance of the recommendation that the city council consider directing staff in coordination with the Natural Resource Commission (NRC) to develop a program with particular emphasis on irrigation.
Finally, they recommend that if the city proceeds with the Woodland project, the preferred method for bidding would be a DBO (Design-Build-Operate) contract.
As staff notes, Davis’ original negotiation strategy with West Sacramento hinged upon three key items: 1) a reduced connection fee of $6 million, down from West Sacramento’s original request of $12.656 million; 2) a long-term 30-year contract with clauses regarding renewability; and 3) input and control of O&M (Operation and Maintenance) and replacement costs allocated to the Davis portion of water use.
Staff notes that West Sacramento’s “counter offer resulted in an increase of the connection fee $6.744 million to $19.4 million instead of a reduction to $6 million. Also, West Sacramento’s offer to incrementally sell Davis supply at $1.6 million/mgd does not result in any cost savings, but does offer Davis an opportunity to purchase more capacity over time.”
“Staff does not consider this an advantage. Davis would still be obligated to install facilities to accommodate the full 12 mgd capacity, including booster pumps, pipeline and ozonation facilities,” they write.
Staff thus notes, “The negotiations with West Sacramento did not achieve the desired result and were terminated.”
On the other hand, “The City of Woodland was agreeable to renegotiating certain terms of the JPA agreement provided that the City of Davis is committed to the construction of a joint Drinking Water Supply Project.”
Staff is thus proposing language for a March election that will indicate the City of Davis’ commitment to that project.
A March election would need to be called by the Yolo County Board of Supervisors no later than their regularly scheduled Board Meeting on December 4, 2012.
Tonight’s meeting is the deadline to direct staff to return with election documents by November 13.
There is still considerable question as to whether this would be an advisory or binding ballot measure.
Staff writes, “In order for the measure to be binding, careful thought would need to be given to just how ‘binding’ the requirement to move forward with a surface water project was.”
They argue, “There are many of the currently unknown features of the project some of which could make the project less feasible or even infeasible.”
Staff contends, “These outstanding implementation issues make it difficult to write a measure that would mandate that the City move forward if the measure precluded off ramps or modifications to best serve the City and the rate customers.”
Instead, they seem to suggest that “an advisory measure would inform the Council of the voters’ desires and still provide flexibility to handle the upcoming policy issues and the final ‘go or no go’ decisions.”
They suggest the following language: “Should Davis proceed with participation in the Woodland Davis Clean Water Project, to provide 12 million gallons per day of surface water to Davis water consumers and use groundwater as necessary, at an estimated construction cost to Davis of approximately $120,000,000 and subject to approval of increased water rates by the water customers under Proposition 218?”
ANALYSIS – Unless the council makes a stunning reversal here, it seems quite likely that the first question is answered – for better or worse, it will be a Woodland project.
In many ways, this is not the most important question, though staff did at least last week project about a 12.5% cost-differential for the West Sacramento project.
At the same time, the staff is pushing for the DBO procurement method. That would answer one of the other critical questions – we would be going to a privately-run operation.
What we do not know at this point in time is what the rate structure will be. Matt Williams and Frank Loge have suggested an innovative new model that would deal with some of the issues of proportionality, but there is a good amount of resistance to that from some city staff, namely City Manager Steve Pinkerton and General Manager of Utilities Herb Niederberger, along with consultant Doug Dove.
Finally, we apparently will not know who the operator is for this project until after the project is approved by the Davis voters. Dennis Diemer confirmed for the Vanguard that none of the three bidders will submit their bids until after Davis votes.
All of this likely means there will be plenty of fodder for the opposition to the project to hammer on during the election. One of the interesting new dilemmas is the seemingly rapid decision on the final project and DBO, that will raise the question as to why we rushed the final decision in light of what is an arbitrary election date.
Woodland’s ability to go this alone may not be questioned, but the fact that they won’t even have bids until late March or April weighs against the notion that an election date in April or May might not have been a more comfortable fit.
Will this pass? That will depend on the rate structure and whether it will resemble a tripling of the rates over a relatively short period of time. The other issues are secondary to this.
That said, an advisory vote would be a colossal error and would probably entice a second ballot initiative drive. Any effort seen by the public to create even the possibility that the council could ignore the citizen’s vote is detrimental to the project.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Sigh. There they go, again.
[i]“…and now the council is being asked by city staff to rubberstamp that recommendation.”[/i]
No, they are [b]reviewing[/b] the recommendation.
[i]”for better or worse, it will be a Woodland project.”[/i]
Why do you keep saying things like this?
[i]”One of the interesting new dilemmas is the seemingly rapid decision on the final project and DBO, that will raise the question as to why we rushed the final decision…”[/i]
Rapid? The WAC followed its schedule and timeline assiduously. Rushed? Seriously, David, you have used this term over and over and over and over again. How much longer do you want this vetting process to take? What was ‘rushed’ about it?
“No, they are reviewing the recommendation. “
Of course.
“Why do you keep saying things like this? “
It’s accurate?
“Rapid? The WAC followed its schedule and timeline assiduously. Rushed?”
They followed the timeline and schedule, but it was clear there was a leap at the end. If you don’t agree, look at Matt Williams’ litany of questions because he was clearly caught off guard by how abrupt the cut off was.
“Seriously, David, you have used this term over and over and over and over again. “
I think it’s an accurate assessment of the situation. The process took a long time – but at critical points, the process was sped up to keep with what appears to be a largely arbitrary deadline.
“How much longer do you want this vetting process to take? What was ‘rushed’ about it? “
It looks like they should have had a couple of more meetings on the details.
I think I explained what was rushed about it when I discussed Matt Williams comments.
David M. Greenwald 10/23/12: 11:14 AM (responding(*) to Don Shor’s comments (in quotes))
“Rapid? The WAC followed its schedule and timeline assiduously. Rushed?”
*They followed the timeline and schedule, but it was clear there was a leap at the end. If you don’t agree, look at Matt Williams’ litany of questions because he was clearly caught off guard by how abrupt the cut off was.
“Seriously, David, you have used this term over and over and over and over again. ”
*I think it’s an accurate assessment of the situation. The process took a long time – but at critical points, the process was sped up to keep with what appears to be a largely arbitrary deadline.
My comment)
When the Project proponents get ahead of the public, they lose the public’s trust. For me, the “2010 Christmas Coup” was a big issue. I clearly remember two DCC members (Sue Greenwald and Rochelle Swanson) being restricted to the Council Chamber audience due to quorum issues during an emergency “Project Informational Meeting” being held in the Council Chambers before the ultimate pre-Christmas Project vote. Rushed indeed!
“That said, an advisory vote would be a colossal error…”
Maybe people should stop calling Davis the “People’s Republic of Davis”. Some clearly aspire for the City to become more of a direct democracy. The state is bad enough with its initiative process. Davis takes things to a whole nother level.
Complicated issues should not be decided through a direct democracy process. The advisory route is the way to go. To my mind, not giving the council any discretion is akin to everyone agreeing that someone is going to drive from Point A to Point B in 3 months. Everyone agrees that the person is to drive from Point A to Point B. Everyone tells the driver the exact route that they must drive, the speed that they must drive, the lane that they must drive in, with additional instructions such as maintaining breaking and other safe spacing from other cars, how to stop at stop lights and stop signs, etc. Then, something unexpected happens, like a kid runs into the street, or there is an accident or a detour because of road construction. However, the drive is not allowed to deviate from the instructions set 3-months prior. That’s how what some are recommending on this water issue sounds to me. We elected these council members. This is an extremely complicated issue as everyone seems to acknowledge, do you think it is really smart to tie their hands unless you really don’t want any water project at all? Tying their hands also creates the opportunity for all sorts of mischief for those who either want to tank the project, and for some who might be negotiating with the City on some of these matters. Have you ever negotiated with someone who had strict marching orders and you knew exactly what they were, and that they could not be revised?