Budget/Fiscal

It was 3:20 in the morning when council slogged through a mass of compromise motions, but the basic effect was a doubling of the water rates.  In the end, 4855 filed Prop 218 protests, with 185 of those not being fully validated.

I have been against this project from the start due to two primary considerations – the expense of the project and the lack of clear need.

By Alan Pryor –

For full disclosure and to allow readers to weigh the merits of the facts later in the article, I have been a long term strong supporter of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency water project. I believe, that we cannot continue to suck more and more groundwater from an aquifer with finite capacity forever.

Back on August 5, the Vanguard published an article that argued that “City Employees Must Make Concessions or Face Layoffs by September.”  As we mentioned on Friday, concessions seem increasingly unlikely now and we are likely looking at 20 to 33 layoffs.

For the last few months the council has come under fire due to water rates that were set to triple for residential rate payers.  It now appears that the rates the council will vote on have been downwardly revised from nearly tripling the rate of increase, to an increase of 2.2 times the current rate.

Should Veolia’s Ties to the Palestinian Controversy Disqualify Them From Building the Woodland-Davis Water Supply Project?

Back in early June, the Clean Water Agency announced that, in an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) process, “three firms have been identified as the most highly qualified to receive the project RFP [Request for Proposal].”

Despite the lack of turnout at Tuesday’s public outreach for the city on the budget, several things were learned that evening which relate to the September 30^th deadline to cut roughly 2.5 million in personnel costs.

One of the critical questions that has arisen in the battle over water rates are what are the alternatives, if the city is not able to go forward with the water project due to a rate revolt.  Advocates of delaying the water project argue that the city may be able to appeal new discharge standards in order to delay the project.

Originally there were three partners in the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project (DWWSP), as UC Davis was an active participant in the plan to bring Sacramento River water to replace the reliance on groundwater by Davis, Woodland and UC Davis.

The result was not surprising.  August 30.  Little active effort to promote the event.  Perhaps 15 members of the public showed up to the city’s budget open house at the Davis Veteran’s Memorial on Tuesday night, and that included three reporters and perhaps a few off-duty city employees.

Notably absent from participation were policymakers for the city.  Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson attended, Councilmember Sue Greenwald arrived well into the evening, Mayor Krovoza was out of town, Dan Wolk was not feeling well, and we had no contact with Stephen Souza.

When the City of Davis brought in Ed Schroeder and George Tchobanoglous, they seemed to suggest that the city could move forward with only one project while scaling back on the need for an expensive wastewater treatment plant.

Now Ed Schroeder has an editorial in the Davis Enterprise that argues that we need better water now.

The Davis Enterprise recently ran an Op-Ed by an individual named Walter Sadler, who presents a very different view of the water project than the one we have gotten from city staff or from the council majority.

Twenty years ago, a political mentor of mine taught me the that way you see the truth, through cleverly-wordsmithed and dressed-up rhetoric, is to see if they are playing offense or defense.  If they are playing defense, defending their policy, changing the subject, they are in trouble.

We have to ask again whether Davis needs a parking structure in the prime 3^rd and 4^th, E and F street location.

Yesterday we reported that the city plans to hold budget meetings where the public can come and the city can receive input and suggestions about budget priorities, as the City Council considers additional cuts to the 2011-2012 fiscal year budget in late September.

On Tuesday, August 30, and again on Wednesday, September 7, the City of Davis will be hosting two community open houses to receive input and suggestions about budget priorities, as the City Council considers additional cuts to the 2011-2012 fiscal year budget in late September.

When I first started doing this five years ago, I used to worry about not having anything to report or comment on.  What I have found in the five years since is that, while there are quieter times and more busy times, there is never really a period of time in Davis when nothing is going on.

Vanguard Responds That City Appears to Be Switching Back and Forth Between “Protest” and “Notice” Requirements and Definitions –

Yesterday the Vanguard reported that the city failed to notice tenants who are eligible to protest water rate increases under Government Code Section 53755 (b): “One written protest per parcel, filed by an owner or tenant of the parcel, shall be counted in calculating a majority protest to a proposed new or increased fee or charge subject to the requirements of Section 6 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution.”

City May Have Erred on Prop 218 Notice –

The Vanguard has learned that the city likely did not properly notice all required citizens of the water rate hike.  According to the Government Code, both ratepayers and tenants are allowed to protest rate hikes. However, to the best of our knowledge, tenants were not informed of this right by the city.

From Economic Hardship to Fire Staffing Reductions –

We often take this month-long break from city council meetings to re-focus on the priorities facing the city.  We are now halfway through the month of August, but still three weeks remain until the next city council meeting.