Elections

Robb Davis formally announced his candidacy in front of about 70 supporters early on Saturday at the southeast corner of 5^th and D, at the location of the the Davis Community Meals Cold Weather Shelter and the STEAC Resource Center where he has been a longtime volunteer.

“I am running because I want Davis to be a socially, environmentally, and economically healthy city. Davis faces challenges and opportunities in protecting and sustaining community health,” he said.

This week, Robb Davis announced in an email to friends and supporters that he has decided to run for the Davis City Council in the June 2014 election.  That makes him the first announced candidate for two seats currently held by Mayor Joe Krovoza, who is running for the California State Assembly, and Rochelle Swanson who has told supporters that she plans to run for reelection.

In addition to Mr. Davis, it is also widely believed that School Board Member Sheila Allen will run for the city council as well.

The issue of council compensation is a touchy subject, which is why the council hadn’t even touched the issue since 2000.  No one wants to have to raise their own salaries – it looks unseemly, especially at a time when the council is asking city staff and employees to take concessions.

That was the point that Dan Wolk made in voicing the lone dissenting vote.  But the fact is that few members of the community are going to begrudge moving the salary up to $1138 per month.  That is an amount that no one can live on, despite the Davis City Council being a full-time job.  Compare the workload of a councilmember to that of county supervisor who gets an actual salary and multiple private staffers and you see why this was a necessary move.

If it seems like a big question that should not have simply been appended to a larger item, that dealt with modifications to the city council salary – which seems like a no-brainer given the low pay and large workload and responsibility – and campaign contribution limitation changes, you’re not alone in thinking that.

The Vanguard spoke to several councilmembers about this item and none knew exactly where the idea of changing the city elections to November came from.

New staff can often be forgiven for making proposed changes when they lack the context by which the status quo was created, or lack the context of the storm they may produce by proposing the changes.  However, the staff members who prepared the recommendation that the city increase contribution limits were on staff in 2007 when the idea came up last and should have been aware of the public reaction.

The staff recommendation makes reasonable points, “The current campaign contribution limit of $100 was established in 1991. Prior to that, a $25 contribution limit was adopted in 1975. Since the last increase in 1991, other factors have also changed in the community.”

In late July, Ernie Head and Pam Nieberg submitted a letter to the city of Davis indicating their Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition for the city of Davis.  Little did we realize at the time, this move may yet set in motion a cascade of voter initiatives that may take us into the next year.

In a recent conversation, it was pointed out that there are now four potential ballot measures looming in Davis on issues of: water rates, fluoride, Cannery, and plastic bags.  Here we assess the likelihood of a matter ending up on the ballot and the probability of success at the polls.

Ernie Head and Pam Nieberg have submitted a letter to the city of Davis indicating their Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition for the city of Davis.  The initiative would repeal Section 39.03.030 of the Davis Municipal Code which increased utility rates generated on and after May 1, as well as Section 39.03.040 of the Davis Municipal Code, which set the Schedule of Water Supply Fee for those utility bills generated on and after January 1, 2015.

The initiative also would repeal Section 39.03.045 of the Davis Municipal Code, the Schedule of Metered Rate Charges for water used beginning May 1, 2013.

Last week we reported on the allegation by John Munn, the listed plaintiff in the lawsuit against the city’s water process, who wrote an op-ed a week ago arguing that “the election outcome was influenced by Yolo County Elections Office mailing procedures.”

Mr. Munn’s central point was “The biggest advantage of the Yes on I campaign turned out to be the County Elections Office mailing process that delivered voter guides containing the pro and con arguments a week or more after the ballots. As a result, the Measure I election was neither fair nor unbiased.”

Opponents of Surface Water Project Make Final Push with Op-Ed: The opponents of the surface water project, despite the result a week ago Tuesday where the voters approved Measure I by 1200 votes, or a 54-46 margin, continue to work for ways to oppose the water measure.

However, time is running out for the Prop. 218 protest, which will close officially with a public hearing at the Davis City Council meeting next Tuesday.  Under the provisions of Prop. 218, the owners of the various parcels around town are able to submit formal protests to the city.

Davis’ Mayor Joe Krovoza writes in an op-ed, “No Davis issue has aroused as much passion and debate in recent years as the Measure I campaign.”

And while he might be forgetting past city debates on land use and other issues of passion, Measure I is certainly up there in terms of scrutiny, debate and intensity.  He adds, “As is certainly the case for every citizen, the future of our community water supply is of intense interest to my fellow council members and me. “

In two days it will be over and we really have no idea what the result will be at the end of the day on Tuesday after the polls close.  People I have spoken to have talked about the intensity and the nastiness of the race.  Friends are divided.  Many just want it over.

Last week, the Vanguard showed that the Rancho Yolo ratepayers are actually advantaged under the water rate system and will pay far less at the Multi-Family Rate (MFR) than the Single-Family Rate (SFR).

Our complaints about the fairness of the coverage of Measure I and the surface water project must have caught the attention of Davis Enterprise columnist and leading opponent of the surface water project, Bob Dunning.

In his Wednesday column, Mr. Dunning argues, “Fair and balanced?  No, The Enterprise isn’t Fox News.”