Heystek Joins Vanguard's Call Against New Taxes without Reform

Back on February 3, the Vanguard made a bit of splash by invoking the spirit of Bush I circa 1988, saying "Read My Lips... No New Taxes."

In truth, despite how it sounded, it was not a declaration against taxes, or even new taxes. It was suggestion that Davis gets its fiscal house in order.

The city of Davis faces both a rare crisis and a rare opportunity. Right now, the city faces in the short term an economic downturn which has led to a loss of tax revenue. This situation calls for short-term budget cuts. However, the city has longer term structural deficit problems, it's facing a crisis of unmet needs, it's facing a problem of runaway top employee salaries, a pension problem, and an unfunded liability problem.

Those problems existed before the current economic crisis, but ironically the current economic crisis gives us a glimmer of an opportunity to get our fiscal house in order.

This economic crisis has already caused the city of Davis to scale back on its original plans to fix the longer term problem with new taxation. Instead, they are looking to manage the economic situation by renewing the current taxes.

As the Vanguard wrote on February 3, it has become

"clear that neither the council nor city staff wanted to raise or impose any new taxes in the near future to solve the city's growing problem of unmet needs. While I agree with that approach, it does not solve the city's problems either in the short term or the long term.

Instead they have suggested that they will simply place the current taxes back on the ballot. That would include an extension of the Parks Tax, which is a parcel tax requiring two-thirds vote and an extension of the half-cent sales tax."

The Vanguard took the position that even this renewal of taxes would be opposed unless the city gets their fiscal house in order in part through restructuring employee contracts and pensions.

At Tuesday night's Davis City Council Townhall Meeting, the Vanguard's call was heeded by Councilmember Lamar Heystek. In January, a similar townhall meeting drew 30 members of the public, at least. This time the meeting was poorly attended. Just three members of the public attended as opposed to huge amounts of city staff including all of the department heads.

Councilmember Heystek told the council and city staff that he would oppose the renewal of the new taxes unless the city dealt with the fiscal problem and new employee contracts in a responsible manner.

His announcement seemed to stun city staff who immediately took notice. The City Council is not directly involved in employee negotiations, although they do approve the final contracts. However, Mr. Heystek believed it was the only leverage he had.

Two of his concerns are asking city employees to take more responsibility for their post-employment benefits. In addition, the city should re-examine the method by which we deliver services such as fire.

The Vanguard earlier this week demonstrated that the city's costs for fire are disproportionate to our service calls. A situation the begs for a restructuring of fire staffing. The Vanguard is fully committed to insure that there is no loss of service or response time, but believes alternative and less costly models can and should be applied to improve our fiscal responsibility.

Right now that appears to be several changes the city can make to the structure of contracts that would contain city costs:

1. Hold the line on top employee salaries
2. Short term hold the line on all employee salaries during the economic crisis, in the future bring them up only as far as inflation takes us.
3. Restructure the pension system by increasing employee contributions especially at the top end and moving it from "pay as you go" to full funding.
4. Look into cost containment for health coverage

All of these would need to be done with collective bargaining agreement. The alternative to restructuring the pension system would be to create a two-tiered system. The bargaining units could make the decision as to which is more beneficial.

Now that Councilmember Heystek has pressed for the city to engage in strong negotiations, hopefully other members of council will follow. Councilmember Sue Greenwald has long been outspoken in terms of wanting to reign in the contracts and pensions of the highest paid employees and upper-management.

Once again it is important to emphasize that this is not an effort to put down either the average city employee or employee unions. The job of an employee union is to get the best possible contract for their respective bargaining unit. It is the job of the city however to be an effective counter to that weight. They represent the interests of the voters and the taxpayers. When one particular unit uses their political muscle and resources to elect favorable councilmembers while the other units do not engage in overt politicking the system begins to breakdown.

As we saw with the Grand Jury report in January, the impact of throwing $30,000 or more into a political race can be decisive in the actions a council is willing to take. Even the Mayor who has been outspoken in favor of fiscal responsibility wilted under the pressure of her backers back in January.

This will thus be a long and difficult fight, but Councilmember Heystek's actions on Tuesday put the city staff on notice that business as usual will result in a less than unanimous endorsement of their current policies.

The Vanguard urges other members of the council particularly Mayor Asmundson to quickly follow suit.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Why Do We Need a New General Plan?

The Davis City Council last night began to embark upon their discussion of how the General Plan update process should proceed. There was considerable discussion as to whether it should even go forward at this point given the current economic situation, given the costs of proceeding, and given the uncertainty of our times.

The consistent question that arises and is never really answered by those councilmembers who support going forward with an update is why we need to do so now, rather than take the Housing Element that has already been adopted and perhaps modifying the plan with more modern and general principles of sustainability.

There is considerable difference as to how the council should proceed. Some such as Councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek want to hold off on any major changes right now. Others such as Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor believe that this current General Plan no longer can guide us and we now need a new one. Others such Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Stephen Souza seem to want some sort of middle ground where there is some update, but on the cheap and perhaps not full blown.

Sue Greenwald cited the strength of the current General Plan and the budget situation as reasons not to go forward with a full-scale General Plan update process at this time.

“Personally I think there’s no reason to spent 1-2 million dollars that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel when the wheel that we already have is a Michelin. Yes it would cost 1-3 million dollars to do a comprehensive General Plan. Sometimes discretion is the better form of valor.”

Councilmember Greenwald expressed concern about the livability of this region in the future. She also demonstrated support for the work that has already been done and the fact that this General Plan is a model for other communities.

“We have an extremely high quality advance General Plan, we don’t need a new General Plan right now. Our General Plan is what other cities are trying to do. When you hear other cities are doing a General Plan, they are trying to do one similar to the one that we have now.”

The bottom line is costs:

“We can save 1 to 3 million dollars by re-adopting our current plan in essentially similar form. The Housing Element Update which is our legal requirement is good until 2013.”

As a result, she is looking at a more basic General Plan process—one that keeps what we have and is good, and updates where it is needed.

“We might want to add some sustainability items, but we might want to wait on that because the state is talking about how they want to incorporate sustainability into our General Plan.

We can amend our General Plan, four times a year with as many amendments as we want. We can work on a sustainability section now. We already have a housing element which is good through 2013.”

The uncertainty is also part of what drives the more cautious approach:

“It’s very important for us to scale this back. I was always against doing a full scale General Plan, but when the council majority decided to go forward with it, it was before the economic collapse. Many economists are debating whether we are going to have a recession that takes three or four years to really work our way out of or whether it’s going to be a Japan style twenty year recession where housing prices fell fifty percent and never got back to where they had been before…”

Given the current fiscal situation, we need to save whatever money we can.

“We’ve already set aside $257,000 just this year for this type of visioning process. We don’t have this type of money. Look at the budget deficits you’re going to see next week. I implore you, do not go forward with a comprehensive General Plan that we cannot afford to do and we do not need.”

Councilmember Stephen Souza spoke of several of the past General Plans and the process involved in developing them. He said that for him he didn’t want the extremely short, ten month process, but he also didn’t want the 215-member, 14 committee, six year process.

“As for the question raised by several in the community and the one councilmember that has spoken so far, why should we do this? Is there something broke that we need to fix here? I would say I have seen planning over the term that I have been on the council in a haphazard fashion. It’s not coordinate, there’s no vision of where it’s coming from, it’s project-by-project. I think that cuts into a vision I want to see in my community, inevitably.”

Councilmember Souza is looking for a vision that would describe what and where we will be within the parameters of the city of Davis. Is our “urban form” what we see now and will we simply redevelop it or is it something different?

“To should we. I concur, I really don’t want to spend any money right now. I want to save that money because I don’t know what’s going to hit us in the next two years. But I don’t want to stop what we’ve begun. If there’s some way we can move forward without moving forward as fast, on a plan. If there’s something we can do in the interim that gives us some guidance as to where we may eventually go.

Maybe it’s just describing that vision of what we will become in 2035 and 2050. Maybe we go that step, we don’t do a full-blown analysis, revision, and update. And I do agree that I don’t think… I think after looking at all these plans, I like this one [current General Plan].

I like it, but it’s confusing and there’s areas that need better understanding for not the folks who read this all the time who can go through it all the time… but for the basic citizen of the community to be able to understand this document a little more.”

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor began by describing his involvement in the previous process. He suggested that contrary to popular belief, most of the people involvement played a small role. His own was played on committee that completed its work seven years prior to the final adoptions of the General Plan in 2001. From that standpoint our General Plan is not merely eight years old, but entire sections are actually closer to 15-years-old and thus badly in need of update.

He continued arguing that the current plan is in effect, obsolete:

“I submit in many respects our current General Plan is not guiding our actions. Any action that we need decision that we take, does in fact require a General Plan amendment. In fact, we do bundle them up and package them in one of these four General Plan amendments that happen each year. Virtually any project that comes forward, we’re looking at changing the General Plan.”

He then disparages the current General Plan:

“I think the General Plan is as our staff has said, long and unfocused. It is not clear in its guidance. It does not provide for reliable projects for financial and infrastructure planning. It requires us to have constitutional crisis over any project that comes before us. It has a lack of coordination with UC Davis plans and is not in sync with the state requirements, some of them are still shaping on climate change, water supply, environmental justice and other issues.”

From this perspective, he suggests we have a need to take a look at it.

“My interest in terms of what should it contain and achieve, I would dearly love for us to have a process… that allows our community members to be able to coalesce around some sort of shared vision on what we want our community to be on about 2035. The reason to take a date like that is that it’s far enough out that we are not necessarily talking about what we do with some intersection or some empty lot, we’re talking about a vision. That vision should guide what actions follow and flow from it.

I would like for the plan that we have to constitute a framework for us so that when we have decisions on individual projects or proposals that we can compare them against something rather than the individual opinions of the people who happen to be in the room at the time.”

He went on to point out the current General Plan does not address issues like climate change, sustainability, economic development, infrastructure needs, and other issues of finance. He spoke of the need to update our transportation circulation system.

“Our street system is sort of designed for something that doesn’t exist anymore. In a lot of ways our streets are designed for a town that existed in 1965 and we’ve already outgrown it and we should take a look. ”

Later the Mayor Pro Tem would take issue with the suggestion that this comment refers to the need for widening the roadways in Davis.

“In terms of the financing, nobody can argue that we’re in a good time to do this. But we’re not planning for this year or the year after, we really are thinking about visioning for a longer term.”

He wants the city to look for sources of funding and is willing to consider some sort of phased approach.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek was very cautious about the need to do this and urge us to be careful in proceeding.

“I think we need to be careful about our process that leads us to throw the baby out with the bath water. We’ve heard a number of comments made about our General Plan—some good and some not entirely positive. But, if this current General Plan is the road map of our community I ask anyone to tell us how this roadmap for our community, how has this road map let us astray. What is it about Davis now that we think this General Plan has led us to that we need to change?”

He agrees that there needs to be actualization of this plan. However, he challenged people to find what they disagreed with with regards to the current General Plan.

“If you find something objectionable please tell us and tell us how we should change it.”

For him therefore, it is unclear why we need to spend money for something that does not appear to be broken.

“It is unclear to me why we should be spending millions of dollar on a[n updated] document or taking this document and possibly creating an entirely different one if we can’t make the case that this document has led us astray.”

Councilmember Heystek argued that if there are weaknesses and omissions within the current General Plan, perhaps we needed staff to find ways to address those needs for less than one million dollars.

“Unless someone points out to me what’s wrong with this plan, I’m not inclined to start a new process… If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

He also wants to look at other aspects of our General Plan aside from land use. He wants to think about where this falls within our priorities. His major concern is with the price tag and the need to change this project.

Mayor Ruth Asmundson did not want the finances of this plan to prevent the process from going forward.

“We talk about maybe this is not the right time to start this process because it’s expensive. But I think what we need to recognize is that we’re not planning for the today, but we’re planning for the future. We should be responding for future plans for what we have right now. It has to be a process that spans so many years.

We don’t really know what that future will bring, but what we need to look at is what do we want to see Davis in 2035.”

The Mayor wants to have a vision, we all have different ideas of what is best for Davis, and wants to start with a positive process where we look at what we want rather than what we don’t want. We need to have strong public engagement.

She is concerned a bit with the three million dollar cost and questioned how much input we need and how long a process this should.

“I think most of the three million (dollar) cost is because of the long process, long public engagement that is going to happen. I think we need to find a hybrid—I don’t want it too short that we are shortchanging our process, I don’t want to have that. If we’re going to have a new General Plan or an updated General Plan it has to be realistic and pragmatic that we can really use rather than just having a nice product that will go on the shelf.”

She thinks that two years is too short. She’s looking at two to five years with five years being too long. In terms of the cost, she wants to do it for less than a million but recognizes the costs of the EIR. She wants to possibly have a “cheaper” environmental impact report. She also wants to explore alternative funding options like SACOG.

“If the cost is what’s prohibiting us, then I know that we can get the funding grant from somewhere else. But that shouldn’t be the limiting factor for us in this study. I think we need to look at what we want and then look at the cost. My personal preference is I don’t want to start with the cost. ”

Finally, she feels that since the issue of growth is a divisive issue, we should not look at growth but rather what we want in Davis. According to the Mayor, growth has to happen, but how do we get to that.

“It shouldn’t be the growth that leads us to where we want to go. So I want growth to be used secondarily not what’s leading us.”

Commentary

The question I came in with is why we need to do this now. What I heard at the meeting, even from those who argued that we did need this now, was really no rationale for urgent and immediate action. I heard reasoning of why things need to be updated on a variety of fronts. I heard reasoning of why we need at some point to come up with a shared vision for the future of Davis. What I did not hear is a reason why this needs to begin today or next year, rather than in 2013 when the Housing Element expires. What I did not hear is a reason we cannot revise the current General Plan to include elements of sustainability and climate change that we seem concerned about to go along with the Housing Element Process.

The bottom line is I simply do not see the need to go forward with this today when we are facing down a budget deficit that will run in the millions, when we have adequate housing to fill our needs frankly for the next ten years let alone five, when the market is crunched, the state and country is in crisis, and we have no idea what tomorrow let alone next year will look like. There was nothing said last night that changes that viewpoint.

As Councilmember Sue Greenwald wrote on the Vanguard last week:

"This is a total waste of money, which I have been opposing from the start. Our current general plan is very good, and way ahead of its times. The housing element update can be done independently. The plan can be amended quarterly.

There is no way we have the money for this exercise. I can only imagine that growth agendas are driving it."

Councilmember Greenwald is exactly right. The city's current budget appears to have a deficit of upwards of $5 million for the fiscal year 2010-11. And yet the re-drafting of the general plan will cost into the millions.

According to the city staff report:

"Total costs for updating the City's General Plan could range from approximately $1 million to $3 million over two to four years, depending on the work program selected."

We might be able to justify the cost if there was a pressing need to update the general plan. During the course of the meeting, again, I saw rationale for us to update portions of the General Plan. What I did not see was either rationale for the scope that Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor suggested or to do it today.

As Councilmember Greenwald has put it, the current General Plan is a sound plan which was way ahead of its time. There is no need for wholesale changes.

"We can just take the existing plan with the new housing element, make a couple of changes (we do that regularly anyway), and adopt it as our new plan."

Councilmember Lamar Heystek concured. He told the Vanguard prior to the meeting:

"It is not clear to me, especially in light of the millions of dollars in budget cuts we'll have to make over the next few years, why we should be spending millions in taxpayer dollars redoing what the taxpayers themselves spent years doing just a short time ago. My priority is to implement what we have, not reinvent the wheel."

What is clear is that our citizen-based General Plan is now under attack by the forces that are demanding more growth. Our current citizen-based 2001 General Plan is a core document which speaks to a long term vision of the future of Davis. Many spent years working on this document, why throw it out now?

Moreover, they are pressing for a twenty-five year general plan that looks out to 2035 or even 2050. 2050? That is forty years. But by developing a plan that far out, what will happen is that sites that would never be considered in the next ten years, will be given life and consideration when we look forty years out. Such a document is growth inducing.

This is not the time to spend money on this sort of project. We do not need to do it right now. We have serious problems facing us including a budget deficit, a structural deficit, and a pension and compensation system that is out of whack and in need of restructuring.

There are serious questions about our water supply and even more questions about the cost of developing alternative sources for water which will threaten to drive the average person for their homes.

It is ironic that so many talk about Davis' lack of growth policies as leading to the increase of cost of housing, the pricing out of the middle class, and yet if we continue to grow as we have, we will be forced to develop a water project that will do exactly that--force out existing residents who cannot afford the $200 per month additional cost for water.

In short, there is no justification for updating the General Plan right now. The housing market has sapped the demand for new housing. The council has already approved enough housing over the next five years to meet our RHNA requirements. And most of all, there is no fiscal justification for a project that runs in the millions and gives us so little in return.

And yet as we stand here today, that is exactly what this council is poised to do. There appears to be a majority in favor of some sort of process. They may not necessarily agree on what that process should be, with Councilmember Souza seeming to want a much more modest process than the seeming complete revision that Mayor Pro Tem Saylor wants.

The question I think is what do the citizens of Davis want. It is your city. What do you want to see?

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Councilmember Souza and the Council Put a Stop to a Rehearing on 233 B

As we reported on Saturday, the City Attorney Harriet Steiner suggested that she erred in her assessment that Councilmember Sue Greenwald was not conflicted out of a vote cast on November 4, 2008 against a redesign of the 233 B Street property. Therefore the city staff determined that the applicant could request a rehearing without going through the normal reconsideration process.

The council will meet at a later point to modify and correct conflict of interest policies. We have discussed this at length already.

Despite applicant Marie Ogrydziak and her chief advocate on the council, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor attempting to couch this in terms of procedural fairness, the vote really came down to whether or not a rehearing would change the outcome. Ms. Ogrydziak would argue that it would--that councilmember Sue Greenwald had a large affect on the vote and therefore it was only fair to rehear without prejudice.

Marie Ogrydziak read a statement before council. She explained the background of why she believed Councilmember Sue Greenwald's house was within 500 feet. She pointed out that the Councilmember had to recuse herself for a 2004 project at the same location.

"Sue Greenwald should have been recused from the November 4 votes for the 233 B St project. Her votes had two major effects. One was essential for the rejection of a motion to include green considerations in the project approval process. And the other was essential for the appeal of our planning commission vote."

She then snarkly suggested:

"Jokingly we considered plate tectonics as a possible explanation for why four years later Sue Greenwald's property was now more than 500 feet from the 233 B St property."

She then accused the city of engaging in a "creative approach" to "attempt to prove that no mistake was made because there is no conflict of interest."

She continued:

"We believe such an approach starts the city of Davis down a slippery slope."

Ms. Ogrydziak then suggests it might be possible to find a realtor who would finds no impact on Sue Greenwald's property value, but suggests that would be contrived.

Amazingly she then argues for recussal on the basis of Sue Greenwald disagreeing with her vision for B St and that neighborhood:

"For many years Sue Greenwald and a small group developed and advocated a vision for what she sees as her neighborhood including B St. Several of our proposals and our actions run counter to her vision. As a private citizen she spoke against our first project at the 2004 council meeting and twice against our current 233 B project at planning commission meetings this summer... We believe in many ways Sue Greenwald is too close to this project and that she should recuse herself as it seems impossible that she can be impartial on this matter."

She then appealed to the council on the basis of fairness:

"In reality this vote is not about the project but about fairness and support for sound city policy."

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor advocated for the staff recommendation:

"I think this is a procedural matter strictly, this is a matter of whether in due process and fairness the earlier hearing we had was proper."

Mayor Asmundson initially went along with the process believing that is what the council unanimously supported.

"To be fair we erred in terms of distance, regardless of whether there will be change, we need to rehear the item."

Don Saylor moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Lamar Heystek seconded the motion with the friendly amendment that we "respectfully ask the applicant to work further with neighbors to further modify the design."

This was not acceptable to Mayor Pro Tem Saylor because "it prejudges the outcome of that conversation."

As a result Councilmember Heystek withdrew his second and Mayor Ruth Asmundson seconded the motion instead.

Katherine Hess suggested that if there was a different proposal submitted, it would be appropriate to send it back to the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Management Commission.

Councilmember Stephen Souza pushed for a substitute motion requesting the applicant work with the neighborhood for changes within the design that came forward and to take that through the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Management Commission. Councilmember Heystek seconded it.

Mayor Pro Tem Saylor then said he would vote against this on procedural issues and suggested that the

"applicant would have a course of action against the city if they didn't allow a resubmittal with no fees."

City Attorney Harriet Steiner shot that suggestion down:

"I do not believe that the applicant has a legal cause of action against the city by reason of what happened and Sue's participation at the last meeting."

The council danced around for a bit, it appeared that no motion would gain more than two votes. Finally, Councilmember Stephen Souza put his foot down.

"I'm going to be straight out, I'm going to vote against the project if it comes back to us exactly as it was. So we're putting her through the process without any change in the outcome. So what I'm saying in my motion is that if you want to see me vote in the affirmative, you have to change the project. The project has to meet the guidelines as I see them in order for me to affirmatively vote for it. I think it is the best thing for this process to go through a process of neighborhood discussion."

He continued:

"I'll vote against bringing it back for a rehearing because I think it's a waste of time. I don't want our time to be wasted and I would prefer we give direction that's positive."

Councilmember Souza's plea was so strong he pulled Mayor Asmundson with him and the council voted 3-1 to reject the rehearing with Councilmember Saylor dissenting.

Commentary

I had a problem with the way in which this issue came about. Let us forget for a moment the procedural mess that city staff and the city attorney made of this issue and let us focus for a moment on the applicant.

I will start out by saying on a technical level, I understand her plea for procedural fairness. The issue of whether or not Sue Greenwald was actually conflicted out has not been resolved satisfactorily however from my standpoint and I think the council has taken a good step in getting clarification on this. Based on that uncertainty, I think the council should have deferred the decision if they were inclined to grant a rehearing on that basis.

But frankly Councilmember Souza was right here--and quite forceful about it. The fact is that the reason he voted to abstain and kill the project in November remains just as relevant today. Ms. Ogrydziak in her letter seemed to assume that Councilmember Souza would continue to abstain. That ignores statements he made both before and after his initial vote. Namely that he didn't think this project was appropriate for that site.

More appallingly to me is the fact that Ms. Ogrydziak seems far more concerned about procedural fairness towards her project rather than the feelings of her neighbors. At that November 4, 2008 meeting, former Mayor Maynard Skinner presented a letter signed by all but one of the neighbors in opposition to the project. Mr. Skinner generously came back last night to offer to meet with the applicant to produce a more suitable project but was essentially rebuffed.

To me this entire appeal was a slap in the face to Ms. Ogrydziak's neighbors. How does it further the process of reconciliation if she attempts to essentially do an end-run around the initial decision without addressing a single neighbor's concern? That does not seem like a good faith gesture to me. In fact just the opposite. She was far more concerned about getting her process a new hearing that dealing and mitigating the concerns of those most affected by her project.

Fortunately, thanks to Councilmember Heystek's persistence and Councilmember Souza's forceful and needed bluntness, Mayor Asmundson recognized that any effort to rehear without major revisions to the project would be a waste of the council's time.

Sadly Councilmember Saylor was dogged in his advocacy for Ms. Ogrydziak's project. While at one point he suggested to her that the council had made it clear that they wanted changes, nevertheless, he voted in the end to waste the council's time with a rehearing that would change nothing. Moreover since the city would have waived applicant fees, the city would be eating money in addition to the time to resolve this issue.

At one point, Mr. Saylor suggested irresponsibly that the city might face a cause of action if they did not grant a rehearing--why would he bring this up in open session? If this was truly his concern, why would he not have discussed it with the City Attorney in advance? In fact, the City Attorney had already written in the staff report that she did not think the city was obliged for a rehearing and she was forced to reiterate this point in open council. This was tantamount to a not-so-subtle threat that was made by Ms. Ogrydziak and carried by Mr. Saylor.

In the end, the council acted responsibly by suggesting yet again that Ms. Ogrydziak needs to go back to the drawing board, redesign the project, and for crying out loud, work with the neighbors.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

EPA Reluctantly Agrees to Further Testing of the Superfund Site

The city-county two by two met on Friday at the Davis County Offices for the Board of Supervisors. The two by two is comprised of two members of the Davis City Council, Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor, and two members of the County Board of Superivisors, the two Davis representatives, Helen Thomson and Jim Provenza.

One item that was discussed was the issue of the Frontier Chemical Superfund Site and the recent discovery of TCP that has been covered extensively not only on this blog but in this community.

The EPA had been reluctant to do more testing and take additional steps. According to Pam Nieberg, President of the Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group, the EPA official had not taken the latest discovery of TCP seriously. This contradicted what City Staffer Mike Webb told the group, that he was confident that the EPA was taking this matter seriously.

However, after community pressure, the EPA agreed to do more testing to determine the source and extent of the contamination.

In a January 15, 2009 letter to Congressman Mike Thompson, the EPA wrote:

"Our analysis of these data indicates the TCP is limited to a small area to the east of the Target building, and at concentrations which do not present a current health risk to the community or Target workers. Nonetheless, to address community concerns, EPA is adding additional sample locations to our current workplan to further investigate TCP in this area. Further, while EPA has been asked by several residents to delay the construction of the Target store while we complete out TCP investigation in this area, we believe the investigation can take place around the Taget development, as the proposed Target building footprint location does not have TCP groundwater or vapor contamination."

Supervisor Jim Provenza however, flatly disagreed with that assessment stating that he thought Target was taking a risk by building the store before the EPA completed its investigation.

While he said it does not presently appear that the TCP is an immediate threat to the public health, he was concerned that chemicals like TCP tend to move. If it migrates under the Target store or to nearby homes, it could vaporize inside the buildings and pose a cancer risk with prolonged exposure.

Jim Provenza further said it was vital that the county and city insure that EPA did not walk away from the site prematurely. Neither the city, county, or state have the resources to do toxic clean up.

Meanwhile the city and county played an interesting game of "hot potato" with the issue. Jeff Pinnow from Environmental Health basically blamed the city for failing to forward enough documents to the county. The city apparently suddenly expressed the desire to have a liaison to the FFSOG, something they had attended sporadically in the past.

Mike Webb told the group:

"We're satisfied the EPA is taking this seriously."

According to members of the FFSOG, Mr. Webb never spoke to their group about the matter, only the EPA.

Pam Nieberg disputed some of the contentions by the EPA in their letter to Mike Thompson.

First, the EPA suggested that the TCP was not a threat to the public's drinking water. According to Pam Nieberg, that was never the group's concern.

"We were never concerned that someone was going to drink that water or that the TCP could get into our wells but that it was an issue of the volatility and carcogenicity of TCP."

Furthermore, the EPA say that the detection levels of TCP were very low.

"Their own toxocologist did the calculations and confirmed that the levels put them into the cancer risk range for anyone exposed to the vapors to long periods of time--like in a home."

Despite the fact that the EPA was surprised by these findings and had no idea where the higher levels were coming from, the EPA was never going to do anything about this except for the consistent pressure from the public.

The city council will have a full report on this matter during the Tuesday City Council Meeting. It was placed on the agenda as a consent item and an informational item, however, it will apparently be pulled from consent and discussed.

Basically, the city is going to attend FFSOG meetings and get updates. The EPA has reluctantly agreed to do more testing.

Meanwhile Target has not poured the foundation as of yet. They are expected to do it next month according to a single-sentence in the Sacramento Bee Article.

"City planners said Friday that the store's concrete slab would be poured next month."

Remember in December, the response from Target was that if they did not pour the foundation by January 5, 2009, it was going to delay the opening. That was one of the reasons that Target could not do any testing. You can go back and look at the previous comments on the subject and all the Target supporters were up in arms about this.

Guess what folks, Target has not poured the foundation yet. It has nothing to do with this issue. They just have not poured the foundation yet. Anyone believe that the store opening will be delayed? I sure do not. It does not take that long to build a store once you are faced with a deadline. The argument was a canard. They could wait for the EPA to complete their tests. They just do not want to. The EPA could have been almost done with their tests by now had they started in November when they found out about this.

As I have said before, this really has nothing to do with Target other than the issue of the health and safety of their workers who might be exposed to fumes from the TCP over time. The bigger concern is determining where the TCP is and whether it represents a threat to those living in Mace Ranch.

It was refreshing to see how little communication goes on between different agencies, particularly the city of Davis, the EPA, and the Yolo County Health Department. Jeff Pinnow admitted they were out of the loop, so too did Mike Webb.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Councilmember Greenwald Conflicted Out Retroactively

Will Council have to revisit November Vote on B Street Project Based on FIVE Feet?

On November 5, the City Council heard an appeal of an application to develop four detached residences on the parcel at 233 B Street. The Planning Commission back in July denied the applications by a 5-2 vote based on inconsistencies with the Design Guidelines. All but one neighbor strongly opposed the design modification. Simply put it was a very innovative design and project that did not belong in the middle of an existing neighborhood.

The city council by a strange 2-2-1 vote where Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek opposed the appeal and Councilmember Stephen Souza abstained. That vote gave the applicant, Maria Ogrydziak one year to work with her neighbors to come up with a more suitable project for that location. Following abstention, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor was not happy and provoked an angry exchange with his colleague and frequent ally on the council. He informed Councilmember Souza that due to his vote the project would be killed. The councilmember was well aware of the implications of his actions.

The councilmember said:

"I have a major conflict here trying to pit history against the environment."

Mr. Saylor responded:

"So you deny the project by not doing either."

That was clearly the intention of Mr. Souza's vote. What has now happened is that instead of working with her neighbors, Ms. Ogrydziak is working with Mayor Pro Tem Saylor to find a backdoor around the original vote.

Staff report attaches a January 4 letter from Ms. Ogrydziak to City Manager Bill Emlen.



In it she claims that they check and found that Councilmember Greenwald's property was 470 feet from the project and therefore she should be conflicted out.

"If Sue Greenwald had been recused, we would not have lost various votes (with Stephen's abstentions), and the project would still be alive. Therefore, I am requesting a re-consideration for the 233 B Street Project, without added City of Davis or Planning Department fees."

During that meeting, there was considerable question as to whether Councilmember Greenwald could vote on the project. As the staff report reads:

"ownership of property within 500 feet of a proposed development creates a rebuttal presumption of a conflict of interest for a public official."

In other words, anyone within 500 feet of a property is conflicted out from participating.

"Prior to the meeting, Councilmember Greenwald was advised that she did not own property within 500 feet of 233 B Street, and therefore did not have a conflict."

In fact, Councilmember Greenwald did not stop there, twice during the meeting prior to participation she specifically asked City Attorney Harriet Steiner if she had a conflict and was twice told that she did not. Based on that advice, she participated in the vote and discussion of this matter.

Now, nearly three months later, the city attorney is claiming there was an error and she is conflicted.

"This advice was incorrect, however, due to a drafting error in preparing the maps."

I am as concerned about process and conflicts of interest as anyone, perhaps more so. However, I have been told that she is 495 feet from the property. So somehow if she is 495 from the property she is conflicted out, but can vote if she is 500 feet or 501 feet. From a practical standpoint that does not make a lot of sense.

But just because she lives within 500 feet, does not necessarily mean she is conflicted out. She can show that she would not stand to benefit from the proposed development or lack thereof.

Here again we get into utter illogical advice from the City Attorney.

"It is possible that Councilmember Greenwald will seek a determination from a real estate professional, such as an appraiser or broker, that, notwithstanding the fact that her property is within 500 feet of the proposed development, the proposed development will have no impact on her property. If she obtains such an opinion, then she would not have a conflict on this matter. At this time, we do not know if Councilmember Greenwald will seek this further opinion."

This makes even less sense than ruling her conflicted out based on five feet. Councilmember Greenwald was basically told to hire a real estate agent to assess the impact of her property which is on Rice Lane, a side street nowhere in the vicinity of 233 B Street. The likelihood of an impact is extraordinarily remote. And yet, by asking her to obtain the opinion, you risk having an interested party making a ruling rather than the city hiring an expert who is impartial do the assessment. Talk about conflict of interest. Who would find such an expert's view compelling under those circumstances.

Apparently the mere fact of her participation does not negate the action taken by the Council in November.

"Councilmember Greenwald’s participation does not negate the action that was taken by the Council in November. The denial stands. The applicant has asked that the matter be reconsidered to allow a different vote on the applications.

Staff and the City Attorney agree that it is fair to provide the applicant with a new hearing."

Really fair to whom? To the neighbors? To the taxpayers of Davis? To the voters of Davis? To the process of democracy?

Fortunately, there is no guarantee that there will be three votes to have a new hearing. Mr. Souza specifically voted, albeit by abstention, to delay the project because he felt it ill-suited for the neighborhood. It seems unlikely he would change his mind, especially with this procedural nightmare.

To make matters worse, this item was place on CONSENT AGENDA, where it could have easily be hidden from the public and perhaps the council.

"Staff recommends the following approach:

- The applicant to re-submit applications for the project presented to the Council in
November;
- The City to waive processing fees;
- The applications to be scheduled before the Council expeditiously, with no further
Planning Commission review;
- Minimal additional staff work or analysis, but reliance on the previous staff report."

This entire situation is appalling. Ms. Ogrydziak's project was strongly and vociferously opposed by every neighbor except for one. The planning commission denied it. The city council by a strange vote denied it. And instead of coming back and working with her neighbors, she has tried an end-run around the process seizing on an error and a technicality to try to invalidate the vote of one of the councilmembers.

To make matters worse, the city attorney, city manager, and city staff have bought into this.

All of this based on 5 feet (or even 30 feet as the applicant claims)? There have been some baffling things I have seen this city do, this one may take the cake. She presumes Councilmember Souza will still abstain--I think that is rather presumptuous of her given his expressed desire at that meeting and his likely reaction to this kind of maneuver. The Vanguard certainly hopes Mr. Souza does the right thing here and we have faith that he will.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Commentary: Don't We Need Three in Town?

If you are one of those who is easily offended at any hint of criticism, stop reading right now. There are a few things that need to be said. Tuesday was an historic day. For those who missed the Vanguard radio show last night, listen to it when the podcast is available. I spoke with Tansey Thomas, who everyone knows and with Wayne Lindsey, who no one has heard of. Wayne is a 21 year old UC Davis student. And yes he's African American. It was neat listening to someone born during the depression and someone born when I was in high school talking about what the election of Barack Obama means to them and for African-Americans.

But now it is time to get back to work, back to the real world. For my other job, I had the priviledge of sitting in a teleconference with Speaker of the California Assembly Karen Bass and Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg. They were flying back from the Inauguration. One of the reporters who wasn't me asked them if they thought the California voters were better served by them going to the Inauguration or given the budget crisis being back in Sacramento and trying to get a budget agreement.

It was a tough but fair question. They gave in my opinion a strong answer. The President is formulating his stimulus plan in the coming days. The California legislative leaders came to Washington basically to see that the President and his team put money into the stimulus plan to help the states. No one has money of course, but at least the feds have the ability to deficit spend.

I relay that story because of what I read later yesterday evening about our leaders from Davis who also went to the Inauguration. I do not want to begrudge them a trip to Washington to watch history. I watched on my couch on Tuesday morning with Cecilia, and we were both glad to be on our warm couch watching it on TV rather than standing in the cold without easy access to bathrooms watching it on a giant monitor. Anyone who knows me, knows crowds are not my thing.

But a few things struck me about the article in the Enterprise. First, unlike the state leaders, there was no official business involved in this trip for our three city leaders.

One line from the article in particular seemed to stick in my craw:

"Saylor chatted after the ceremony from bleachers across from the White House. He was playing a quiz game, and had just correctly named the eight U.S. states that begin with the letter M."

I guess I am glad he can name all eight states that begin with the letter M. I am pretty sure I could have done that in first grade, not that that means anything. I am not sure I would really be sharing that with anyone.

A couple of things that come to mind on all of this. Councilmember Lamar Heystek, if he had said that, would have been lampooned in the local press to no end. He was lampooned for being Max Headroom by Hudson Sangree of the Sacramento Bee after representing the city of Davis in Arkansas and still having the diligence to serve our community and attend the council meeting in a virtual way that was unfortunately a bit technologically challenged.

This was not meant as a shot at Councilmember Saylor. He didn't choose for the paper to actually print that, but I would hope he would be embarrassed that they did. He was probably just making small talk with the reporter. What disturbs me and apparently others a bit more is that the newspaper gave more coverage to this story than they did Davis' City MLK event the day before. 399 words for this story to the 107 word caption under the MLK day festivities.

More seriously, with three councilmembers out of town simultaneously, obviously the city manager runs the city on a day-to-day basis, but what if there were an emergency? Apparently I was told in an emergency we do not need a quorum. So let's say in the unlikely event of a riot, we could have Lamar Heystek and Sue Greenwald decide by themselves that we need a curfew. I can only imagine what else they can do.

You know for years traveling on the plane, passengers were greeted with the instructions, "in the unlikely event of a water landing you can use your seat cushion as a floatation device." I'm sure there are 155 passengers last week glad that that message was drilled into their heads. Fortunately they didn't have to jump into the very cold Hudson River.

Shouldn't we have some kind of rule in this town that precludes three councilmembers from leaving town at the same time? Should we not require there always to be three councilmembers in town so we never have a situation where two councilmembers are calling the shot in case of an emergency? It was just last year in January that we had massive power outages and a city that was not ready to respond.

While I am at it, also wanted to comment on a blurb from Bob Dunning in his column last night.

"FIREFIGHTER ABUSE - my friend Larry writes to say he read in this very newspaper that 'the firefighters had to sit and wait until midnight to hear the summary of the Grand Jury report because it was preceded by 70 speeches concerning a council resolution to end the violence in Gaza.'

That's what happened, Larry - 'Hey, if the Davis City Council is going to take over running America's foreign policy, couldn't it at least adopt Obama's new policy of 'no torture.' ' - well said, my friend -"

First of all, in retrospect, I think the city should have pushed back the discussion on the Grand Jury report given the late hour as they did with the two workshops including the budget workshop that ought to be a huge priority at this point in time.

But second, no one forced the firefighters to sit and wait until midnight. They were not required to be there. In fact only two of them spoke--the fire chief and the union President. They were there for effect and to remind certain councilmembers that they had worked to get them elected and suggest in a not so subtle way not to let them down.

There is more. This notion that the Davis City Council is running foreign policy is preposterous and irresponsible. They are doing no such thing. As Souza pointed out last week, the Davis City Council is the closest body to the citizens of Davis. They are our closest representatives in Government. They are not running foreign policy, they are acting as the voice of the citizens, representing our values to other bodies in government that do not meet in our town.

What we saw the other night is that this is a community that is divided on a key issue in our time. This is a value to the community and now the Human Relations Commission tonight will take up this item and see about creating the type of community forum that can help bring our community together and bridge the gap.

I literally spoke with hundreds of people on Tuesday throughout town at various parties and this was the most common topic of conversation. It is an issue that needed to be addressed. I agree with council's ultimate decision. The council cannot speak for a divided community and should not. And thus discovering the divisions as they did on Tuesday night, they pulled back and realized that a letter was not the appropriate solution at this time and on this issue. But that does not mean this is a topic they should not have discussed even if it meant the delay of vital city business until after three councilmembers came back from having their fun and frivolity in Washington, DC.

If that display of democracy meant this blogger had to be up until 2 am and get only three hours sleep, that's part of the duty. If the firefighters wanted to impact public policy and had to stay there until the wee hours of the morning, well poor them? Give me a break. These guys are getting paid big time by this city, they can wait for their meeting like the rest of us if they choose, keyword is CHOOSE, to attend.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Target TCP Update Agendized for January 16 City-County Two-by-Two

Representatives from the City and the County will meet on January 16, to discuss among other issues, the issue of TCP that was found in test sites around the Target Superfund site. To date, the EPA has dismissed community based calls for further testing before construction begins at their site.

The City-County will have their 2-by-2 meeting on Friday January 16, 2009 at 9 AM in the conference room at the Davis County Office which is located a block from City Hall at 600 A Street. The item on Target and the issue of the TCP has been agendized for discussion. The 2-by-2 consists of two members from the Board of Supervisors and two members from the City Council. That will be the two Davis Supervisors, which means that this will be newly installed Supervisor Jim Provenza's first 2-by-2. Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Don Saylor represent the city.

For some reason the agenda for these meetings is not readily available from the city. This is a public meeting and the public under the Brown Act ought to be informed about it. Thus there is no posted information on either the City's webpage or the County's webpage. It would be interesting to see where the meetings are posted and whether the city and county are in compliance with the Brown Act regarding posting and announcing such meetings. Regardless, even if this is within the letter of the law, it certainly seems to break the spirit of the law.

Here's a letter from Congressman Mike Thompson who seems unconcerned about the problem--further illustrating why it was a good thing that he was not selected as Secretary of the Interior.

Thank you for contacting me regarding elevated levels of trichloropropane (TCP) found at the 2nd Street construction site of the Target in Davis. I appreciate you sharing these concerns with me.

Rest assured that I am aware of the discovery of TCP at the construction site and agree that public safety - for residents, construction workers, future employees and shoppers - is of the utmost concern. I have been in contact with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the City of Davis about the concerns that have been expressed to me and I will continue to follow the issue. The EPA has explained that no contamination has been found at the building location and that the high concentrations of TCP are at the neighboring disposal basin and should be addressed soon as part of the final cleanup of the Superfund site.

Presently, remediation in the form of gravel/vapor barriers and air sampling is being conducted regardless of construction activity. Additionally, the EPA has an enforceable agreement with Target should more aggressive containment measures prove necessary. A strong EPA agreement with a responsible partner willing to conduct monitoring and remedial action as necessary is crucial to mitigate the risks from contaminants over the long term. For its part, the City of Davis has significant experience in managing matters of soil and groundwater contamination, most notably at the Fifth and G Streets site that now houses the US Department of Agriculture.

Again, thank you for your concern and vigilance on this issue. Please continue to contact me on all issues of importance to you and our district.

Sincerely,

MIKE THOMPSON
Member of Congress
http://www.mikethompson.house.gov

The problem that residents of Davis face at the moment is that the City Council has very limited jurisdiction over such matters. This goes back to the issue of Agraquest and possible health threats the community might face from environmental contamination at their Kennedy Place site. The city has limited ability to act on such things.

The county is far better situated on both issues to deal with it. However, the County Health Department summarily without investigation dismissed concerns about Agraquest, and now it appears they have done little with regards to the potential threat that residents adjacent to the Superfund site may face from exposure to TCP.

On Monday, the Sacramento Bee reported:

"The chemical has previously been found at the neighboring Frontier Fertilizer Superfund site along Second Street, near Interstate 80 and Mace Boulevard.

But nearby residents are now concerned it may be migrating northeast under the Target site, toward their homes."

Bonnie Arthur, the EPA Superfund project manager said the following:

"The chemical is known to cause cancer, she said. But she said it does not threaten the city's drinking water supply, which is drawn from deeper wells. "Nobody's drinking this water," she said."

However, members of the Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group are not so sure that it is not a threat to drinking water if it continues to move and begins to leach into wells that lie at a deeper level.

The question is where is the county on all of this? They have a health department and they have the power to investigate these matters independent of the EPA. If this represents an actual health threat, it would seem that the county should step in.

But in both this and the Agraquest issue, the county has been silent.

It remains to be seen if a more aggressive Supervisor like Jim Provenza might be able to change some of this. January 16, 2009 will be a very important meeting on this matter, and residents concerned about this issue should try to attend, even though the meeting is happening during the work day when working people will have difficulty attending.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

One Hundred Muslim Students Flood City Hall Demanding Resolution on Peace in Gaza

At just after 6:30 pm on Tuesday evening, almost immediately after the Davis City convened their regular agenda, a group of at least one hundred mainly Muslim students flooded community chambers in Davis, quietly and politely holding signs urging action on what has now been over a week long war in Gaza that has seen hundreds killed.

During public comment, one-by-one, the students spoke out about what they saw as atrocities of innocent women and children and civilians being killed by military action by the Israeli army.

Their message was simple--they want the violence to stop. They recognize that the city council cannot do a whole lot, but they want the council to write Senators Boxer and Feinstein, Congressman Mike Thompson, and most of all President-elect Barack Obama and ask them to do what they can to make the violence stop.

With literally dozens of students wanting to speak but a long agenda ahead of them, Mayor Ruth Asmundson tried to cut off public comment after 15 minutes. This clearly angered and frustrated the students, but also some of Asmundson's council colleagues.

Councilmember Stephen Souza explained to them that they could only listen to them this evening, they could not take action on anything by law. They would at the end of the meeting be able to discuss putting a resolution on the agenda for next week however.

When Mayor Asmundson attempted to cut off speaking however, Councilmember Sue Greenwald interrupted with a point of order. After brief discussion. Councilmember Lamar Heystek moved to allow the students to speak for an additional 15 minutes. Councilmember Greenwald seconded the motion and they were joined by Councilmember Souza in a 3-2 vote to continue public comment.

An additional 10 to 15 students spoke in that time. Many of them were in fact Palestinian. Some of them still had family and friends there. One pointed out that more Palestinians have been killed in this operation in the last week and a half than Israelis have been killed in total for the last seven years (and frankly it's probably longer than that). The Israelis have used ongoing rocket attacks to justify their operation, but the response has been disproportionate to the threat. Palestinians, many of them innocents, are now trapped in Gaza, unable to leave and unable to stop the killing.

The students pledged to return next week and to continue to return until the council passes a resolution to write a letter.

During the long range calendar discussion at the end of the council meeting, Stephen Souza moved and Councilmember Heystek seconded a motion to put a resolution on the long range calendar. It was supported unanimously. Councilmember Greenwald recommended a subcommittee work with the students to draw up an appropriate resolution.

I spoke very briefly at the very end of the meeting to recommend to the council that their message deplore all violence--violence against the Israelis and violence against the people of Gaza. It was agreed.

Last week, I expressed my views on the situation in Gaza. Frankly, it has gotten worse since then. I oppose all violence and believe in non-violent means to resolve conflict. To me, Hamas perpetrated wrong by launching rocket attacks on Israeli cities, however, Israeli response has been completely disproportionate.

Moreover, I believe in democracy, small d. I think it was wrong to try to cut off discussion last night and I applaud the three members of council who extended the length of public comment. There are times when the council needs to allow segments of the community to speak. It was telling during the discussion on wood burning stoves, that two members of the public spoke and applauded the students for their activism, regardless of whether or not they supported their exact cause. It definitely made an impression on members of the public who were there for another issue.

Finally, many have complained about the council's use of resolutions on matters that do not directly impact them. What became clear Tuesday night was that the council in many ways serves as the point of first contact for aggrieved citizens. For the students it was their outlet to express themselves, to give themselves a voice, to enfranchise themselves in a way that without that vehicle they would not be able to directly access their government. From that perspective, perhaps we need to look at the city council a bit differently. They do not have direct say over other branches of government, but they are in many ways people's points of access along with their representatives in Congress and the Senate.

It was a valuable lesson in civic activism that all could learn from and it was unfortunate that one of the lessons they learned was that some were trying to silence their voices, not out of malice but because there was a heavy agenda this evening. I applaud the three members of council who voted to give the students a voice for an additional fifteen minutes. I spoke with the students afterward and it is clearly very important to them. Their persistence and willingness to petition their local government on issues that affect them, their families and friends is impressive and gives me hope for young people who will be running our government in the future.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

2008 Vanguard City Council Scorecard

Here is the Vanguard's 2008 City Council Scorecard. For the first time, the Vanguard has gone through 20 of the most important votes of the year and rated each council member on the basis of how they voted.

(click on top right to view full document)
Davis City Council Scorecard

Publish at Scribd or explore others: United States Politics davis city council s

Discussion

No one got a perfect score this year. Councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek both got a 95% score however, their only blemish was voting to put the charter on the ballot. The Vanguard ended up coming out against the charter based on its overly broad construction that allowed the potential for too much power by the council down the line.

The most interesting development of the year dovetails the article that ran two weeks ago, Power Shift on the Council: Souza Emerges As Power Center, where we see Councilmember Stephen Souza clearly emerge as the middle ground on the council with an even 50% voter rating. Indeed this is only the tip of the iceberg.

On 15 of the 17 non-unanimous votes, Souza votes for the winning side. The only two exceptions were both abstentions. Both were pivotal abstentions. The first, he and Don Saylor abstained on LAFCO allowing for the motion to exclude a number of properties from LAFCO to pass by a very unusual 2-1-2 vote. Later, his abstention on the issue of the Ogrydziak re-design of a B street property meant that the project would be denied for a year, a decision that earned a strong rebuke from his colleague and often-ally Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor.

Councilmember Souza's shift on the council came rather suddenly as evidenced by this voting chart. Up until September, Councilmember Souza voted for the Vanguard's preferred position just three times, and two of those occasions that was part of a unanimous vote. In his last eight votes, all since September 1, he voted with the Vanguard 7 of 9 times, one of those was a key abstention on the Ogrydziak property, which may as well have been a vote with the Vanguard. The only exception was casting the deciding vote to go ahead with the value engineering consultant on the water issue while at the same time pushing the council to look for alternative solutions to the water issue.

On the far end of the spectrum, both Mayor Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Saylor scored a 25% and a 21% respectively. Three of those votes came on unanimous votes. Mayor Asmundson joined her colleagues in 4-1 votes against Saylor on the issue of the New Harmony CEQA which referred staff to examine the health issue more and on Lewis Properties which authorized an equal EIR. Mayor Pro Tem Saylor's lone non-unanimous vote with the Vanguard came in his opposition to the Charter City Proposal.

The scorecard however, shows that the council has shifted. The Vanguard was on the winning side of 11 of the 20 votes. In the last eight votes, the Vanguard was on the winning side of seven of them. There has been a very strong shift toward the middle for the council and that has clearly been led by Councilmember Souza.


Methodology

Part of the tricky aspect of grading the council is that a large percentage of their votes come on non-controversial issues. Thus to some degree, these scorecards understate the amount of agreement between the Vanguard and members of the council on the general agenda.

However, we were primarily interested in how councilmembers voted on the big issues facing Davis. We did not select out unanimous votes completely however. We chose three on big issues: political sign ordinance, woodburning, and the Grande Property. Each of these have either been a long time coming in the case of the first and the last, or an issue that will end up being a hotly debated issue down the line in the case of woodburning.

For the most part, we did not select intermediary votes on issues. Thus in general, we graded on the final vote rather than substitute votes. This helps increase for instance Councilmember Stephen Souza's score because he sought out compromises that were not completely the preferred position of the Vanguard, but were far better than the alternative.

Finally, abstentions were counted as though they were absent, no vote either way taken out of the total. So Mayor Pro Tem's votes were averaged out of 19 and Councilmember Souza's out of 18.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Water Issue: Can Council Stop This Runaway Locomotive?

In January of 2007, the Vanguard featured an article entitled: "Tracing the recent history of the water supply project." In it, we argued that there was a series of decisions that changed the trajectory of water policy to become a far more expansive and more expensive project than the original course of action. The remarkable feature is that at no point was a decision actually made to proceed with this project. Instead, there were a series of staff recommendations approved by council to explore various options which lumped together became a decision.

This is very important in trying to understand where we are right now. There is a basic inertial quality to this issue that is rather remarkable. There are basically two forces driving the process, neither of which are necessarily council approval. First, the concern that we will lose our place in line. Second, the concern that down the line the costs of construction will increase if we delay now.

The result I think is that at this point the water project has moved far further than where the council actually stands on this issue. The council has never made key decisions.

What we are seeing now is a realization both by the council and the public that the cost of this project is increasingly becoming problematic. As the public is slowly awakening from its slumber on this issue, the sobering fact has awakened it that this project means as much as $200 per month hikes in water costs. The city has already gotten a glimpse of what that might look like when they did something as simple as change the methodology for assessing the sewer rates for some a small group of people, that meant a huge increase in their sewer bill--something that was limited and temporary caused an uproar. What will a massive hike to people's monthly water rates do?

We see these countervailing inertial forces at work on Tuesday during the water discussion. Council really was trying to put the brakes on the project a little bit and try to explore alternative means to accomplish water changes. For instance, the city is looking for an extension before they begin getting fined for having water outflow that does not meet quality standards. Currently the city has until 2015, in February the Regional Water Quality Control Board will discuss granting Davis an extension of two years.

The board was torn on Tuesday night as to whether to have an independent firm for value engineering of the Preliminary Design for Secondary replacement project. Council was leery of the added cost and wanted to look at other alternatives. In fact, they will look at other alternatives concurrent with the value engineering.

The basic argument that prevailed once again was the issue that if we do not do this now, it throws off our timetable and may increase our costs. The costs of the independent firm not withstanding.

There were two basic viewpoints raised at the council meeting. Councilmember Sue Greenwald repeatedly asked what the rush was here. On the other hand, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor suggested that the council's questions and alternative suggestions have already been asked and explored.

In the middle was Mayor Ruth Asmundson concerned about two types of costs, the first the cost of the value engineering firm and second the cost of delay. The cost of delay won out for now. Councilmember Stephen Souza was also in the middle, his compromise was for the council to take a field trip to look at how other communities do this, while at the same time continuing forward.

The breaking point for this project will be when either Mayor Asmundson or Councilmember Souza become concerned enough with the costs that they can pull away from the inertial pull that this project has been taking. They came closer on Tuesday than they have in the past, but city staff was still able to push the project forward with the warning about increased costs and place in line.

The city desperately needs a paradigm shift here. There needs to be some alternative that can come forward. They also have to weigh the magnitude of the fines compared with the cost of repair.

However, we are beginning to see a shift. Council is recognizing that this is cost prohibitive and that the public will likely balk at it when it becomes clear to them just how much this will cost. The question remains whether they can stop this train before it runs off the tracks.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Power Shift on the Council: Souza Emerges As Power Center

The 2008 Elections saw Councilmember Don Saylor win the most votes to ascend to the position of Mayor Pro Tem, Davis' version of the mayor-in-waiting as Mr. Saylor will take over as Mayor in 2010. However, since the new session began, we have instead seen Don Saylor increasingly marginalized on the council. Emerging as the most powerful member of the council was Stephen Souza, who has acted as the swing vote on numerous key contented votes since September 8.

It is a small sample to be sure, just 12 contested votes (i.e. non-unanimous votes), but the pattern is clear. Souza has shaped the council's agenda voting with the majority on 11 of the 12 votes. Not only that, but he has played the role of kingmaker, shaping the direction of the policy. It is not only the number of votes, but the importance of the votes whether it has been on living wage, the Ogrydziak project, Cannery Park, and last week on both J Street and Hunt-Boyer.

Meanwhile it is top-vote getter Don Saylor who have been increasingly marginalized on the council as the vote of extremity, voting on the losing side of contested votes 8 of the 12 times. Mr. Saylor has been the lone dissenter on three of the votes including the Cannery Park, the letter on the Grand Jury Report, and the New Harmony CEQA. In addition, the Mayor Pro Tem has voted with Mayor Ruth Asmundson on the losing end of a 3-2 vote five times. The Mayor herself has been on the short-end of the vote on six votes.

By comparison, Lamar Heystek has found himself on the short-end of two votes, Councilmember Sue Greenwald has been on the losing end of just one vote.

These numbers alone understate the impact of Stephen Souza on the council. For one thing, these are just final votes. A good example is on the Cannery Park proposal. Councilmember Sue Greenwald made a motion to keep the current zoning in place and deny Lewis Planned Communities' application to change the zoning. That vote failed by a 3-2 vote. However, Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek would then join Mayor Asmundson and Stephen Souza in supporting City Manager Bill Emlen's recommendation to pursue an equal weight EIR.

In another example just this week, Mr. Souza forged out a compromise on the issue of the Hunt-Boyer building where the council had been split as to whether to turn it into a visitor's center or to pursue a restaurant. Mayor Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Saylor strongly supported the visitor's center option, while Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald supported the restaurant. Souza worked out a compromise that passed by a 3-2 vote which would explore both options including putting forward an RFP on a restaurant.

Souza was also the deciding vote on the living wage vote.

Perhaps the most interesting vote was on an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Marie Ogryziak's project on B Street. Councilmember Souza abstained from taking a position in that vote. His abstention meant that the project would be denied for at least a year. After that vote there was a public exchange between Souza and Saylor.

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor was not happy. He informed Councilmember Souza that due to his vote the project would be killed. The councilmember was well aware of the implications of his actions.

The councilmember said:

"I have a major conflict here trying to pit history against the environment."

Mr. Saylor responded:

"So you deny the project by not doing either."

What is clear here is that Councilmember Stephen Souza now occupies the middle ground on the council on most contested votes. His is the swing vote. But for the most part, they are centrist votes. On both the Cannery vote and the Hunt-Boyer vote, he opposed to more progressive position of Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek and instead forged out his own compromise position.

But there is a notable point along those lines. On both of those votes (these are prime examples), Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek did not get their preferred option. In both cases however they were willing to compromise and work with Councilmember Souza to get a project or an outcome that was closer to their preferred option than the alternative. In that sense both Greenwald and Heystek have been very strategic in their votes and willing to compromise to get things accomplished. As a result, both Greenwald and Heystek have been in the majority on contested votes 11 and 10 times respectively.

The same cannot be said for Mayor Pro Tem Saylor who has refused to compromise and move from his core position in order to get things done. Despite his rhetoric of moderation, his actions have placed him on the most extreme end of the council this term.

The main caveat to this pattern is that it is a very short period of time, since September 8, 2008 and only on a few votes, 12. But it seems, that a new pattern is emerging on the council and the sharp dividing lines that had existed previously are beginning to breakdown. This is to the credit not only of Councilmember Souza but also Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald who have been willing to work with Mr. Souza to get things done.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Independent Investigation of Grand Jury Report on the Fire Department Pushed Back Until January

Late on Tuesday night Bill Emlen recommended a change to the calendar on Ombudsman Bob Aaronson's report on the fire department. Mr. Emlen described it as a workload issue pushing the report back from the December 16 council meeting and instead to be carried over until January.

“I will talk with the council members individually regarding the review of the report.”

In addition to the workload issue, Mr. Emlen acknowledged the complexity of dealing with personnel matters.

"A lot of that has to with how we sort of sift through the personnel related areas versus the core issues that are related to the grand jury report."

However, he reassured council that this had nothing to do with withholding a major personnel decision. And he re-emphasized this is primarily about work load issues.

Councilmember Greenwald asked what Bill Emlen could share with the elected leaders of the city.

Mr. Emelen:

"What I’m telling you is that I’d like to have that discussion in a different form because I think we are at this point probably going beyond what we should in this form tonight."

Council was accepting of the delay though everyone expressed the desire to see this to a completion.

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor:

"I’m looking forward to getting done with this, because it has been far too long for everybody concerned.”

Stephen Souza agreed:

"I too would rather see it as soon as possible, it has been sitting around for a considerable amount of time… It was slated to be here tonight, it’s now on our long range calendar slated to be here on the 16th, the next meeting, and apparently you’re proposing to put it off until January.”

Council was more sharply divided on the issue as to whether they should see the full report or a redacted version.

Both councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek were adamant about seeing the full version.

Councilmember Greenwald:

“I’d like to get a council consensus that we have access to all the information. The way our form of government works is that we’re responsible when we’re elected. Whereas on the phone you told me that we’re not responsible for personnel, we are ultimately, the buck stops with us. We’re responsible through you, but we can’t evaluate how well you’re doing your job with personnel if we don’t have access to all the information.”

She continued:

“I just think we should as a matter of principle, as a matter of procedure. It’s a matter of accountability in government.”

Councilmember Heystek requested of City Attorney Harriet Steiner that she explain any legal grounds for withholding of information from the council in writing.

"I do agree with Councilmember Greenwald, it is important for us to see the work product of the Ombudsman, this is the first major test of our Ombudsman and we’ve paid over $35,000 I believe for this work product, and I believe I deserve to see as a councilmember the contents. No one is wanting to pry or to be nosy, I think we want to know the quality of the report. It is important that we have the fullest context possible to be able to make decisions or give direction. I’m equally interested in hearing what the city manager’s interpretation of the findings are. But if there is some legal grounds by which we cannot view this information or not be privy to the report that was prepared at our behest, I would like to see a justification of that in writing. I really believe that as a councilmember I need to know why it is that information is being withheld from me and in writing."

However, both Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor and Councilmember Stephen Souza disagreed.

"I think that it’s reasonable to make another point of view known here. That is to the degree that materials and information comes to the City Manager that is personnel related, we don’t look at the personnel files of every employee in the city."

The Mayor Pro Tem continued with a bit of his own John McCain, "that one moment"

"We actually employee those two [pointing at Harriet Steiner and Bill Emlen]. Those are the two we employ."

He continued:

"In terms of policy issues, in terms of behavioral issues that are addressed in a grand jury report, we should hear from the city manager and hear his report. How he has gathered information to arrive at the conclusions and findings that he is going to be presenting to us is his responsibility. Just so that’s clear, I’m interested in hearing from the city manager what his conclusions are based on whatever he has done to arrive at them. I don’t need to know what exactly was stated by any person, at every point in time."

Councilmember Stephen Souza agreed.

"I don’t need all fifty pages, I just don’t."

He continued:

"I don’t need to have the “he said, she said” full story. I don’t. I am not in charge of personnel, except for as Councilman Saylor said, we are in charge of two personnel, that’s who we’re in charge of, we hire and fire them. That is our main task from a personnel standpoint. When it comes to this matter, I want to know from our ombudsman, through our city manager, how he arrived at his conclusions, and give me the pertinent information so I can come to my conclusions about it."

Mayor Asmundson was in the middle, arguing that she wanted to see Bill Emlen's report first and then she would decide if she needed to see the entire report.

"I agree our city manager is responsible to us… He’s asking that this be put to January and staff has been busy with budget issues and trying to juggle other things… There are so many things that staff has been working on and I think that this is in the lower priority to the budget. Even though I think we need to hear about this as soon as the city manager is able to give us the report. Let’s wait for the report and see. If there are more questions about that then we can decide then whether we want the whole report or not. But I’d like to wait until then."

At this point, the council and city manager have now delayed the report until January. That means that the report will have been completed a full two months before the public is aware of the findings. Moreover, the council still has not seen the report either.

It remains my opinion that this has gone on entirely too long and that this process has been badly mishandled. At some point, hopefully we will know whether the very serious allegations that appeared in the Grand Jury report that was released in June are true and if they are, what the consequences will be.

---David M. Greenwald reporting