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

Soaking the Ratepayers on Water Already

I was just reading Bob Dunning's most recent column in the Davis Enterprise. He writes about a man named "Glen" who is having trouble absorbing his new city utility bill. We have covered this issue before, but it bears another examination. What the city did with a simple change of methodology is unconscionable.

The Vanguard discussed this issue back in September, but the human cost here is extraordinary. What has happened is that the city has gone to water usage as a means by which to gauge sewer rates. If one proceeds carefully and cautiously, that is probably a decent approximation of sewer usage. Even then there are some problems that develop from such a methodology. For instance, it will over-estimate sewer usage for people with large gardens who use a lot of water to water their plants--water that does not then go into the sewer.

The real problem was insufficient city notification to the public as to what was going to happen, how it was going to happen, and what that would mean.

Let me be clear, I understand the city sent out notices to the public on this. Notices do not work. We get too many notices. Notices blend in with everything else the city and everyone else decides to dump into our mailbox.

What would have worked is for a year to have an additional line on a person's sewer bill which basically read: "your bill under 2008 methodology." It should then have instructed an individual who thinks that bill is too high to contact the city. That would have gotten people's attention and it would have avoided this particular problem.

However, the city did not do that and people during one of the worst economic times in memory are having to deal with huge increases to their water bills until such time as they can bring it down. Where is the city's responsibility here to bridging that gap? Who is stepping up to make sure the public is not getting crippled at a time when the economy is in the tank? The answer is no one.

But in a lot of ways, the situation is worse than that. People who read this blog have a fairly good idea that worse is coming down the pike. But the general public does not know what is in store for them. The city is on the verge of approving two massive new projects involving our water--a new wastewater treatment plant and a new water supply diversion system.

The cost of these two projects unless something dramatically changes is going to be half a billion dollars. And really, I think that's just the tip of the iceberg. I think the cost is really going to be higher than the current estimates.

People with the change in methodology have gotten just a taste of what is really coming towards them. I have said this before, people wondered how I could support a $120 per year increase for Measure W. Frankly that's about $10 a month and the money goes for education. When these changes come down you are likely looking at no less than that increase PER MONTH to your water bill and the proceeds go to pay for city and private engineers to construct these two massive public works projects.

If you were worried about your finances with Measure W, that's nothing and it's a good investment into the future of our community. This is simply frightening.

What concerns me most is the lack of consideration of alternatives. Every time that a certain councilmember has raised these questions, it seems she is cut off.

Here is what we have been told:

1. The outflow water does not meet current standards.

Assuming that is true, what is the impact of a high selenium content on the environment and is that impact really worth the costs of a new wastewater treatment plant and a new water supply project.

2. The only solution is to find a new water source

Are there possible alternatives? Part of my concern here is that the same people who are advising the city and are experts on water are those who would stand to profit from a new water supply project.

3. If we do not act now on Sacramento River water, we will lose our place in line

This line has continually moved the project forward for the past decade with very little actual decision-making. We have basically created trajectory with no policy. But this is actually the crucial question.

Does the Sacramento River Water reduce the pollutant problem or does it merely shift it? Will the river be a reliable supply of water during drought years? Will we even get river water during the dry season of drought years?

There have been suggestions that they only open the spigot when the river is over a certain level and that the time of year when we are most likely to get water would be during winter months. Is this really the solution to our problems? Or are we kind of deluding ourselves?

We are going to invest a lot of money into this system, is it really going to give us water and is it water that we can afford? In other words, is this really the change that we need or should we not go to the drawing board and figure out possibly if there is another way?

I do not know the answers to these. What I would like to do though is to talk to people who are not financially invested in our decision. I do not think that is really too much to ask.

Do people like "Glen" know this is even under consideration? How would they respond? Are we going to end up pricing people right out of this city with the high utility bills and increasing tax burden, not to mention the cost of housing and everything else.

I hear people complain all the time about the cost of housing and attribute it to lack of growth in the last ten years, which is not necessarily borne out by data, but those same people seem unmoved by the potential 800-pound gorilla sitting in the back of the room. We need leadership and innovation on this issue. I don't want to hear industry buzzwords about "value engineering" and "cost reduction." I want to see real tough decision-making and thinking outside of the box that the consultants have already placed us into.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

City of Davis Getting Water-Jacked on Multiple Angles

Is Council Finally Having Serious Concerns About the Cost of the Wastewater Project?

At some point it would probably benefit everyone to go back through the records and look at the increases in the estimated cost of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. I believe that since early last year when I first took note of the wastewater project the estimated cost of the project has risen from around $150 million to over $200 million.

Finally, the city council is taking a serious look at ways to reduce the costs. The real question is why has it taken so long? But at least now the council is looking into the costs.

It also seems that the city is finally taking the advice of Councilmember Sue Greenwald and consulting with local water experts to see if there are other ways to make this happen.

Of course, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor had to dissent on that vote, claiming he was uncomfortable with the process that involved naming individuals who could assist the city. He preferred a more general call for help from interested individuals. That is not surprising given his strong ties with consultants West Yest and Associates who have been contracted to work on this project.

Councilmember Sue Greenwald has always maintained that she has contact with water experts who could assist in this program. However, she has never been willing to name them and to be proactive in recruiting them. This has even led some of her supporters to become frustrated.

However with that issue aside, she has been the strongest advocate for looking at different ways to do both this project and the water supply project which figures to be at least as expensive.

The city has officially until October 1, 2015 to comply with stricter water discharge standards.

Councilmember Stephen Souza suggested that a delay in the project would be worth it if it ended up leading to cost savings for the city. On the other hand, Public Works Director Bob Weir was more reluctant to do so. At one point suggesting that this project was the only certain way to meet new tougher requirements.

My favorite part of this however were the remarks by Councilmember Don Saylor who contacted The Enterprise after the fact.

Councilman Don Saylor told The Enterprise today that his intention with having Emlen continue to work with the project designers while also researching other options was to meet the state's compliance timeline while also making sure the project is the best fit.

'There's a high likelihood that the majority of the project design will remain intact,' he said. 'And so we don't want to lose ground on the progress. ...

'However, it's important that we are extremely confident that we do as much value engineering, cost reduction as is warranted' and carefully consider alternatives.

Value engineering? Is that some nuanced political doublespeak?

If left up to Mr. Saylor, the city would be spending exactly what the estimate says. The process has been altered by the continued outspokeness of some of his colleagues like Councilmember Greenwald who has from day one asserted that this project is entirely too expensive and we should be looking for alternative ways. Mr. Saylor has rejected and failed to consider those warnings until now, and even now, he voted against the project.

He wants to sound reasonable and diplomatic here, but he has taken absolutely no leadership on this issue. Now he plays catch up with some well-rehearsed double speak about "value engineering" and "cost reduction" all the while giving the same tired line about not wanting to "lose ground on the progress."

What progress is that? Forcing through an expensive construction project that will likely double people's sewer rates?

This discussion on Tuesday followed an interesting discussion on existing sewer rates that have been recalibrated to a formula that was poorly explained to the public. Now a good number of people in the public have seen their water rates skyrocket in the last few months using the new system because unbeknownst to them their rates are being calculated using an entirely different methodology.

A member of the public came before public comment and wanted to know why his sewer rates had jumped so much. It turns out there was an item on the consent agenda that related to this.

The methodology has changed from a flat rate to an actual consumption of water during the winter months. There were a little over one thousand people that had excessive rates of charges based on the new methodology.

This happened because a large number of people were not aware that come August 1, their bill would be based on their average consumption rather than the previous flat rate.

I know on this blog the issue has been asked by a few people at least who were surprised by the sharp increase of their water bills. Obviously 1000 people is a small number compared to the total population of the city, but it seems once again that the city somehow failed to convey to people exactly how and when the water rate methodology would change.

Leak detection and water usage in the wintertime are now critical for people to pay attention to.

Here is my concern--listening to the questions posed to Bob Weir by Stephen Souza, Mr. Weir seemed very defensive. The issue is not water usage here, but sewer usage. And yet the metering that they are doing is for water usage. So as Mr. Souza pointed out at one point, there are people who garden year round, that means they are using water during the winter for their gardening. Well if they are using water for their gardening, then the water is not going into the sewers.

Mr. Weir's response?

"Well, we will continue to refine what we are looking at. This is meant to get us obviously a stop gap measure. Then as we look at the 09-10 rates, perfect this, what is the best we can do in terms of what is the wintertime usage of water..."

Did Bob Weir say anything here? Actually I think he said a lot. He's basically admitting that the system is not doing what it is supposed to be doing. It is certainly not measuring sewer usage but rather water usage. Moreover, he is basically admitting that they put a system into place that is costing people a lot of money and they did this as a stopgap measure that has flaws.

Again, the money that they are playing with is not their own money, but that of the public. And yet Bob Weir hardly seemed concerned.

Bob Weir also mentioned that while there was a lot of publicity about these changes, however, "no matter what you do, some people aren't going to get that message." You can miss the committee meetings, miss the Prop. 218 notice, miss the "Utility Connection," or "see it and not have it register."

Are these means of communication sufficient? I think when you are dealing with something of this magnitude, we could be talking about hundreds of dollars per month that many people just cannot afford, the city has to do more. If 10 percent of the public reads the "Utility Connection" I would be stunned.

I have to belabor this point here because I do not think the city does an adequate job of notification. There was a suggestion that they should have done a concurrent sample price scale for a period of time. What that would mean, is that there would be a line in your current sewer bill that said: "your current bill is... " And then the next line would demonstrate their monthly bill using the new methodology. People may still miss that, but for a lot of people that would have been a wake up call.

But the problem is that they think of these things after the fact. The city always seems to be a step behind in their methods of communication and they also seem to make costly changes first and ask questions and resolve it later. Again, the people who suffer from this approach are the ratepayers.

In my opinion, there is a time bomb being lit in this city. For the amount of complaining on this blog on a relatively modest $120 per year increase to keep programs and teachers at Davis Joint Unified for school children, the rate increases from water alone will dwarf that. Just from this methodology change a person could pay more than ten-fold extra per year if they were caught off guard and were one of the unfortunate souls that did not see the city's attempts at communication.

The city council has dragged its feet on these issues and finally is waking up to the fact that the water treatment plant will cost more than they anticipated--which was already way too high for a lot of the residents in Davis.

I am really glad that the city is not taking seriously the prospect of "value engineering" and "cost reduction." To me it seems lip service for being a day late and hundreds of millions of dollars too short.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Water Project: Responding to Councilmember Saylor's Letter to the Editor

In response to the emerging debate over water as the result of the council dispute that emerged as much over process on July 29 as over policy, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor wrote a letter to the editor of the Davis Enterprise. It was a letter than was long on conciliatory rhetoric, but unfortunately short on detailed substance.

This story will attempt not necessarily to fill in that detail, as we have presented greater detail in a number of other locations. The main goal here is to raise questions that will need to be more definitively answered by the city.

"Council members are acutely aware of the costs of this project. We are also acutely aware of the importance of securing a reliable water supply as our wells are depleted, and meeting state requirements to reduce environmental impacts from our wastewater discharges."

This is the crux of the matter that needs more definitive answers. I have watched these meetings on water since January 2007 and my overriding sense is that with the exception of Councilmember Sue Greenwald and at times Councilmember Lamar Heystek, there are few tough and probing questions from council on these points.

The central argument that proponents have put forth is as follows:

The problem that Davis faces is that the water discharged by the city does not meet current standards for water quality. This is primarily a water supply issue because although the water meets drinking standards as it enters into one's tap, it does not meet outflow standards.

The tough question that Councilmember like Don Saylor never seem to press for is whether the only solution is to go forth with a water supply plan immediately.

But the statement does something else--it rhetorically acknowledges that there will be costs to this project without actually discussing what those costs will be and the fact that the costs will be currently accrued with a wastewater treatment facility--a project that everyone agrees needs to happen now.

Estimates for this cost to the ratepayer begin with a doubling of the cost of water on a monthly basis to an increase of $100 to $200 depending largely on estimates for the cost of the project. These costs have gone up considerably over the course of this water discussion.

[For a good overview of the history please see my article from January 2007 where I trace the debate over water projects back to the beginning of this process. ]

There has been little discussion or acknowledgment about who in the public can afford it. And while the cost of delaying the water supply project may increase the overall cost of the project, it may also decrease the hit on the individual ratepayer in terms of their monthly bill. People on fixed incomes will be hurt most by these rate hikes.

Some have suggested that the taste of water alone necessitates this change. In fact, one can get better tasting water for much cheaper. For instance, one can get a gallon of water at a grocery story for less than forty cents a gallon. Even if one gets close to three gallons a day that way, a large amount of drinking water, the cost per month would be less than the cost of this project. Other filtration systems are even less in cost. For instance, I use a Brita filter which runs me less than $10 per month, much less than a rate hike in water.

Mayor Pro Tem Saylor continues:

"The NWRI panel recommended that Davis pursue a balanced water portfolio combining surface water, ground water, conservation and reuse strategies. The unanimous findings of the panel are that no other alternative exists that would support these objectives as effectively, economically or environmentally as the proposed surface water project."

This runs along with the findings that the city has had for quite some time. Unfortunately it appears that Councilmember Sue Greenwald has some information that contradicts these findings. It would be helpful if the city council were willing to bring in those purported experts to give them a different view and a different consideration. However, instead of listening to what Councilmember Greenwald had to say and allowing her to continue to ask questions, she was inappropriately cut off. One is forced to ask what the council majority is afraid of by indulging the questions of Councilmember Greenwald or even more responsibly by allowing her experts to come forward. They would then have fuller information and could make an even better decision.

"All five council members have stated that surface water will be needed at some time. The panel report and presentation on July 29 concluded that delay in pursuing this project would result in significant cost increases, loss of winter water, loss of water rights and other serious negative consequences."

The first sentence is of course true. And it may be that the rest follows from it. But again, that is in dispute.

The staff report from the July 29, 2008 meeting read:

"The Panel concluded that the most serious consequence from postponing the project is the probability of losing the pending appropriative right to withdraw up to 46,100 acre-feet of water per year from the Sacramento River."

They further argued:

"The Panel concluded that postponement of the project to a later date would likely result in the loss of upstream water currently available for purchase to supplement the amount of water needed during the summer months."

This is true to some degree but it also somewhat misleading. At previous water workshops it became clear that winter water would almost always be available in some degree. However, during the summer months it becomes more problematic. The city would be allowed to extract water depending on the current water flow of the Sacramento River. As summer goes on, the amount of water to be extracted from the river will invariably go down. During dry years, the Sacramento River may not have enough water for extract at all. That would force the city to once again rely almost completely on ground water for its summer water supply--when water needs will be invariably higher.

In other words, when we need water the most, the water supply will be most problematic. And if that happens, will we even after these huge capital project expenditures, still remain out of compliance with discharge standards. These are serious questions that need to be asked and answered somehow.

If global warming reduces the amount of rainfall or even snowpack in the Sierras, the amount of runoff may be reduced into the Sacramento River. At the very least the water supply may fluctuate more widely meaning some years we have plenty of water and other years we do not.

That does not take into account the idea of holding our place in line. In theory, at present, the experts are correct about the line. But supposing reduced water in the future, where will that leave us and this line? Will communities such as Davis get nosed out by increasing needs by say Los Angeles in a future where there is less water? Climate change makes this a much more uncertain situation.

Have these tough questions been asked by the council sufficiently? Or are we potentially throwing a large amount of money down the drain for a solution that may not be here in the future?

Of course, the letter to the editor is not just about water, but about the council discussion as well. Councilmember Saylor refers the public to the streaming video and comments on council ground rules.

"The July 29 council discussion can be viewed on streaming video at the city of Davis Web site under 'City Council' video archives section (about three hours and 39 minutes into the meeting).

During that meeting, the mayor called a recess, acting under the provisions of the council ground rules. These ground rules govern your council's proceedings and conduct. They can be found [here]."

I invite the public to once again view the Youtube video which contains the final three minutes of Councilmember Greenwald's question-answer session with the water consultants, and then shows what transpired after the Mayor attempted to cut her off.

Unfortunately Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor delivers for the public very little detail on the water project that will severely increase the monthly cost of water to ratepayers. There are a number of questions that I would like to see addressed.

I have no problem with holding one's place in line at this point. I would however like to see each of the councilmembers aggressively but respectfully grill the consultants much as Councilmember Greenwald has. If the answer is at the end of the day, that we must go forward, I want it to be because we have no other choice rather than because we did not look into all the alternatives because the experts told us this was the only choice.

One point that needs to be explored is whether these consultants have industry ties. That was one of my problems with the original group of consultants--they seemed to have a financial stake in the city going forward with the process. Too often, the ties between consultant and industry are blurry at best. I think the city council, if they wish to be thorough and responsible, should encourage Sue Greenwald to put her consultants and experts forward and see if their advise is different, and if it is different, try to determine why and whether that advise might not be a better alternative. What does the council have to lose?

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Mayor's New Policies: Cutting Off Debate

If there is one good thing that has come of the feud at city council the other night, it is that it has allowed even on the pages of the Davis Enterprise there to be debate at least somewhat over process.

On Tuesday night, the Davis Enterprise ran an extended story on the debate.

The question for me is whether it is appropriate to cut off an elected councilmember when they are asking questions. They have set up council rules that allow the presiding officer to do this. This is something we learned when Councilmember Don Saylor read from council rules. The appropriateness of that rule in this case needs to be in questioned.

For her part, the Mayor told the Davis Enterprise:

"It seems like every meeting is so confrontational. Last Tuesday's meeting, what happened was, we were on the question part and (Greenwald) asked several questions and it was already about 12 minutes for that. If I give one (council member) five minutes, I try to allocate five minutes for the other... She was debating, she was badgering, she was, in a way, insulting the consultant."

Was the former Mayor doing that or was she simply asking tough questions on an issue that in her mind is crucial? Is there a more important issue than that of the proposed water project that figures to raise the rates of people's water bill possibly by more than $100 per month (although this figure is certain part of the debate, a debate refueled on Tuesday when Public Works Director Bob Weir's revised cost figures which seem considerable lower than what was forecast just a week ago).

Even if those new revised numbers prove to be true, the process issue still stands.

The Mayor suggests that Councilmember Greenwald had already spoken for 12 minutes. But by my count it was only eight minutes into questioning when the Mayor interjected and attempted to cut off Councilmember Greenwald.

In a moment we shall talk about whether Councilmember Greenwald lost her control during this confrontation as some have accused and also whether her comments and questions were inappropriate.

However, of bigger concern to me are these statements made by the Mayor in the Davis Enterprise article.

Asmundson said, as mayor, she has a meeting to run, and she tries to keep the council on task so residents have an opportunity to speak before 11 p.m. Council members, too, would like to get home at a reasonable time, she said.

"I'm trying to be more effective and efficient in our meeting so we can address our business," Asmundson said.

The mayor plans to ask her colleagues how they would like to see the meetings run.

"I'm hoping we can work a little more collegially on the council," Asmundson said. "They have to decide how they want me to run the meeting, so I'll be putting more on them. If there's a complaint about how I'm running the meeting, I want to ask them what they want me to do. I'm looking at what's best for Davis, not what's best for our council members."

I can actually sympathize with the Mayor on this issue. I think there are times when comments and questions unnecessarily go on too long. The problem here is that you cannot simply develop rules without flexibility, without an understanding of the difference between a big issue like the water issue and a smaller issue that does not have millions of dollars of impacts.

In the article it states that:

"Asmundson, too, expressed concerns about the cost of the projects. The estimated cost for the wastewater plant upgrade - which is required by the state - rose by about $50 million in the past six months."

I give the mayor credit for this concern as well as her concerns about the escalating salaries for public safety employees. Unfortunately, she needs to allow questioning, tough questions by her colleagues and by the public.

And that brings me to the other real concern with Mayor Asmundson's second turn as Mayor--her decision to limit public comment to 15 minutes. The question is does this really buy her anything?

During normal council meetings, you might get one or two commenters during that time period. It is rare that you have more than five people wanting to speak. When you do get more than five, that probably means there is a specific issue of concern. Asking the public to come back after the meeting seems inappropriate.

Several letters to the editor in the Davis Enterprise have appeared on this topic.

On July 22, 2008, the Mayor on the vital issue of housing cut off both council comments, holding each councilmember to seven minutes. And then she limited the public to only 15 minutes. On this occasion members of the public came up and spoke for a minute or two on an issue that will decide the city's future.

As a result of only allowing 15 minutes of comment following the report on the Housing Element Steering Committee, several citizens came to the regular public comment and complained about the general policy to limit public comment.

Jean Jackman:

"I am at, Mayor, your new policy of only having fifteen minutes of public comment before the meeting starts. It's not Democratic. It shuts down opposition. It shuts down good ideas, I get inspired by listening to public comment from people. It shows lack of flexibility and you are doing a great disservice to the citizens who want to participate in government and their sense of empowerment. You wonder why people don't sign up to be on commissions, well when you give them fifteen minutes public comment for all the issues, it really shows that you are not interested in what people have to say. I really urge you to get the citizens involved and not belittle us by allowing only fifteen minutes of public comment."

Others like Eileen Samitz also complained about the early hour of such a hearing.

“Also the scheduling of these issues… to have a controversial issue like the general plan update, which was affecting the entire community, to schedule it at 5:00, when people like myself have to take off from work to get here… This is not what our city is about. Davis is supposed to be a model of democracy.”

The Mayor's response to those complaints:

“Let me just talk a little about the public comment… At first this was supposed to be just a workshop. But we decided to put 15 minutes for those to speak that couldn’t make it to public comment at the regular meeting. If there are needs to have more discussion we’ll have it at the end. What I’m trying to do here is trying to juggle conflicting demands. Some council members don’t want to have too long meetings. Some council members don’t want to have that many meetings. But we are trying to make sure that we are having a healthy public engagement. And we’re going to be looking into how we can do that. The fifteen minute rule, if we have to go on, we have business to take care of. The council met at five o’clock, we have other business to do. I wanted to make sure council had an opportunity to have dinner before too long. And so that’s why the fifteen minutes.”

Councilmember Lamar Heystek asked for a future meeting to discuss some of the operating procedures. He was concerned about council communications being so late in the hour under the new policies.

Councilmember Sue Greenwald also disagreed with the new policy limiting public comment to fifteen minutes.

“I share the concerns that a number of the members of the public had. For example, when you said that initially you were going to have a workshop without any public comment, we always, when we discuss any item, have always had public comment. It’s been understood that it is not something that is at the discretion of the mayor.”

She continued:

“I personally feel that limiting public comment is a huge mistake in terms of time. There’s been very few times when public comment really is very long. And when it does, it’s usually because there is a room full of young children who want to keep a hockey rink open or something. And you’re not going to want to cut them off. I guarantee you. And it’s going to look very bad when you let them talk for a half an hour but you haven’t let other citizens talk for over fifteen minutes. It will look arbitrary and capricious.”

Back to the water issue. Councilmember Sue Greenwald following the incident told me that if she did not make an issue of the incident, no one would be talking about the issue or the process. Both of which are vitally important.

Former Councilmember Stan Forbes raised the issue itself in a letter to the Davis Enterprise yesterday:

"How it would be financed is a question about borrowing money. More significant to Davis citizens is how it is going to be repaid or, in other words, what is this going to cost me? I don't suggest I have the precise answer. But I do know that based on mortgage amortization tables, $450 million at 6 percent over 30 years has an annual payment of approximately $32.4 million, or about $500 for every man woman and child now in Davis. Every year. For the next 30 years. Plus the surface water.

Given this cost, I offer my thanks to Council member Sue Greenwald for asking hard questions. We can't avoid upgrading the treatment plant. But it would seem to me that a serious discussion of water conservation measures ought to have as much or more priority for the council as how to finance such a project. Conservation often costs much less than increasing supply."

This gets us back to the original issue of Mayor Asmundson cutting off Councilmember Greenwald's line of questioning.

Were Sue Greenwald's questions out of line? Did Mayor Asmundson inappropriately cut the Councilmember off? Did the Councilmember lose her cool? You decide. Here is a video clip of the incident. It includes the final three minutes of Councilmember Greenwald's eight minutes of questioning. It includes the Mayor cutting her off. It includes the recess. It includes Don Saylor reading from the rules. It does not include Sue Greenwald requesting to resume her questions and Mayor Asmundson ignoring those requests.



You decide for yourself. For me, process is as important if not more important than actual substance. There was a time during the last session when as Mayor, Sue Greenwald cut off Stephen Souza from asking questions. It was inappropriate. I did not agree with what Mr. Souza had to say, but I defend his right to say it. He was an elected official and deserved to ask his questions. I feel the same way about Sue Greenwald. And there are times when she crosses the line.

More and more I do not feel that she crossed this line on this issue. I think it was completely inappropriate to cut off debate. I think it is completely inappropriate to limit council questions for the sake of expediency and getting home early. Do not pack the council meetings with some many items. Lack of adequate discussion means poor decision making. I fear this simply means that the council will decide in advance what they are going to do and make the public deliberative process a formality with the decision already having been made. That is not the way to run open meetings, to have open government, and to run a democracy.

I believe that Mayor Asmundson is a decent person. I think her heart is in the right place even as I disagree with her on some policy issues, but I think she is making a big mistake and doing it here for the wrong reasons. The public needs to make her aware of how they feel on this issue if they want change to occur.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Analysis: Examination of the Council Feud from Tuesday Night over Water and Process

Everyone is talking about the city council meeting on Tuesday night and the dispute that erupted during the questioning period by Councilmember Sue Greenwald.

From my standpoint, Councilmember Greenwald was right on the substance of the issue. The former Mayor found the independent report lacking and she was pressing her case with the panel of consultants.

Councilmember Greenwald's position continues to be that the burden on the ratepayer is tremendous if the city decides to go ahead with somewhere around a $250 million water supply project at the same time it upgrades its wastewater treatment plant (something which the city really does not have a choice but to do). The councilmember is looking for ways to hold off on the surface water project for 25 to 30 years in order to give the city time to pay off the wastewater treatment upgrade.

Councilmember Greenwald was going about the business of questioning--firmly--but from watching the recording of the proceedings, respectfully, the consultants. It was at this point that tensions escalated. Mayor Ruth Asmundson interjected that Councilmember Greenwald was debating the consultants rather than questioning them.

At this point Councilmember Greenwald practically exploded at the dais and demanded that she be allowed to continue.

Councilmember Greenwald: "This is a half a billion dollar project, you have to allow us to question the experts. You have to."

Mayor Asmundson responded: "You have to ask about the report. No debating."

Councilmember Greenwald: "I am going to ask tough questions."

Mayor Asmundson: "You are out of order."

Councilmember Greenwald: "Ruth you can't do this. You have to allow councilmembers ask good questions and hard questions."

When Councilmember Greenwald tried to continue, Mayor Asmundson cut her off. At this point, Mayor Asmundson and Councilmember Don Saylor got up.

Frankly I think this was mishandled by both the Mayor and Councilmember Greenwald.

First, watching the questioning, I do not think it was that bad that Mayor Asmundson needed to step into the questioning. Councilmember Greenwald was pressing the consultant, but for the most part it was polite and respectful. She does have a right to try to question them in a thorough and tough manner.

Councilmember Greenwald probably could have done this more effectively with a set of pre-written questions based on information that she had gathered, and pressed the consultant much as an attorney. She probably did interject her own opinion with statements rather than questions a bit more than she could have. Nevertheless, from watching the exchange, it did not seem that the questioning was out-of-line to the point where the Mayor needed to interject.

The point at which tensions arose could and should have been avoided. This should not have taken place in the public to begin with, the Mayor should have called an immediate recess and had a discussion with the Councilmember. Councilmember Greenwald immediately escalated the situation when Mayor Asmundson interjected. Had she remained calm, she would have looked better in the exchange. Mayor Asmundson remained calm throughout, but also unnecessarily it seems escalated the situation.

Walking off the dais was rather unprofessional on the part of both the Mayor and Councilmember Don Saylor.

In short, Mayor Asmundson, in my view, strongly escalated a situation that really did not need to be escalated. Councilmember Greenwald is an elected representative to the people of Davis and was representing their views on council during questioning. Frankly, I have seen Sue Greenwald far more combative in her line of questioning than she was on this occasion. There seemed little need for interjection.

The power of the presiding officer is to allow each side to ask their questions of staff and consultants. Because the council is not afforded their own staff, this is the only far and equitable way this can work.

The only time a presiding officer should cut off discussion is under extreme circumstances when things really get out of control. This did not appear to rise to such a level and the Mayor should have allowed the line of questioning to continue.

If she was concerned about the line of questioning, she should have simply said, 'remember Councilmember, we are asking questions now, please keep all statements in the form of a question.'

But Councilmember Greenwald also bears responsibility. She lost her temper first, no matter that she was provoked, no matter that the Mayor was out of line. Losing your temper in this situation leads to an escalation and it also leads to the public's perception as to who was right and who was wrong.

The incident caught Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning's attention as well.

It is difficult to discern what Mr. Dunning's angle is, although he does seem somewhat inclined to side with the Councilmember on this one.

"Greenwald had the audacity to question a couple of projects that might just break the civic piggy bank before all is said and done - wrote Claire St. John in Wednesday's front-pager: 'Greenwald, who found the independent report lacking, asked if the panel of consultants focused at all on how the city was supposed to pay for a project that will cost about $250 million at the same time as it must upgrade its wastewater treatment plant at a cost of about $200 million.'"

Bob Dunning then continues:

"When I first read those numbers I was certain it was a misprint - surely it must be $2.5 million and $2 million - Greenwald removed all doubt about the proper placement of decimal points when she said 'I have yet to see what shape we'll be in after we pay off a half-billion dollars in debt.'

Hey, that's one of the advantages of having 65,000 people in town - as daunting as the figure sounds, it's only about $7,000 per resident, or $35,000 for a family of five - and if we'd all agree to stop watering the lawn, not to mention showering just once a week whether we need it or not, we may be able to bring that cost down by a dollar or two..."

Mr. Dunning gets the math right in terms of $7000 per resident, which as he points out, means a lot more per family and per residence. You are actually not talking $35,000 for a family of five, what you are talking about is roughly $14,000 per unit, probably more when you take into account residences versus apartments which are likely to pay considerably less.

And those are cost estimates. We all know that most projects run over their initial cost estimates, sometimes by a good amount for something as large and massive as this.

At minimum we are talking about paying an additional $100 if not more per month for one's water bill.

Think about this for a moment. With all of the complaining about the parcel tax, that is an additional $120 PER YEAR. This is 10 times that amount per year at minimum. Should not the rest of the council be asking the consultants just as tough a questions as Councilmember Sue Greenwald?

And yet this process has been almost bumped along without really the tough discussions or the tough decisions made. Why? Because they are using the process as a buffer. It is a piecemail process. There has been a logic behind this process that if we lose our place in line, then we get passed up.

Now some people have stated that they are willing to pay this amount of money for better quality of water. First, it is unclear they will get a better quality of water. Second, that does not help those on fixed or limited incomes.

But quickly, one of the problems with taking river water is that the water is only available if the river contains over a certain amount of water. So on a dry year like this, we may have plenty of water during the winter but during the summer we might get almost nothing from the water supply project and have to rely exclusively on well water. That's the fine print. Plus it seems to be first come first serve.

But if water supplies are less in the future, we may be paying a bunch of money upfront and get very little additional water and the quality of the water may be no different.

There is also a considerable degree of question of deep well water. Is that viable? Could we use that, as Councilmember Greenwald suggests, to hold off on the water supply project for another 20 to 25 years, at which point three things will have occurred: (1) we will have paid off the waste water treatment upgrade. (2) we will have a much clearer picture of the state water system. (3) there will be new and better technology that will probably either allow us to have different water options or make these options cheaper. There seems to be very little reason to rush through this project now other than the arbitrary time tables of the state water bureaucracy. But the risks of going ahead now appear to be just as high and very costly.

These are questions the Mayor and Councilmember Saylor ought to be asking just as strongly as Councilmember Greenwald. And yet they are not and that is really to the detriment of the people of Davis.

I am very concerned about the procedural implications of what happened on Tuesday night. If the Mayor can use the power of the gavel to silence a councilmember, it does not bode well for the rest of us who want a voice in government.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Saylor Carries Water For West Yost

Sunday's Davis Enterprise reports on the latest in a series of discussions and hearings on the city of Davis surface project.

The Vanguard has discovered that Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor, has accepted campaign contributions from a firm that has a contract to do business with the city of Davis on the highly expensive and volatile issue of water.

The city is in the process of examining a new wastewater treatment system and creating a diversion from the Sacramento River to supply the city with water. Both of these projects at this point in time would cost at least $150 million each or in other words over $300 million and likely those costs will only grow.

For a full discussion of the history of this issue please see this article, Tracing the recent history of the water supply project.

During the course of the last five years, the city has slowly moved away from a joint project with West Sacramento with water augmented from deep well aquifers, to a new water bypass, a project now in the works in conjunction with the city of Woodland and UC Davis.

Just five years ago, that plan had been dismissed as the most expensive and prohibitive financially.

But the council majority has since taken the view that this project is necessary to insure quality water to Davis and also has suggested that our stake in the project necessitates us moving forward at this time for fear of losing our place in line if we delay.

On Tuesday, the city of Davis will vote on whether or not to certify the EIR. Each step in this process moves the project closer to a fait accompli even though there has to date not been a straight up or down vote on even whether this is the strategy that the city ought to pursue.

The stakes here are enormous however. The cost of the two projects being completed at the same time would mean an extremely large increase to the residents of Davis in their water rates.

Mayor Sue Greenwald has maintained that while it is clear that we need to implement the wastewater treatment facility in order to insure that our water discharge meets state and federal standards, the timing of the water supply project could be delayed in order to protect thepocketbooks and wallets of ratepayers in the city.

On the other side of the coin has been Councilmembers such as Don Saylor who have led the way in cheerleading and supporting this project.

City Councilman Don Saylor said the river water project would “improve the water quality and it will give our city and the future generations of people who live here a more reliable source, both in terms of supply and quality.

“It will lessen the cost of the treatment needed for wastewater disposal,” he said, “and it will ensure an ongoing supply of water.

...

“I think this is a key set of decisions for our community at this point in time in our history,” he said, “because we must ensure a reliable, reasonable-quality water source for future generations. I think this is beyond politics. It is a matter of being responsible stewards of our community's future interest.”

The Enterprise article is surprisingly balanced quoting from two experts from UC Davis, Professors Jay Lund and Ed Schroeder, both of whom questioned the urgency and necessity of the project.

However, the key supporter of this project is Councilmember Don Saylor.

Councilmember Saylor's support however draws attention to a couple of his key financial and other campaign supporters.

At his announcement party earlier this year, Don Saylor was featured in a picture next to Jeff Pelz and Bruce West of West Yost Associates.

West Yost and Associates has served as the chief consultants for the city on the water project. In May of 2004, the city added to an existing consultant agreement with West Yost and Associates for the Water Supply Feasibility Study. On July 15, 2005, the council approved an MOU to complete a Project EIR report and authorizing West Yost and Associates to provide engineering services in support of the Project environmental process.

In addition to attending his party, Jeff Peltz is listed as a $100 to Don Saylor's reelection campaign as is the firm he works for West Yost and Associates itself.

So now you have a major consulting firm that is in charge of doing work on one of the most expensive projects in the city's history has been contributing to the reelection of their chief supporter on the city council.

To me this appears to be a conflict of interest. Don Saylor has accepted money for his campaign from a company that has a contract with the city. For the sake of ethics and propriety it would seem like Don Saylor should to recuse himself from deliberating on this issue. That is the only way that the citizens of Davis can insure that their leaders are not accepting quid pro quo campaign contributions from vendors who seek in exchange favorable public policy decisions for themselves and their firms. Employees and their firms who do business with the city of Davis should not be solicited by or contributing to the financial campaign coffers of city councilmembers who have the final say as to whether these firms are awarded contracts with the city. This is a clear eithical and financial conflict of interest.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

City Needs to Examine Water Issues Before the Final Bill Hits the City Ratepayers

The water issue is not an issue that has resonated with the Davis public just yet. In part, perhaps, because I think most people simply just are not aware of the magnitude of the increase in service charge they are facing in the coming years. Many families will be looking at a two to three fold increase (at minimum) in the coming years. We are talking about paying $2000 per year just in water.

Tuesday night the Davis City Council approved a resolution adopting the Yolo County Integrated Resource Water Management Plan (IRWMP). This is a regional plan that is broad in scope. In fact, so broad that the city produced a large and thick booklet. That booklet was delivered on Friday afternoon to the Davis City Council members--full of complex water-related issues.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek questioned the staff for delivering such a thick and dense document at such late a point. And while staff was apologetic about the completion time, there are a number of issues that could be brought up just from this fact. The Brown Act requires that all public meetings receive 72 hours notice. The city council agenda and packet are generally complete sometime on Friday afternoon. In technical terms that is around 96 hours plus in advance.

However, from a practical standpoint, there are problems with such timing. The basic information about agenda items is indeed available well in advance. However, anything dense or complicated has practical limitations. For instance, a member of the public probably would not be aware of the existence of this particular bound report until Monday. Thus from a practical standpoint, the public for some things really only has 24 to 36 hours notice. The weekend serves as time from the standpoint of the Brown act, but also as a dead zone in terms of the ability to learn about some of the more complex agenda items.

While all considerations have to be balanced with a practical understanding of the duties and tasks of city staff, a Thursday delivery date would push the time forward by 24 hours, but allow people time both during the week prior and the week of to more fully explore the council's agenda items.

Councilmember Heystek also introduced a substitute motion on Tuesday, to exclude from the report material related to the proposed but not passed water supply project. Though both Councilmember Heystek and Mayor Sue Greenwald made a valiant effort to convince Councilmember Stephen Souza onto their side, in the end, that substitute motion failed by a 3-2 vote and the main motion passed by a 3-2 vote.

In practical terms, this vote probably was only symbolic. Councilmember Stephen Souza made the point that this does not authorize anything new, and he is correct. On the other hand, as we have seen with this issue, much of what has been pushed along has been done either without votes from council to change course, or by piecemeal votes. One wonders if there will actually be a final vote on such a project or if at some point it be brought forth bit by bit into fait accompli status.

There are a number of questions about this project that need to be addressed. The first question is whether or not we need to have the water supply project at all. The city maintains that the water quality is not suitable presently. In fact, the water quality is perfectly suitable for drinking, what it is not suitable for is outflow back into the environment. That in itself begs a number of questions--chief among them, is whether we cannot deal simply with the present water supply.

The next question is whether we can, as Mayor Greenwald claims, rely on deep well aquifers to supply water for the next 30 to 50 years. That time, would allow for a number of things including allowing us to pay off the water treatment center, so that the residents of Davis are not hit with a double whammy of rate increases. The Mayor has especially objected to the lack of study from independent consultants and experts about the feasibility of such an alternative plan.

In part there needs to be a healthy skepticism about the current arrangement between the city and their hired water experts and consultants. Part of that skepticism is based on the idea that the same people asked to evaluate the water situation are the same people who would profit from the city adopting a water supply project.

Mayor Sue Greenwald has repeatedly suggested that the "experts" she has talked to have presented very different findings than have the city paid engineers and consults. Perhaps it is time that they come forth and speak before the public.

We also must question the size of the water supply project. As Councilmember Heystek suggested, the supply is far larger than the city's current needs, and he wondered aloud if the actual goal was to enable and facilitate growth rather than to fix a water supply problem.

Finally, we must again question the judgment of councilmembers such as Councilmember Don Saylor, who has voted each time to support and push this project ahead while at the same time, members of the West Yost Associates consulting firm have attended his campaign announcement party and undoubtedly in part helped to bankroll his re-election bid.

That leaves us with the vexing question as to whether we are getting the best governance or simply the best governance that money can buy.

It seems to me, that in the end, this entire water supply system might be our only choice. But it is estimated at this point to cost around $300 million. My guess is that the actual price will only be higher. I would like to see a concerted effort by city staff and our elected officials to take as many measures as possible to ensure that the solution that we have selected is the only reasonable alternative that we can take. It may end up being the course that we are presently on, but I would like for us to ask all the tough questions. In the meantime, I would like to see the same answers from people who will not financially benefit from these decisions as West Yost Associates will. In short, I want to hear from Mayor Greenwald's experts, it is time for her to stop talking about what they are saying and actually have them come forward and show us all what they have apparently told the Mayor. The public has the right to know.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Examining City Council Goals and Objectives

The Davis City Council will have another public workshop this Friday. First they will conclude their workshop on "Improving Transactional Effectiveness" and then they will have a staff presentation on the status of council goals and objectives.

The council has eight goals and objective for 2007-08:

• Maintain and improve the infrastructure
• Achieve long-term financial stability
• Enhance the vitality of downtown
• Provide a mix of high-quality housing to meet community needs
• Conserve natural resources and protect the environment
• Ensure top quality fire, police and emergency services
• Ensure organizational strength
• Promote economic development

This article will look at some of the specific policy objectives under each heading to see where the council has succeeded at least in their own goals and also discuss things that should have been included but were not.

The big objectives under "Maintain and Improve the Infrastructure," deal with the water supply and the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. In both cases, the city has moved along about at the rate that they wanted to. Both of these projects are massive and will end up greatly increasing Davis residents' water rates. The key question right now is whether this is what the city should be doing.

Last year, the city council agreed to spend $50,000 to $75,000 upgrading the parks and facilities master plan. It took a reconsideration of an agenda item after the initial item was defeated, due to the absence of Councilmember Asmundson. Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek would have preferred to have spent that money on unfinished projects from the previous plan rather than updating the current plan with an expensive survey.

Missing from the list is any upgrade in the quality of the roads, the workability of some of the traffic intersections and traffic lights.

In terms of the next goal, "Achieving Long-term Financial Stability," the council had a workshop where they look at various revenue enhancements, mainly in terms of new taxes.

The big thing that they did not do was seek to look at areas where spending has greatly increased that will end up costing the city. One such area has to do with upper level employees pensions and health benefits. These current practices for people in upper management may end up either bankrupting the city in future years, or at the very least leading to a large cutback in other sorts of spending as the city needs to get on top of a wave of retirements.

The third goal, is to "Enhance the Vitality of Downtown." Here it does not seem that they have proceeded on a number of their goals. Moreover, the big one that they did proceed on was the 3rd and B Visioning Process. My concern with their direction on this and other projects is that they are looking for ways to revitalize the downtown that are threatening the character of the city and the downtown. Tearing down some of the more historic buildings in the 3rd and B district is going to do far more to destroy the character of the city than it is to help downtown. Moreover, they have enacted projects such as Target that threaten the vitality of downtown.

The fourth goal, is to "Provide a Mix of High Quality Housing to Meet Community Needs." This is an area where I do not think the city has done enough. They have appointed a Housing Element Steering committee. We shall see what that process yields. What this city needs in my view, is a commitment to developing housing that families and younger and new home owners can afford. Not just an allotment of "affordable" housing for low income people that are really limited equity homes. We're talking about moving away from the model that has produced $500,000 to $600,000 homes. That means producing smaller houses on smaller lots and greater density of that housing. However, this is nowhere to be found on the city's goals.

The fifth goal, is to "Conserve Natural Resources and Protect the Environment." They have a list of items, most of which I have not heard of and most of which I do not believe have been acted upon. They do talk about recycling and composting. But I think the city needs to go further here. They mention the Davis Greenway Concept that includes locally based sustainability farms at the city's edge, but there needs to be, in light of county proposals, an all-out commitment to ag land preservation. Second, there needs to be a push for more electric vehicles for in-town use rather than internal combustion engines. Third, there needs to be a stronger commitment to solar power in new housing and perhaps even incentives for existing homeowners to purchase solar panels. Fourth, as they do in the north, they should convert all city road signs to solar energy.

The sixth goal, is to "Ensure Top Quality Fire, Police and Emergency Services." Here they have achieved a good number of their goals. It took them much longer than anticipated but they got the cameras and computers fully operational and for the most part reliable. They hired a police chief. For my purposes the top needs of the city are that we need more police officers hired and on the streets. I would like the city to look into higher standards for training in exchange for higher salary. The city is looking into a fourth fire station, and while I understand some of the concerns of a fourth fire station, particularly with regards to money, the suggestion has been made that the taxpayers could vote on it. I think that's a reasonable proposal from my observations. I can also see the need for a city-owned ladder truck, especially as the city continues to build taller and taller buildings.

The seventh goal, is to "Ensure Organizational Strength." This deals primarily with city staff. As I have suggested previously, I just do not like the city manager driven model of city government. I think it leaves elected council members, especially those who are in the minority, without the resources they need to do a good job of representing their constituency. Reliance on city staff has proven problematic at times. So one of the things I would like to see are reforms and changes to the overall structure.

A goal that is listed on their list of goals is to have in place by 2008 a living wage ordinance for City contracts and contract workers. This was a suggestion made by Councilmember Lamar Heystek that I strongly support. Will the current council majority support this goal? We shall see.

Finally, and this all appears to be future oriented, "Promote Economic Development." So far, I think this has not been an area of success. The first item listed there, is continue to work to ensure sustainability of Westlake Shopping Center. It has been over a year since Food Fair left this shopping center, and amazingly the existing businesses have primarily survived. But I do not think the city has acted aggressively enough to maintain this shopping center.

Second, they mention Trader Joe's. Here I think the city has really squandered opportunities by allowing the situation at University Mall with RAS. I talked to councilmembers after the lawsuit was announced and they felt that people just wanted Trader Joe's and did not care how it got here. Since that time, I have spoken to many people on the street and on the blog and I do not sense that type of attitude. Most do not understand why it has to be where RAS is currently located and most sympathize with RAS. The city lost a lot of their leverage by providing a zoning change prior to an agreement between University Mall and RAS.

Third, is the pursuit of the business and high tech research park. This is the issue that was postponed from last meeting's agenda. It figures to be an interesting battle on the slow growth side as to whether it is better to develop that as a residential development or a high tech research park. The latter has gained more prominence since the Tsakaopoulos proposal has emerged, although that is mainly a proposal for housing developments in exchange for the Stem Cell Research facility, it is unlikely to be available without the housing development.

Finally, we can put the Davis Manor in the same position as Westlake Shopping Center. Both of these locations would make far more sense for Trader Joe's and other additions than the University Mall. The council is seeming to allow two key neighborhood shopping areas lie underutilized for a substantial period of time.

A number of the goals on this list are laudable if overly ambitious. However, my sense over the last two months is that much of these are taking place at the expense of the existing character of the city. I do not oppose housing development, vitalization of downtown, or economic development, but I would like to see plans that integrate these projects into the existing character, rather than what I think is a rapid destruction of existing character. Make no mistake, Davis is under siege in a lot of ways. The question for Davis residents, is "Do you want a city that continues to look and feel like Davis? Or, "Do you want a city that looks more like Fairfield, Vacaville, or even worse some of the more rapid growing Central Valley Communities like Elk Grove and Natomas?" These are the key questions we must ask ourselves as we try to go forward with many of these laudable and necessary goals.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Column: View From West Davis

This is my weekly column of thoughts and tidbits from the week that has passed. A little bit lighter and more playful than the usual serious and hard-hitting coverage.

Flying at Half-Staff

As much as I complain about City Staff doing a poor job in this community, there are some things that just make me scratch my head and blow my hair back.

Such was the case on Thursday Night at the Davis Human Relations Commission Meeting. Last month, a representative from the ACLU had requested the HRC place an item on the agenda to discuss the possibility of recommending to the city council that they pass a resolution to support SB 1019. SB 1019, as the regulars on this blog know, would enable police oversight commissions to conduct their hearings once again in public and report the results of sustained complaints to the public.

The membership of the HRC apparently agreed to the request by the ACLU and placed the item on the agenda for the June Meeting of the HRC on Thursday.

Well I go to the meeting to watch this, and the city staffer Kelly Stachowicz, acknowledges that she has not prepared a staff report for the meeting. She tells the commission some of the basics of the bill but leaves out key details.

I am only a member of the public, so I am not allowed to speak and have to listen for about 20 minutes as the commission goes back and forth with incorrect and incomplete details. Police Chief Landy Black for instance suggests that he doesn't think that Davis needs another layer of oversight.

Well, no one explains to them that this bill has no impact on Davis. All it does is restore local control on the issue, it does not impose any changes on communities that do not already have civilian oversight boards. So it would not impose another layer of oversight on Davis. All it would do, is if Davis in the future wanted a civilian review board, it would allow Davis to report the findings in public.

The ultimate decision made by the commission was that they needed more information. I cannot blame them for that. So they are bringing it back for their July 26, 2007 meeting--which is fine, but it might be moot by then at least for this legislative term as the Assembly Committee is meeting again on July 3.

There were two major problems with this meeting. First, the staffer failed to do a staff report and of course no one on the commission questioned that. Second, in the past, chairs have allowed members of the public with specific knowledge about the issue to speak more informally, but this chair did not. Commissions by design are supposed to be considerably less rigid in structure precisely for this type of scenario.

Moving Left

Two weeks ago in this space, we told you that Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor was heavily promoting the movie "SiCKO" from *Roger* Moore. Well I get word from the health care rally, that Mr. Saylor once again showed up and tried to get his picture taken with everyone holding up a health care sign--people that are not his allies and people that he has attacked in public and private. Must be election time and in Davis that means you move hard to the left to show that you are indeed a liberal.

People just need to remember his voting record while on council. I'm waiting for him to renounce his support for Target, Covell Village, 3rd and B, the lowering of the Anderson Bank Building Windows, his opposition to the HRC and civilian oversight of the police, his refusal to vote on an anti-war resolution, etc. You cannot run from your voting record.

And of course when everyone else was enthusiastically cheering for the speeches, Mr. Saylor was looking rather stoic. You can't fool us.

Outrage

We were at Farmer's Market on Saturday getting the pulse of the town. The pulse of the town is outrage at the proposed development along I-80. It is outrage at the 3rd and B project. And it is outrage at the prospect of water rates tripling over the next decade.

The water issue is particularly pernicious because most people simply have no idea that their rates are going up. The water supply issue is particularly complicated because the people advising the city on the issue have a financial interest in the city constructing a bypass of Sacramento River water.

There is no such confusion on the Stem Cell Research Facility on I-80--no one we met was in favor of it. This is the classic Tskaopoulos approach, he's giving the carrot in the form of the research facility, but the real proposal is housing and commercial development on a massive scale. Other communities have seen right through the scheme, so Yolo is going to fall for it?

This would be DOA if Davis' representatives on the Board of Supervisors were doing their jobs of representing the needs and desires of Davis. Yolo County Supervisors Matt Rexroad and Duane Chamberlain are opposing this. And yet, we may have to fight this because Davis' two county supervisors Mariko Yamada and Helen Thomson favor it. Davis better look long and hard at the next Supervisor for the 4th District this coming election to insure that they will oppose development on the periphery of Davis. It is that simple.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

City Puts Out Propaganda Piece on Water Supply Project

Like many resident of Davis, I recently received in the mail a publication from the City of Davis' Public Works Department: "Utility Connection." I had not even received the publication yet when I got calls and emails about it, incensed not only at the content, but in the fact that this was propaganda paid for by city expense using taxpayer money.

One need look no further than the front page to realize the gist of message:

"In this special issue of Utility Connection, we offer a more detailed look at two critical public works projects. These two projects--a water supply project and a wastewater treatment project--are important to ensure a high-quality water supply for Davis citizens and protect the water quality of our rivers, wetlands and creeks."

The implication throughout this publication is that our drinking water is unsafe. This is simply not true. The drinking water is completely safe using the current water supply. There are questions about the quality, but they are not issues of safety. Several people, familiar with this situation have suggested that the city is trying to scare people into believing that current water supplies are unsafe, but this is simply untrue.

The publication makes four key points.

• The city's water supply is 100 percent groundwater
• There is a limited supply of groundwater
• New water quality regulations must be met but the necessary upgrades are costly
• The health of the groundwater basin is at risk

Currently, the city relies mainly on intermediate depth aquifers. These aquifers have been a reliable source for groundwater since the 1950s. These aquifers have never failed to recharge even in leaner water years. The only question has been water quality. And what is important to understand, is that it is not water quality of the water supply, but rather water quality of the discharge. In other words, the water that we drink, unpleasant as it may be, falls within the standards that are considered acceptable by state and federal water standard guidelines. The problem is that when it is discharged, it does not fall within the standards of wastewater guidelines.

Here is where we get into controversy. The city, the city's engineers, and the city's water consultants that they have hired from various companies, have suggested that the only solution to this problem, is to import surface water from the Sacramento River, which requires building a costly bypass and intake facility to draw the water in. Now of course it turns out, that that water will always be available during the winter, but in drier years it will not be readily available for use during the summer months, which means we will have to rely on our own groundwater to supplement it regardless.

The city is arguing that there is a limited supply of groundwater, however, that is likely not true. First, as mentioned previously the intermediate-depth wells have never failed to recharge. There is no evidence at this point in time that deep aquifers have a limited supply. Most experts familiar with this situation have estimated that there is enough water from deep well aquifers to supply us with 30 to 50 years of water--even if they don't recharge.

Even under the so-called conjunctive use model that uses surface water in conjunction with groundwater, we require the use of deep well aquifers to provide the water that is not available during lean times from the Sacramento River.

Given current estimates of the capacity of the deep well aquifers, it is conceivable that we may have to, in 50 years, import surface water. The city is using this fact to argue that we need to do it now, but many experts not currently getting paid by the city suggest that there is no evidence that we need to do it now.

Economists would suggest that we forestall and avoid major capital improvement projects as long as possible. This is due to advances in technology that may improve upon current methods of delivery, thus reducing costs and make whatever investments and expenditures obsolete by the time they go online. We thus need to look into the possibility of going to deep well aquifers and see if that will give us the kind of quality improvements that would enable us to forestall such a huge expenditure--and we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars of Davis ratepayer money for the surface water project in addition to another set of hundreds of millions for the wastewater project, that we have to do now in order to meet current regulations.

Once again however, the city is trying to scare the citizens by implying that we have a limited supply of groundwater, that the health of the groundwater is at risk, and that the only way to meet new water quality regulations--and these are again outflow regulations not intake regulations--is to import surface water.

The city has by-and-large arrived at these conclusions without sufficient study of deep aquifer alternatives.

Why is that?

Here we need only to follow the money. Remember two weeks ago in the Davis Enterprise, we saw the picture of Jeff Pelz and Bruce West chatting with Don Saylor at his announcement party? These two gentlemen were from West Yost Associates. West Yost Associates is the water consulting engineer company that is in charge of designing and constructing the new water intake system.

So here you have the owners of a major company that will be earning tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars from a city contract, at the re-election party for a city councilmember who has been a stalwart for pushing through this project.

Coincidence? I don't believe in such things.

Here you have associates from a company standing to make huge profits from city contracts openly supporting a councilmember for re-election. At the same time, you have the city financing this neat little propaganda piece to its residents implying that we lack adequate water supplies without importing water and that the water is unsafe.

I do not trust the analysis from interested parties in this process. If we are going to undertake such a huge capital expenditure, I want to be sure. And when I see things like the picture of Don Saylor with West Yost Associates at his fundraising party and then read a propaganda piece funded by the city, I do not have confidence that we are getting independent analysis. I fear that we are getting sold this project by companies trying to make millions and councilmembers currying favors for key supporters.

We need to start asking tough questions about this process before it is too late.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Saylor Announcement: The Rest of the Story

Don Saylor announces his bid for reelection, and the Davis Enterprise treats it as a headlining story, not only above the fold, but at the very top of the paper. We of course have known since January that Saylor would be running for reelection, and it is worth noting that his counterpart and colleague Stephen Souza did not get above the fold treatment when he announced his reelection bid a few months back.

However, this story is not about placement, it is not about what Saylor said on Friday night, and it is about what he did not say and what was not reported. You've heard the news; now you will hear... the rest of the story.

In the photo on the right from the Davis Enterprise, Saylor is shown talking to Bruce West and Jeff Pelz from West Yost Associates. What the Davis Enterprise does not tell you is who West Yost Associates is and what their connection to Davis City government entails. West Yost Associates are the water consulting engineers who have been receiving city money to design and construct the new water intake system. That's a project estimated to run the city between $150 and $300 million dollars and likely to increase residents' water rates by two to three fold over the next 10 years or so.

Don Saylor has been a strong champion of the new water project despite strong reservation from many progressive, environmental, and smart growth groups. The project has drawn strong questioning from a number of university faculty who are experts in water quality. These experts have great concerns about the costs of the project, wisdom of transporting Sacramento River Water, alternatives, environmental impacts, etc. However, the city led by Don Saylor has heard very few of these concerns at least in public, and one of the reasons is the insistence of Don Saylor to push this project through. So here you have associates with a company that has millions of dollars worth of business with the city at an event supporting Don Saylor's bid for reelection, meanwhile Saylor has refused to support an independent, outside second opinion regarding the feasibility of postponing this project until the $200 million wastewater and storm water upgrades are paid off.

But there is more. As the Vanguard has demonstrated in the past, Saylor continues to want to have it both ways--supporting development projects while talking about sustainability and a lighter environmental footprint.

According to the paper, Saylor said, "sustainability cannot be accomplished by 'saying no to every development opportunity.'"

Sounds like a fair enough statement, but then there is no mention of Saylor's track record on development. In fact, it is hard to think of a development opportunity that Saylor has not supported. Saylor hasn't "said no to every development opportunity," he's said no to almost no development opportunities.

On this score, no mention of the ardent support that Don Saylor had for Covell Village. He was outspoken as a supporter of Covell Village both in the planning phase and in the ballot initiative phase. In fact, he was much more than just a supporter--he and his council majority colleagues actively campaigned for the proposal--acting as advocates and cheerleaders for it. He acted as an advocate for developer interests on the Covell project as a member of the council. This is a proposal that was voted down by the Davis voters by nearly a 60-40 margin, and yet Don Saylor supported it, strongly. Now he wants to suggest that we cannot say no to every development opportunity.

Likewise, Don Saylor was a strong advocate for Target, an initiative that passed by the barest of margins last November despite a $300,000 campaign that outspent the opposition by over 10 to 1. As with the Covell Village project, he worked on the Target campaign and helped to get it passed. These are two of the biggest development projects ever proposed in Davis and Don Saylor was supporting both of them.

Don Saylor's statement about not turning down every development opportunity rings false, in fact, I wonder if there has ever been a major development opportunity that Saylor has opposed in Davis. Frankly, if he supported Covell, he's probably going to support them all. Those of you who are nervous about the 3rd and B Street Visioning Project might want to keep that in mind.

Those of you who voted against Covell Village should be wary that there are plans and have been discussions both in council and in the Housing Element Committee to look into Covell Village II. This is not just about punishing Saylor for his past votes, it is for ensuring that the residents of Davis, 60% of whom voted against Covell Village, have their choice respected by their elected representatives on the council.

Saylor also made veiled reference to "sustaining the fabric of community."

According to the Enterprise:

"By that, Saylor was referring to the tone of public discourse in Davis which has, at times, crept into the uncivil. He pointed guests to copies of an op-ed piece he wrote for The Davis Enterprise about community relations."

Well if Saylor wants to wage his campaign based on civility, I would suggest he is opening a giant hornet's nest. If Saylor wants to point people toward his op-ed piece, I will point Vanguard readers toward my response to his op-ed piece, entitled: Who is Saylor to Lecture US on Civility in Public Discourse? In that piece, specific incidents are mentioned where Saylor himself is uncivil--attacking both the Mayor and Councilmember Lamar Heystek--sometimes rather viciously.

Don Saylor wants to talk about civility does he? Where was Don Saylor when his colleague Ruth Asmundson attacked Mayor Greenwald on the dais?

Asmundson stated:

"It's just unfortunate that the mayor cannot run the meeting more efficiently... If we have a more efficient meeting then we can finish all these things."

As it turned out the problem was not so much that the mayor couldn't run a meeting more efficiently it was that certain council members, namely Asmundson and Saylor spoke for a disproportionately long time compared to their colleagues. Of course, Saylor never spoke against the uncivil tone that his ally used, and yet he wants to lecture us about bringing civility to this community? How about starting by putting your money where your mouth is.

Politicians get away with making misleading statements because no one calls them on the truth. When Saylor wants to run a campaign based on half-truths and tries to have it both ways to confuse the voters into believing he is environmentally conscious and that the debate is really over not turning down every development, he attempts to insult the intelligence of the voters of this town. The voters know that Saylor has a reputation as a strong supporter of even development projects that are voted down by massive margins and as a man who is quick to be just as uncivil to other individuals as he falsely accuses them of being to him.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Residents Face Double-Whammy of Water Rate Hikes in Coming Decade

The Davis City Council held a public meeting last Tuesday to discuss a planned rate increase for both water and sewage rates. The public had an opportunity to come out and protest these rate hikes--a few did, but not in sufficient numbers to warrant any additional action by the city council.

As a result the rate for Davis residents will rise merely for the new sewage system by at least 7 to 8 percent per year for the next 10 years--or double the projected rate of inflation.

Davis Public Works Director Bob Weir projected that these rates would end up costing the average single-family residence at least $102 per month in utilities.

The upgrade in the sewage system is necessitated by changes in state and federal laws regarding wastewater outflow. These laws currently place the city out of compliance in terms of organic and particulate matter in the water discharge.

In the meantime these rate hikes are just the tip of the iceberg for Davis residents. The other half of the story is the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project.

This project as we have discussed previously is a $300-$450 million project.

According to the water supply page:

"The partners are pursuing this project to secure a new, high-quality surface water supply from the Sacramento River. Currently, groundwater serves as the sole supply of water for the partners. A new, treated surface water source is needed to improve water quality for Woodland, Davis and UC Davis to meet future wastewater discharge requirements. The partners also want to ensure that an adequate and diversified future water supply is available."

The project is currently in the environmental documentation phase, and Draft EIR has been prepared and available for review for a 50-day period ending May 31. Any public willing to submit comments may do so at the May 16, 2007 Davis City Council Meeting.

The project relies on a diversion of water from the Sacramento River, it will then be piped into an intake water treatment plant and connected with the cities. It has three primary goals: (1) "Provide a reliable water supply to meet existing and future needs;" (2) "improve water quality for drinking water purposes;" and (3) "improve the quality of treated wastewater effluent discharged by the Project Partners."

According to the EIR, there will be up to 46.1 thousand acre feet of water per year from the river for water use.

They argue that there will be no significant impact on fish, aquatic resources, and habitats, hydrology, or water quality in the Sacramento River or downstream delta. That may be accurate on the basis simply of the impact of this specific project's usage, but the broader concern would have to be the stress on this system as more and more community scramble to gain control over water from the Sacramento River in lieu of pending water shortages and changes in the climate due to global warming. Any one project's impact may be low, but it would be interesting to see what the combined or overall impact might be.

They argue that there will be short-term construction impacts such as dust and noise. However, they do not discuss the impact of building the pipeline across those miles of habitat.

Summer water purchases will not result in significant environmental impacts, however, as the presentation earlier this year suggested, there is likely not going to be water available to Davis during the summer months anyway. So it is unsurprising that the summer water purchases would not result in significant environmental impacts.

While I am far from a water expert, it seems to me that this EIR is inadequate. During the public meetings and workshop earlier this year, Mayor Greenwald suggested we have an independent agency and experts examine the water project for necessity. According to the EIR, the City of Davis is the lead agency for complying with the CEQA act. As I suggest, there seem to be a number of issues that are simply not addressed adequately in the report.

The key questions I have continue to have are the overall impact of a delicate ecological system of the delta. This EIR looked only at the impact of this particular project on the delta rather than any sort of cumulative impact. Second, would be the issue of availability of water.

As discussed previously, the main argument for proceeding with this project now is to gain a foothold on Davis' share of water from the Sacramento River before other communities that will likely jump on board. The problem with that viewpoint is that if there actually becomes a crisis, there is no guarantee we would be able to retain those water rights.

The final problem with the water supply issue that we are planning for urban growth for a city of 100,000 people within the next 40 years. A realistic view of the resources in California coupled with expected climate change, simply does not support those kind of population growths in this part of the state where water is seasonal and increasingly unreliable.

It would be nice if other alternatives for water supply would have been more thoroughly explored during the recent process, but that does not seem to be a priority.

In the meantime, the city of Davis is looking to embark on two very expensive projects and those on fixed incomes will take a huge hit. That means seniors and other people least able to handle increased costs of living will be the first to feel its impacts. The city needs to seriously examine how they structure these rates--right now they are proposing flat rates, which would be devastating to low income and fixed income people. That should be a top priority in rate structuring.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting