Liveblogging from YOUR City Council

Hello, my fellow followers of municipal government.  I showed up in Community Chambers just in time to witness Mayor Saylor gavel us in to order.  All Council members are present, save Mayor Pro Tem Krovoza who will be joining us around 7:45 pm.

We’ve got an interesting agenda tonight.

Consent Calendar

• 03A East Area Tank, CIP 8172 Agreement Amendments.pdf
• 03B RBI Toxicity Reduction Evaluation.pdf
• 03C Mace Curve Purchase Option.pdf
• 03D Water Main Replacement PSE, CIP 8190.pdf
• 03E PW Org Study.pdf
• 03F UCD-SLC Minutes 06-09-10.pdf

Regular Calendar

• 04 Parking Fine Schedule.pdf
• 05 Recreation Program Fees for FY11-12.pdf
• 06 WWTP Alternatives.pdf
• 07 Commission Appointment 11-16-10.pdf

6:35pm – Public Comment is now open and there are 4 members of the public here to speak.  First up is Alan Mills who is here to comment on the specifications of the proposed security fence along the Union Pacific railroad along 2nd Street to limit pedestrian crossings across the tracks.  Next us is Dave Thompson, local co-op housing advocate, who is commenting on the ongoing DACHA debacle.  David Greenwald is now commenting about the surface water project.  Now, we have a young lady commenting on advertising on single-deck Unitrans buses.  The last comment was in regards to the painting, or lack thereof, of bicycle lanes.

6:52pm – The consent calendar has been adopted, without item E, and it passes 4-0.

OK, already tonight there have been several items that deserve a lot more of our interest (railroad fence, DACHA, and surface water)… here’s hoping that someone in The Davis Voice community can find some time to write a piece that will elucidate the rest of us on these matters.

6:56pm – Now up is a presentation, council discussion and public hearing about Item 04, a new Parking Fine schedule.  From the staff report, “the State of California has recently imposed an additional penalty of three dollars for each parking offense, to be deposited in the state Trial Court Trust Fund.”  So, we’re adopting the ordinance to increase parking fines across the board by $3, of which all revenue will be passed to the state.

No one from the public is here to comment.  There have been some questions about the regular review process for parking fines and it seems that it happens about every 3 years.  Souza moves the resolution, and asks that staff review the consistency of parking violation rates throughout the city.  Swanson seconds, and Greenwald asks for a friendly amendment that the DDBA be engaged on the issue.  There is some disagreement on when the DDBA should come into the process…  Item passes 4-0.

7:08pm – Next up is Item 05, Recreation Program Fees for the next fiscal year.  This item is a great example of the challenging balancing acts that municipal governments must participate in to ensure that all of our citizens have access to a wide range of recreation programs.  From the staff report,

The Recreation Activities Cost Recovery policy is aimed at reviewing costs and expenses for each city recreation program. New program fees are established annually based upon their level of community and/or individual benefit, and seek to recover their respective level of costs while maintaining fees at reasonable levels.

The finances of this are interesting… since 2005, staff has been directed by staff to establishes uniform guidelines and cost recovery levels and goals for recreation programs, events, activities, goods, and services. Establishing a cost recovery policy accomplishes the following:

1. Provide a structure to calculate fees for recreation programs.
2. Cover appropriate costs based on who is served and type of program.
3. Provide systematic framework for the potential removal of programs not generating the designated minimum cost recovery for that program.
4. Allow for decision makers to decide how General Fund subsidy is allocated.
5. Reduce recreation programs impact on the General Fund.

Council member Swanson is fulfilling a campaign promise with her detailed line of questioning about how and when funds are moving around this issue… specifically, the ability of staff to postpone some of the savings depending on scheduling issues.  Greenwald has similar concerns.  Saylor asks that if in response to staff concerns about declining enrollment in specific programs, there has been any discussion about summer-long passes… I didn’t catch the answer from staff, anyone?

7:23pm – Public Comment is open… and closed for a lack of participants.  Souza moves the resolution and other staff recommendations (taking into account Finance & Budget Commissions’ concerns for next year’s evaluations), Saylor seconds.  Souza comments that this seems like a good process, created with input from the Parks & Rec Commission and is responsive to  changing conditions.

7:26pm – Mayor Pro Tem Krovoza has joined his colleagues on the dais.  Swanson would like to delay this item until the 30th, so that she can ask some more detailed questions of the Finance & Budget Commission.  On November 8th, at the Finance & Budget Commission

It was moved by commissioner Siegler and second by Commissioner Traverso that there was not enough information provided to determine if the proposed fees are consistent with the Cost Recovery Policy.  It passed 6-1.

Saylor has a substitute-substitute motion to adopt the recommendations and direct staff to ensure that F&B Commission in included in the future.  His reasoning for delaying that action: to be fair, this action would also have to involve the P&R Commission… delaying adoption for 2 or 3 months which would hinder staff’s ability to publish their calendar in a timely manner.  Saylor’s motion fails 2-3.  Swanson’s motion (to delay until the F&B Joint meeting on the 30th) passes 3-2 with Saylor and Souza dissenting.

7:35pm – 5 minute BREAK!  Hurry back!!

7:47pm – We’re back… and we seem to be a little off agenda… the Mayor is asking the Council to consider their appointments to the F&B Commission and an applicant just spoke before the Council.

Next up is the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project alternatives…  This is part of an ongoing discussion and process about how to best update our treatment plant so that our discharged water meets regional and state water quality standards.  Staff presentation is being delayed because Greenwald has left the chambers.

7:54pm – And she’s back, and the presentation by Bob Clarke from Public Works has begun.

Ok, everybody… this is one of the many boring, dirty and important reasons why local governments exist… to deal with your wastewater.  Do you give much thought to what happens after you flush your toilet?  How about all that narstiness that you just put down the disposal in your kitchen sink?  Yeah, didn’t think so.  Well, pat yourself on the back because you’ve passed that ugly responsibility on to your elected City Council!

Background from the staff report,

The City of Davis provides sanitary sewer (wastewater) services as part of its utility operations. Wastewater from Davis residences and businesses flows to the treatment facility on County Road 28H where it is treated. The treatment includes three stages:

• • Pretreatment (removing grit, rags, and other objects)
• • Primary treatment (removing solids like human waste and food waste)
• • Secondary treatment (bacterial action to remove organic matter)

Solids are dried on-site and disposed of at an off-site landfill; liquid effluent is discharged to the Davis Wetlands and Willow Slough Bypass before draining to the Yolo Bypass. Costs of maintaining and operating the wastewater treatment plant are covered by ratepayers.

So, what’s wrong with the current facility?  The State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board wants Davis to make two serious and expensive changes so that our discharge meets new environmental and safety standards:

• Effluent that reaches the Yolo Bypass must meet higher standards for water quality. From an engineering perspective, this means “tertiary” treatment to eliminate additional pollutants.
• The current practice of draining treated wastewater through the Davis Wetlands into the Yolo Bypass must cease, because the ammonia loads from the birds in the Wetlands cause the discharge to exceed allowable limits.

So, how are we going to do this?  Staff has engaged a large group of local experts and citizens, and currently there are three project alternatives:

1. Davis Local Treatment Plant Upgrade
2. Woodland/Regional Treatment Plant Improvements
3. Zero Discharge Option – Conaway Ranch Recycled Water Project

Staff’s preferred alternative is the Davis Local Treatment Plant Upgrade, while leaving the door open for the joint Woodland project to see if ongoing discussions can improve that alternative.  Analysis for this decision (see WWTP Alternatives.pdf for full details) was based on four key criteria: environmental documentation, regulatory negotiations, project schedule, and governance.  The local upgrade is preferred by staff because not only is it cheaper (upfront, maybe not ongoing), but there are fewer obstacles to overcome regarding the above stated criteria.

Tonight, staff is asking for Council direction to move forward with the preferred alternatives… they’ll come back with more details before the big bucks are actually spent.

8:20pm – Staff report is over and now is the time for Council questions.

Souza Question: How long have we been working on this project? Answer: Since about early 2000.  Souza Question: How long have we been looking at different alternatives? Answer: About 10 years.  The point Souza is making here?  Contrary to some people’s opinions, this process is not being “rushed”.

Souza Question: How much can we anticipate what the Regional Board will require in the future?  Not much, but Davis is the right size community and stable enough (slow-growth) to be a good candidate for emerging technologies.

Greenwald Question: (for one of the UCD experts) Which option is the more innovative and allows more flexibility in the future?  Short Answer: the regional option, but joint governance and future needs could be problematic.  Greenwald Question: what about the private company that we didn’t investigate?  Answer: interesting because it has a very small footprint.  Interim City Manager Navazio also weighs in that IF we go the local route, we may investigate the private option further.

The next Greenwald Question is tracking at about 3 minutes in length… something about labor cost assumptions.  Staff Answer: tried our best, but projecting out many years on a huge project is problematic and we haven’t had the resources to go into greater detail but that would be forthcoming.  Greenwald’s next lengthy question is basically, if the local update option is so great, why still pursue the unknown complexities of a regional project with Woodland?  Answer: We will never be able to identify every conceivable scenario for the next 50 years, but they believe that the inter-governmental obstacles could be overcome.  And lastly, some clarification from the UCD expert regarding concerns about the suitability of the location of the Woodland water treatment plant (it’s very close to a shopping center.)

FYI – There are about 25 people in Chambers (in addition to staff & Council)… 9 of them are in suits, so I’m guessing that they are part of the water expert team… couple of other folks that I recognize, but many I don’t!  Great to have so many folks here for such an important and expensive project.

8:48pm – Next up, Krovoza Questions… #1 Ratepayer increases: why not as drastic as he expected?  Short answer: rates have been increasing slowly for the past several years in anticipation of this project.

Current monthly sewer rate for the average single family residential home: $41.10

Projected monthly sewer rate for the average single family residential home (with the local plant upgrade) in 2030: $52.84

Next Krovoza Question: With a Davis only plant, will there ever be  the opportunity to use reclaimed effluent water in parks etc.?  Answer: Yes, not in the near term but maybe in a couple of decades.  Krovoza Question: What is the threshold of our dedicated contribution to wetlands… how much would be left over?  Answer: about 15-20% of the treated water would be left over after release to the wetland.

Krovoza Question: How much are we banking on a big improvement in water quality (surface water rather than our current well water).  Answer: Completely, these projects are only feasible with a change to surface water rather than well water.

Next up is Swanson Questions… What exactly is our environmental responsibility… our commitment to local habitat?  Answer: the final answer is with the Water Resource Board, but it is definitely significant.  Swanson just complimented staff and the advisory group for doing a thorough job of creating an “apples to apples” comparison of the alternatives.

Next question: What are the ramifications of timing on the finances (close to that)?  Answer: the quicker we move, the more sure we can be…

9:09pm – OK, folks at home… you’ll have to forgive me, I’m fading a bit here… so, if I miss something important please add it in the comments below.  Oh, and you all realize that I’m paraphrasing here, right?

Rochelle’s next question is concerned with future capacity for possible local expansion in the manufacturing and research industries.  The answer is: if paired with increased residential water conservation efforts, then we will have much more flexibility in the future…  minimal future conservation measures are built into the current numbers.

More Souza questions: How deep have you drilled down on design, build, operation and finance costs?  Answer: scratched the surface, more details and choices to come. Souza’s next question is bringing home the point that: 1) Davis has historically been far below the state average for residential water costs and 2) Without the surface water and a wastewater treatment plant upgrade, ratepayers will be faced with an even larger cost alternative (which I think would be continuing with well water).

9:26pm – On to Public Comments.  Our first (and only) citizen is concerned about the link between our water source, this project, Woodland’s WWTP upgrade schedule and the Woodland JPA.  Public comment is now over.

9:29pm – Any bets on how long it will take to pass a motion on this item?  I’m gonna hazard a guess: I think that there is consensus on moving forward with the local update, but division on continuing conversation with Woodland… so 9:45pm is my guess.

Swanson moves the staff recommendation and Souza seconds,

1. Authorize staff to initiate an RFP process to select consultants to prepare environmental documentation, regulatory permit documentation and perform preliminary design functions with the goal of returning to Council to approve consultant agreements in March 2001.
2. Authorize staff to continue collaborating with the City of Woodland to determine if an agreement can be reached that would favor the Regional Plant as the preferred alternative with the goal being to bring this back to Council prior to any action approving consultant contracts, should an agreement in principle be reached.

Greenwald offers a substitute motion, which is ONLY #1 from above… effectively killing the joint regional alternative.  Krovoza seconds (for discussion).  Swanson asks Navazio to clarify the time frame for any discussions with Woodland… answer is by February/March 2011, the Council will have to take some specific funding actions, so, any discussions with Woodland would have to be concluded prior to that time.  Krovoza and Souza have both just commented that they think it’s wise to continue the discussions with Woodland, even though it seems as if the local option is probably the best.  OK, voting time on Greenwald’s substitute motion, it fails 1-4 with Greenwald the sole vote.

9:41pm - Swanson amends her original motion to include a March 2011 deadline for staff’s continuing conversations with Woodland.  The amended motion passes 5-0.

9:44pm – We’re now considering Item 03E PW Org Study.pdf , Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Study for Public Works to be conducted by a private consulting firm.  Krovoza is uncomfortable with a consulting firm playing such a large role in this matter.  Navazio is trying to describe the parameters and potential deliverables that would define the consulting firm’s work.

Staff background,

City staff is recommending that the City hire a consultant to conduct a management and operations study, and ultimately recommend actions that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency, of the Public Works Department’s uses of financial and human resources. Consulting services are sought to examine department operations or elements thereof, and to identify potential areas or methods to improve service levels, increase efficiency and achieve cost savings.

Greenwald thinks that we spend too much on consultants and that this task is really within the job description of the City Manager.  Swanson has asked why Public Works Department now?  The answer is that they’ve recently undergone some changes due to the last staff reorganization, and they’d like to assess those changes…

Saylor’s comment is that we have an Interim City Manager, Interim Finance Director and Interim Public Works Director and that there aren’t a lot of real experienced people on staff sitting around to do this kind of work.  Also, that we had a very successful process with the consultant who worked on the joint Fire Chief position with UCD… good point.

Saylor moves, and Krovoza seconds,

Authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consulting firm to conduct a management of operations study that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Public Works Department.

Motion carries 5-0.

10:01pm - Philip King has been appointed to the Finance & Budget Commission.

OK, we’re wrapping it up now with City Manager and Council communications, financial reporting and the long-term calendar… I’m gonna pack it in!  The next regular meeting is December 7th, so hope you’ll join us then.

HOLD THE PRESSES: Souza is requesting that the Council agendize a discussion on December 7th about how to replace Don Saylor.  Saylor recuses himself, and Krovoza thinks that a list of options from staff/City Attorney would be appropriate… so, it looks like it is gonna happen!

On December 7th, staff will present the legal and procedural options for filling the seat to be vacated by Saylor in January… should be interesting.

And I’m outta here!