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
Thank goodness at least one city council member has the courage to ask the hard but important questions about this potential bank-breaking, quarter-of-a-billion dollar project. I watched the video carefully and Sue’s questioning was polite, respectful, and totally appropriate. Ruth Asmundson is a discrace to the office of mayor. SHE is the one who should be asking these same questions! Shame on her, and Don Saylor, for trying to silence Ms. Greenwald.
Thank goodness at least one city council member has the courage to ask the hard but important questions about this potential bank-breaking, quarter-of-a-billion dollar project. I watched the video carefully and Sue’s questioning was polite, respectful, and totally appropriate. Ruth Asmundson is a discrace to the office of mayor. SHE is the one who should be asking these same questions! Shame on her, and Don Saylor, for trying to silence Ms. Greenwald.
Thank goodness at least one city council member has the courage to ask the hard but important questions about this potential bank-breaking, quarter-of-a-billion dollar project. I watched the video carefully and Sue’s questioning was polite, respectful, and totally appropriate. Ruth Asmundson is a discrace to the office of mayor. SHE is the one who should be asking these same questions! Shame on her, and Don Saylor, for trying to silence Ms. Greenwald.
Thank goodness at least one city council member has the courage to ask the hard but important questions about this potential bank-breaking, quarter-of-a-billion dollar project. I watched the video carefully and Sue’s questioning was polite, respectful, and totally appropriate. Ruth Asmundson is a discrace to the office of mayor. SHE is the one who should be asking these same questions! Shame on her, and Don Saylor, for trying to silence Ms. Greenwald.
Wait for the other shoe to drop. First the development-happy politicos will ram through this incredible debt burden. Then, once we’ve all felt the pain of paying it off, they’ll offer salvation through growth. If there are twice as many people in “Davis”, we’ll only suffer half as much! Build Covell Suburb! Annex Dixon! Bigger! Bigger! Bigger!
Wait for the other shoe to drop. First the development-happy politicos will ram through this incredible debt burden. Then, once we’ve all felt the pain of paying it off, they’ll offer salvation through growth. If there are twice as many people in “Davis”, we’ll only suffer half as much! Build Covell Suburb! Annex Dixon! Bigger! Bigger! Bigger!
Wait for the other shoe to drop. First the development-happy politicos will ram through this incredible debt burden. Then, once we’ve all felt the pain of paying it off, they’ll offer salvation through growth. If there are twice as many people in “Davis”, we’ll only suffer half as much! Build Covell Suburb! Annex Dixon! Bigger! Bigger! Bigger!
Wait for the other shoe to drop. First the development-happy politicos will ram through this incredible debt burden. Then, once we’ve all felt the pain of paying it off, they’ll offer salvation through growth. If there are twice as many people in “Davis”, we’ll only suffer half as much! Build Covell Suburb! Annex Dixon! Bigger! Bigger! Bigger!
merge the two projects and use the output of our tertiary-treated wastewater system as the input for our new water treatment system. Reduce, recyle, reuse… Cap the whole system’s capacity at our current useage. Any new project can build their own system.
There, I have simplified a $450M proposal into a time-slot to fit the Mayor’s new guidelines!
merge the two projects and use the output of our tertiary-treated wastewater system as the input for our new water treatment system. Reduce, recyle, reuse… Cap the whole system’s capacity at our current useage. Any new project can build their own system.
There, I have simplified a $450M proposal into a time-slot to fit the Mayor’s new guidelines!
merge the two projects and use the output of our tertiary-treated wastewater system as the input for our new water treatment system. Reduce, recyle, reuse… Cap the whole system’s capacity at our current useage. Any new project can build their own system.
There, I have simplified a $450M proposal into a time-slot to fit the Mayor’s new guidelines!
merge the two projects and use the output of our tertiary-treated wastewater system as the input for our new water treatment system. Reduce, recyle, reuse… Cap the whole system’s capacity at our current useage. Any new project can build their own system.
There, I have simplified a $450M proposal into a time-slot to fit the Mayor’s new guidelines!
One of Sue’s major major process problems is she comes to the dais without having prepared her questions. The better process is to prepare a list, email it to staff, and so there is some efficiency. So Sue can get to those questions, on the fly, but it makes for a more difficult process. But she never does, from my memory.
In my 4 years with her on the dais, she never had her questions ready. I think I remember one or two draft motions, but mostly she does it on the fly.
That said, a Mayor should not cut off a member asking questions.
One of Sue’s major major process problems is she comes to the dais without having prepared her questions. The better process is to prepare a list, email it to staff, and so there is some efficiency. So Sue can get to those questions, on the fly, but it makes for a more difficult process. But she never does, from my memory.
In my 4 years with her on the dais, she never had her questions ready. I think I remember one or two draft motions, but mostly she does it on the fly.
That said, a Mayor should not cut off a member asking questions.
One of Sue’s major major process problems is she comes to the dais without having prepared her questions. The better process is to prepare a list, email it to staff, and so there is some efficiency. So Sue can get to those questions, on the fly, but it makes for a more difficult process. But she never does, from my memory.
In my 4 years with her on the dais, she never had her questions ready. I think I remember one or two draft motions, but mostly she does it on the fly.
That said, a Mayor should not cut off a member asking questions.
One of Sue’s major major process problems is she comes to the dais without having prepared her questions. The better process is to prepare a list, email it to staff, and so there is some efficiency. So Sue can get to those questions, on the fly, but it makes for a more difficult process. But she never does, from my memory.
In my 4 years with her on the dais, she never had her questions ready. I think I remember one or two draft motions, but mostly she does it on the fly.
That said, a Mayor should not cut off a member asking questions.
What Sue did was inexcusable – blowing up and having a tantrum. She should have just allowed other people to ask some questions and then politely asked the Mayor if she could ask some more. This would have been granted. She could have used her time to better focus her questions. She needs to understand that we are not interested in her personal difficulties in working with other council members.
What the Mayor did was inexcusable – interrupting Sue, calling Sue out of order and then calling a recess. She should have patiently waited while Sue asked her questions. We paid big bucks for this study and the professional answering questions was paid to be able to defend the study. The Mayor’s attempt to shield him from intense questioning was completely inappropriate.
I still don’t understand the impact that these projects will have on me. I need the City Council to do better in this regard.
What Sue did was inexcusable – blowing up and having a tantrum. She should have just allowed other people to ask some questions and then politely asked the Mayor if she could ask some more. This would have been granted. She could have used her time to better focus her questions. She needs to understand that we are not interested in her personal difficulties in working with other council members.
What the Mayor did was inexcusable – interrupting Sue, calling Sue out of order and then calling a recess. She should have patiently waited while Sue asked her questions. We paid big bucks for this study and the professional answering questions was paid to be able to defend the study. The Mayor’s attempt to shield him from intense questioning was completely inappropriate.
I still don’t understand the impact that these projects will have on me. I need the City Council to do better in this regard.
What Sue did was inexcusable – blowing up and having a tantrum. She should have just allowed other people to ask some questions and then politely asked the Mayor if she could ask some more. This would have been granted. She could have used her time to better focus her questions. She needs to understand that we are not interested in her personal difficulties in working with other council members.
What the Mayor did was inexcusable – interrupting Sue, calling Sue out of order and then calling a recess. She should have patiently waited while Sue asked her questions. We paid big bucks for this study and the professional answering questions was paid to be able to defend the study. The Mayor’s attempt to shield him from intense questioning was completely inappropriate.
I still don’t understand the impact that these projects will have on me. I need the City Council to do better in this regard.
What Sue did was inexcusable – blowing up and having a tantrum. She should have just allowed other people to ask some questions and then politely asked the Mayor if she could ask some more. This would have been granted. She could have used her time to better focus her questions. She needs to understand that we are not interested in her personal difficulties in working with other council members.
What the Mayor did was inexcusable – interrupting Sue, calling Sue out of order and then calling a recess. She should have patiently waited while Sue asked her questions. We paid big bucks for this study and the professional answering questions was paid to be able to defend the study. The Mayor’s attempt to shield him from intense questioning was completely inappropriate.
I still don’t understand the impact that these projects will have on me. I need the City Council to do better in this regard.
Good insight Mike Harrington, That was my sense of it too that Sue wanted to take the report down but was unprepared and all over the map.
Vanguard you started this in the middle of her questioning so it doesn’t seem as tedious as watching the entire questioning or sitting through it. Sue sought to challenge the authority of the mayor, instead she should have deferred and asked for someone else to go, collected her thoughts and taken another turn. I wonder what would have happened if Sue has said okay give someone else a chance but please I would like to ask a few more questions at the end. This is how they do it in congressional committees and you can now see why they do it that way.
As for the costs, it seems Sue’s estimates are much higher than staff’s, I would like to know how both get their numbers?
Finally, Sue says we should wait and see if the wastewater requirements get overturned, why can’t you do that while trying to improve water quality in Davis.
Its also interesting that aquifer depletion isn’t a greater concern by opponents. Its as big an issue in the central valley as is loss of ag land to development. Funny how people choose what battles to fight.
Good insight Mike Harrington, That was my sense of it too that Sue wanted to take the report down but was unprepared and all over the map.
Vanguard you started this in the middle of her questioning so it doesn’t seem as tedious as watching the entire questioning or sitting through it. Sue sought to challenge the authority of the mayor, instead she should have deferred and asked for someone else to go, collected her thoughts and taken another turn. I wonder what would have happened if Sue has said okay give someone else a chance but please I would like to ask a few more questions at the end. This is how they do it in congressional committees and you can now see why they do it that way.
As for the costs, it seems Sue’s estimates are much higher than staff’s, I would like to know how both get their numbers?
Finally, Sue says we should wait and see if the wastewater requirements get overturned, why can’t you do that while trying to improve water quality in Davis.
Its also interesting that aquifer depletion isn’t a greater concern by opponents. Its as big an issue in the central valley as is loss of ag land to development. Funny how people choose what battles to fight.
Good insight Mike Harrington, That was my sense of it too that Sue wanted to take the report down but was unprepared and all over the map.
Vanguard you started this in the middle of her questioning so it doesn’t seem as tedious as watching the entire questioning or sitting through it. Sue sought to challenge the authority of the mayor, instead she should have deferred and asked for someone else to go, collected her thoughts and taken another turn. I wonder what would have happened if Sue has said okay give someone else a chance but please I would like to ask a few more questions at the end. This is how they do it in congressional committees and you can now see why they do it that way.
As for the costs, it seems Sue’s estimates are much higher than staff’s, I would like to know how both get their numbers?
Finally, Sue says we should wait and see if the wastewater requirements get overturned, why can’t you do that while trying to improve water quality in Davis.
Its also interesting that aquifer depletion isn’t a greater concern by opponents. Its as big an issue in the central valley as is loss of ag land to development. Funny how people choose what battles to fight.
Good insight Mike Harrington, That was my sense of it too that Sue wanted to take the report down but was unprepared and all over the map.
Vanguard you started this in the middle of her questioning so it doesn’t seem as tedious as watching the entire questioning or sitting through it. Sue sought to challenge the authority of the mayor, instead she should have deferred and asked for someone else to go, collected her thoughts and taken another turn. I wonder what would have happened if Sue has said okay give someone else a chance but please I would like to ask a few more questions at the end. This is how they do it in congressional committees and you can now see why they do it that way.
As for the costs, it seems Sue’s estimates are much higher than staff’s, I would like to know how both get their numbers?
Finally, Sue says we should wait and see if the wastewater requirements get overturned, why can’t you do that while trying to improve water quality in Davis.
Its also interesting that aquifer depletion isn’t a greater concern by opponents. Its as big an issue in the central valley as is loss of ag land to development. Funny how people choose what battles to fight.
Did we pay big bucks for the study? The group that did it was a non-profit and the consultants donated their time.
Did we pay big bucks for the study? The group that did it was a non-profit and the consultants donated their time.
Did we pay big bucks for the study? The group that did it was a non-profit and the consultants donated their time.
Did we pay big bucks for the study? The group that did it was a non-profit and the consultants donated their time.
“In my 4 years with her on the dais, she never had her questions ready. I think I remember one or two draft motions, but mostly she does it on the fly.”
This is nonsense. The questioner responds to the questioned, depending on what was answered. It is the give and take of an opportunity to ask questions. Canned questions implies you have made up your mind, bc you already know what the answer will be and have no reason to ask anything else. Is that what you really want from your elected officials? Think about it.
Sue is not always as tactful as she could be, when asking questions. Big deal. Which was worse – the fact that Sue got a little overheated or strident, more a question of style than substance; or that the Mayor cut off questioning by a Councilmember well within the right to do so, a clear violation of law? Or the Mayor and Saylor halting the meeting for no legal reason, just because they felt like it?
“In my 4 years with her on the dais, she never had her questions ready. I think I remember one or two draft motions, but mostly she does it on the fly.”
This is nonsense. The questioner responds to the questioned, depending on what was answered. It is the give and take of an opportunity to ask questions. Canned questions implies you have made up your mind, bc you already know what the answer will be and have no reason to ask anything else. Is that what you really want from your elected officials? Think about it.
Sue is not always as tactful as she could be, when asking questions. Big deal. Which was worse – the fact that Sue got a little overheated or strident, more a question of style than substance; or that the Mayor cut off questioning by a Councilmember well within the right to do so, a clear violation of law? Or the Mayor and Saylor halting the meeting for no legal reason, just because they felt like it?
“In my 4 years with her on the dais, she never had her questions ready. I think I remember one or two draft motions, but mostly she does it on the fly.”
This is nonsense. The questioner responds to the questioned, depending on what was answered. It is the give and take of an opportunity to ask questions. Canned questions implies you have made up your mind, bc you already know what the answer will be and have no reason to ask anything else. Is that what you really want from your elected officials? Think about it.
Sue is not always as tactful as she could be, when asking questions. Big deal. Which was worse – the fact that Sue got a little overheated or strident, more a question of style than substance; or that the Mayor cut off questioning by a Councilmember well within the right to do so, a clear violation of law? Or the Mayor and Saylor halting the meeting for no legal reason, just because they felt like it?
“In my 4 years with her on the dais, she never had her questions ready. I think I remember one or two draft motions, but mostly she does it on the fly.”
This is nonsense. The questioner responds to the questioned, depending on what was answered. It is the give and take of an opportunity to ask questions. Canned questions implies you have made up your mind, bc you already know what the answer will be and have no reason to ask anything else. Is that what you really want from your elected officials? Think about it.
Sue is not always as tactful as she could be, when asking questions. Big deal. Which was worse – the fact that Sue got a little overheated or strident, more a question of style than substance; or that the Mayor cut off questioning by a Councilmember well within the right to do so, a clear violation of law? Or the Mayor and Saylor halting the meeting for no legal reason, just because they felt like it?
Correction: questioning by a Councilmember well within the right to ask the hard questions,
Correction: questioning by a Councilmember well within the right to ask the hard questions,
Correction: questioning by a Councilmember well within the right to ask the hard questions,
Correction: questioning by a Councilmember well within the right to ask the hard questions,
“I wonder what would have happened if Sue has said okay give someone else a chance but please I would like to ask a few more questions at the end.”
My sense is the Mayor is going to be “Ruthless” about keeping questions and public comment to a bare minimum – because she needs to get home to her bed earlier. Her words, not mine.
“I wonder what would have happened if Sue has said okay give someone else a chance but please I would like to ask a few more questions at the end.”
My sense is the Mayor is going to be “Ruthless” about keeping questions and public comment to a bare minimum – because she needs to get home to her bed earlier. Her words, not mine.
“I wonder what would have happened if Sue has said okay give someone else a chance but please I would like to ask a few more questions at the end.”
My sense is the Mayor is going to be “Ruthless” about keeping questions and public comment to a bare minimum – because she needs to get home to her bed earlier. Her words, not mine.
“I wonder what would have happened if Sue has said okay give someone else a chance but please I would like to ask a few more questions at the end.”
My sense is the Mayor is going to be “Ruthless” about keeping questions and public comment to a bare minimum – because she needs to get home to her bed earlier. Her words, not mine.
“As for the costs, it seems Sue’s estimates are much higher than staff’s, I would like to know how both get their numbers?”
City staff numbers are notorious for being inaccurate, overstated, understated, whatever the occasion calls for to make their case/the City Council majority’s case. HESC says we need 200-400 more units of housing between now and the year 2013, yet admit there is really no way to quantify the need. Yikes!
“As for the costs, it seems Sue’s estimates are much higher than staff’s, I would like to know how both get their numbers?”
City staff numbers are notorious for being inaccurate, overstated, understated, whatever the occasion calls for to make their case/the City Council majority’s case. HESC says we need 200-400 more units of housing between now and the year 2013, yet admit there is really no way to quantify the need. Yikes!
“As for the costs, it seems Sue’s estimates are much higher than staff’s, I would like to know how both get their numbers?”
City staff numbers are notorious for being inaccurate, overstated, understated, whatever the occasion calls for to make their case/the City Council majority’s case. HESC says we need 200-400 more units of housing between now and the year 2013, yet admit there is really no way to quantify the need. Yikes!
“As for the costs, it seems Sue’s estimates are much higher than staff’s, I would like to know how both get their numbers?”
City staff numbers are notorious for being inaccurate, overstated, understated, whatever the occasion calls for to make their case/the City Council majority’s case. HESC says we need 200-400 more units of housing between now and the year 2013, yet admit there is really no way to quantify the need. Yikes!
Before the last council campaign, DPD (David Greenwald) routinely undermined Sue Greenwald on his blog. As the election appoached, and David Greenwald wanted Sue Greenwald’s supporters to support his wife, Cecilia-Escamillia Greenwald for her city council bid, he began to promote Sue Greenwald on his blog. Now, he is again undermining her in the manipulative guise of “even-handedness”.
This should come as no surprise. The Harrington, Ritter, David Greenwald faction has never supported Sue, or other highly electable progressive candidates such as Pam Gunnell or Bob Hagedorn.
They have promoted themselves and their own hand-picked candidates, and have viewed other progressive candidates as competitors standing in the way of their own factional quest for power.
People with long memories will recall the hard time that Mike Harrington gave Sue Greenwald when they were both on the council.
Sue Greenwald unprepared? What a preposterous statement by Mike Harrington. Right out of the Karl Rove handbook.
Before the last council campaign, DPD (David Greenwald) routinely undermined Sue Greenwald on his blog. As the election appoached, and David Greenwald wanted Sue Greenwald’s supporters to support his wife, Cecilia-Escamillia Greenwald for her city council bid, he began to promote Sue Greenwald on his blog. Now, he is again undermining her in the manipulative guise of “even-handedness”.
This should come as no surprise. The Harrington, Ritter, David Greenwald faction has never supported Sue, or other highly electable progressive candidates such as Pam Gunnell or Bob Hagedorn.
They have promoted themselves and their own hand-picked candidates, and have viewed other progressive candidates as competitors standing in the way of their own factional quest for power.
People with long memories will recall the hard time that Mike Harrington gave Sue Greenwald when they were both on the council.
Sue Greenwald unprepared? What a preposterous statement by Mike Harrington. Right out of the Karl Rove handbook.
Before the last council campaign, DPD (David Greenwald) routinely undermined Sue Greenwald on his blog. As the election appoached, and David Greenwald wanted Sue Greenwald’s supporters to support his wife, Cecilia-Escamillia Greenwald for her city council bid, he began to promote Sue Greenwald on his blog. Now, he is again undermining her in the manipulative guise of “even-handedness”.
This should come as no surprise. The Harrington, Ritter, David Greenwald faction has never supported Sue, or other highly electable progressive candidates such as Pam Gunnell or Bob Hagedorn.
They have promoted themselves and their own hand-picked candidates, and have viewed other progressive candidates as competitors standing in the way of their own factional quest for power.
People with long memories will recall the hard time that Mike Harrington gave Sue Greenwald when they were both on the council.
Sue Greenwald unprepared? What a preposterous statement by Mike Harrington. Right out of the Karl Rove handbook.
Before the last council campaign, DPD (David Greenwald) routinely undermined Sue Greenwald on his blog. As the election appoached, and David Greenwald wanted Sue Greenwald’s supporters to support his wife, Cecilia-Escamillia Greenwald for her city council bid, he began to promote Sue Greenwald on his blog. Now, he is again undermining her in the manipulative guise of “even-handedness”.
This should come as no surprise. The Harrington, Ritter, David Greenwald faction has never supported Sue, or other highly electable progressive candidates such as Pam Gunnell or Bob Hagedorn.
They have promoted themselves and their own hand-picked candidates, and have viewed other progressive candidates as competitors standing in the way of their own factional quest for power.
People with long memories will recall the hard time that Mike Harrington gave Sue Greenwald when they were both on the council.
Sue Greenwald unprepared? What a preposterous statement by Mike Harrington. Right out of the Karl Rove handbook.
“Sue Greenwald unprepared? What a preposterous statement by Mike Harrington. Right out of the Karl Rove handbook.”
I highly agree with you, but not on your assessment of DPD. The reason DPD is agreeing with Sue on this issue is because he is fairminded. He may detest Sue for all we know, yet will support anyone he thinks is doing the right thing. That is a true testament to fairmindedness.
One of the things I said to DPD some time ago was not to label himself as a progressive. I knew it would turn some folks off immediately. You would be a case in point. Just because I am a registered Republican does not make me an evil person. Labels are a nasty way of marginalizing someone instead of hitting at the substantive argument.
Keep up the good work DPD!!! You are doing an outstanding service to the community.
“Sue Greenwald unprepared? What a preposterous statement by Mike Harrington. Right out of the Karl Rove handbook.”
I highly agree with you, but not on your assessment of DPD. The reason DPD is agreeing with Sue on this issue is because he is fairminded. He may detest Sue for all we know, yet will support anyone he thinks is doing the right thing. That is a true testament to fairmindedness.
One of the things I said to DPD some time ago was not to label himself as a progressive. I knew it would turn some folks off immediately. You would be a case in point. Just because I am a registered Republican does not make me an evil person. Labels are a nasty way of marginalizing someone instead of hitting at the substantive argument.
Keep up the good work DPD!!! You are doing an outstanding service to the community.
“Sue Greenwald unprepared? What a preposterous statement by Mike Harrington. Right out of the Karl Rove handbook.”
I highly agree with you, but not on your assessment of DPD. The reason DPD is agreeing with Sue on this issue is because he is fairminded. He may detest Sue for all we know, yet will support anyone he thinks is doing the right thing. That is a true testament to fairmindedness.
One of the things I said to DPD some time ago was not to label himself as a progressive. I knew it would turn some folks off immediately. You would be a case in point. Just because I am a registered Republican does not make me an evil person. Labels are a nasty way of marginalizing someone instead of hitting at the substantive argument.
Keep up the good work DPD!!! You are doing an outstanding service to the community.
“Sue Greenwald unprepared? What a preposterous statement by Mike Harrington. Right out of the Karl Rove handbook.”
I highly agree with you, but not on your assessment of DPD. The reason DPD is agreeing with Sue on this issue is because he is fairminded. He may detest Sue for all we know, yet will support anyone he thinks is doing the right thing. That is a true testament to fairmindedness.
One of the things I said to DPD some time ago was not to label himself as a progressive. I knew it would turn some folks off immediately. You would be a case in point. Just because I am a registered Republican does not make me an evil person. Labels are a nasty way of marginalizing someone instead of hitting at the substantive argument.
Keep up the good work DPD!!! You are doing an outstanding service to the community.
I believe after watching CC mtgs pretty regularly that Sue Greenwald often has good points and unique points/positions/questions to significantly contribute to the ‘whole’, however I do think she could be more articulate in her presentation, e.g., perhaps by preparing questions for herself beforehand, the delivery would be crisper and more objective. I think her passion (which I applaud) comes across too forcefully and could be tempered in a more outcome-driven successful way by preparing the scope of the question beforehand. Something to strive for, as the achievement will be everyone’s success.
I believe after watching CC mtgs pretty regularly that Sue Greenwald often has good points and unique points/positions/questions to significantly contribute to the ‘whole’, however I do think she could be more articulate in her presentation, e.g., perhaps by preparing questions for herself beforehand, the delivery would be crisper and more objective. I think her passion (which I applaud) comes across too forcefully and could be tempered in a more outcome-driven successful way by preparing the scope of the question beforehand. Something to strive for, as the achievement will be everyone’s success.
I believe after watching CC mtgs pretty regularly that Sue Greenwald often has good points and unique points/positions/questions to significantly contribute to the ‘whole’, however I do think she could be more articulate in her presentation, e.g., perhaps by preparing questions for herself beforehand, the delivery would be crisper and more objective. I think her passion (which I applaud) comes across too forcefully and could be tempered in a more outcome-driven successful way by preparing the scope of the question beforehand. Something to strive for, as the achievement will be everyone’s success.
I believe after watching CC mtgs pretty regularly that Sue Greenwald often has good points and unique points/positions/questions to significantly contribute to the ‘whole’, however I do think she could be more articulate in her presentation, e.g., perhaps by preparing questions for herself beforehand, the delivery would be crisper and more objective. I think her passion (which I applaud) comes across too forcefully and could be tempered in a more outcome-driven successful way by preparing the scope of the question beforehand. Something to strive for, as the achievement will be everyone’s success.
ON COSTS:
The cost estimates for both projects have been escalating dramatically over time. About a year ago, the cost for the wastewater treatment plant was estimated to be $167,000.
The water project has always been a little higher.
A few weeks ago, public works increased the estimate of the cost of the wastewater treatment plant to $267 million, attributing this primarily to increased costs of construction materials. (If you take away the green components, such as solar energy and water reuse, it brings the costs down to $207 million.)
When I saw this figure, I asked Bill Emlen, the City Manager, what the cost of the surface water project was now estimated to be, and he answered “$250 million”. I said, “Wow, that comes to a half billion dollars for both projects”, and he answered “yes”.
The city manager’s $250 million estimate makes sense. Almost a year ago, public works projected that the total surface water project would cost $400 million. The University was going to pay a portion of this, but they have now completely backed out. That leaves only Woodland and Davis to share the cost. Since Woodland has a somewhat lower population than Davis, we must assume that Davis will pay at least half. So, a year ago, the Davis share was $200 million.
Since public works attributed the bulk of the increase in wastewater treatment plant costs to construction material cost increases, such increases would also affect the surface water project costs.
If you scale up the costs of the surface water project similarly to those of the wastewater project, you get a surface water cost of about $250 million, as the city manager said.
This brings the total of both projects to a little over one-half billion if you include the solar and reuse components of the wastewater, a little under if don’t include them.
I should add that one professional water engineer told me that public works has vastly underestimated the costs of the intake at the Sacramento River for the surface water project.
ON COSTS:
The cost estimates for both projects have been escalating dramatically over time. About a year ago, the cost for the wastewater treatment plant was estimated to be $167,000.
The water project has always been a little higher.
A few weeks ago, public works increased the estimate of the cost of the wastewater treatment plant to $267 million, attributing this primarily to increased costs of construction materials. (If you take away the green components, such as solar energy and water reuse, it brings the costs down to $207 million.)
When I saw this figure, I asked Bill Emlen, the City Manager, what the cost of the surface water project was now estimated to be, and he answered “$250 million”. I said, “Wow, that comes to a half billion dollars for both projects”, and he answered “yes”.
The city manager’s $250 million estimate makes sense. Almost a year ago, public works projected that the total surface water project would cost $400 million. The University was going to pay a portion of this, but they have now completely backed out. That leaves only Woodland and Davis to share the cost. Since Woodland has a somewhat lower population than Davis, we must assume that Davis will pay at least half. So, a year ago, the Davis share was $200 million.
Since public works attributed the bulk of the increase in wastewater treatment plant costs to construction material cost increases, such increases would also affect the surface water project costs.
If you scale up the costs of the surface water project similarly to those of the wastewater project, you get a surface water cost of about $250 million, as the city manager said.
This brings the total of both projects to a little over one-half billion if you include the solar and reuse components of the wastewater, a little under if don’t include them.
I should add that one professional water engineer told me that public works has vastly underestimated the costs of the intake at the Sacramento River for the surface water project.
ON COSTS:
The cost estimates for both projects have been escalating dramatically over time. About a year ago, the cost for the wastewater treatment plant was estimated to be $167,000.
The water project has always been a little higher.
A few weeks ago, public works increased the estimate of the cost of the wastewater treatment plant to $267 million, attributing this primarily to increased costs of construction materials. (If you take away the green components, such as solar energy and water reuse, it brings the costs down to $207 million.)
When I saw this figure, I asked Bill Emlen, the City Manager, what the cost of the surface water project was now estimated to be, and he answered “$250 million”. I said, “Wow, that comes to a half billion dollars for both projects”, and he answered “yes”.
The city manager’s $250 million estimate makes sense. Almost a year ago, public works projected that the total surface water project would cost $400 million. The University was going to pay a portion of this, but they have now completely backed out. That leaves only Woodland and Davis to share the cost. Since Woodland has a somewhat lower population than Davis, we must assume that Davis will pay at least half. So, a year ago, the Davis share was $200 million.
Since public works attributed the bulk of the increase in wastewater treatment plant costs to construction material cost increases, such increases would also affect the surface water project costs.
If you scale up the costs of the surface water project similarly to those of the wastewater project, you get a surface water cost of about $250 million, as the city manager said.
This brings the total of both projects to a little over one-half billion if you include the solar and reuse components of the wastewater, a little under if don’t include them.
I should add that one professional water engineer told me that public works has vastly underestimated the costs of the intake at the Sacramento River for the surface water project.
ON COSTS:
The cost estimates for both projects have been escalating dramatically over time. About a year ago, the cost for the wastewater treatment plant was estimated to be $167,000.
The water project has always been a little higher.
A few weeks ago, public works increased the estimate of the cost of the wastewater treatment plant to $267 million, attributing this primarily to increased costs of construction materials. (If you take away the green components, such as solar energy and water reuse, it brings the costs down to $207 million.)
When I saw this figure, I asked Bill Emlen, the City Manager, what the cost of the surface water project was now estimated to be, and he answered “$250 million”. I said, “Wow, that comes to a half billion dollars for both projects”, and he answered “yes”.
The city manager’s $250 million estimate makes sense. Almost a year ago, public works projected that the total surface water project would cost $400 million. The University was going to pay a portion of this, but they have now completely backed out. That leaves only Woodland and Davis to share the cost. Since Woodland has a somewhat lower population than Davis, we must assume that Davis will pay at least half. So, a year ago, the Davis share was $200 million.
Since public works attributed the bulk of the increase in wastewater treatment plant costs to construction material cost increases, such increases would also affect the surface water project costs.
If you scale up the costs of the surface water project similarly to those of the wastewater project, you get a surface water cost of about $250 million, as the city manager said.
This brings the total of both projects to a little over one-half billion if you include the solar and reuse components of the wastewater, a little under if don’t include them.
I should add that one professional water engineer told me that public works has vastly underestimated the costs of the intake at the Sacramento River for the surface water project.
I should add that DPD never called me to ask where my figures came from.
I should add that DPD never called me to ask where my figures came from.
I should add that DPD never called me to ask where my figures came from.
I should add that DPD never called me to ask where my figures came from.
$167,000,000 not $167,000 I assume.
$167,000,000 not $167,000 I assume.
$167,000,000 not $167,000 I assume.
$167,000,000 not $167,000 I assume.
“Vanguard you started this in the middle of her questioning so it doesn’t seem as tedious as watching the entire questioning or sitting through it.”
As I stated at the beginning, I started it five minutes into her questioning period. There were a number of reasons for that. My goal with showing her questioning was not to suggest lack of tedium but rather to demonstrate that she was being polite and respectful during the questioning. Frankly being tedious is irrelevant, there are often tedious discussions, that does not mean that the mayor had the right to cut her off.
Sue:
“I should add that DPD never called me to ask where my figures came from.”
I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at with this. We’ve had a multitude of occasions to discuss this issue and frankly I think your numbers are accurate and probably ultimately on the low side.
“Vanguard you started this in the middle of her questioning so it doesn’t seem as tedious as watching the entire questioning or sitting through it.”
As I stated at the beginning, I started it five minutes into her questioning period. There were a number of reasons for that. My goal with showing her questioning was not to suggest lack of tedium but rather to demonstrate that she was being polite and respectful during the questioning. Frankly being tedious is irrelevant, there are often tedious discussions, that does not mean that the mayor had the right to cut her off.
Sue:
“I should add that DPD never called me to ask where my figures came from.”
I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at with this. We’ve had a multitude of occasions to discuss this issue and frankly I think your numbers are accurate and probably ultimately on the low side.
“Vanguard you started this in the middle of her questioning so it doesn’t seem as tedious as watching the entire questioning or sitting through it.”
As I stated at the beginning, I started it five minutes into her questioning period. There were a number of reasons for that. My goal with showing her questioning was not to suggest lack of tedium but rather to demonstrate that she was being polite and respectful during the questioning. Frankly being tedious is irrelevant, there are often tedious discussions, that does not mean that the mayor had the right to cut her off.
Sue:
“I should add that DPD never called me to ask where my figures came from.”
I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at with this. We’ve had a multitude of occasions to discuss this issue and frankly I think your numbers are accurate and probably ultimately on the low side.
“Vanguard you started this in the middle of her questioning so it doesn’t seem as tedious as watching the entire questioning or sitting through it.”
As I stated at the beginning, I started it five minutes into her questioning period. There were a number of reasons for that. My goal with showing her questioning was not to suggest lack of tedium but rather to demonstrate that she was being polite and respectful during the questioning. Frankly being tedious is irrelevant, there are often tedious discussions, that does not mean that the mayor had the right to cut her off.
Sue:
“I should add that DPD never called me to ask where my figures came from.”
I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at with this. We’ve had a multitude of occasions to discuss this issue and frankly I think your numbers are accurate and probably ultimately on the low side.
I agree these are really important issues and we should keep debating them. I think if the mayor had simply asked the councilwoman to postpone her questions until other council members had a chance to ask questions, and the councilwoman didn’t immediately fly off the handle, this whole sad story could’ve been avoided. In other words, more respect from both sides would’ve gone a long way.
I certainly don’t think the councilwoman’s questions were out of line, however. They were very respectful and I don’t know how someone could come to the conclusion that she was badgering, etc.
I agree these are really important issues and we should keep debating them. I think if the mayor had simply asked the councilwoman to postpone her questions until other council members had a chance to ask questions, and the councilwoman didn’t immediately fly off the handle, this whole sad story could’ve been avoided. In other words, more respect from both sides would’ve gone a long way.
I certainly don’t think the councilwoman’s questions were out of line, however. They were very respectful and I don’t know how someone could come to the conclusion that she was badgering, etc.
I agree these are really important issues and we should keep debating them. I think if the mayor had simply asked the councilwoman to postpone her questions until other council members had a chance to ask questions, and the councilwoman didn’t immediately fly off the handle, this whole sad story could’ve been avoided. In other words, more respect from both sides would’ve gone a long way.
I certainly don’t think the councilwoman’s questions were out of line, however. They were very respectful and I don’t know how someone could come to the conclusion that she was badgering, etc.
I agree these are really important issues and we should keep debating them. I think if the mayor had simply asked the councilwoman to postpone her questions until other council members had a chance to ask questions, and the councilwoman didn’t immediately fly off the handle, this whole sad story could’ve been avoided. In other words, more respect from both sides would’ve gone a long way.
I certainly don’t think the councilwoman’s questions were out of line, however. They were very respectful and I don’t know how someone could come to the conclusion that she was badgering, etc.
Sue is a disgrace with her behavior even though she asks good questions. Ruth is a disgrace too with her pettiness and attempts to cut off public comments. Don is simply a go along for Ruth. Let’s face it we do not have that great of a council. Period. People need to wake up!
Sue is a disgrace with her behavior even though she asks good questions. Ruth is a disgrace too with her pettiness and attempts to cut off public comments. Don is simply a go along for Ruth. Let’s face it we do not have that great of a council. Period. People need to wake up!
Sue is a disgrace with her behavior even though she asks good questions. Ruth is a disgrace too with her pettiness and attempts to cut off public comments. Don is simply a go along for Ruth. Let’s face it we do not have that great of a council. Period. People need to wake up!
Sue is a disgrace with her behavior even though she asks good questions. Ruth is a disgrace too with her pettiness and attempts to cut off public comments. Don is simply a go along for Ruth. Let’s face it we do not have that great of a council. Period. People need to wake up!
Sorry. Of course I meant $167 million.
I hope that we will be able to keep our focus on the substantive issue, which is whether the city can postpone the surface water project twenty-five or thirty years, so that we can pay off the wastewater treatment plant first.
I don’t think people fully understand the fiscal implications of paying off one half of a billion dollars of capital improvement costs at one time, plus the extra costs of operating both a groundwater and surface water project.
There were serious problems with the consultant report that have not been explored or discussed. Further, we have the country’s top water experts right here at UCD, and we should be trying to recruit them to explore the option of postponing the surface water project.
In terms of the process issues, other individual councilmembers have routinely asked questions for up to 20 or 30 minutes or more, concerning far, far smaller issues, and have never been cut off. This is by far the biggest issue that Davis has had to deal with, and I had only been questioning the consultant for a few minutes when I was cut off.
But enough with the process.
One way or another, we have to start discussing the assumptions behind the consultant’s report, which were basically a rubber stamp of our staff recommendations. These assumptions have not been supported by the assumptions of other experts with whom I have consulted.
If we are not now allowed to fully explore these assumptions during councilmember question period, when we are supposed to discuss them, we are going to have to figure out how to discuss them.
Sorry. Of course I meant $167 million.
I hope that we will be able to keep our focus on the substantive issue, which is whether the city can postpone the surface water project twenty-five or thirty years, so that we can pay off the wastewater treatment plant first.
I don’t think people fully understand the fiscal implications of paying off one half of a billion dollars of capital improvement costs at one time, plus the extra costs of operating both a groundwater and surface water project.
There were serious problems with the consultant report that have not been explored or discussed. Further, we have the country’s top water experts right here at UCD, and we should be trying to recruit them to explore the option of postponing the surface water project.
In terms of the process issues, other individual councilmembers have routinely asked questions for up to 20 or 30 minutes or more, concerning far, far smaller issues, and have never been cut off. This is by far the biggest issue that Davis has had to deal with, and I had only been questioning the consultant for a few minutes when I was cut off.
But enough with the process.
One way or another, we have to start discussing the assumptions behind the consultant’s report, which were basically a rubber stamp of our staff recommendations. These assumptions have not been supported by the assumptions of other experts with whom I have consulted.
If we are not now allowed to fully explore these assumptions during councilmember question period, when we are supposed to discuss them, we are going to have to figure out how to discuss them.
Sorry. Of course I meant $167 million.
I hope that we will be able to keep our focus on the substantive issue, which is whether the city can postpone the surface water project twenty-five or thirty years, so that we can pay off the wastewater treatment plant first.
I don’t think people fully understand the fiscal implications of paying off one half of a billion dollars of capital improvement costs at one time, plus the extra costs of operating both a groundwater and surface water project.
There were serious problems with the consultant report that have not been explored or discussed. Further, we have the country’s top water experts right here at UCD, and we should be trying to recruit them to explore the option of postponing the surface water project.
In terms of the process issues, other individual councilmembers have routinely asked questions for up to 20 or 30 minutes or more, concerning far, far smaller issues, and have never been cut off. This is by far the biggest issue that Davis has had to deal with, and I had only been questioning the consultant for a few minutes when I was cut off.
But enough with the process.
One way or another, we have to start discussing the assumptions behind the consultant’s report, which were basically a rubber stamp of our staff recommendations. These assumptions have not been supported by the assumptions of other experts with whom I have consulted.
If we are not now allowed to fully explore these assumptions during councilmember question period, when we are supposed to discuss them, we are going to have to figure out how to discuss them.
Sorry. Of course I meant $167 million.
I hope that we will be able to keep our focus on the substantive issue, which is whether the city can postpone the surface water project twenty-five or thirty years, so that we can pay off the wastewater treatment plant first.
I don’t think people fully understand the fiscal implications of paying off one half of a billion dollars of capital improvement costs at one time, plus the extra costs of operating both a groundwater and surface water project.
There were serious problems with the consultant report that have not been explored or discussed. Further, we have the country’s top water experts right here at UCD, and we should be trying to recruit them to explore the option of postponing the surface water project.
In terms of the process issues, other individual councilmembers have routinely asked questions for up to 20 or 30 minutes or more, concerning far, far smaller issues, and have never been cut off. This is by far the biggest issue that Davis has had to deal with, and I had only been questioning the consultant for a few minutes when I was cut off.
But enough with the process.
One way or another, we have to start discussing the assumptions behind the consultant’s report, which were basically a rubber stamp of our staff recommendations. These assumptions have not been supported by the assumptions of other experts with whom I have consulted.
If we are not now allowed to fully explore these assumptions during councilmember question period, when we are supposed to discuss them, we are going to have to figure out how to discuss them.
thanks Sue! I appreciate your hard work!
thanks Sue! I appreciate your hard work!
thanks Sue! I appreciate your hard work!
thanks Sue! I appreciate your hard work!
Brian said: “I think if the mayor had simply asked the councilwoman to postpone her questions until other council members had a chance to ask questions, and the councilwoman didn’t immediately fly off the handle, this whole sad story could’ve been avoided.”
Except Ruth and Don were not interested in avoiding what happened. If you follow the dynamics of this confrontation closely, I believe a reasonable person could conclude that Ruth and Don likely planned this in advance in an effort to either embarrass Sue or to deflect the issue away from the substantive point which is the city of Davis cannot afford this project. In short, she was deliberately sandbagged.
This accusation of tedious questioning is utterly bizarre. There was absolutely nothing tedious in those 8 minutes of questioning. I watched in real time and was absolutely transfixed on the show — it was so clear that the consultant was trying mightily to dissemble and Sue kept on trying to get him back to her questions. I found her questioning relentless and the subject of those questions fully deserving of that treatment. We have no need for civil niceties when someone is trying to deceive by omission.
And speaking of tedious questioning. Has anyone listened to Don Saylor. Drone on drone on. No subject is too trivial for him to ask dozens of questions on utterly trivial points with that pompous droning voice of his. His questions completely lack substance. They are usually simple information points that are readily available in the background information. It is called formula questioning – on any subject there is a general formula question that is designed to make the questioner appear involved and profound if the listener is mostly ignorant of the subject. Now Ruth never does this, she just asks straight up stupid questions that amuse her opponents and embarrass her supporters.
Brian said: “I think if the mayor had simply asked the councilwoman to postpone her questions until other council members had a chance to ask questions, and the councilwoman didn’t immediately fly off the handle, this whole sad story could’ve been avoided.”
Except Ruth and Don were not interested in avoiding what happened. If you follow the dynamics of this confrontation closely, I believe a reasonable person could conclude that Ruth and Don likely planned this in advance in an effort to either embarrass Sue or to deflect the issue away from the substantive point which is the city of Davis cannot afford this project. In short, she was deliberately sandbagged.
This accusation of tedious questioning is utterly bizarre. There was absolutely nothing tedious in those 8 minutes of questioning. I watched in real time and was absolutely transfixed on the show — it was so clear that the consultant was trying mightily to dissemble and Sue kept on trying to get him back to her questions. I found her questioning relentless and the subject of those questions fully deserving of that treatment. We have no need for civil niceties when someone is trying to deceive by omission.
And speaking of tedious questioning. Has anyone listened to Don Saylor. Drone on drone on. No subject is too trivial for him to ask dozens of questions on utterly trivial points with that pompous droning voice of his. His questions completely lack substance. They are usually simple information points that are readily available in the background information. It is called formula questioning – on any subject there is a general formula question that is designed to make the questioner appear involved and profound if the listener is mostly ignorant of the subject. Now Ruth never does this, she just asks straight up stupid questions that amuse her opponents and embarrass her supporters.
Brian said: “I think if the mayor had simply asked the councilwoman to postpone her questions until other council members had a chance to ask questions, and the councilwoman didn’t immediately fly off the handle, this whole sad story could’ve been avoided.”
Except Ruth and Don were not interested in avoiding what happened. If you follow the dynamics of this confrontation closely, I believe a reasonable person could conclude that Ruth and Don likely planned this in advance in an effort to either embarrass Sue or to deflect the issue away from the substantive point which is the city of Davis cannot afford this project. In short, she was deliberately sandbagged.
This accusation of tedious questioning is utterly bizarre. There was absolutely nothing tedious in those 8 minutes of questioning. I watched in real time and was absolutely transfixed on the show — it was so clear that the consultant was trying mightily to dissemble and Sue kept on trying to get him back to her questions. I found her questioning relentless and the subject of those questions fully deserving of that treatment. We have no need for civil niceties when someone is trying to deceive by omission.
And speaking of tedious questioning. Has anyone listened to Don Saylor. Drone on drone on. No subject is too trivial for him to ask dozens of questions on utterly trivial points with that pompous droning voice of his. His questions completely lack substance. They are usually simple information points that are readily available in the background information. It is called formula questioning – on any subject there is a general formula question that is designed to make the questioner appear involved and profound if the listener is mostly ignorant of the subject. Now Ruth never does this, she just asks straight up stupid questions that amuse her opponents and embarrass her supporters.
Brian said: “I think if the mayor had simply asked the councilwoman to postpone her questions until other council members had a chance to ask questions, and the councilwoman didn’t immediately fly off the handle, this whole sad story could’ve been avoided.”
Except Ruth and Don were not interested in avoiding what happened. If you follow the dynamics of this confrontation closely, I believe a reasonable person could conclude that Ruth and Don likely planned this in advance in an effort to either embarrass Sue or to deflect the issue away from the substantive point which is the city of Davis cannot afford this project. In short, she was deliberately sandbagged.
This accusation of tedious questioning is utterly bizarre. There was absolutely nothing tedious in those 8 minutes of questioning. I watched in real time and was absolutely transfixed on the show — it was so clear that the consultant was trying mightily to dissemble and Sue kept on trying to get him back to her questions. I found her questioning relentless and the subject of those questions fully deserving of that treatment. We have no need for civil niceties when someone is trying to deceive by omission.
And speaking of tedious questioning. Has anyone listened to Don Saylor. Drone on drone on. No subject is too trivial for him to ask dozens of questions on utterly trivial points with that pompous droning voice of his. His questions completely lack substance. They are usually simple information points that are readily available in the background information. It is called formula questioning – on any subject there is a general formula question that is designed to make the questioner appear involved and profound if the listener is mostly ignorant of the subject. Now Ruth never does this, she just asks straight up stupid questions that amuse her opponents and embarrass her supporters.
I watched the video and concluded that Ruth Asmundson was wrong to have cut off Sue where she did. I don’t think Sue was debating with the expert witness. I think the Mayor was simply tired.
However, I think Sue, when asking questions, interjects arguments. She should write down a list of short questions in advance and then ask them and let the expert answer without interruption. If it takes more than 12 words to ask a question, it’s more of a statement than a question.
After the expert leaves the podium, Sue could then give her opinions, just like all the other council members.
I watched the video and concluded that Ruth Asmundson was wrong to have cut off Sue where she did. I don’t think Sue was debating with the expert witness. I think the Mayor was simply tired.
However, I think Sue, when asking questions, interjects arguments. She should write down a list of short questions in advance and then ask them and let the expert answer without interruption. If it takes more than 12 words to ask a question, it’s more of a statement than a question.
After the expert leaves the podium, Sue could then give her opinions, just like all the other council members.
I watched the video and concluded that Ruth Asmundson was wrong to have cut off Sue where she did. I don’t think Sue was debating with the expert witness. I think the Mayor was simply tired.
However, I think Sue, when asking questions, interjects arguments. She should write down a list of short questions in advance and then ask them and let the expert answer without interruption. If it takes more than 12 words to ask a question, it’s more of a statement than a question.
After the expert leaves the podium, Sue could then give her opinions, just like all the other council members.
I watched the video and concluded that Ruth Asmundson was wrong to have cut off Sue where she did. I don’t think Sue was debating with the expert witness. I think the Mayor was simply tired.
However, I think Sue, when asking questions, interjects arguments. She should write down a list of short questions in advance and then ask them and let the expert answer without interruption. If it takes more than 12 words to ask a question, it’s more of a statement than a question.
After the expert leaves the podium, Sue could then give her opinions, just like all the other council members.
May I make a suggestion? Start paying attention to statewide, nationwide and international economic news. It might just cause you to see the perils facing Davis in a whole new light.
–Richard Estes
May I make a suggestion? Start paying attention to statewide, nationwide and international economic news. It might just cause you to see the perils facing Davis in a whole new light.
–Richard Estes
May I make a suggestion? Start paying attention to statewide, nationwide and international economic news. It might just cause you to see the perils facing Davis in a whole new light.
–Richard Estes
May I make a suggestion? Start paying attention to statewide, nationwide and international economic news. It might just cause you to see the perils facing Davis in a whole new light.
–Richard Estes
Will R said “She should write down a list of short questions in advance and then ask them and let the expert answer without interruption.”
But what is one supposed to do if the expert evades the question, goes off on a tangent and dissembles? I think it is understood that is the purpose of the follow up question. And that is what she was doing.
Will R said “She should write down a list of short questions in advance and then ask them and let the expert answer without interruption.”
But what is one supposed to do if the expert evades the question, goes off on a tangent and dissembles? I think it is understood that is the purpose of the follow up question. And that is what she was doing.
Will R said “She should write down a list of short questions in advance and then ask them and let the expert answer without interruption.”
But what is one supposed to do if the expert evades the question, goes off on a tangent and dissembles? I think it is understood that is the purpose of the follow up question. And that is what she was doing.
Will R said “She should write down a list of short questions in advance and then ask them and let the expert answer without interruption.”
But what is one supposed to do if the expert evades the question, goes off on a tangent and dissembles? I think it is understood that is the purpose of the follow up question. And that is what she was doing.
Unfortunately, it seems that no one is reporting the facts in the wastewater treatment issue properly at all. This isn’t about growth. This is about the standards, Federal standards we must meet or face continual fines until the government steps in and just makes us conform. Nobody is forcing growth, there’s a federal standard we have to conform to, period.
Unfortunately, it seems that no one is reporting the facts in the wastewater treatment issue properly at all. This isn’t about growth. This is about the standards, Federal standards we must meet or face continual fines until the government steps in and just makes us conform. Nobody is forcing growth, there’s a federal standard we have to conform to, period.
Unfortunately, it seems that no one is reporting the facts in the wastewater treatment issue properly at all. This isn’t about growth. This is about the standards, Federal standards we must meet or face continual fines until the government steps in and just makes us conform. Nobody is forcing growth, there’s a federal standard we have to conform to, period.
Unfortunately, it seems that no one is reporting the facts in the wastewater treatment issue properly at all. This isn’t about growth. This is about the standards, Federal standards we must meet or face continual fines until the government steps in and just makes us conform. Nobody is forcing growth, there’s a federal standard we have to conform to, period.
How long will it take the fines to add up to the cost of the treatment plant?
How long will it take the fines to add up to the cost of the treatment plant?
How long will it take the fines to add up to the cost of the treatment plant?
How long will it take the fines to add up to the cost of the treatment plant?
It’s not clear that anyone is going to enforce it. It’s all not clear that the only alternative is to engage in an expensive project. That’s part of why we need the full discussion.
It’s not clear that anyone is going to enforce it. It’s all not clear that the only alternative is to engage in an expensive project. That’s part of why we need the full discussion.
It’s not clear that anyone is going to enforce it. It’s all not clear that the only alternative is to engage in an expensive project. That’s part of why we need the full discussion.
It’s not clear that anyone is going to enforce it. It’s all not clear that the only alternative is to engage in an expensive project. That’s part of why we need the full discussion.
Enforcement actions may include monetary fines in the form of Administrative Civil Liabilities levied against the City. Maximum monetary fines range from $5,000-$10,000 per day or $150,000 – $300,000 per month depending upon the statutory authority used for enforcement.
The Davis Wastewater Pollution Control Plant proposed upgrade project does not add wastewater treatment capacity. Right now 65,890 people use 5.55 million gallons per day(mgd) of the permitted capacity of 7.5 mgd. If the population of Davis was 82,882 only 6.96 mgd would flow to the plant. This is based on 84-gallon per day, per-capita (gpdpc), with even more conservation measures population capacity of the plant would be higher.
From the Sacramento Business Journal January 30, 2008:
A state water quality regulator has slapped the city of Dixon with a $220,000 fine for allegedly polluting groundwater in Solano County.
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board had issued the city three cease-and-desist order for the city’s wastewater treatment plant in 1996, 1997 and 2005 because of insufficient capacity and groundwater pollution, according to a water board press release. The board said the city has never fully complied with those orders and has taken no action to alleviate the problem, caused by excessive salt in the city’s sewage.
The city has asked for more time to comply with the order.
“In response to the city’s request we will ask the board to consider adopting a new cease-and-desist order at it’s April board meeting,” said water board executive officer Pamela Creedon in a press release. “However, it’s time to make sure the city fully understands how serious we are about protecting our region’s precious groundwater resources from unnecessary pollution that impacts its beneficial uses.”
Enforcement actions may include monetary fines in the form of Administrative Civil Liabilities levied against the City. Maximum monetary fines range from $5,000-$10,000 per day or $150,000 – $300,000 per month depending upon the statutory authority used for enforcement.
The Davis Wastewater Pollution Control Plant proposed upgrade project does not add wastewater treatment capacity. Right now 65,890 people use 5.55 million gallons per day(mgd) of the permitted capacity of 7.5 mgd. If the population of Davis was 82,882 only 6.96 mgd would flow to the plant. This is based on 84-gallon per day, per-capita (gpdpc), with even more conservation measures population capacity of the plant would be higher.
From the Sacramento Business Journal January 30, 2008:
A state water quality regulator has slapped the city of Dixon with a $220,000 fine for allegedly polluting groundwater in Solano County.
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board had issued the city three cease-and-desist order for the city’s wastewater treatment plant in 1996, 1997 and 2005 because of insufficient capacity and groundwater pollution, according to a water board press release. The board said the city has never fully complied with those orders and has taken no action to alleviate the problem, caused by excessive salt in the city’s sewage.
The city has asked for more time to comply with the order.
“In response to the city’s request we will ask the board to consider adopting a new cease-and-desist order at it’s April board meeting,” said water board executive officer Pamela Creedon in a press release. “However, it’s time to make sure the city fully understands how serious we are about protecting our region’s precious groundwater resources from unnecessary pollution that impacts its beneficial uses.”
Enforcement actions may include monetary fines in the form of Administrative Civil Liabilities levied against the City. Maximum monetary fines range from $5,000-$10,000 per day or $150,000 – $300,000 per month depending upon the statutory authority used for enforcement.
The Davis Wastewater Pollution Control Plant proposed upgrade project does not add wastewater treatment capacity. Right now 65,890 people use 5.55 million gallons per day(mgd) of the permitted capacity of 7.5 mgd. If the population of Davis was 82,882 only 6.96 mgd would flow to the plant. This is based on 84-gallon per day, per-capita (gpdpc), with even more conservation measures population capacity of the plant would be higher.
From the Sacramento Business Journal January 30, 2008:
A state water quality regulator has slapped the city of Dixon with a $220,000 fine for allegedly polluting groundwater in Solano County.
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board had issued the city three cease-and-desist order for the city’s wastewater treatment plant in 1996, 1997 and 2005 because of insufficient capacity and groundwater pollution, according to a water board press release. The board said the city has never fully complied with those orders and has taken no action to alleviate the problem, caused by excessive salt in the city’s sewage.
The city has asked for more time to comply with the order.
“In response to the city’s request we will ask the board to consider adopting a new cease-and-desist order at it’s April board meeting,” said water board executive officer Pamela Creedon in a press release. “However, it’s time to make sure the city fully understands how serious we are about protecting our region’s precious groundwater resources from unnecessary pollution that impacts its beneficial uses.”
Enforcement actions may include monetary fines in the form of Administrative Civil Liabilities levied against the City. Maximum monetary fines range from $5,000-$10,000 per day or $150,000 – $300,000 per month depending upon the statutory authority used for enforcement.
The Davis Wastewater Pollution Control Plant proposed upgrade project does not add wastewater treatment capacity. Right now 65,890 people use 5.55 million gallons per day(mgd) of the permitted capacity of 7.5 mgd. If the population of Davis was 82,882 only 6.96 mgd would flow to the plant. This is based on 84-gallon per day, per-capita (gpdpc), with even more conservation measures population capacity of the plant would be higher.
From the Sacramento Business Journal January 30, 2008:
A state water quality regulator has slapped the city of Dixon with a $220,000 fine for allegedly polluting groundwater in Solano County.
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board had issued the city three cease-and-desist order for the city’s wastewater treatment plant in 1996, 1997 and 2005 because of insufficient capacity and groundwater pollution, according to a water board press release. The board said the city has never fully complied with those orders and has taken no action to alleviate the problem, caused by excessive salt in the city’s sewage.
The city has asked for more time to comply with the order.
“In response to the city’s request we will ask the board to consider adopting a new cease-and-desist order at it’s April board meeting,” said water board executive officer Pamela Creedon in a press release. “However, it’s time to make sure the city fully understands how serious we are about protecting our region’s precious groundwater resources from unnecessary pollution that impacts its beneficial uses.”
Several constituents arrive at the Davis Wastewater Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in high concentrations due to the City’s drinking water source. The City currently relies entirely on groundwater wells for public water supply. A combination of intermediate and deep wells extract groundwater from underlying aquifers. Studies have shown that if the City either replaced intermediate aquifer wells with deep aquifer wells and/or developed a surface water supply from the Sacramento River, the WPCP influent concentrations would decrease for total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), chloride, aluminum, and selenium.
Due to the variable effluent quality produced by the WPCP land based systems, historical discharge permits allowed the effluent to exceed the national standards for secondary effluent. In March 2001, however, the City was issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which placed much tighter limits on biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) as well as ammonia reduction.
The permit was appealed to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which ultimately, in 2003, remanded these and certain other requirements to the Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB) for reconsideration. After a series of legal challenges we were given a new permit on October 25, 2007 at the RWQCB hearing. A key component of the new NPDES permit is the compliance schedule requiring both secondary and tertiary effluent standards to be met with-in eight years of adoption.
The existing effluent exceeds the criteria for these constituents. Meeting the limits for EC and TDS would require significant modifications to the existing treatment process and would not likely be met other than through reverse osmosis (RO) treatment. Alternatively, a change in the drinking water source could significantly reduce concentrations of these constituents.
It has been determined by both the nonprofit National Water Research Institute (NWRI) and city and other outside wastewater experts that adding RO treatment to meet strict TDS and EC goals at the WPCP would be cost prohibitive. With RO one has to dispose of the salts. Rather, improvements to the water supply would be first priority as these measures would improve the general drinking water quality as well.
Several constituents arrive at the Davis Wastewater Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in high concentrations due to the City’s drinking water source. The City currently relies entirely on groundwater wells for public water supply. A combination of intermediate and deep wells extract groundwater from underlying aquifers. Studies have shown that if the City either replaced intermediate aquifer wells with deep aquifer wells and/or developed a surface water supply from the Sacramento River, the WPCP influent concentrations would decrease for total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), chloride, aluminum, and selenium.
Due to the variable effluent quality produced by the WPCP land based systems, historical discharge permits allowed the effluent to exceed the national standards for secondary effluent. In March 2001, however, the City was issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which placed much tighter limits on biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) as well as ammonia reduction.
The permit was appealed to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which ultimately, in 2003, remanded these and certain other requirements to the Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB) for reconsideration. After a series of legal challenges we were given a new permit on October 25, 2007 at the RWQCB hearing. A key component of the new NPDES permit is the compliance schedule requiring both secondary and tertiary effluent standards to be met with-in eight years of adoption.
The existing effluent exceeds the criteria for these constituents. Meeting the limits for EC and TDS would require significant modifications to the existing treatment process and would not likely be met other than through reverse osmosis (RO) treatment. Alternatively, a change in the drinking water source could significantly reduce concentrations of these constituents.
It has been determined by both the nonprofit National Water Research Institute (NWRI) and city and other outside wastewater experts that adding RO treatment to meet strict TDS and EC goals at the WPCP would be cost prohibitive. With RO one has to dispose of the salts. Rather, improvements to the water supply would be first priority as these measures would improve the general drinking water quality as well.
Several constituents arrive at the Davis Wastewater Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in high concentrations due to the City’s drinking water source. The City currently relies entirely on groundwater wells for public water supply. A combination of intermediate and deep wells extract groundwater from underlying aquifers. Studies have shown that if the City either replaced intermediate aquifer wells with deep aquifer wells and/or developed a surface water supply from the Sacramento River, the WPCP influent concentrations would decrease for total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), chloride, aluminum, and selenium.
Due to the variable effluent quality produced by the WPCP land based systems, historical discharge permits allowed the effluent to exceed the national standards for secondary effluent. In March 2001, however, the City was issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which placed much tighter limits on biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) as well as ammonia reduction.
The permit was appealed to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which ultimately, in 2003, remanded these and certain other requirements to the Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB) for reconsideration. After a series of legal challenges we were given a new permit on October 25, 2007 at the RWQCB hearing. A key component of the new NPDES permit is the compliance schedule requiring both secondary and tertiary effluent standards to be met with-in eight years of adoption.
The existing effluent exceeds the criteria for these constituents. Meeting the limits for EC and TDS would require significant modifications to the existing treatment process and would not likely be met other than through reverse osmosis (RO) treatment. Alternatively, a change in the drinking water source could significantly reduce concentrations of these constituents.
It has been determined by both the nonprofit National Water Research Institute (NWRI) and city and other outside wastewater experts that adding RO treatment to meet strict TDS and EC goals at the WPCP would be cost prohibitive. With RO one has to dispose of the salts. Rather, improvements to the water supply would be first priority as these measures would improve the general drinking water quality as well.
Several constituents arrive at the Davis Wastewater Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in high concentrations due to the City’s drinking water source. The City currently relies entirely on groundwater wells for public water supply. A combination of intermediate and deep wells extract groundwater from underlying aquifers. Studies have shown that if the City either replaced intermediate aquifer wells with deep aquifer wells and/or developed a surface water supply from the Sacramento River, the WPCP influent concentrations would decrease for total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), chloride, aluminum, and selenium.
Due to the variable effluent quality produced by the WPCP land based systems, historical discharge permits allowed the effluent to exceed the national standards for secondary effluent. In March 2001, however, the City was issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which placed much tighter limits on biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) as well as ammonia reduction.
The permit was appealed to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which ultimately, in 2003, remanded these and certain other requirements to the Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB) for reconsideration. After a series of legal challenges we were given a new permit on October 25, 2007 at the RWQCB hearing. A key component of the new NPDES permit is the compliance schedule requiring both secondary and tertiary effluent standards to be met with-in eight years of adoption.
The existing effluent exceeds the criteria for these constituents. Meeting the limits for EC and TDS would require significant modifications to the existing treatment process and would not likely be met other than through reverse osmosis (RO) treatment. Alternatively, a change in the drinking water source could significantly reduce concentrations of these constituents.
It has been determined by both the nonprofit National Water Research Institute (NWRI) and city and other outside wastewater experts that adding RO treatment to meet strict TDS and EC goals at the WPCP would be cost prohibitive. With RO one has to dispose of the salts. Rather, improvements to the water supply would be first priority as these measures would improve the general drinking water quality as well.
Anonymous 6:26 and 6:43:
This is the type of discussion that we should be having, and I am happy to have an opportunity to address this issue.
One of the main arguments put forward by city staff, and repeated by these particular consultants, is that our total dissolved solids (TDS’s) will be too high if we don’t go forward with the service water project, and that we will either be fined or be required to resort to a more expensive reverse osmosis wastewater treatment facility.
This is a regulatory issue. The TDS’s are NOT dangerous to our health. But due to the fact that we discharge our wastewater into a small creek which is already loaded with agricultural run-offs, formal requirements would suggest that we discharge wastewater of almost drinking water quality.
I have discussed this problem with a state regulator and with a number of private sector wastewater treatment engineers. None of them feel that we will be fined our forced to resort to the more expensive reverse osmosis.
They all point out that the only time a regional board has tried to enforce these extra-stringent TDS limits that were extraordinarily expensive to achieve was in the case of the city of Manteca, the state board reversed that decision.
Anonymous 6:26 and 6:43:
This is the type of discussion that we should be having, and I am happy to have an opportunity to address this issue.
One of the main arguments put forward by city staff, and repeated by these particular consultants, is that our total dissolved solids (TDS’s) will be too high if we don’t go forward with the service water project, and that we will either be fined or be required to resort to a more expensive reverse osmosis wastewater treatment facility.
This is a regulatory issue. The TDS’s are NOT dangerous to our health. But due to the fact that we discharge our wastewater into a small creek which is already loaded with agricultural run-offs, formal requirements would suggest that we discharge wastewater of almost drinking water quality.
I have discussed this problem with a state regulator and with a number of private sector wastewater treatment engineers. None of them feel that we will be fined our forced to resort to the more expensive reverse osmosis.
They all point out that the only time a regional board has tried to enforce these extra-stringent TDS limits that were extraordinarily expensive to achieve was in the case of the city of Manteca, the state board reversed that decision.
Anonymous 6:26 and 6:43:
This is the type of discussion that we should be having, and I am happy to have an opportunity to address this issue.
One of the main arguments put forward by city staff, and repeated by these particular consultants, is that our total dissolved solids (TDS’s) will be too high if we don’t go forward with the service water project, and that we will either be fined or be required to resort to a more expensive reverse osmosis wastewater treatment facility.
This is a regulatory issue. The TDS’s are NOT dangerous to our health. But due to the fact that we discharge our wastewater into a small creek which is already loaded with agricultural run-offs, formal requirements would suggest that we discharge wastewater of almost drinking water quality.
I have discussed this problem with a state regulator and with a number of private sector wastewater treatment engineers. None of them feel that we will be fined our forced to resort to the more expensive reverse osmosis.
They all point out that the only time a regional board has tried to enforce these extra-stringent TDS limits that were extraordinarily expensive to achieve was in the case of the city of Manteca, the state board reversed that decision.
Anonymous 6:26 and 6:43:
This is the type of discussion that we should be having, and I am happy to have an opportunity to address this issue.
One of the main arguments put forward by city staff, and repeated by these particular consultants, is that our total dissolved solids (TDS’s) will be too high if we don’t go forward with the service water project, and that we will either be fined or be required to resort to a more expensive reverse osmosis wastewater treatment facility.
This is a regulatory issue. The TDS’s are NOT dangerous to our health. But due to the fact that we discharge our wastewater into a small creek which is already loaded with agricultural run-offs, formal requirements would suggest that we discharge wastewater of almost drinking water quality.
I have discussed this problem with a state regulator and with a number of private sector wastewater treatment engineers. None of them feel that we will be fined our forced to resort to the more expensive reverse osmosis.
They all point out that the only time a regional board has tried to enforce these extra-stringent TDS limits that were extraordinarily expensive to achieve was in the case of the city of Manteca, the state board reversed that decision.
typo corrections (I am a terrible editor of my own writing because I tend to read back what I meant to say rather what I actually wrote):
1)surface water, not service water.
2) or, not our, as in:
“I have discussed this problem with a state regulator and with a number of private sector wastewater treatment engineers. None of them feel that we will be fined or forced to resort to the more expensive reverse osmosis.”
typo corrections (I am a terrible editor of my own writing because I tend to read back what I meant to say rather what I actually wrote):
1)surface water, not service water.
2) or, not our, as in:
“I have discussed this problem with a state regulator and with a number of private sector wastewater treatment engineers. None of them feel that we will be fined or forced to resort to the more expensive reverse osmosis.”
typo corrections (I am a terrible editor of my own writing because I tend to read back what I meant to say rather what I actually wrote):
1)surface water, not service water.
2) or, not our, as in:
“I have discussed this problem with a state regulator and with a number of private sector wastewater treatment engineers. None of them feel that we will be fined or forced to resort to the more expensive reverse osmosis.”
typo corrections (I am a terrible editor of my own writing because I tend to read back what I meant to say rather what I actually wrote):
1)surface water, not service water.
2) or, not our, as in:
“I have discussed this problem with a state regulator and with a number of private sector wastewater treatment engineers. None of them feel that we will be fined or forced to resort to the more expensive reverse osmosis.”
Driving today listening to KCBS report about a desalinization project in Southern California. They interviewed an expert who said there is opposition because people believe that increasing water supply fosters growth.
Driving today listening to KCBS report about a desalinization project in Southern California. They interviewed an expert who said there is opposition because people believe that increasing water supply fosters growth.
Driving today listening to KCBS report about a desalinization project in Southern California. They interviewed an expert who said there is opposition because people believe that increasing water supply fosters growth.
Driving today listening to KCBS report about a desalinization project in Southern California. They interviewed an expert who said there is opposition because people believe that increasing water supply fosters growth.
A little late to step into this subject I guess, but…
follow the money.
That will lead all to the who-s, whats and whys of our waterworks “projects”. (Where is right here; and when, when you check your August water bill, clearly is already.)
The two plants are big golden-egg producing geese just on their own. If the profit margin were ten percent of a half billion for the engineering and construction firms (already) involved imagine the bonuses at stake (could be enough to induce a few to “grease” the wheels of governance, no?).
Then, of course, since our lack of assurance that the aquifer can handle more substantial housing growth currently does limit large developments, a quick removal of that limit would activate an even larger golden goose to produce (think 1800 houses at an avg half million a shot, basically amounting to the whole waterqworks tab to come- for just one development. But multiply by X number of developments (you can bet the wheels of governance are being well lubricated…:-( ).
Very inconvenient to have people questioning such things long and deep, silence likely being quite “golden” at the end.
shepley
A little late to step into this subject I guess, but…
follow the money.
That will lead all to the who-s, whats and whys of our waterworks “projects”. (Where is right here; and when, when you check your August water bill, clearly is already.)
The two plants are big golden-egg producing geese just on their own. If the profit margin were ten percent of a half billion for the engineering and construction firms (already) involved imagine the bonuses at stake (could be enough to induce a few to “grease” the wheels of governance, no?).
Then, of course, since our lack of assurance that the aquifer can handle more substantial housing growth currently does limit large developments, a quick removal of that limit would activate an even larger golden goose to produce (think 1800 houses at an avg half million a shot, basically amounting to the whole waterqworks tab to come- for just one development. But multiply by X number of developments (you can bet the wheels of governance are being well lubricated…:-( ).
Very inconvenient to have people questioning such things long and deep, silence likely being quite “golden” at the end.
shepley
A little late to step into this subject I guess, but…
follow the money.
That will lead all to the who-s, whats and whys of our waterworks “projects”. (Where is right here; and when, when you check your August water bill, clearly is already.)
The two plants are big golden-egg producing geese just on their own. If the profit margin were ten percent of a half billion for the engineering and construction firms (already) involved imagine the bonuses at stake (could be enough to induce a few to “grease” the wheels of governance, no?).
Then, of course, since our lack of assurance that the aquifer can handle more substantial housing growth currently does limit large developments, a quick removal of that limit would activate an even larger golden goose to produce (think 1800 houses at an avg half million a shot, basically amounting to the whole waterqworks tab to come- for just one development. But multiply by X number of developments (you can bet the wheels of governance are being well lubricated…:-( ).
Very inconvenient to have people questioning such things long and deep, silence likely being quite “golden” at the end.
shepley
A little late to step into this subject I guess, but…
follow the money.
That will lead all to the who-s, whats and whys of our waterworks “projects”. (Where is right here; and when, when you check your August water bill, clearly is already.)
The two plants are big golden-egg producing geese just on their own. If the profit margin were ten percent of a half billion for the engineering and construction firms (already) involved imagine the bonuses at stake (could be enough to induce a few to “grease” the wheels of governance, no?).
Then, of course, since our lack of assurance that the aquifer can handle more substantial housing growth currently does limit large developments, a quick removal of that limit would activate an even larger golden goose to produce (think 1800 houses at an avg half million a shot, basically amounting to the whole waterqworks tab to come- for just one development. But multiply by X number of developments (you can bet the wheels of governance are being well lubricated…:-( ).
Very inconvenient to have people questioning such things long and deep, silence likely being quite “golden” at the end.
shepley
water development and housing are linked as anonymous above argues, so then, it undermines Sue Greenwald’s opposition on cost alone.
water development and housing are linked as anonymous above argues, so then, it undermines Sue Greenwald’s opposition on cost alone.
water development and housing are linked as anonymous above argues, so then, it undermines Sue Greenwald’s opposition on cost alone.
water development and housing are linked as anonymous above argues, so then, it undermines Sue Greenwald’s opposition on cost alone.
“…it undermines Sue Greenwald’s opposition on cost alone.”
It certainly should be obvious to Annonymous 7;25 AM that cost and growth-inducing issues in no way diminish the validity of the other argument.. One valid observation does not negate another equally true observation.
“…it undermines Sue Greenwald’s opposition on cost alone.”
It certainly should be obvious to Annonymous 7;25 AM that cost and growth-inducing issues in no way diminish the validity of the other argument.. One valid observation does not negate another equally true observation.
“…it undermines Sue Greenwald’s opposition on cost alone.”
It certainly should be obvious to Annonymous 7;25 AM that cost and growth-inducing issues in no way diminish the validity of the other argument.. One valid observation does not negate another equally true observation.
“…it undermines Sue Greenwald’s opposition on cost alone.”
It certainly should be obvious to Annonymous 7;25 AM that cost and growth-inducing issues in no way diminish the validity of the other argument.. One valid observation does not negate another equally true observation.
PRA Expert said…
anonymous 9:46:
You might want to familiarize yourself with the Public Records Act before you wise-crack. As it stands now, if you send an email to an elected official using their government email address, it is a disclosable public record and someone can get a copy of it.
8/8/08 10:09 AM
you may be correct, but I would be surprised, the PRA generally emphasizes the content of the information in question, not the method of communication
–Richard Estes
PRA Expert said…
anonymous 9:46:
You might want to familiarize yourself with the Public Records Act before you wise-crack. As it stands now, if you send an email to an elected official using their government email address, it is a disclosable public record and someone can get a copy of it.
8/8/08 10:09 AM
you may be correct, but I would be surprised, the PRA generally emphasizes the content of the information in question, not the method of communication
–Richard Estes
PRA Expert said…
anonymous 9:46:
You might want to familiarize yourself with the Public Records Act before you wise-crack. As it stands now, if you send an email to an elected official using their government email address, it is a disclosable public record and someone can get a copy of it.
8/8/08 10:09 AM
you may be correct, but I would be surprised, the PRA generally emphasizes the content of the information in question, not the method of communication
–Richard Estes
PRA Expert said…
anonymous 9:46:
You might want to familiarize yourself with the Public Records Act before you wise-crack. As it stands now, if you send an email to an elected official using their government email address, it is a disclosable public record and someone can get a copy of it.
8/8/08 10:09 AM
you may be correct, but I would be surprised, the PRA generally emphasizes the content of the information in question, not the method of communication
–Richard Estes