Ratepayers Paying Nearly $300,000 in Two Years For Communications Firm To Sell Water Project to Public –
In a series of documents obtained by the Vanguard recently, it is seen that the Clean Water Agency has contracted with Kim Floyd Communications, Inc. to engage in outreach efforts that can better be characterized as public relations in nature.
The minutes report, “Kim Floyd. Kim Floyd Communications Inc., briefly explained the public outreach efforts as budgeted for the year. She explained how public outreach will benefit the public by having stakeholder interviews, distribution of flyers, bill inserts, and providing media information with the Agency website and newspaper articles.”
The minutes go on to report, “She mentioned how important it was to tap into new media forms such as Facebook. A Speakers Bureau was being formed that will reach out to various community groups in addition to public meetings.”
As laid out in the contract, the scope of work includes the creation and maintenance of a website, updates to elected officials and city staff, a speaker’s bureau, media relationships, a project newsletter and new media.
The list also includes the possibility of outdoor advertising, such as billboards.
According to the contract: “It can also take the form of magnetic ‘billboards’ for use on city vehicles, transit advertising (Yolobus), and project signage (‘Home of the future WDCWA Water Treatment Facility’). In Woodland, billboards may be an appropriate tool to encourage interest in the project. While billboards are not appropriate for Davis, other forms of outdoor advertising may be possible. Direct costs include graphic design and purchase of outdoor advertising space.”
They also provide for small group stakeholders meetings, which the contract describes as: “Effective forums for addressing any issues that may arise, or just to share general project information. In fact, this is a very strategic way to help establish meaningful, two-way communication between the JPA and its target audiences.”
The contract stipulates there will be a public outreach team that will identify and schedule up to 20 meetings in the first year.
For all of these services, their principal consultant receives $100 per hour and their “Activity PM” receives $75 per hour.
The 2010 project total was set at $150,350.
On June 7, 2011, the Contract was renewed to extend to June 30, 2012.
Under the contract, the compensation was limited to $140,000.
However, it stipulates, “If additional funds are required to complete the services defined herein beyond this limit, Consultant shall notify the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency in writing 60-days prior to reaching the authorized limit, and will not proceed with work in excess of the limit without prior written approval of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency.”
That means that within two years’ time, the agency will have paid out nearly $300,000 just for public relations.
The rates are somewhat different, with $100 per hour still going to the principal, but $50 to the activity coordinator and $65 to $85 per house going to graphic design.
But it is unclear how much more the Kim Floyd consulting firm has done.
The West Yost Associates consultant firm had utilized their services prior to the creation of the Clean Water Agency. The staff report notes, Kim Floyd Consulting “has been providing public outreach and related services to the Agency as a subconsultant under the Agency/West-Yost Associates agreement. With the new fiscal year and a new General Manager, it is proposed that Kim Floyd Communications no longer work under the West-Yost agreement but rather that the Agency contract directly with the firm.”
As we try to reconcile the huge rate hikes and large project cost, it is important to recognize some of the component parts to this cost. Now we know that at least $300,000, perhaps more if you go back to when the firm worked under West Yost, has gone to sell the public on the need for the project.
While we can argue as to whether or not that is a worthwhile expenditure, we need to be mindful that these types of costs, while small in the scheme of things, have the potential to add up and inflate the cost of such projects.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote][i]”While we can argue as to whether or not that is a worthwhile expenditure….”[/i][/quote]Okay, let’s. If the purpose really is “to sell the public on the need for the project,” it certainly doesn’t look as though it’s an effective or worthwhile way to spend our money. It’ll take awhile longer to know for sure, but the ease with which opposition is being ginned up suggests the money’s being wasted.
Maybe more to the point, I’m pretty sure this would not be an [u]appropriate[/u] expenditure if that was the purpose.
Our leaders shouldn’t be spending our money on propaganda to “sell” us on any project they’ve already decided is good for us or on any view for which they’ve decided we need convincing.
On the other hand, I’m for spending to increase public participation in the decision process or to get out the word to those of us affected by government actions. It also costs money to be transparent–and, sometimes, more effective communication costs even more.
Either way, part of the contracted work must have been to develop a communications plan describing the objectives, target audiences, messages, etc., before money started being spent on billboards, postcards, brochures, and meeting room rentals.
Track down copies of this work between the contractor(s) and the agency contact, and it’ll be easy to see whether this really was public outreach/participation effort or a sales job on the public.
Thanks David for hunting this down, I knew you would. Does the agency sub-contract out and if they do is it possible to find out who are some of the actual individuals in Davis that are being paid to promote this project?
From the contract: “Kim Floyd Communications, Inc. will employ sub-consultants, when needed, to effectively carry out the tasks as described in Task Orders. Sub-consultants will be billed on an hourly basis or flat rate, as appropriate, but within the budget as defined.”
My guess is the answer is no, we cannot find out who the subcontractors are. But that is only a guess.
Thanks David. It would’ve been very interesting to find out who some of the paid promoters are. On another note I’ve been gathering signatures in my neighborhood and so far everyone is very enthusiastic about signing the referendum.
Wouldn’t the billing and contracting records (which should support the “sub-consultant” payments) be available by request or be FOIA-able? These payments might be significant since Kim Floyd’s website points out that her Rocklin firm doesn’t have the overhead of a full-service PR firm.
Ms. Floyd has an extensive PR background. She takes particular pride in “three successful school bond campaigns” for an Alaska school district and, as a corporate lobbyist/PR manager, for a “strategy to gain community support for the siting and construction of new energy generation facilities, to include a clean coal plant.” (This may give a hint at what the clean water agency was wanting from her, but it still would be good to look at her plan and to see what messages ended up on the buses and billboards.)
In most respects the Federal Clean Water Act, 1972 was a good piece of legislation, even if it never envisaged small communities like Davis and Woodland having to bear the full cost of a project such as the $325 million one now proposed and approved.
However these documents, and other evidence, indicate that the drive to implement EPA water and waste water standards may come as much from private companies who want contracts to build and operate such projects as from dedicated environmentalists within and without the EPA.
So it looks like Mr. Harrington was right about the PR firm. How many other things is he right about? Does anyone else think that using our public funds for PR to try and prop up municipal projects is a total waste of taxpayer money?
There is now a PAID, organized effort that has begun to harass and disrupt signature-gathering efforts at supermarkets. The plan appears to be to generate such a commotion as to make is very difficult for the supermarket managers to continue to permit signature-gathering.
” private companies “
A French international corporation that is slated to develop this project has a record of shady dealings. It gained control of Paris’ water system which was later taken back, returning Paris’ water system to public control.
“There is now a PAID, organized effort that has begun to harass and disrupt signature-gathering efforts at supermarkets. The plan appears to be to generate such a commotion as to make is very difficult for the supermarket managers to continue to permit signature-gathering.”
Davisite, so what are the harassers doing? Can it be proven that they are paid? Who are they being paid by? This would be huge to get that info out.
Regarding the “private companies” if you haven’t seen the documentary “Blue Gold” (available via streaming on NetFlix), you may want to check it out. It has good background info on Veolia Water.
Rusty49: Actually, I was wrong about the money for the PR firm.
I thought it was around $100K, and now this morning I learn it was for more than $300K of taxpayer money spent to sell the concept that river water is best.
Also, I was shocked to learn that Yost and Associates buried the early expenditures as they had a master contract, and used unnamed and reported vendors for the PR efforts.
This town amazes me.
Michael, what’s the word on people harassing the signature getters at the supermarkets?
$100 per hour for a principal in a community outreach program is chump change compared to the hourly costs the project incurs for lawyers and engineers. And I am sure this is far less expensive (and far more effective) than if the respective cities did the outreach themselves. And if there was no outreach program to explain the project to the citizens, then the anti-water folks would howl to the moon that the cities are trying to hide something. At least I find the water project presentations to be credible and factual and not riddled with hysterical, hyerinflated guesstimates (like a $500,000,000 price tag – hello? earth to Harrington), unsubstantiated insinuations (like this project is some big secret collusion between massive corporations and goon union squads), and gross mistatements of opinions as facts (such as all the information supposed “Unnamed Sources” keep whispering in Sue’s ears). Maybe the anti-water folks should get their own PR person as it would perhaps prevent so many of their statements from turning out to be so embarrassingly incorrect.
[quote]The minutes report, “Kim Floyd. Kim Floyd Communications Inc., briefly explained the public outreach efforts as budgeted for the year. She explained how public outreach will benefit the public by having stakeholder interviews, distribution of flyers, bill inserts, and providing media information with the Agency website and newspaper articles.”
The minutes go on to report, “She mentioned how important it was to tap into new media forms such as Facebook. A Speakers Bureau was being formed that will reach out to various community groups in addition to public meetings.”[/quote]
Has not the Vanguard advocated for the city to reach out to the public specifically using methods such as Facebook? What is nefarious about reaching out to various community groups in addition to public meetings, to give ample opportunity for public input? What is negarious about stakeholder meetings, distribution of information via flyers, bill inserts (something I advocated for), providing a website that contains the necessary information to inform those who want to become educated on the subject or even find out what the effects of the rate increases will be on their particular utility bill (water rate calculator). Why would it be wrong to publish newspaper articles to education the public.
Dept of Public Works has been accused of “sandbagging” the public on numerous occasions, despite publishing information in various forms – website, newspaper, flyers, information printed on the bill, public forums. One lady actually had the audacity to say at a public meeting “I don’t read the newspaper, I don’t read all my mail, I don’t have a computer – but I’m angry I didn’t know about this project until just now!”
The Vanguard and others cannot have it both ways, vociferously calling for things like websites, Facebook pages, and other forms of public outreach, and then hypocritically act outraged when the bill comes due for creating the very services the Vanguard was advocating for.
[quote]That means that within two years’ time, the agency will have paid out nearly $300,000 just for public relations.[/quote]
Considering some of the extreme disinformation that has been put out there by certain surface water project opponents, perhaps this cost to ensure public education in various media formats as the Vanguard had advocated has been quite justified?
My two cents worth.
I agree with Alan Pryor:
“And if there was no outreach program to explain the project to the citizens, then the anti-water folks would howl to the moon that the cities are trying to hide something”
This is exactly true.
Harrington and his “elites who rule Davis” with their 12 or 20 or even 80 year strategy- (Lets see, did it start with conspiring to bring the UC Farm School to this here town? Actually it does for certain landowners- what is new?) is the reason the progressive left always shoot themselves in the foot.
The only conspiracy the left needs to shed light on is the conspiracy of building capital and using that money to influence politics (hey, wait, that started in 1776), and the ineffective nature of relying on lawyering to counter it. The left needs to rely less on the slow moving court system and more on being at the capitalist feed table themselves.
Rusty49: The out of town goons? Actually, what they call themselves in their profession is “blockers.”
Yes, it’s a profession.
They surround and try to wall off a petition worker from the public. Some of them tried it recently at the Davis Food Coop. When I get a good video of the harrassment, I will link it up to the local media and blogs, and maybe show it during public comment at the Davis City Council; about 5,000 residents watch those public comments every week. (Yes, we have a contstitutional right to use images as the technology permits.)
In the end, I just want to see this large project put onto the ballot for a vote after an informative campaign season.
The give and take of the process and struggle is interesting, but mostly a waste of our time.
Put it on the June 2012 ballot, and you will see a good and fair airing of the facts and analysis. Davis voters are pretty good about sorting out the right answer.
$300,000 chump change? Not to many of us common folk, I’ll wager.
It is the $325 million estimate that is a total guesstimate. We have no real idea what this project will cost ultimately and we have no idea of the financing, so $325 is a low-ball figure. It does not include the $80 million to purchase Conaway water and does not include the financing. With the Conaway water, the figure is already over $400 million. I don’t find a figure of $500 million to be at all hyperinflated.
Many of us circulating petitions for this referendum have experienced the harassment before in other similar efforts. It is happening again. We know very well who is behind it.
I believe Sue 100% on this. To my knowledge, she is the only council member, past or present, other than Mike who actually studied this project in depth and spoke to dozens of experts before drawing any conclusions.
I too am circulating petitions, and we are seeing an amazing response. Maybe the council should have paid a little more attention to those protest votes.
“We know very well who is behind it.”
Who?
“Put it on the June 2012 ballot, and you will see a good and fair airing of the facts and analysis. Davis voters are pretty good about sorting out the right answer.”
Exactly, what are the pro-water people afraid of? If it’s such a great deal then they have nothing to worry about. What’s wrong with the people deciding?
While it is virtually impossible to find smoking gun in hand, it is James Burchill and Associates of Davis that are almost certainly responsible for harassing signature gatherers. Jim Burchill was present at the Coop on Sunday Sept. 25 when the worst episode occurred.
And, according to a well respected and long term activist in Davis politics, Burchill and his associates have been responsible for harassing signature gatherers in Davis campaigns going back well over a decade.
Burchill has a residence in Davis (and Bodega Bay) but he is not acting simply as a citizen who is in favor of the project. He is, quite bluntly, a paid gun for hire. For those in need of his services go to:
http://www.jbainc.com/
The much more interesting question, as Rusty49 suggests, is who is paying him? For many reasons, I hope I am right in thinking that the city would not do so. In addition, I do not believe that the majority of the people supporting the project are strongly pro-growth. But, certainly providing an allegedly much more reliable water supply to Davis would make the task of developers justifying new building projects much easier.
Additionally and relatedly, if, as is likely, the project runs into financial difficulties there will be a strong argument that the city needs to approve more development to help pay for the cost of the project.
In short, very big bucks are at stake and we should not be surprised that some proponents of the project are prepared to resort to very morally and legally dubious practices to stop the water issue going to a referendum vote.
Referendum signature gathering is all part of the Democratic process. So if there are actually “blockers” trying to deter people from signing the petition that would IMO be akin to someone blocking one from voting at a poll. It all sounds like it would be illegal.
[i]”$100 per hour for a principal in a community outreach program is chump change compared to the hourly costs the project incurs for lawyers and engineers.”[/i]
That is true. When the Yolo County supervisors decided to buy Conaway Ranch from its owners who were not interested in selling, the Supes hired a lawfirm of “water rights attorneys” and reportedly paid them $500 per hour for attorney time plus additional amounts for other expenses, presumably including travel costs, secretaries, paralegals, etc. That is how in a few short months, the bill added up to $2.4 million. And what did we the taxpayers get for $2.4 million? Nothing. They lost every legal battle they fought.
I think the fact that the advocates for the water works are spending $300,000 of the people’s money to sell the people on the need for this project is OUTRAGEOUS.
The Davis City Council has two reps–Souza and Krovoza–on the WDCWA. Those two are perfectly capable of explaining the issue to the people of Davis. They have written op-eds in The Enterprise and on this site and elsewhere. They have spoken in public. They have been quoted in news stories. I am sure it is the same for the two members of the Woodland City Council selling this project to the people of Woodland. There is no justification to spend $300,000 of our money for a sales pitch.
This is yet another example of why Sue Greenwald should have been made one of the two Davis reps to the WDCWA. Even if you think she is wrong on this issue or any other issue, you know for certain that she would not have approved this type of expenditure. She tries to make sure that the public’s money is not wasted. I also believe that when we were negotiating for our water rights, she would have driven a harder bargain than the WDCWA drove.
I wish we could have Sue there to help negotiate with the contractors who will build this project. It is now estimated to cost $160 to $180 million. I will be surprised if the final price is less than $200 million. But if we had a tougher negotiator, a person who has a strong record of fighting for her constituents’ interests, I would believe that whatever the price we got, it was the best that could be had.
JPA has mtg today at 2pm in Davis CC chambers to be televised. I hope this issue will come up.
Rich: My recollection is that Joe stated in open public meeting that the contract would include a provision that puts the risk of cost overruns on the builder. And what is the source of your new estimate? The last I checked the city’s share was still $155M. Having Sue at the negotiation table would be one way to insure that we get no project (any serious applicant would walk). I’m not even sure Joe would be up to the task. This is where you bring in the $500+ per hour attorneys and consultants. If the JPA turns the contract negotiation into amateur hour, then the rate payers will get screwed.
[quote]Davisite, so what are the harassers doing? Can it be proven that they are paid? Who are they being paid by? This would be huge to get that info out.[/quote]
I have had reports the referendum people are not acting appropriately. Bottom line – both sides should do the right thing, follow the law, and let the process play out the way it was designed to. No one from either side should be trying to “game the system”.
“I have had reports the referendum people are not acting appropriately.”
ERM, so what are they doing to not act appropriately? Who reported this to you? I just talked to a signature gatherer at my local supermarket. I asked him how’s it going and he said great so far. For the 2 or 3 minutes I stood there they gathered 2 signatures. The two of them seemed very polite.
Yes. I too would like Elaine to expand on the “reports” that the referendum people are not acting appropriately. I have observed signature gathers at two different locations recently. They either sit or stand at a table and ask those who walk past if they would like to sign the petition to put this issue on the ballot. They then instruct the person on how to sign the petition. How is this inappropriate.
The signature gatherers are most definitely following any laws associated with gathering signatures, including having permission to be on the site. Interfering with signature gathering should be illegal. It is certainly not democratic.
[quote]Having Sue at the negotiation table would be one way to insure that we get no project (any serious applicant would walk).– [b]Voter2012[/b][/quote][b]Voter 2012[/b], I know what I know and I know what I don’t know. I listened to top — and yes, unnamed — experts outside the local food chain concerning the extravagantly overpriced wastewater treatment plant design. I managed, by hook and by crook, to get the right experts involved in the face of council majority opposition. This saved the city from signing a contract for a $200 million project — saving the city $100 million dollars.
Once those right experts were involved, I stepped back. I have not tried to insert myself whatsoever into negotiations, technical planning, etc. of the wastewater treatment plant.
I don’t understand your need to continually denigrate. I support the same candidate that you support. What do you expect to achieve by continually trying to tear me down?
Go Sue!
ERM: “I have had reports the referendum people are not acting appropriately.”
Oh, really? Call me up, lawyer to lawyer confidential, and tell me about it and I promise you I will look into the facts and correct it if needed. If you don’t call me with the details, then stop spreading misinformation where you lack the evidentiary foundation.
V-2012: [i]”And what is the source of your new estimate? The last I checked the city’s share was still $155M.”[/i]
My source is the City of Davis website ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/prop218/faq.cfm[/url]). Here is the exact language:
“[b]Davis’ cost share of the project facilities is estimated at [u]$160-180 million[/u][/b], although aggressive cost-savings activities and refinements to project plans may reduce costs. To pay for the project, the City is proposing to increase water rates.”
I am not willing to place a large wager on it, but my guess is that this project will cost more than $200 million. I think they are showing low figures as part of their sales pitch. Once the project is built and they have us sucked in, we will have no choice but to pay off the full costs, even if they are $20 to $40 million more than they estimated.
I don’t agree with you about Sue being a part of the negotiations. Aside from the fact that she has already saved you and me and the rest of Davis $107 million by being cost conscious, I think she is a better bargainer than the two people we have on the WDCWA right now. You say you want $500 per hour lawyers to guide us. I have a much lower opinion of those types of lawyers than you seem to. Those guys are out to make a buck for themselves. Think about the lawyers who ripped us off over the Conaway scam.
Sue would, in my estimation, be far more likely to find the pitfalls in the contract we are going to sign. She is smarter than those greedy lawyers.
[img]http://www.deladier.com/images/5211.jpg[/img]
If you still think high-priced lawyers with great political connections are so sharp, I recommend you read the writings of the chief judge of Yolo County. You will be sadly disappointed in the dithering illogic you find.
[i]”…stop spreading misinformation where you lack the evidentiary foundation.”
[/i]
“the referendum is about the huge increase of the price tag for this current surface water supply project. Nothing else.”
“We just found out that our partner in the project, Woodland, has been hiding its fiscal commitment from the voters”
“Now it has morphed into a deal with just Woodland, and their finances are extremely shaky.”
“If Woodland voters turn down their share, Davis will be stuck with all of it.”
“The Davis CC hid from us the fact that its partner, Woodland, was duping the voters to get their share of this project.”
“this $500 million dollar project (including expected cost overruns)”
“the cost overruns would put the total cost of the project from $400 million to $480 million.”
“This thing is headed to $500 million, or more.”
“Those wells will “suddenly” be viable again after the surface plant is done, and guess what? 68,000 plus 85,000 equals 153,000.”
”The surface water plant is one of the cleverest strategies I have ever seen: soak the rate payers so the potable water is available for the elitist dream town of 150,000 and for the upzoning of the land around Davis and Woodland. These guys are going to use our money to create a potable water source that will add billions (with a capital B) to the speculative values of the ag lands that surround our towns.”
“I am sure there was a discussion amongst a few elites about 15 years ago, and the surface water system was the chosen way to make sure that Davis had the water for a much larger population while enriching the border land owners.”
“I am not the spokesperson for the referendum.”
Don: I suggest you listen to those appx. 4600 protesters under the Prop 218 rate hike process. They are the real spokespersons for the referendum.
Spokesman is a real word. Spokespersons is a reach between the legs in order to tickle the nose attempt at political correctness. There is nothing wrong in English using the masculine form as neutral.
“Put it on the June 2012 ballot, and you will see a good and fair airing of the facts and analysis. Davis voters are pretty good about sorting out the right answer”
Mike… well put. it also reflects my position/motivation for calling for a populist referendum on this project.
“…stop spreading misinformation where you lack the evidentiary foundation.”
Don… wasn’t the above the mantra that cigarette manufacturers kept offering for decades?
[quote]“ERM: I have had reports the referendum people are not acting appropriately.”
Rusty49: ERM, so what are they doing to not act appropriately? Who reported this to you? I just talked to a signature gatherer at my local supermarket. I asked him how’s it going and he said great so far. For the 2 or 3 minutes I stood there they gathered 2 signatures. The two of them seemed very polite.[/quote]
I have no intention of fostering an ugly atmosphere. I took care of the matter so there would be no problems. I just want both sides to remain honest and above board, no matter which side one falls on in regard to this issue. I have absolutely no problem with a referendum – if that is the choice of the people and there is no attempt to “game the system” in collecting signatures. As anyone is aware who truly knows me, I am a stickler for proper process.
Elaine. Why bring it up if you do not elaborate?
davisite: [i]”…stop spreading misinformation where you lack the evidentiary foundation.”
Don… wasn’t the above the mantra that cigarette manufacturers kept offering for decades?[/i]
I was quoting MIchael.
Rifkin: “Sue would, in my estimation, be far more likely to find the pitfalls in the contract we are going to sign. She is smarter than those greedy lawyers.”
As an interesting coincidence Mayor Joe, Rochelle and Dan are all attorneys with experience in water law and yet you think the most obstructionist, belligerent member of the council would do the best job in negotiating for Davis. People in local government don’t want to serve with Sue because of her behavior when she doesn’t get her way. This is why everyone from Jeff Reisig to Lois Wolk to Freddy Oakley supported Don Saylor for Supervisor when Sue was contemplating a run for county office. Sue has said we should wait until some future date to proceed, a time frame beyond when she would need to worry about paying for it. Now if she said she was going to try to move forward but squeeze every extra penny out, a position, by the way, taken by Dan Wolk, you might have a point, but that has not been her position.
[b]Toad[/b]:
Boy, do I ever not respect nasty anonymous posters.
Toad, As a very committed fast-growther, I think you understand the very real policy reasons that explain why political factions in Davis line up the way they do in.
The citizens of Davis tend to have a more slow-growth orientation that of most of their elected leaders. That’s fine; it is the way it is, and it explains much about the political alliances in town.
However, most of the important decisions that we are debating today, such how to balance the budget and how to best complete our needed sewer/water infrastructure, exist in the absence of the growth issue.
[quote]Elaine. Why bring it up if you do not elaborate?[/quote]
To point out that neither side necessarily has a lock on being pristine and above board in a campaign, these sorts of campaigns get ugly and out of control (remember Pizzagate), and to let people know that there are folks watching the process to make sure it remains honest.
The GM of the water project was introduced on page A5 of yesterday’s THE DAVIS ENTERPRISE: “Dennis Diemer has been hired as the new general manager of the Woodland-Davis Clean Wager Agency”. (Wager is not only fitting, but is about the most accurate thing I’ve heard yet.) I’m curious to know how much Mr. Diemer is going to receive for his role—or is it roll?—in this.