I did not get to watch the entire meeting on Saturday, so these are merely observations from the morning portion of the Council Goal Setting Session. We will get a fuller picture after city staff takes some of the raw material and finesses it. Still I think initial observations can be useful.
My first observation is, and this is a bit unfair, but that I always feel like I am getting a sell job when I listen to Bill Emlen talk about the state of the city. There is no doubt that the city, at least in terms of its goals, accomplished some of them. The city did bring the Bicycling Hall of Fame, that is certainly an accomplishment. They did bring in a Target and Trader Joe’s. You can decide for yourself whether that is a good thing. They have moved forward on the water projects. The city is moving forward on a sports complex.
We have written much on the fiscal situation of the city. The city considers it a success that they have passed the measure to extend the sales tax. But that is a small portion of the budget. The larger question is one of containing employee compensation costs while fixing the city’s retirement system and unfunded liabilities. The city can point to the new contracts, they can talk about taking the first step, but the bottom line is that this is insufficient. They have been talking about a multi-year budget, but that has been deferred. The largest questions here are really unanswered.
Just for the sake of posterity, I have posted all of the goals from the last council at the bottom of this article.
Now, I found the goals of each of the councilmembers for the coming council to be interesting. There should be a caveat here, that some of these goals are all-encompassing. For instance, Rochelle Swanson mentioned that sustainability for her was not just environmental sustainability but it included economics and housing.
- Don Saylor‘s top three goals were: economic development, fiscal stability, and civic engagement/ organizational strength.
- Joe Krovoza: fiscal stability, civic engagement, youth and schools
- Sue Greenwald: fiscal stability, economic development, Downtown Davis
- Rochelle Swanson: fiscal stability, economic development, sustainability
- Stephen Souza: Sustainability, economic development, and infrastructure.
I found it perhaps more interesting than some that for three, the top goal was fiscal stability. It’s not that anyone thought fiscal stability was unimportant, as Mayor Saylor had it second and Stephen Souza fourth. But in terms of goals, the top goal was fairly predictable across the board. Don Saylor had economic development as his top goal, not a surprise. Stephen Souza had sustainability as his top goal, again not a surprise.
The cumulative top three were fiscal stability, economic development, and sustainability. I would have gone probably with fiscal stability, economic development and infrastructure. As I will discuss economic development in a minute, it might rate even lower for me. I am disappointed that no one mentioned open government or transparency, which would be in my top five. Joe Krovoza mentioned youth and schools, which I would put in my top five. I do think we need to have a discussion of civil rights and race relations, which no one mentioned either.
Here is the amazing thing: only Stephen Souza listed housing and even he listed it eighth on his list. No one mentioned any land use issue, growth, development, etc., although Joe Krovoza mentioned planning process, but it was seventh on his list. Two years ago, housing was very prominent on the list of goals. “Advance an array of housing options targeting affordability, internal growth, University-related needs and housing needs of special populations.” That is gone. Off the table. Housing is not a council priority in the next two years. That is a headline observation right there. It was barely mentioned in the campaign and with Measure R safely passed for the next ten years, it is gone.
By and large, I am okay with the top three, but I will get back to economic growth shortly.
Under Fiscal Stability, the council talked about matching resources to community need and expansion of inter-jurisdictional partnerships. This week we have a report on the attempt to merge the city of Davis’ fire department with that of UC Davis. Everyone recognizes that there is a chance for those kinds of joint ventures in a variety of areas. They also want that fiscal stability without the reliance on one-time revenue from peripheral growth to fund ongoing operating costs.
Fair enough, although I would have put a much heavier emphasis on the need to change the way we operate in terms of compensation and retirement issues. We need to go to multiyear budgets. We need to be aggressive in fixing retirement issues and unfunded liabilities.
For economic development, I think nearly everyone saw the need to promote economic development consistent with the community values and our niche as home of a world class university.
Sustainability sought to enact policies that conserve natural resources that are environmentally appropriate, reduce the carbon footprint and achieve environmental sustainability.
I think we do need a concerted focus on Davis-specific economic development. I am pleased with the language that suggests “consistent with the community values and our niche as home of world class university” which really gets to my disappointment that we chose Target to solve our retail needs. I think stores like Target conflict with our sustainability goals. I think they conflict with our community values and have no place in a home of a world class university.
So I would really like to see us work to develop local business, whether it be retail, whether it be high-tech or green-based, or whether it be entertainment.
I also think we need to recognize that, economically, we are not going to develop our way out of our fiscal mess. Much of what we want to do is not going to produce sales tax or local revenue. Target is said to produce about $600,000 in additional sales tax. Even if that is correct, it pales in comparison to unfunded liabilities that this city faces. The sales tax extension is about $3 million, which is a sizable chunk of money to be sure, but also relatively small compared to the loss in revenue from property taxes due to the collapse and now stagnation of the real estate market.
We do need economic development, but it is not going to be a net revenue producer for this city.
To that end, any city goal that does not focus first, second, and third on fixing the problems with our city’s compensation system, providing adequate infrastructure, and producing an open and transparent process is doomed. This council has a lot of work to do and it needs to start by changing the way we do business.
So far, I see a small sign of hope, but we have so much more to do.
Reviewing the Previous Goals
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Ensure that current infrastructure, including facilities, parks, streets, bike paths and sidewalks, is maintained to prolong its useful life and work to improve other aspects of the infrastructure, such as the water and wastewater treatment systems, to address the long-term needs of the community.
• Develop long-term funding strategies to maintain the city’s current infrastructure assets
• Identify areas where physical improvements are needed
• Review current service levels and identify areas where changes are needed
• Develop plans and funding strategies to address the long-term infrastructure needs of the community, including water and wastewater systems
• Provide a safe and efficient circulation system.
FISCAL STABILITY:
Ensure fiscal stability to meet the short- and long-term needs of the community, without reliance on housing growth.
• Provide long-term sustainability matching revenues with expenditures over the long term while maintaining 15% reserve
• Develop a long-term financial plan and a budget process to assure that the city can pay today’s bills and will be able to pay tomorrow’s bills.
• Ensure that the city’s fiscal stability doesn’t depend on growth and that any growth pays for itself.
• Continue to provide high quality city services that meet the needs of residents
• Ensure that fee structures are legally sound and related to policy goals.
DOWNTOWN DAVIS:
Further enhance the downtown to allow for more arts and entertainment, adequate parking, housing and commercial activity, recognizing that our downtown is the heart and soul of the community and one of our greatest potential net revenue generators.
• Allow downtown to continue to blossom as a regional center and destination for arts/entertainment
• Provide residential uses in the downtown, with emphasis on owner-occupied condominiums
• Support the downtown as a vital commercial center and reduce potential for blight in the downtown
• Allow the downtown to serve as a vibrant social center for the community
• Advance the redevelopment of the downtown to provide mixed use residential, retail and service along with significant addition to parking. (Objective 04-06)
• Protect and expand the downtown retail base
HOUSING:
Advance an array of housing options targeting affordability, internal growth, University-related needs and housing needs of special populations.
• Provide slow, steady additions to housing stock, consistent with Council set goals and General Plan and ensure that any new housing benefits community
• Address SACOG fair share growth, natural growth and growth to provide internal support for the University
• Ensure special needs housing – for seniors, for those who have accessibility issues, and for people who work but don’t currently live in Davis
• Work to establish permanent affordability of housing provided through city program and requirements for inclusion
• Provide an array of housing to meet needs of citizens
• Provide housing for people who live/work in Davis
• Develop multi-family housing near downtown
• Continuously update and assess opportunities for infill and mixed-use projects within city limits
• Ensure that any new and existing homes and neighborhoods are attractive and well-maintained.
SUSTAINABILITY:
Enact policies that work to conserve natural resources and that are environmentally friendly. Build on Davis’s efforts and tradition of being a cutting edge green city by fostering land use patterns and development techniques that preserve agriculture, promote local food production, reduce automobile and energy use, foster a healthy and vibrant economic climate based on green technologies, and a people-centric urban design environment.
• Use innovative methods where and when possible to protect the environment and wildlife habitat
• Develop policies that promote and support agriculture as an important industry and resource
• Develop policies and programs that promote reduction of resource consumption and waste generation, improvement of air and water quality, preservation of natural resources, and creation of a sustainable community.
• Reduce waste, reuse and recycle in City organization and encourage the community to do the same
• Encourage and support alternative forms of transportation
• Actively participate in regional planning activities in the areas of transit, air quality, water resources, land use and agricultural and open space conservation.
• Ensure that any new development reflects environmental sensitivities
SAFETY and HEALTH:
Assure top quality fire, police, emergency and other services to ensure the health, safety and well-being of all residents and neighborhoods.
• Provide five minute fire and emergency response time to all neighborhoods
• Have efficient and highly trained staff
• Ensure that public safety services are understood and valued by the community
• Provide adequate oversight for law enforcement services
• Provide programming and services youth, seniors and other targeted groups
ORGANIZATIONAL STRENGTH:
Assure that city organization is maintained and organized in such a way to provide efficient and effective service and to enable successful completion of other city goals and objectives.
• Develop an adequate succession planning system
• Enact a system of evaluation and review of staff to address completion of Council priorities
• Provide a structure and policies to allow for smooth communication for staff, the City Manager and the City Council.
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT:
Actively seek the input and feedback from the community. At the same time, strive to provide complete, transparent, and valuable information to citizens.
• Provide up-to-date public information in numerous media formats.
• Request community input.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I hope the Bell residents can overturn the huge pensions of these crooks. If not the city still comes out a big loser. Just another example of government out of control.
Sorry, that post was meant for another story.
[i]DOWNTOWN DAVIS:
• Further enhance the downtown to allow for more arts and entertainment, [b]adequate parking[/b], housing and commercial activity …
• Advance the redevelopment of the downtown to provide mixed use residential, retail and service along with [i]significant addition to parking[/i]. (Objective 04-06)[/i]
I would add one more thing which is missing from your list for the downtown:
• Provide direct bus service to the downtown from all parts of Davis.
I am not against more parking in the downtown. I hope we can someday finance the construction of a new, multi-story parking garage between E & F and 3rd & 4th Streets. But since we are spending about $5 million a year on Unitrans — waaaaay more than UC Davis spends on the bus service, by the way — I think it needs to be modified so that when someone wants to go to a movie or go out for dinner or go to a bookstore and get a coffee, he can hop on the bus on Lake Boulevard or Grande Avenue or Alhambra Drive and that bus will take him directly to the heart of downtown. Also, for employees who now park their cars all day in downtown, they will have another option, especially on days when due to the weather bicycling is not a good option.
Direct bus service to the downtown would serve a number of other goals: it brings more people into the core; it reduces demand for parking; and for some older residents and others who don’t drive it gives them a good choice for getting downtown.
It is true that Unitrans was started in order to give UCD employees and students a non-car option to get to and from the campus. However, it eventually became the city’s bus system. And the city is picking up almost all of the funding for Unitrans (by way of the city’s federal and state public transit pass-through money). Therefore, it makes no sense that almost all of its routes* are still designed for that original purpose of travel to and from the campus.
*The exceptions are the routes used to take kids to Davis High and Harper Junior High. There is also a perimeter route (P/Q), but even that has UCD as its hub.
dmg: “Look no further than the infrastructure goals. Certainly there are successes here, but I really cannot get past the fact that the city on a very basic level, is not meeting the needs of its citizens and that basic level if road repair. I am not discounting the surface water and water water projects’ importance, but again without very aggressive tactics, the citizens would be staring down half a billion of new costs and as it is they are facing a doubling of their water rates.”
Doubling? Hah! Your water and sewer rates both will no less than double, will probably triple, and may quadruple…
By the way … I don’t know if this is news to anyone, but Yolo Federal Credit Union has submitted its plans for its building at the northwest corner of 5th and G Streets, where the Hoffmann service station (Union 76 gas) was for many years.
At the last meeting of the HRMC, I saw their plans. I think the building looks quite nice and will be an attractive addition to the downtown.
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/TEyBNnrNb5I/AAAAAAAAAbQ/8RHFt_d8XrM/s1600/YCFU.bmp[/img]
Some members of the HRMC did not like the part described as the wedding cake feature. The architect and project planner seemed willing to accomodate their concerns by lowering it by one layer. I personally thought the design was nice.
See a better picture of the image here: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/TEyBNnrNb5I/AAAAAAAAAbQ/8RHFt_d8XrM/s1600/YCFU.bmp
David,
When we got to objectives, the priority item that I submitted under fiscal stability was addressing the unfunded liabilities.
Rich,
What do you mean wedding-cake feature? The nice little articulation at the top of the right-hand building?
Yes, Sue, that’s what people called it when it came before the HRMC.
I personally had no problem with it. However, those who did thought it was too high (48 feet) and because it will be sheethed in a flat metal (a dull silver color) they thought it did not fit with the design guidelines (for that part of Old North transitional) which discourage such finishes.
Our commission was unanimous in voting that the YFCU building did not cause any harm to the nearby historic home on F Street, which was our first charge.
We did not formally vote on how well the project met the design guidelines. However, as a commission, we were asked to give input before the project goes to the Planning Commission.
Regarding the flag, it sounded to me like the Credit Union is considering removing it from their building. If they have one, it will be the U.S. flag. I don’t know why other designs (such as their logo) caused a problem. (That was discussed, but it was out of the HRMC’s purview.)
One more note on our last HRMC meeting: Stephen Souza attended. He is our new liaison. It was excellent having him. He mostly just listened, but he was helpful a number of times. That was the first time in my 5 or 6 years on the HRMC that a member of the council sat through one of our regular meetings (not counting the few joint meetings we’ve had with the DCC).
Rich,
How much height did the articulation add?
Sue,
I think it adds 12 feet. This is from the staff report: [quote]The proposed overall building height would be approximately 36 feet to the top of the roofline; with an east facing building element at the entrance proposed at a height of 48 feet.[/quote] The space under the “cake layers” would be open. It is not usable space or attic space. The rest of the roof will have a parapet and they hope to install photovoltaic solar panels at some point. Also, the entire project is being built to LEED standards.
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/TE0DQCZfQoI/AAAAAAAAAbY/ufmjzuyccJ4/s1600/YFCU.bmp[/img]
One thing about that extra 12 feet. It is on the corner across from the much taller USDA building and the generally taller Roe Bldg. As such, the articulation is partly intended as a way of stepping down from the taller nearby buildings to the rest of the YFCU bldg.
Mr. Rifkin, I was wondering where you got your numbers that the City of Davis is spending ~ $5 million per year on the Unitrans bus service, because if that’s the case, Unitrans sure isn’t seeing the money.
According to their budget documents for FY 2009-10 (available here: http://asucd.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/192bgt-Unitrans.xls ), Unitrans received $1.3 million in funds fromt he city of davis, which are labeled as federal passthrough dollars (which I presume that Unitrans would not have been eligible for as it is not a municipality). Additionally, this is around $900,000 smaller than the almost $2.2 million in income labeled “Transit Fee”, which is taken directly out of the pockets of all UC Davis undergrads.
I look forward to seeing the source of your numbers, as mine heartily disagree and I’ve witnessed you make the $5 million claim numerous times without challenge.
Many Thanks,
Max Mikalonis
rich rifkin: “One thing about that extra 12 feet. It is on the corner across from the much taller USDA building and the generally taller Roe Bldg. As such, the articulation is partly intended as a way of stepping down from the taller nearby buildings to the rest of the YFCU bldg.”
I think the articulation makes the bldg look much nicer, and will make it fit in better w the surrounding blgs.
My pet peeve w the city of Davis is the awful architecture at times, that is not cohesive, is color blind, and is downright ugly. Personally, that awful orange and gray bldg on Russell in downtown offends me every time I look at it. I am well aware some people like it. However, it is a psuedo deco-art type of architecture next to denim blue “beach shack” next door. We have some pretty bldgs, but sandwiched in between some awful ones, with a mishmash of architecture and color. Don’t even get me started on the colors for the strip mall that contains the Dollar Tree…
IMHO, Woodland has actually done a much better job of keeping the architecture and colors more cohesive – just my opinion.
I got them from the City of Davis last year, when I submitted a public records request to the City Clerk. Here are the dollar amounts Davis has given to Unitrans since 2004: [quote][b] 2009 – $5,514,381.00 [/b]
2008 – $4,051,796.50
2007 – $1,255,450.10
2006 – $2,880,475.00
2005 – $2,313,172.70
2004 – $4,344,418.20 [/quote]
[i]”Mr. Rifkin, I was wondering where you got your numbers that the City of Davis is spending ~ $5 million per year on the Unitrans bus service”[/i]
Max, I got them from the City of Davis last year, when I submitted a public records request to the City Clerk. Here are the dollar amounts Davis has given to Unitrans since 2004: [quote] [b] 2009 – $5,514,381.00 [/b]
2008 – $4,051,796.50
2007 – $1,255,450.10
2006 – $2,880,475.00
2005 – $2,313,172.70
2004 – $4,344,418.20 [/quote]
[i]” Personally, that awful orange and gray bldg on Russell in downtown offends me every time I look at it. I am well aware some people like it.”[/i]
The Roe Building? I like it a lot. The problem is that most of the buildings around it stink.
[i]”it is a psuedo deco-art type of architecture next to denim blue “beach shack” next door.”[/i]
That blue building is truly awful. It’s cheap, 1970s dreck, wrapped in ugly T1-11 plywood.
Across G is that horrifically bad USDA garbage architecture. Across 5th was the remnants of Hoffmann’s service station, but that will become the YFCU building, which compliments the Roe Bldg.
A nice “addition” nearby is what Aziz, the owner of Village Pizza, did to the house at 403 G Street. But sadly, in between the Roe Bldg and Village Pizza is a chain Taco Bell, an ugly building which houses Valley Wine and an even uglier, flat-roofed building next to Village Pizza.