This will be my fifth January covering local government in Davis and Yolo County. One thing I have learned for certain during that time is that you never know what issue will come up. However, already there are huge issues looming on the horizon in Davis that could help to determine the future.
Depending on how things shake out, January may be one of the biggest non-election months we have had in recent memory.
However, more immediately, he creates two immensely important duties for the City Council to accomplish. The first will be to name a new mayor. We have discussed this issue a lot, most recently earlier this week, and barring the unexpected, Joe Krovoza appears poised to become the next Mayor of Davis.
It is not completely clear when that will happen, as the item is not agendized for the next meeting on January 4. The bigger question may be who ends up Mayor Pro Tem. With Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald poised to run for reelection in a year and a half in 2012, and the council perhaps not wanting to pick favorites in that fight, it seems possible that Rochelle Swanson could end up Mayor Pro Tem and never become Mayor.
The bigger question is, of course, who will fill Don Saylor’s seat on the city council. Again we have discussed this issue at length. The council has decided to go with an appointment process, imperfect as it is. They need to find three votes to support a candidate and they pretty much have to do it by the end of February, because that is the deadline to have a June election , which otherwise would be costly and cause additional problems.
From the staff report, it does not appear much will be decided at January 4th’s meeting, but they will approve a timeline, a process, an application and a public input form. All of these are key questions that we will cover more thoroughly, closer to Tuesday’s meeting.
The likely answer is that no one could be chosen before we get into February, which means that some of the tougher issues that abound will have to be address by a four-member city council.
And this becomes interesting, as we will now see for the first time whether a Joe Krovoza-Rochelle Swanson centrist bloc can assert itself as the power center on the council. We will also see how Stephen Souza responds without his coalition partners of Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson.
The next week, on January 11, the council will tackle or at least discuss the vexing issue of the proposed railroad fence. Again, this is a much-covered issue, most recently by the Vanguard on December 15.
Last night’s Davis Enterprise touched on the subject, reporting that railroad representatives are expected to attend the meeting on the 11th. It is a tricky issue for the city, as the city lacks direct authority and as Sue Greenwald told the Enterprise, Union Pacific believes it has “a right to do this on their property.”
Neighborhood residents are concerned that a wall would cut off Olive Drive residents from the rest of Davis – because diverting them west to the Richards underpass would greatly increase the travel distances, as would diverting them east to the freeway offramp on the eastern end of Olive Drive.
Some have questioned whether the fence would even increase safety, as most of the fatalities would not have been avoided with a fence and a fence may induce some to act in a more irresponsible manner.
Obviously a fence is inevitable, and the real question is whether there can be some sort of pedestrian crossing. Such a crossing would be expensive and require approval from multiple jurisdictions.
As I said, this is tricky for the city, as they have no clear authority over a situation occurring in the very heart of the downtown.
Meanwhile, the biggest issue facing us is our ongoing budget situation, particularly with regards to retirement pensions and health benefits. The city has racked up millions in unfunded promises to employees. On January 18, the council will have a workshop and discussion on pensions and unfunded liabilities.
Part of the problem is trying to find things that the council can do to fix these problems, when they have just approved new employee contracts that have only very modestly addressed the issues.
We have discussed at great length the challenges facing the city here, most recently last week in an article that laid out the new larger than expected PERS hit.
We now know what the numbers are, but Interim City Manager Paul Navazio stressed that the city is still working out what the impact of these rate hikes will be on the city’s budget. That information should be ready to roll on January 18, when the council has their study session on pensions and the city’s unfunded liability, which is soaring with this latest report.
As we discussed, the two-tiered approach, that likely the city will at least look into, will do little to solve the problem.
Many unions have moved to concede to a two-tiered system. That offers their current membership several advantages. First, it offers a concession at the table when they are under pressure to do so. Second, it does not impact current membership. And third, while it does disadvantage future members, the unions understand that they have twenty to thirty years to get the benefits back for their members. All it takes is one negotiation during good times by the right legislative body and they get their full benefits back.
From the city’s perspective, a two-tiered approach does little to solve the problem. The city would get no short-term savings. There would be savings, but it would occur over the next twenty to thirty years, which is not when the city needs the help.
The city, in the meantime, is going to have to seriously look at its budget priorities. Moving to multiyear budgeting is a good start, but just part of the issue. Thus far, the city has balanced short-term deficits through attrition, they have allowed employees to transfer or retire and then not filled those positions.
That achieves a goal of not laying off current employees, but from an organizational standpoint it is not a good approach. The city needs to figure out how the organization will look and it then needs to re-organize on that basis.
In short, we need to decide what services are the priority and which ones we might have to do without.
Finally, the issue of West Village is coming to a head. Don Saylor’s move to the County Board of Supervisors poses an interesting dilemma, because he has been the most ardent opponent against annexation.
At this point, the university is neutral on the issue. The council has several key proponents, including Sue Greenwald and Joe Krovoza, who currently sit on the subcommittee charged with having talks with the county.
The county is reluctant to allow annexation because they are looking at ways to create revenue. It is not clear that West Village would give the county revenue, but from a lot of standpoints it simply does not make sense for this to remain University-controlled, which would require that the university has to contract or provide for vital services and expand its police to patrol neighborhoods, something that its officers lack training in.
We can get into the rationale for annexation, and from my standpoint it makes little sense to have 5000 people on the edge of Davis who are not Davis residents. And that only includes the first phase of build-out.
From a political standpoint this is a negotiation between the city and county. The dynamics are that both Davis Supervisors would have to support annexation in order to reasonably get three votes. It seems unlikely that Matt Rexroad or Mike McGowan would support annexation over the objections of Don Saylor.
Thus, Don Saylor becomes the critical Supervisor on this issue. Given his animosity to the prospects of annexation, it might be an uphill battle. The city needs to be able to find a way to make the county whole without putting its own financial position at risk.
In the meantime, it would behoove the city and university to work towards a consolidation agreement of the police departments, along the lines of the fire departments. This is an issue that has not been discussed nearly enough.
While the annexation deal will not be acted upon in January, it seems likely that critical groundwork has to occur in January, given timelines and the realistic notion that a decision one way or the other should be arrived at this spring.
This is of course the tip of the iceberg, but it will be interesting to see the dynamics of a four-vote council for at least a month.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]We can get into the rationale for annexation, and from my standpoint it makes little sense to have 5000 people on the edge of Davis who are not Davis residents. [/quote]What is the population of El Macero? Old Willowbank? Royal Oak mobile home park? Binning Tract? North Davis Meadows? Why different for West Village? Simple answer is demographics of likely voters… more liberal/”progressive” (they will demand city GF services, but as the University will own the land, there will be no GF property taxes accruing to the City, as I understand it… that IMHO is that (voter demographics) is the TRUE RATIONALE for those on the CC who promote this… things haven’t changed from ~ 1974 (and perhaps earlier) when it was proposed that the City annex the dorms, many of which were clustered next to Russell Boulevard.
You are talking about a few hundred people at most in the subdivisions versus at least 5000 in the first phase.
“(they will demand city GF services, but as the University will own the land, there will be no GF property taxes accruing to the City, as I understand it… that IMHO is that (voter demographics) is the TRUE RATIONALE for those on the CC who promote this”
That’s certainly a portion of it, there will be city service impacts without property tax, although the annexation would be a net loss for the city while it would be a somewhat bigger loss in revenue for UC Davis.
dmg: “That’s certainly a portion of it, there will be city service impacts without property tax, although the annexation would be a net loss for the city while it would be a somewhat bigger loss in revenue for UC Davis.”
The city of Davis cannot afford a net loss, or any obligation to provide services elsewhere when it cannot even provide the services it is currently obligated to. I’m sympathetic to the reasons for annexation, but practically speaking, if the city were to lose money bc of annexation, it should scrap the idea…
The city may lose less from the annexation than they would from not annexing depending on revenue sharing agreements. There are some pretty complicated factors going on here.
May I propose a wager? When the 2010 census tract information becomes available, when we total the residents of the areas I cited, if they are equal or greater to 5,000, you owe me an apology and lunch… if not, I will apologize and treat you… two possible venues for lunch… Redrum Burger or that place at the corner of Fourth & G (La Mariachi?). David… in, or out?
[i]”… that place at the corner of Fourth & G (La Mariachi?).”[/i]
[u]El[/u] Mariachi.
From Wikipedia: [quote]The term “Mariachi” is said to be an adaptation of the French word for marriage or wedding “mariage” as this type of musical formation used to play at such events. This traces from the XIX century during the reign of Maximilian I of Mexico (Archduke Maximilian of Austria) and the influence of Napoleon II over Spain.
The mariachi ensemble generally consists of violins, trumpets, a classical guitar, a vihuela (a high-pitched, five-string guitar), a guitarrón (a large acoustic bass) and, on occasion, a harp or two.
[/quote]
That’s why I used the “?” Rich…
I don’t think the residents of El Macero, Old Willowbank, or Binning Tract have any desire to be part of the City of Davis.
On the West Village fiscal issue: Currently, West Village is in the county, and ALL of the property taxes go to the county, but the subdivision itself will pay for all of its municipal services, so it is essentially a cash cow for the county. (With subdivisions within the city , the property tax is split between the city, to provide for municipal services and the county).
If West Village is annexed by the City and pays for some of its own services (as it does anyway), it is fiscally neutral for the city (or at least as fiscally neutral as any subdivision that we call fiscally neutral).
There is one important factor, however. If West Village stays with a county, the state keeps the approximately $240 a year in vehicle license fee dollars, and this money is lost to the region. If West Village is annexed to the city, the city receives this additional revenue.
The city could then either keep the revenue, pass it through to the county so that the county could continue to use West Village as a cash cow even though they are providing no municipal services for West Village, or the money could be rebated to the residents of West Village in the form of paying for some of their services (these could be provided by either the city or the University, or a combination of both).
So, the fiscal issues can be worked out the same way they were when Aggie Village was annexed by the city.
The only real question is that, since the University is building West Village regardless, so we want faculty, staff and students to be Davis citizens.
In my view, citizenship matters. If you live in the State of Washington adjacent to the Canadian border, you are still a U.S. citizen and not a Canadian citizen, and this identification makes a big difference to most people. It’s just the way human beings are constituted.
Meant to say:
“The only real question is that, since the University is building West Village regardless, do we want faculty, staff and students to be Davis citizens”?
Citizenship matters.
[quote]we will now see for the first time whether a Joe Krovoza-Rochelle Swanson centrist bloc can assert itself as the power center on the council–David Greenwald[/quote]I hate it when people throw around the term “centrist”. What does it mean? If you use the term, you should at least give it a specific definition.
Labelling people as “centrist” implies that others are either “extremists”, “leftists” or “rightists”. This is nonsense, especially when it comes to city politics.
Such labeling is divisive and wedge-driving.
Sue has a good point here. Is being in favor of fiscal responsibility an extremist position? Is (Sue) agreeing with 75% of voters on issues of peripheral development a fringe position?
Meredith Whitney predicts that 2011 will be the year of municipal defaults (e,g, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8J56Y_WBdE).
Happy New Year from the Doc.
I don’t think the residents of El Macero, Old Willowbank, or Binning Tract have any desire to be part of the City of Davis.
Do the folks in the Royal Oaks mobile home park have any desire to be within Davis city limits?
For my edification, where is the Binning Tract?
[i]”For my edification, where is the Binning Tract?”[/i]
South of the Davis Muni Golf Course, Sharon and Barry Roads.
“Sue has a good point here. Is being in favor of fiscal responsibility an extremist position?”
Sue used the term extremist not me. I used the term centrist and a proximate position between that of Sue of Stephen. They may be with Sue on fiscal issues for all we know. But on growth issues they are likely less pro-growth than Stephen and less-growth than Sue which puts them in the middle. There is nothing wrong with Sue’s position on growth, I agree with most of it. I agree with most of her position on fiscal issues as well. She’s reading into a statement what was not intended. Ben Nelson is a centrist democrat, that does not mean I think Charlie Schumer is an extremist.
[quote]we will now see for the first time whether a Joe Krovoza-Rochelle Swanson centrist bloc can assert itself as the power center on the council–David Greenwald[/quote]implies far more than saying that Joe and Rochelle lie somewhere between Stephen and Sue on the issues of growth.
I don’t think we even know whether Stephen is more “pro-growth” than Joe and Rochelle, and we don’t know if Joe and Rochelle are more similar to each other than they are to either myself or Stephen.
Again, it almost seems as if you are encouraging factionalism.
Davis has not responded to my wager… it is herewith withdrawn…
My bet: Nothing happens and West Village is built, maintained, and serviced by the University.