by Matt Williams
As we discussed yesterday, the 2002 Davis Open Space Acquisition and Management Plan (the A&M Plan), which built on the 1989 Davis Greenway Plan, identified four types of open space categories for spending Measure O funds:
Accomplishments To Date
Including the efforts from the years before Measure O, Davis has protected, directly or through partnerships, over 4,900 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat and farmland. Since Measure O’s passage in 2000, 2,513 of those 4,900 acres have been protected at a cost of $4,566,000 but none of the parcels (shown in green in the graphic above) fall into the Urban Fringe category.
So the dream of controlling our Urban Fringe, the open space lands that help define the urban limits of Davis and provide an adequate buffer between urban and rural land uses is still only a dream. The graphic below does a good job of illustrating that Urban Fringe. The blue areas on the right side of the graphic are the FEMA 100-year flood plain.
Is There Something Special About Now?
The driver that got me started on this initiative had two key components . The first was the Bayer/AgraQuest announcement that they were going to move their company and its 250 jobs from Davis to West Sacramento. The second was a biproduct of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan discussions I was participating in about the Yolo Rail Relocation. What became very clear to me was that there were four Davis companies that were facing the same business decision that Bayer/AgraQuest had just completed. They needed additional space to accommodate the successful growth of their businesses . . . and that like Bayer/AgraQuest they were finding it impossible to find space that would accommodate their needs. When I put that reality together with Davis’ current Municipal Budget deficit, I saw a future that was dominated by additional tax increases as the budget deficit got progressively worse because hundreds of jobs and hundreds of Davis residents were removed from the Davis economy when the companies (one-by-one) moved away from Davis.
What I saw was a crisis that was going to put the Davis Ag Farmland Preservation “community” into a Ground Hog Day scenario of challenges where jobs preservation was going to be pitted against farmland preservation . . . and that if we continued to approach these individual repeating challenges in the reactive, silo-mentality fashion that Davis does because it doesn’t have a current General Plan, then everyone would be the losers, and we would all be paying higher taxes for diminishing services. Bottom-line, the overall quality of life would decline in Davis.
So on August 9th I reached out to Pam Nieberg to see if the Ag Farmland Conservation community should take proactive steps to avoid getting caught with our pants around our ankles. Pam agreed that we would be better off thinking proactively rather than reactively, and I went home to transform our discussion of concepts into something that would facilitate future conversations
On August 14th Pam and I met again to review the first version of the Urban Fringe graphic. When we were done with that second meeting we both believed that there was the possibility that the threats to jobs in Davis could be the catalyst that allowed us to transform the dream of an urban boundary around the City into a reality.
Why did that possibility exist now any more now than it had in the past? Public-Private Partnerships.
If you look at the first sentence from the UCD news release from yesterday’s article , “It takes a village to save a farm. Two cities, a county, a land trust, a university, the state of California and the federal government have joined forces to preserve agricultural land. […] Said UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. “We are delighted to facilitate the preservation of this land in partnership with our neighbors.”
What Chancellor Vanderhoef’s partnership doesn’t include are participants from the private sector. Our crisis brings those private sector participants to the table. Avoiding the disruption of moving by keeping their companies in Davis is valuable . . . otherwise they wouldn’t be trying to find a way to stay here. They also realize that that value doesn’t come for free. As a result the effort to keep jobs here will not only avoid tax increases and reductions of services, it can also provide a source of funding for addressing the Urban Fringe component of the A&M Plan.
As part of my meeting with Pam she suggested that I meet with Greg House. My meeting with Greg and his son Henry House, both of whom were spirited public commenters at the June 11th Council meeting, went well . . . they didn’t say “No! This is a bad idea.” What they did say was that I should meet with Marc Hoshovsky and look to get a discussion of this vision for permanently conserving the Urban Fringe added to the Open Space and Habitat Commission’s next meeting. My meeting with Marc also went well in that he too didn’t say “No! This is a bad idea.” He asked me to contact Mitch Sears, who is the keeper of the keys when it comes to the OS&H Commission’s agenda. Mitch asked me to come to public comment at the September 9th OS&H meeting and present my idea. Again, no one said “No! This is a bad idea.” NOTE: my public comment presentation to OS&H specifically excluded any scenario that included a revisiting of the Mace 391 easement.
A project of this magnitude has lots of moving parts and as a result there are quite a few possible scenarios. Some of those scenarios put the City of Davis in the position where the private sector’s desire for a place to put jobs is great enough that leveraging a portion of the 391 acres does indeed forge a public-private partnership that makes some sense in the scenarios where that is a component, but it isn’t the only way to accomplish the end.
The issue is transforming a long standing Davis dream into reality . . . and in the process making the fiscal health of the municipal budget significantly better.
Who have I talked to in this process? In addition to Pam, Greg, Henry, Marc, Mitch and the OS&H Commission, I’ve met with Ken Wagstaff, Dick Livingston, Bob Schneider, Alan Pryor, Eileen Samitz, Steve Souza, Michele Clark, Dean Kwasny and Michael Bilancione, from NRCS, Robb Davis, Sheila Allen, Mark West, Jeff Boone, Ron Glick, to name just a few. Jim Provenza and I reviewed it and he told me that I could feel free to say publicly that “as a private citizen interested in ag farmland preservation, I am interested.” From the City I have met with Mike Webb to both keep him informed and review the concept, as well as with Rob White to validate that the jobs crisis truly exists. It has been presented at Council and I’ve discussed it on-on-one with both Brett and Lucas.
Can We Have Our Cake and Eat it Too?
One way to look at this effort is to focus on “Yes” rather than “No” with all the core constituencies getting positive answers to their individual “What’s In It For Me” questions.
- The Farmland Preservation portion of the Davis community would see the dream of a conserved agricultural border transformed into reality, with upwards of 3,000 acres of prime ag land on the Urban Fringe conserved.
- The Riparian Habitat portion of the Davis community would see two riparian corridors rehabilitated.
- The Fish Spawning Habitat portion of the Davis community would see the efforts to restore salmon spawning habitat in the Putah Creek complex enhanced and expanded.
- The economic vitality community in Davis would see upwards of 950 acres of Innovation Park identified that would put Davis in a position to be proactive about keeping good companies in Davis rather than losing them to other cities/states.
- The Ag Technology Research community spinning out of UCD would see well over 1,000 acres of permanently conserved ag land made available for field research adjacent to the Innovation Parks (as in the current Harris Moran model on south Mace and the Bayer/AgraQuest model just committed to in West Sacramento).
- The taxpayers in Davis would see additional revenues generated by the increase in economic vitality that comes with retained/added jobs that match the UCD/Davis core competencies profile. As a result further tax increases should be forestalled.
- Thousands of individual Davis residents would see their homes that are currently in the FEMA floodplains removed from the risk of flooding, saving them whatever annual FEMA flood insurance premiums they are paying.
I’m sure there are other perspectives that those seven bullet points above don’t capture, and I’m equally sure that as the open, transparent community dialogue continues, those perspectives will step up and be heard. The objective is a well-informed community dialogue. We owe that to ourselves.
Matt, what exactly are you proposing??
Matt, have you or anyone else made an attempt at roughing out a budget? I know that’s a big task and that will necessarily involve a lot of assumptions that might be hard to reality-check — especially given the probable timeline of the project — but my initial question is where the $2M to cover the Mace 391 grant giveback would come from.
[quote]Matt, what exactly are you proposing??[/quote]
Matt is proposing that Mace 391 and parts of the Northwest Quadrant (red cross-hatched areas) be annexed and developed to provide funds for purchase of conservation easements on other properties (yellow areas).
Don describes one scenario, the one where the greatest number of Urban Fringe acres immediately adjacent to the Davis city limit are permanently conserved.
Another scenario could leave Mace 391 wholly conserved and unannexed. In that scenario, because the public-private partnership is much more limited and generates much less value, the number of the Urban Fringe acres permanently conserved will be much lower.
SODA said . . .
[i]”Matt, what exactly are you proposing??”[/i]
SODA, more than anything I am proposing a community dialogue about what we want our near term future to be.
In past threads Don has very accurately described farmland and open space preservation as key principles of both the City and County General Plans. We should be talking about how we accomplish that goal instead of only dreaming about it. We should also be talking about how we balance our municipal budget and avoid burdening ourselves with more and more taxes that deliver fewer and fewer services.
We have an opportunity to proactively deal with the crises we face and the goals we treasure . . . but only if we openly and transparently talk about them as a community.
If that dialogue comes to a general consensus, then I would expect that a citizen initiative to update the General Plan might be a logical next step. The signature gathering process to get it on the ballot could serve as education and outreach to those Davis citizens whose personal lives have been too busy to know about the dialogue that had already been taking place.
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”Matt, have you or anyone else made an attempt at roughing out a budget? I know that’s a big task and that will necessarily involve a lot of assumptions that might be hard to reality-check — especially given the probable timeline of the project — but my initial question is where the $2M to cover the Mace 391 grant giveback would come from.”[/i]
I am working on that Jim. I really didn’t want to put the cart before the horse. The first step was to see whether the people I was reaching out to would say [i]”No! This is a bad idea.”[/i] If they did, then putting the hard work into coming up with a budget would have been wasted effort.
The other thing is that I have been doing this as a “citizen planner.” At a meeting yesterday someone referred to me as a squeaky wheel. The reason I made public comments to Council at both of their last two Council meetings is that a budget is going to need a whole lot more participation than one squeaky citizen trying to ask a bunch of tough questions.
[quote]be annexed and developed to provide funds for purchase of conservation easements on other properties[/quote]
This money thing is what I have a hard time grappling with, and if this proposal is to get any traction with the public, the money thing has to be spelled out so folks like me can understand it.
It seems to me that the three major birds this stone is hoping to kill are:
1. Generating enough capital to pay off the budget hangover from the last 10 years.
2. Bringing the city’s sustainable revenues up to match long-term expenses.
3. Generating enough capital to buy conservation easements on the urban ring parcels.
I can understand how opening up certain lands for commercial development could provide some or all of items 1 and 3. Private-sector entities will gladly hand over dollars in exchange for the opportunity to make even more dollars by developing the right parcels. Whether they’ll be willing to hand over enough is an open question.
Item 2 is the one I have the hardest time understanding, because there’s so much that goes into the mix. The tax increment on the real property — the commercial developments themselves — wouldn’t seem to be anywhere near large enough to make up for all the cuts to services that we’ve sustained, and with more cuts likely to come. The tax on personal property is one for which I’m not able to even guess magnitude, so I’d like to see some projections for that. Things like the added sales tax intake resulting from having more high-paid jobs in town are also nebulous in my mind, but I’m guessing that’s not going to be huge.
Any thoughts on who’s going to put these numbers together, and when we might see them? It seems like a gargantuan task. Is it even reasonable to think that solving this puzzle before the March deadline for the Mace 391 grant is possible? This would appear to be a bird-in-the-hand situation.
Jim, I don’t understand your first bird. can you elaborate?
Your second and third birds are spot on.
Bird 1 is the unfunded retirement obligation. It hasn’t come due yet, but it’s looming out there.
Matt –
How does your plan alleviate the need for flood insurance for those home homes currently in the flood plain?
Thanks for that clarification Jim. That is a huge enough elephant that it has a life of its own. However, I do think you are right, there could be some progress on it simply by improving the overall economic throughput of the local economy.
Adam, part of what could be done on the west side of Davis would be to create some flood water conveyance infrastructure that intercepts the sheet flooding that puts those houses in the Flood Plain. The flood water conveyance would chanel the water south along Pedrick Road to South Putah Creek. It wouldn’t be cheap infrastructure, but it would be effective infrastructure.
[quote]The flood water conveyance would chanel the water south along Pedrick Road to South Putah Creek. It [/quote]
“Pedrick Road”? Please, Matt, that’s so Solano County! “Road 98,” please.
First, before I post, let me say that any info I provide may seem incomplete and possibly avoiding the directness of questions above… that is purposeful. As a city employee, I am not the policymaker: that is our five elected officials. I am the implementer of their policy decisions through direction by the city manager. I do provide them with input and data for recommendations, but they make the decisions. So anything written below is meant to be in that context.
I wanted to get that out of the way, because it seems I am often quoted and sometimes out of context these quotes can appear to be something different than what they are. Just the hazards of the written word.
Jim – to provide some answer your questions about financial sustainability… The city council and city manager is VERY mindful of what the shortfalls are and are working diligently to identify ways to create a sustainable model. This takes time because it was avoided during the early warning signs and like any household budget with increasing costs and declining revenues, it can’t be fixed with any single solution. It also takes a thorough understanding of where things are out of balance, and this can take time to see the trends so that the cause is addressed and not just the symptoms.
In that framework, the city leadership are very cognizant of the competing needs for resources and do their daily best to balance these within the inputs and outputs made available.
Should an innovation park be approved at some future date by the city council and then the voters (because it will likely be on lands that require a Measure R vote), the city leadership are already working out shared revenue models that may be applied to capture several different lines of funding, both one-time and on-going.
To expand on that, we have the following traditional means of revenue for the city (the rates and subtleties to the tax calcs is complicated, so I am simplifying some of the parts):
•Property tax – changes to the land valuation will result in a property tax increase and will allow the city to capture a percentage (about 20 to 25%) of every dollar of property tax. The property tax rate in California is about 1% of total assessed value (though it is higher in many cities due to additional bonds and assessments for schools, levees, etc.). As a simple example, a $50 million commercial/research building can generate $500,000 in property tax, and Davis would get 20-25% of that (or about $125,000). One note: Commercial property is treated slightly differently that residential in that its assessed valuation is dependent on improvements AND leased space. And empty commercial building is therefore worth less than a full one if it stays empty for long.
•Unsecured property tax – this tax is on major equipment, like in manufacturing. As an example, many current day manufacturers use equipment that can range in the $100s of millions, and we get the same property tax rate on that equipment (though it gets devalued yearly as part of the usage). The good news is that equipment technology is changing so rapidly that many manufacturers upgrade frequently.
•Sales tax – equipment and retail goods purchased by commercial users gets charged sales tax and we currently get 1.5% on each $1 of sales in Davis. The extra 0.5% is due to the city measure that assessed the extra on each taxable sales and goes directly to the city (but ends in the near future, unless reenacted by a follow-on measure). Additionally, sales that are recorded in other locations by Davis residents (like cars, some things on Amazon, etc.) means that of the 1.5%, the 1% portion records to the other jurisdiction, but the 0.5% still comes to Davis.
•Fees – Most construction and renovation in the city has a set of fees associated with the activity. These fees are meant primarily to pay for the cost of delivering the service, so they are meant to create a net zero financial burden on the city for staff time. However, part of our fee structure contains some impact fees that go to current and future impacts created by the project. Again, I am way oversimplifying, but you get the idea.
•Trade-offs as part of a development agreement – these are typically negotiated on large projects and include things like traffic and bike-way improvements. They are part of the current development environment across California (and nationally) and are based on a negotiation of what makes the project acceptable to the community. These are a fine balancing act for a city as you want to ask for as much in a development agreement as you can to ensure that a project truly enhances the community, but asking for too much can cause the developers to give-up and walkaway (think Lewis Homes and the previous Cannery proposal – after spending $10 million in pre-development costs, they decided it was too much costs balanced against the requirements). We are having these discussions with the current Cannery development applicant, and there is a team of two Council members, the city manager, and city leadership working on what is the right balance of asks to make the project a truly Davis project and valuable to the community, while balancing the point at which the developer no longer believes the project in their best interest.
In the framework of a new innovation park (regardless of size or location), several tools can also be used to create additional funding sources:
•Mitigation – most areas identified in the work of the Innovation Park Task Force and adopted by Council in November 2012 include areas that are currently outside the city boundary. In order for any of this acreage to be used for an innovation park, it would require two things: a vote of the community to support annexation, and an entitlement process that would identify what and how the development could occur. Part of that process also includes the designation of at least 2 acres of conserved land for every 1 acre of developed land. Conserved land is typically qualified as that that is open space, habitat or agricultural. The city currently owns some lands that would be appropriate to have easements placed as part of that mitigation requirement and the city could get paid for that action or even barter in trade. This has many details that would need to be worked out on where, how, when, but it is a revenue potential.
•Equity partner – since the city has some lands that may be used for mitigation, etc., we could require any new development proposal include the city as a type of equity partner to garner upside potentials from development. As the land gets more valuable from entitlement and development, we garner some part of that increased equity. This type of transaction would need to be extremely well understood, as it does include some risks and it needs to follow federal and state laws. But there are examples of cities doing this in places like Redwood City and Mountain View.
•Leasehold – the city could possibly retain the rights to some lands it owns in fee title that would be used for development and become part of the equity stakeholders through a leasehold arrangement. This would be long term leasing, but would potentially create annual and long-term revenue streams. As any development does well, we get more upside, so our interest become aligned. We could also potentially mitigate risks because under at least one scenario, we could just lease the land and not participate in the development costs. Our share is smaller, but we mitigate our risks.
•Development agreement – my early post about revenue sources highlighted that there are usually other requirements financially for the approval of a development. These are typically infrastructure and are tied to the nexus of the projects impacts on a community. But one area that city leadership are exploring is could we have an annual charge on a square footage basis for development in an innovation park? As a VERY rough example – if commercial and research space in a new innovation park is being leased at $1.50/square foot per month, could we add a 10% assessment that is revenue to the city for the opportunity to build? In this example, 1 million square feet of leased space would generate $150,000 monthly, or $1.8 million annually. Some have opined that there is enough demand in the tech world that as much as 5 to 8 million square feet could be realized over the next 15 to 20 years. To run this out a little further, that could be $9 to $14.4 million annually at full buildout and would be a percentage of the lease amount, so it would grow as values grow. And the typical commercial/research park has a lifespan of about 40 to 60 years (depending on construction). Such an assessment could legitimately generate about $360 million (low end) to over $864 million (very high end) in city revenue over the lifetime of the project. But before anyone runs out and spends this money, this type of assessment is very tricky from a land use consideration because it likely needs to be done under a development agreement and again needs to meet the federal and state legal requirements.
•Construction/Tenant improvements – Something that is often overlooked in the revenue discussions is the construction, tenant improvement and then refurbishment of existing spaces over time. The materials used in this activity often come with a sales tax component. And there is state precedence that we can require most of the sales tax to record in Davis as the end user, regardless of where the materials are purchased. And no matter what, we will collect 0.5% sales tax when it is taxed at the Davis rate. Again, this is a complex situation, but it is revenue and on something of this scale, we are talking millions of dollars over the life of a project.
I hope this helps. I apologize for the generalizations, but I hope its enough to help answer the questions.
Again, there are a lot of “ifs”, “ands” and “buts” and all of my comments are meant to be read as COULD, not should or is. The potential for any development of an innovation park is significant, and we have the demonstrated demand from local companies and those that would like to move to Davis. All of my examples are just that, examples, and they may mot reflect the actual situation at any future time if an innovation park is determined to be right for the community.
As we go forward, the city council, city manager, and community will continue to dialogue about what is best for the city of Davis. There are no easy answers and no slam dunk proposals. We will most certainly be discussing some of this is the reconstituted Innovation Park Task Force, which is planned to start meeting again in mid-October. We are finalizing dates and times now and I will let you know when that info is complete.
Thanks for the discussion. Please let me know if you have questions.
As you look at land to put together into an urban boundary and greenbelt via conservation easements, purchases, and zoning restrictions, one part of the process would be setting priorities based on the conservation value of that land. It’s not just a numbers game (total acreage) or lines on a map; the land conserved has varying value in each category, greater or lesser degrees of vulnerability, and so on.
In some cases we have actual tools for this. The LESA analysis of soil, for example, gives a numerical rating of ag land that is more detailed than the soil maps and ‘prime ag land’ designations. There has been a LESA analysis done on the Shriners parcel, for example. I can almost guarantee, by starting with the soil maps, that the Mace 391 parcel will probably have a higher LESA score than any of the parcels outlined in yellow.
Unless you have literally unlimited financial resources, any conservation proposal would include the process of setting priorities by identifying which soils are best and most vulnerable, and by using similar measures for wildlife habitat, open space, and the other lands that are being considered. The sites would be ranked, matched against the likelihood of landowners cooperating, and then an orderly process would be put in place for committing financial and staff resources. Other agencies would be cooperating, so their input as to the qualities of the sites would be sought.
A conservation plan that begins by trading off the most valuable, highest-priority ag conservation site in exchange for a large number of acres of other sites needs to show that those have equal or greater need for conservation. This is not a cost-benefit basis, it is a land- and site-quality analysis.
If you use just a strict dollars-generated cost-benefit, you also won’t consider the intangible values that many residents seek. In the 1980’s the voters of Davis were given an option of developing retail on the Arden-Mayfair lot next to Central Park, or expanding Central Park. By a lopsided margin, the voters chose the park expansion. An analyst could tell you how much revenue that site would have generated in sales tax revenue over the last 25 years, but the voters chose the intangible values associated with open space, community gathering site, and trees and lawn. I doubt Davis voters would revisit that choice and come to any different conclusion, regardless of the budget situation.
My opinion is that the Mace 391 site is the most vulnerable, the best soil, and hence the highest priority for conservation – as the city has begun the process of doing. I am very concerned that Matt’s proposal has been put forward with the clear intent of annexing and developing Mace 391 for the revenues it could generate. Linking business development to conservation of soil and habitat and open space tends to lead to a devaluation of those intangibles.
I was just asked offline what the typical costs of commercial and research space is to develop and how that translates to the numbers I used in the above examples.
Let me step back one point further and say that our General Plan and business park guidance documents (including backup to the Innovation Park Task Force recommendations) describe that a business park would need to be a floor area ratio (FAR) of as much as 0.5 – that means for every square foot of land, one half needs to be building. I suspect we will truly want something greater if we want to envision a “park of the future”, but let’s do that math for the sake of discussion.
If we have 200 acres of business park, at 43,560 square feet per acre, that means we can build a maximum of 4,356,000 square feet of buildings under our current planning documents. The rest is open space, streets, parking lots, etc. And if you build two stories or higher, then you have more room for open space, etc. But I suspect to be meaningful to the current investment community, we would want to increase the FAR to .75 or even 1 to allow for 3 and 4 stories and better infrastructure. But that is another discussion, so let’s stick with 4.356 million sq feet.
At the average cost of construction for commercial of $150 per square foot, that means we have a business park (at its maximum buildout) that would be worth about $653 million. If you use a higher buildout rate for research space, LEED buildings, energy efficiency, better quality finishes, etc, of $250 per square foot, that number grows to about $1.089 Billion. If you truly create something unusual and innovative (like the Torrey Pines Mesa in San Diego or Mission Bay in SF), that number can easily reach $1.5 to $2 Billion.
To break costs down for your own amusement, here are typical Sacramento costs to initially construct based on building types:
* Commercial – $150 and up/ square foot (nicer finishes, energy efficiency, etc. means it will costs more to initially construct)
* Warehouse – $50/ square foot
* Research dry lab – $200 and up/square foot
* Research wet lab – $250 and up (usually $350 and greater)/square foot
* Retail – $150 and up/square foot
* Retail with kitchen – $200 and up/square foot
These numbers are ONLY guides and are dependent on location, vendors, type of construction, quality and finishes, architectural details, amount of infrastructure, height (need for elevators, etc.), and the list goes on. But it will help you with big round numbers in determining your own calculations.
Others may have more refined info based on recent construction, but since we haven’t built very much commercial in Davis recently, these numbers are probably up for debate and likely represent the floor, not the high side.
Rob, do you have access to rough numbers for the incremental cost to a city for additional business park space, e.g. costs of fire service, police protection, street and utility maintenance?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”As you look at land to put together into an urban boundary and greenbelt via conservation easements, purchases, and zoning restrictions, one part of the process would be setting priorities based on the conservation value of that land. It’s not just a numbers game (total acreage) or lines on a map; the land conserved has varying value in each category, greater or lesser degrees of vulnerability, and so on.
In some cases we have actual tools for this. The LESA analysis of soil, for example, gives a numerical rating of ag land that is more detailed than the soil maps and ‘prime ag land’ designations. There has been a LESA analysis done on the Shriners parcel, for example. [b]I can almost guarantee, by starting with the soil maps, that the Mace 391 parcel will probably have a higher LESA score than any of the parcels outlined in yellow.[/b]”[/i]
Don, regarding your bolded words above, without any specific LESA knowledge about the Shriners site or the lower 236 acre parcel in the Mace 391 complex, I’m willing to bet you a draft beer at Davis Beer Shoppe that Shriners has the higher LESA Score of those two parcels. Are you willing to bet?
The reason I’m willing to make that WAG bet is as follows. The LESA Score is comprised of multiple factors that are grouped into factor categories, specifically LAND EVALUATION (LE) and SITE ASSESSMENT (SA). Thus the name (LE)(SA).
Here is an example of how one computes a LESA Score.
Factor Name ______ Factor Weight
Land Evaluation ___ 0.50
Site Evaluation ____ 0.50
Land Evaluation is broken down into three subfactors
Subfactor Name _______________ Subfactor Weight
Land capability classification ___ 0.30
Soil productivity________________ 0.20
Site Evaluation is broken down into six subfactors
Subfactor Name _______________ Subfactor Weight
SA-1 Agricultural Use
Acreage of farm _______________ 0.15
Farm investment ______________ 0.05
Surrounding uses _____________ 0.10
SA-2 Development Pressure
Protection by plan or zoning __ 0.06
Distance to sewer _____________ 0.05
SA-3 Other Factors
Scenic quality ________________ 0.09
The Land Capability Classification (LCC) for both the sites is quite good. Overall Shriners has more Class I soils, but I expect the LCC Subfactor scores to be close. Shriners has a smidgen of Class IV soils at the top of the parcel (Merritt complex, saline-alkali) and The Mace 391 Lower Parcel has a smidgen of Class IV soils at the bottom of the parcel (Willows clay, alkali, drained). The rest of the Mace 391 Lower Parcel is Capay silty clay (Class II) at the top, Willows clay and Marvin silty clay loam (both Class II) in the middle, and Sycamore complex, drained (Class I) at the bottom The rest of Shriners is Yolo silt loam and Sycamore complex, drained (both Class I) at the top, Sycamore silt clay loam, drained and Sycamore complex, drained (both Class I) in the middle and Sycamore silt loam, drained (Class I) and Reiff gravelly loam (Class II) at the bottom.
Shriners has been productively farmed every year since I arrived in Davis in 1998. The Mace 391 Lower Parcel hasn’t been as consistently farmed in part due to the transition in ownership from Northwest Arkansas Bank to the City. But again, I expect the Soil Productivity Subfactor scores to be close.
One site is 234 acres and the other is 236 acres. Call that a tie.
The Level of on-farm investment is very similar on the two sites.
The Surrounding Uses scores are probably pretty similar with Covell and I-80 playing substantial roles in making each parcel lower scoring.
The Protection By Plan or Zoning is where Shriners will get a big advantage in LESA scoring over the Mace 391 Lower Parcel. The fee title ownership by the City of Davis provides considerably more protection and as such a lower LESA score.
The Distance to Sewer is another subfactor where Shriners will get a big advantage in LESA scoring over the Mace 391 Lower Parcel. There is no sewer on the Mace 391 site, while Shriners has a sewer trunk line on its southern border, which will qualify it for a higher LESA score.
Scenic Quality is probably a push, although the number of people who look out over Shriners is orders of magnitude greater, and as such the scenic quality of Shriners is much more frequently appreciated.
So, given the above, are you willing to bet that draft beer?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”A conservation plan that begins by trading off [b]the most valuable, highest-priority ag conservation site[/b] in exchange for a large number of acres of other sites needs to show that those have equal or greater need for conservation. This is not a cost-benefit basis, it is a land- and site-quality analysis.”[/i]
Don, regarding your bolded words above, what is it that makes the Mace 391 Lower Parcel qualify for that designation. Why is it more valuable that the two parcels above Waldorf School off Sycamore Lane? Why is it more valuable than the two parcels above Waldorf School off Sycamore Lane? Why is it more valuable than Oeste Ranch off Covell between Lake Blvd. and Road 98? Why is it more valuable than Shriners?
I agree with you that this is not a cost-benefit basis, it is a land- and site-quality analysis. Which of the yellow sites do you think are deficient with respect to land-quality or site-quality?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”If you use just a strict dollars-generated cost-benefit, you also won’t consider the intangible values that many residents seek. In the 1980’s the voters of Davis were given an option of developing retail on the Arden-Mayfair lot next to Central Park, or expanding Central Park. By a lopsided margin, the voters chose the park expansion. An analyst could tell you how much revenue that site would have generated in sales tax revenue over the last 25 years, but the voters chose the intangible values associated with open space, community gathering site, and trees and lawn. I doubt Davis voters would revisit that choice and come to any different conclusion, regardless of the budget situation.”[/i]
Again we agree 100%. What are the intangible values that the Lower Parcel of Mace 391 has that each of the yellow parcels don’t have? All of those parcels are defined by the 2002 Davis Open Space Acquisition and Management Plan (A&M Plan) as Urban Fringe. Some of the yellow sites are even more “Fringy” than the Lower Parcel of mace 391 because they abut the City Limit, while it does not.
The Lower Parcel of Mace 391 addresses three of the A&M Plan categories (Urban Fringe, Agriculture, and Scenic Resources) Some of the yellow parcels address four of the A&M Plan categories (Urban Fringe, Agriculture, Biological and Natural Resources, and Scenic Resources) because they contain Riparian corridors and habitat.
Nowhere in either Measure O or the A&M Plan is “a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush” stated as a criteria, but that appears to be one of the criteria you are weighting most heavily. Am I right?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”My opinion is that the Mace 391 site is the most vulnerable, the best soil, and hence the highest priority for conservation – as the city has begun the process of doing. I am very concerned that Matt’s proposal has been put forward with the clear intent of annexing and developing Mace 391 for the revenues it could generate. Linking business development to conservation of soil and habitat and open space tends to lead to a devaluation of those intangibles.”[/i]
I respect your opinion Don, but respectfully disagree. How is the Lower Parcel of mace 391 any more vulnerable than any of the other yellow parcels? My soils analysis above based on NRCS soil maps appears to show that the Lower Parcel of Mace 391 is predominantly Class II soils, while at least one yellow site is predominantly Class I soils.
The issue is not development. This is about a balance of 1) our community’s fiscal health, 2) the tax burden Davis residents may face in coming years, 3) an arresting of the deterioration of community services and 4) realization of the Measure O dream of a permanently conserved Urban Boundary around Davis.
[quote]what is it that makes the Mace 391 Lower Parcel qualify for that designation.[/quote]
[quote]Why is it more valuable than….[/quote]
[quote]I agree with you that this is not a cost-benefit basis, it is a land- and site-quality analysis.[/quote]
[quote] Which of the yellow sites do you think are deficient with respect to land-quality or site-quality?[/quote]
Sorry, Matt, but I’m not going to play this game with you.
My statement that you bolded is my opinion regarding the Mace 391. Yes, I believe Mace 391 would probably have the higher LESA score. And probably higher than all of the other sites as well. No, I don’t wish to bet about it. Such an analysis should be done by professionals. I believe that your clear intention that Mace 391 should be developed and leveraged for these other purposes probably is a significant detriment to any progress on your plan. I believe you had good reason for this:
[quote]my public comment presentation to OS&H specifically excluded any scenario that included a revisiting of the Mace 391 easement.[/quote]
I believe that this will be an interesting plan to discuss after the easement is in place on Mace 391.
[quote]The issue is not development. [/quote]
It absolutely [b]is [/b]development.
Let’s get real. Shriners and Covell are obviously the most vulnerable to development of all the peripheral lands north of Covell and east of Mace.
Mace 391 doesn’t even register – except in the context of combining it with the two parcels along Mace to form a large technology park. At this point, the only reason to consider putting a conservation easement on Mace 391 is to block a tech park at that site and force economic development to the west.
Mace 391 is, at the moment, permanently protected because the City owns it (just like Howatt Ranch). In my opinion, the main issue is whether or not the City should trade 234 acres of this land for Shriners in order to permanently protect one of the two most vulnerable sites on the periphery.
[quote]The issue is not development.[/quote]
I don’t believe development can be removed from the equation as a practical matter. There is a strong desire among Davis citizens to limit development because of its unwanted effects on quality of life. (Some would call this “fear of change,” but I don’t think that accurately captures the sentiment.) Historically this desire hasn’t been affected much by promises (often not realized) of an improved city revenue position resulting from development projects, so trying to characterize the discussion as only about money and open space conservation isn’t going to work, in my opinion.
Philosophically, the proposal will be approached from a “why” rather than a “why not” perspective, and Measure J/R ensures the same from the de jure side. The matter is further complicated by the bird-in-the-hand $2M NRCS grant, which now has a very short fuse, and that’s fundamentally an issue of conservation versus development.
It’s a $1M NRCS grant ($1.125M to be exact).
In my opinion, the City could get more than $1.125M to put Shriners into conservation. Shriners has both ag and wildlife value (and is not sitting beside a busy interstate freeway), plus land values are up.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”My statement that you bolded is my opinion regarding the Mace 391. Yes, I believe Mace 391 would probably have the higher LESA score. And probably higher than all of the other sites as well. No, I don’t wish to bet about it. Such an analysis should be done by professionals.” [/i]
Of course it should be done by professionals Don. To the best of my knowledge NRCS has the LESA Score already calculated and recorded for every one of the parcels that surround Davis. If the Federal Government isn’t still shut down on Monday, NRCS in Woodland will be open and I will call Phil Hogan and get all the scores so we can compare them. The information I shared was my opinion as well. I’ve been known to be wrong in the past and I will be wrong again some time in the future. As I said in my comment sharing the underlying LESA information, [i]”the reason I’m willing to make that WAG bet is as follows.[/i]” I’m pretty sure you know what WAG means.
[i]”I believe that your clear intention that Mace 391 should be developed and leveraged for these other purposes probably is a significant detriment to any progress on your plan. I believe you had good reason for this.”[/i]
You are right I do have reasons why I think there should be a community dialogue. I’ve stated them before. (1) We have a significant municipal budget deficit and it is going to get worse. (2) We have $50 million of deferred maintenance on the City’s streets that we do not have the money to pay for. (3) If we can believe Tyler Schilling’s public comment on Tuesday we are at grave risk of losing his company and its 300 employees in the near future. (4) That loss will make the budget deficit even worse. (5) There are at least three other companies like Schilling Robotics that have outgrown their current space and are facing the same dilemma as Schilling is. That probably means 200-300 more jobs that are on a trajectory to be lost. (6) Those losses will make the budget deficit even worse. and (7) if Doby Fleeman of Ace Hardware’s Tuesday public comment can be believed , the loss of Bayer/AgraQuest has already resulted in decreased sales at Davis Ace . . . a problem that will only get worse when and if Schiiling and/or the other companies follow Bayer/AgraQuest out of town.
You seem to be ignoring or minimizing the fiscal crisis we are in the midst of.
I have no idea what you mean by [i]” I believe you had good reason for this.”[/i] Would you care to explain?
[quote]You seem to be ignoring or minimizing the fiscal crisis we are in the midst of. [/quote]
No, those problems are just as readily addressed by developing in the Northwest Quadrant as they are by developing on Mace 391. You and others seem to imply that they can only be resolved by annexing Mace 391 and building a business park there. There is another site available for a business park, as identified by the Innovation Task Force. So those issues, as compelling as they are, are not uniquely solved by this component of your proposal.
[quote]I have no idea what you mean by ” I believe you had good reason for this.” Would you care to explain? [/quote]
You said you specifically excluded it from your presentation to the Open Space commission. Why did you deliberately do that?
The votes are already coming in:
Mace – Schilling Robotics, Marrone Bio Innovations, Engage3, Davis Ace, Nugget
NW Quadrant – Redwood Barn
And because we can’t get our act together:
Left town – Bayer Crop Science
Dropped Davis from their short list – Genentech and reportedly a host of others
[quote]Mace – Schilling Robotics, Marrone Bio Innovations, Engage3, Davis Ace, Nugget [/quote]
Do you believe those companies would not locate at a business park on Northwest Quadrant?
By the way, this has nothing to do with my business.
Jim Frame: “[i]There is a strong desire among Davis citizens to limit development because of its unwanted effects on quality of life.[/i]”
I believe this is a fair statement if the focus of the discussion is the development of more houses. I don’t believe there is any evidence to support this notion however if the goal is economic development. As we can see from Rob White’s posts, the potential economic benefit to the City of bringing more business to town is huge, with the potential for significantly improving our quality of life through better services and eventually being able to rebuild our failing infrastructure. We honestly have not had that discussion yet, and I am baffled why some posters here are so intent on preventing it from taking place.
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”I don’t believe development can be removed from the equation as a practical matter.”[/i]
Fair enough Jim, but it is really a down the line derivative in the equation rather than a driver. All of the seven points I included in my reply to Don above this one are the drivers. Further, development is only a reasonable option if it positively and constructively moves us toward meaningful answers to our fiscal problems. That is why your three questions at the beginning of this thread were so spot on. Any solution that doesn’t reduce and then eliminate the budget deficit is a non-starter, I know my limitations. I don’t have the knowledge to be able to answer those questions with meaningful answers. I defer to others who know more than me to answer them.
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”There is a strong desire among Davis citizens to limit development because of its unwanted effects on quality of life.”[/i]
I agree, and your statement is one of the core reasons that I say that this is not about development . . . it is about jobs and the revenue generation that comes with jobs. The problem is that a substantial portion of Davis’ citizens see the words “development” and “housing” as synonyms. I’m actually one of those people a good portion of the time . . . and I would argue that adding housing that is going to service jobs that are outside the boundaries of Davis and UCD will indeed have unwanted effects on quality of life.
Do you see the words “development” and “jobs” as synonyms?
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”Historically this desire hasn’t been affected much by promises (often not realized) of an improved city revenue position resulting from development projects, so trying to characterize the discussion as only about money and open space conservation isn’t going to work, in my opinion.”[/i]
I hear you, but when has Davis ever paid any serious attention to improving city revenue? I can’t remember any time since I arrived here in 1998. Mori Seki is probably the one exception. Further, we have been very transparently open as a community about the fact that housing almost always creates more incremental expenses than incremental revenue. Finance Manager Paul Navasio testified before the Housing Element Steering Committee about how unless a new single-family house is selling for over $450,000 it generates more services costs than it creates revenue. $180,000 to $200,000 for a unit in a multi-family residence.
I would argue that the unrealized promises that people feel burned by are all associated with housing.
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]Philosophically, the proposal will be approached from a “why” rather than a “why not” perspective, and Measure J/R ensures the same from the de jure side. The matter is further complicated by the bird-in-the-hand $2M NRCS grant, which now has a very short fuse, and that’s fundamentally an issue of conservation versus development.[/i]
Again fair enough. However, there is one correction and one addition that need to be noted. The correction is with respect to the NRCS Grant, which is $1.125M not $2M. The addition is that in order to use the Mace 391 site as contemplated by members of the OS&H Commission and the City as a “Community Farm” there will need to be some investments made in the site from the General Fund. Those investments will be transportation (a bus stop and bike lanes to the site so the community farmers can get there), public safety (lights and sanitary facilities for the community farmers when they are there), water (both potable and non-potable), sewer. Rough estimates of the costs of those General Fund investments are just over $1 million. In talking with one of the proponents the other day, he said that there would also need to be a bicycle underpass or overpass from the Junior High School side of Mace to the Community Farm side of Mace. That would add an additional $2-3 million of infrastructure costs.
So the bird in the hand doesn’t come without strings.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”You said you specifically excluded it from your presentation to the Open Space commission. Why did you deliberately do that?”[/i]
You misunderstood me (or I wasn’t clear). I didn’t exclude it from my presentation. What I did was publicly acknowledge to the OS&H Commissioners that the broader plan has multiple scenarios and all of them have merit. I stated to them that I was not there to attempt to overturn the Mace 391 easement but rather to begin a dialogue about how to make progress on achieving measure O goals. Neither Mitch Sears nor Michele Clark (with whom I had had very clear conversations about the easement over the preceding seven days) either corrected or amended my public comments. It was an open, transparent and complete communication. You seem to be implying that I lied to the Commission. Is that what you are implying?
Matt: [quote]NOTE: my public comment presentation to OS&H specifically excluded any scenario that included a revisiting of the Mace 391 easement.[/quote]
Matt: [quote]You misunderstood me (or I wasn’t clear). I didn’t exclude it from my presentation.[/quote]
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”There is another site available for a business park, as identified by the Innovation Task Force. So those issues, as compelling as they are, are not uniquely solved by this component of your proposal.”[/i]
Don, you have made similar statements in various forms in prior threads. If I understand your point correctly you appear to be saying that it is a superior approach to deal with each of the four Innovation Task Force recommended areas in a sequential manner, with very little or no overlap between the timelines of the four. That means that there will be three separate and distinct annexation decisions and three general plan updates , with all the attendant time and expenses associated with each. Why do you think that is a superior approach to dealing with the issues in a single holistic way, with a single annexation decision and a single general plan update?
Further, if you do approach this in the sequential manner you appear to be proposing, how will you resolve incompatibilities of potential tenants? For example a company like Harris Moran that creates lots of dust in their operations would pose significant problems for engineered manufacturing companies like Mori Seiki and Schilling Robotics and Aduro Laser . . . all of which leverage the core competencies of UC Davis programs, and therefore would appear to be logical companies to target for retention here in Davis.
Don Shor: “[i]No, those problems are just as readily addressed by developing in the Northwest Quadrant as they are by developing on Mace 391.[/i]”
And when Mace 391 is tied up by an easement the Northwest Quadrant becomes our only available option for economic development, raising the value of that property and dramatically reducing the City’s ability to negotiate the best deal.
Mace 391 is owned by the City, the Northwest Quadrant is not. Consequently, developing Mace 391 will bring a great deal more money to the City’s coffers than will a project at the other site, with the City in control of what happens at the site. Mace 391 is the preferred site for development as stated by the very people in position to utilize the space. Most importantly however, is that keeping both parcels as options allows us the flexibility to choose between competing projects, selecting the one that has the most positive impact for the community.
Even if we choose not to develop either parcel anytime in the next 20 years, we are still better off keeping both as potential sites for economic growth in the future. There simply is no good reason to go forward with the conservation easement at this time. The property is fully protected from being developed outside of our control by the simple fact that we own it. We are in complete control of that parcel’s future, and for the potential economic benefit it can bring to the City.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Matt: NOTE: my public comment presentation to OS&H specifically excluded any scenario that included a revisiting of the Mace 391 easement.
Matt: You misunderstood me (or I wasn’t clear). I didn’t exclude it from my presentation.”[/i]
As I said, I wasn’t clear. I acknowledged the Easement and the easement process and told them I was excluding it form my presentation . . . and then I presented the graphic with the Easement marked as green not yellow.
Again, you appear to be implying that I lied to them. Is that your intention?
One other thing Don. You have consistently approached this from the perspective of a presupposed outcome. Why is it that you have so little confidence in the objectivity of a public process that wrestles with all the issues central to our current fiscal crisis and how it affects our decisions about the numbers and kinds of jobs we give consideration to for Davis?
Your presupposed outcome is that the Mace 391 easement decision is vacated. Why is that the only outcome you are giving any consideration to?
[quote]And when Mace 391 is tied up by an easement the Northwest Quadrant becomes our only available option for economic development[/quote]
On the contrary, the truly plum site isn’t part of Mace 391 at all. The 180 acres in contiguous parcels owned by Bruner and Ramos site are right on Mace Boulevard at Road 32A. These aren’t subject to conservation easements and would be a logical place for a business park if one is to be built. Together they comprise land consistent with the hypothetical 200-acre park that Rob White put forth for discussion.
Re: the NRCS grant, you’re all correct that I attributed the overall estimated value of the easement with the grant amount. $1.25M it is.
And a note to all: I’m not unalterably opposed to reviewing the status of Mace 391, but I’m going to have to be convinced that we should turn away a million bucks in “free” money. I should also note that securing Mace 391 as the de facto urban limit line on the east side of town has considerable value to me.
Don Shor: “[i]My opinion is that the Mace 391 site is the most vulnerable, the best soil, and hence the highest priority for conservation[/i]”
This may well be your opinion, but your conclusion really isn’t supported by the data. If farm land valuation was your area of expertise, then your opinion by itself may well be an important component of the conversation. Since it is not…
We need to be talking about long term solutions to our economic problems and that conversation should include how we might leverage all of our available assets. It is clear from Rob White’s posts, that the Mace 391 is an asset with huge potential value to the City, and Matt has shown how we can leverage that one parcel in a way that protects a couple of thousand acres of high quality farm land while at the same time improving the financial health of the City.
Why would we not want to have that conversation before making a permanent decision?
[quote]If I understand your point correctly you appear to be saying that it is a superior approach to deal with each of the four Innovation Task Force recommended areas in a sequential manner, with very little or no overlap between the timelines of the four. That means that there will be three separate and distinct annexation decisions and three general plan updates , with all the attendant time and expenses associated with each. Why do you think that is a superior approach to dealing with the issues in a single holistic way, with a single annexation decision and a single general plan update? [/quote]
Infill and Nishi first, annexation second. Planning for annexation can occur at any time, and probably should proceed now. General Plan update at any time, preferably soon (at least parts of it), and I see no reason that there would have to be “three general plan updates.”
I can’t see how you would do “a single annexation decision” involving multiple parcels.
[quote]As I said, I wasn’t clear. I acknowledged the Easement and the easement process and told them I was excluding it form my presentation . . . and then I presented the graphic with the Easement marked as green not yellow.
Again, you appear to be implying that I lied to them. Is that your intention?[/quote]
No. You weren’t clear. If I meant you were lying, I would have said that.
Mark: [quote]And when Mace 391 is tied up by an easement the Northwest Quadrant becomes our only available option for economic development, raising the value of that property and dramatically reducing the City’s ability to negotiate the best deal. [/quote]
Once Mace 391 is off the table, the value of the NW Quadrant will certainly go up, hopefully to the point that the owner will want to proceed with developing it. I have reasonable confidence that city staff can negotiate the best deal for the city.
Matt: [quote]Why is it that you have so little confidence in the objectivity of a public process that wrestles with all the issues central to our current fiscal crisis and how it affects our decisions about the numbers and kinds of jobs we give consideration to for Davis? [/quote]
Hm. What’s missing from this question? Oh, yeah: discussion of conservation. The very thing this thread is about: and urban boundary and conserving ag land, wildlife habitat, and open space. Maybe that’s why I have so little confidence in the objectivity of that public process.
I’ll say this again: nearly every other possible use of ag land is of greater financial value than farming it. That’s the problem. It’s those other intangibles I was talking about earlier.
As to jobs. UCD will be adding 300 faculty positions and 300+ staff jobs in the next 6 – 7 years. Nishi will generate some jobs (50? 150? Let’s say 100). Infill projects might produce another 50 – 100. Developing a business park in the NW Quadrant would produce a few hundred more. All of this [i]without Mace 391[/i] could lead to something like 1000 jobs for Davis and, based on Rob’s numbers above, millions and millions of dollars in revenues.
How many jobs do we need? How much revenue is necessary to obtain the easements that you are proposing? And where are all those people going to live?
Jim Frame: “[i]The 180 acres in contiguous parcels owned by Bruner and Ramos site are right on Mace Boulevard at Road 32A. These aren’t subject to conservation easements and would be a logical place for a business park if one is to be built. Together they comprise land consistent with the hypothetical 200-acre park that Rob White put forth for discussion.[/i]”
Yes, but most of the successful business parks that I am familiar with are more in line with a 400+ acre size, which is possible on the Mace 391 and Northwest Quadrant sites, but not the one you mentioned.
“[i]but I’m going to have to be convinced that we should turn away a million bucks in “free” money.[/i]”
We will lose $2-4 million dollars on the real estate transaction if we go forward with the easement, whether or not we take the 1.2 million in ‘free’ money you think is so important. Rob W. has shown that we have a potential gain in excess of a billion dollars if we develop the property instead.
$1.2 million and > $1 billion is not a trivial difference.
[quote] Rob W. has shown that we have a potential gain in excess of a billion dollars if we develop the property instead. [/quote]
Potential = bird in bush. Standing in the way of that bush is a Measure J/R vote, an unpredictable number of years until development and buildout, the inherent uncertainty of actually filling the park with high-value tenants, and losing certainty (or reasonable facsimile thereof) as to the easterly urban limit line. Many, many ifs versus a sure thing.
I’m still listening, but listening critically.
P.S. How many millions do we need to stabilize the budget? At what point do we say, “Okay, that’s enough, no need to add more capacity.” I think that question should be rolled up along with the others in considering this project.
[quote]Again, no one said “No! This is a bad idea.”[/quote]
I probably should inject here, since I’ve been discussing just one part of this proposal, that I also would not say “No! This is a bad idea.”
I don’t agree that we have a jobs crisis, and I don’t agree with the proposal for one particular parcel. But I certainly support developing an urban limit line and greenbelt.
Ok guys, I have a completely innocent question. When the proposal to put in a Target and associated pads was made, had anyone considered this as a potential site for an industrial park ? And if not, why not given its close proximity to the freeway ? Not enough land ? Inappropriately zoned ? If we have so very much need for an industrial park, why did we choose a Target when there were already nine of these within a 30 minute drive of some portion of town ?
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”On the contrary, the truly plum site isn’t part of Mace 391 at all. The 180 acres in contiguous parcels owned by Bruner and Ramos site are right on Mace Boulevard at Road 32A. These aren’t subject to conservation easements and would be a logical place for a business park if one is to be built. Together they comprise land consistent with the hypothetical 200-acre park that Rob White put forth for discussion.”[/i]
As always, good discussion Jim. Some thoughts based on your post. If we were talking about usage of the land for retail I would agree with you that the Ramos/Bruner 186 acres is the “plum,” but we aren’t talking about retail, so I’m not sure that Mace Boulevard road frontage makes for a better site for a technology innovation company. We have a couple of very visible examples that argue that point . . . specifically the first Mori Seki building, which did not capitalize on 2nd Street frontage, but rather chose to be set back from 2nd Street. Similarly West-Yost Associates chose not to be out on the Richards Blvd. frontage of the Interland complex, but rather tucked back inside, as did Blue Oak Energy, AgraQuest, and now Marrone Bio Innovations.
One of the numerous scenarios in my scenario analysis includes only the 186 acres of the Ramos-Brunner property in Innovation Park East. In that scenario (and its variants) the public-private partnership is much more modest and the funds available to accomplish the reality of a conserved Measure O Urban Fringe are very constrained. The result is that many of the yellow parcels flip back to white.
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”Re: the NRCS grant, you’re all correct that I attributed the overall estimated value of the easement with the grant amount. $1.25M it is.
And a note to all: I’m not unalterably opposed to reviewing the status of Mace 391, but I’m going to have to be convinced that we should turn away a million bucks in “free” money. I should also note that securing Mace 391 as the de facto urban limit line on the east side of town has considerable value to me.”[/i]
Again, fair enough Jim.
Regarding the “free” money let’s step through a simple accounting theoretical. Lets say that you are offered $1,000 of “free” replacement insulation for your house. You contact your contractor and he gives you a quote of $1,000 for the installation of the insulation. When you are all done what is the relative fiscal status of your checking account?
With respect to the City’s General Fund, the NRCS grant is very similar. The eased land is “free,” but in order to use the eased land for the Community Farms purpose that OS&H Commission members (most notably Greg House) foresee, approximately $1 million of “installation” costs must be incurred and paid for by the City’s General Fund. When we are all done what is the relative fiscal status of the General Fund’s checking account?
The big difference between the two illustrations above is that the “free” eased land also produces a $1.125 million replenishment of the Measure O funds balance. Of course if Henry House is correct and there needs to be a bicycle underpass or overpass from the Junior High School to the Community Farm on the eased land, then the $1 million of “installation” costs coming from the General Fund probably jumps to over $3 million.
In closing I have one question for you to ponder. Which is most and least preferable as a de facto urban limit, (1) Mace Boulevard just to the west of the Ramos/Brunner property, or (2) 2,600 feet east of Mace at the west boundary of the Lower Parcel of Mace 391, or 5,200 feet east of Mace at the east boundary of the Lower Parcel of Mace 391? Feel free to share your thoughts about the relative merits of thsoe three options.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Hm. What’s missing from this question? Oh, yeah: discussion of conservation. The very thing this thread is about: an urban boundary and conserving ag land, wildlife habitat, and open space. Maybe that’s why I have so little confidence in the objectivity of that public process.
I’ll say this again: nearly every other possible use of ag land is of greater financial value than farming it. That’s the problem. It’s those other intangibles I was talking about earlier.”[/i]
No Don the discussion of conservation [u]is not missing from the question[/u]. [u]The whole thrust of the article[/u] has been about achieving the Measure O goals and putting upwards of 3,000 acres of Davis’ Urban fringe into permanent Ag Conservation Easement. Are you being purposely obtuse? The whole discussion today has ben about how do you afford to accomplish that goal . . . the Urban Fringe, not your obtuseness.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”I’ll say this again: nearly every other possible use of ag land is of greater financial value than farming it. That’s the problem.”[/i]
And I will say it again, there are no other possible uses being contemplated for the yellow parcels other than farming them. None. No other possible uses. None.
Your imagination is running away with you.
[quote]Ok guys, I have a completely innocent question. When the proposal to put in a Target and associated pads was made, had anyone considered this as a potential site for an industrial park ? And if not, why not given its close proximity to the freeway ? Not enough land ? Inappropriately zoned ? If we have so very much need for an industrial park, why did we choose a Target when there were already nine of these within a 30 minute drive of some portion of town ?[/quote]
It was zoned office/light industrial, but I think the whole of Second Street Crossing (the shopping center that includes Target and the four pads associated with it, and all the parking) is only 25 acres or so.
[quote]And I will say it again, there are no other possible uses being contemplated for the yellow parcels other than farming them. None. No other possible uses. None.
Your imagination is running away with you.[/quote]
And, of course, I was talking about the red-hatched parcels, Matt. The one called Mace 391 in particular.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”As to jobs. UCD will be adding 300 faculty positions and 300+ staff jobs in the next 6 – 7 years.”[/i]
And because those jobs are outside the City, not a penny of revenue will accrue to the City associated with the provision of those jobs.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Developing a business park in the NW Quadrant would produce a few hundred more. […] And where are all those people going to live?”[/i]
Drilling down into that statement a bit. If [u]all the workers[/u] chose to reside in Davis, and they couldn’t find even one single existing home or apartment to live in, then for the NW Quadrant we would need a few hundred new homes, and if you hypothetically had both Innovation Park West focused on Ag Tech companies leveraging UCD’s ag research core competencies, and Innovation Park East focused on companies like Mori Seiki and Schilling Robotics that leveraged UCD Professor Kazuo Yamazaki’s superb Engineering and Materials core competencies then at the most you would have two times “a few hundred” new jobs needing an equal number of new homes.
The reality is though that if you only enabled one Innovation Park you would have no choice other than to mix the Ag Tech companies and the Engineering and materials companies together, and whenever the seed research efforts result in the plowing of the field trial fields then the Mori Seikis and Shilling Robotics engineering and materials companies would be facing serious quality control problems. The possibility of those problems would probably be enough to cause one or more of the engineering and materials companies to choose to go elsewhere.
Finally, if you kept the two parks focused on their separate themes the build-out rate really wouldn’t double, and the need for the “few hundred” new houses wouldn’t double. Any increment, if there was any, would be the companies that chose to go elsewhere because of the heterogeneous focus of the one Innovation Park in Davis.
You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
[quote]”Matt: NOTE: my public comment presentation to OS&H specifically excluded any scenario that included a revisiting of the Mace 391 easement.
Matt: You misunderstood me (or I wasn’t clear). I didn’t exclude it from my presentation.”
As I said, I wasn’t clear. I acknowledged the Easement and the easement process and told them I was excluding it form my presentation . . . and then I presented the graphic with the Easement marked as green not yellow.[/quote]
I had to stare at the map for a long time, plus read through much of these comments, before I understood what the proposal was. So I am curious — how long was your public comment to the OS&H commission? Do you think they understood that you were proposing (as your preferred alternative, albeit not the only alternative) swapping the Mace 391 for other properties in yellow? Especially given that you said that you were not there to talk about the Mace 391?
On a totally different point — are these lands in yellow available, i.e., are the owners interested in selling? Wouldn’t we need to determine that before we bought into your plan?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”And, of course, I was talking about the red-hatched parcels, Matt. The one called Mace 391 in particular.”[/i]
Stop and listen to yourself. The red hatched areas are where the money [u]is coming from not where the money is going to[/u]. The yellow areas is where the money is going to. The red hatched areas of Innovation Park East already own their mitigation land. They don’t need to come up with any additional in order to fund the realization of Davis’ measure O Urban Fringe dream.
Matt: so if I understood your answer correctly you are saying 1000 new jobs would not create a significant new demand for housing.
As to your odd hypothetical about ag tech and engineering companies in the same park, your description is a bit far-fetched:
[quote]whenever the seed research efforts result in the plowing of the field trial fields then the Mori Seikis and Shilling Robotics engineering and materials companies would be facing serious quality control problems[/quote]
And as noted on a prior thread: ag tech firms can locate in the county on ag land for their field trials. It’s zoned for that, and it would be a very inefficient use of land in a business park.
[quote]are these lands in yellow available, i.e., are the owners interested in selling? Wouldn’t we need to determine that before we bought into your plan?[/quote]
The one thing that is nearly certain if the plan goes forward as Matt proposes, and the conservation easement in cancelled, is that we would get a business park on Mace 391. Nearly everything else is hypothetical, with varying degrees of probability. That’s part of the ‘bird in the hand’ issue.
[quote]Stop and listen to yourself.[/quote]
I give up. You’re not understanding what I’m saying at all. It’s been an interesting discussion. I hope to revisit it in April 2014.
Jim Frame: “[i]How many millions do we need to stabilize the budget? At what point do we say, “Okay, that’s enough, no need to add more capacity.”[/i]”
I think that is a great question, especially since the answer will be different today than it is 25 years from now. I don’t have an answer, but I think we owe it to our children (and others who move to town) to keep the options open.
One thing that really hasn’t been mentioned in this discussion is what might we do if we reached the point of having excess money? We have had several discussion here over the years about the need to redevelop much of our downtown, with the nay birds always piping in with the obvious problem that we don’t have the money. What might we do though with a few hundred million in excess funds?
Medwoman has talked frequently about her desire for a different living experience in Davis, with less emphasis on our current automobile culture (I apologize Medwoman if I have not accurately paraphrased your desire with my simplified version). With the money from economic development we could have the opportunity to be audacious and actually plan a downtown core with housing, jobs and shopping in the same location so that people could live without a car.
But why not go beyond just the core. What about a redevelopment arc that runs from the PG&E infill site through the downtown and extending to Nishi, with housing, retail, entertainment and jobs interspersed throughout, all tied together with public transit. Yes, today it is a dream, even a ridiculous one, but why not consider it? Realistically it will likely take many years to come to pass so many of us won’t be around to enjoy the results, but is that a reasonable excuse for ignoring the possibility?
Why not be audacious. Economic development can provide the engine for a future that actually fits with the goals that most of us here share. Growth, without expanding our borders, an economically vibrant core, and good jobs and housing options for our kids. Opportunity is what we get with economic development. What we do with that opportunity is our own choice.
Yes, we can follow Don’s advice and throw away the best asset we have for funding economic development (in exchange for a meager $1.2 million), or we can instead start a public dialog that dares to image a better future for ourselves and our children. The naysayers will throw up their hands and say it isn’t possible, and if we follow their advice we will certainly prove them right. The audacious however will imagine a different outcome, and find a better future.
So Jim, why not be audacious? Why not imagine a better future, and work to make that happen? Or do you think we should just throw that all away and short change our children’s future for your $1.2 million ‘bird in the hand’?
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”I had to stare at the map for a long time, plus read through much of these comments, before I understood what the proposal was. So I am curious — how long was your public comment to the OS&H commission? Do you think they understood that you were proposing (as your preferred alternative, albeit not the only alternative) swapping the Mace 391 for other properties in yellow? Especially given that you said that you were not there to talk about the Mace 391?” [/i]
Good questions and comments as always d4. First, my specific proposal is only that we [u]begin an open, robust, transparent, well-informed public dialogue that vets the alternatives so that we as a community can understand the alternatives and then ideally vote on what we want davis’ future to be[/u]. Despite Don’s attempts to characterize me as championing one particular solution, I have no real axe to grind for any one or the other alternative. I’m just an interested (concerned when it comes to our fiscal crisis) citizen no different than you or Don or Jim Frame or any of the other posters and/or readers of this series of articles.
With respect to the OS&H Commission, I had personal meetings with Greg House (at the suggestion of Pam Nieberg after she and I had reviewed an early version of the graphic), and then with Marc Hoshovsky (at the suggestion of Greg House). Further I had had a personal meeting with Michele Clark of the Yolo Land Trust the week before the OS&H meeting and a series of e-mail interchanges with her about the vision. I had also had an extended telephone conversation with Mitch Sears about both the graphic and the vision. So there were four people in the room who were intimately and thoroughly acquainted with what I was making my public comment about. I probably spoke for five minutes. Possibly less. I asked the Commissioners if they had any questions and they had none. Neither Greg, nor Marc, nor Michele nor Mitch voiced any concerns or raised the possibility that any of the Commissioners did not understand what I had said. I was clearly asking for public dialogue, and I was asking them to lead the public dialogue.
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”On a totally different point — are these lands in yellow available, i.e., are the owners interested in selling? Wouldn’t we need to determine that before we bought into your plan?”[/i]
The term interested in selling isn’t quite on target. Some of the yellow parcels are currently being farmed and the owners would prefer to continue to own the parcel and farm it. For them, on a day in, day out basis whether the land has a Conservation easement or not really makes no difference whatsoever in how and what they farm. So “selling” isn’t part of their vocabulary. They would receive money now for allowing an Easement to be placed on their land. That Easement would vaporize any potential future development value (premium) that the land might have if the easement weren’t in place. In effect they would be getting paid now for a constraint that would come into play later. As I said in an earlier answer, if there was any expectation that the owner would be averse to considering an Easement then the parcel was left white and not colored yellow.
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”P.S. How many millions do we need to stabilize the budget? At what point do we say, “Okay, that’s enough, no need to add more capacity.” I think that question should be rolled up along with the others in considering this project.”[/i]
I agree Jim. I agree 100%. That is an absolutely crucial question that must be considered.
[quote]Yes, we can follow Don’s advice and throw away the best asset we have for funding economic development (in exchange for a meager $1.2 million), or we can instead start a public dialog that dares to image a better future for ourselves and our children.[/quote]
Everything you have proposed would also be possible with funds if we developed the business park on the Northwest Quadrant. You and others are couching this discussion as if everything hinges on developing on Mace 391. That is not the only option, as you know.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”I probably should inject here, since I’ve been discussing just one part of this proposal, that I also would not say “No! This is a bad idea.”
I don’t agree that we have a jobs crisis, and I don’t agree with the proposal for one particular parcel. But I certainly support developing an urban limit line and greenbelt.”[/i]
Thank you for that clarification. You and I have probably been a collective Janus image in these discussions. For what it is worth I absolutely heard you yelling “No! This is a bad idea.” full throat to the rooftops. I also suspect you see me as yelling “Throw out Mace 391!!!” full throat to the rooftops. I am absolutely not saying that. I am saying, “Let’s talk as a community.”
I don’t think we have a jobs crisis either. We have a municipal budget crisis.
[quote] From the City I have met with Mike Webb to both keep him informed and review the concept, as well as with Rob White to validate that the jobs crisis truly exists.[/quote]
[quote]I don’t think we have a jobs crisis either. We have a municipal budget crisis.[/quote]
I wonder if you understand why it is sometimes difficult to have a discussion with you.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”I wonder if you understand why it is sometimes difficult to have a discussion with you.”[/i]
You are taking one statement out of context and omitting the detailed explanation of the Bayer/AgraQuest, Schilling Robotics and three to six other current Davis companies facing a likely decision to leave Davis. However, I will take the pill of criticism with decorum.
With that said, I don’t think we have a jobs crisis either. We have a municipal budget deficit crisis . . . and that budget deficit crisis is only going to get worse if we don’t do something about our impending jobs loss crisis.
For the record here is the context that you chose to take my “jobs crisis” quote out of:[quote]You are right I do have reasons why I think there should be a community dialogue. I’ve stated them before. (1) We have a significant municipal budget deficit and it is going to get worse. (2) We have $50 million of deferred maintenance on the City’s streets that we do not have the money to pay for. (3) If we can believe Tyler Schilling’s public comment on Tuesday we are at grave risk of losing his company and its 300 employees in the near future. (4) That loss will make the budget deficit even worse. (5) There are at least three other companies like Schilling Robotics that have outgrown their current space and are facing the same dilemma as Schilling is. That probably means 200-300 more jobs that are on a trajectory to be lost. (6) Those losses will make the budget deficit even worse. and (7) if Doby Fleeman of Ace Hardware’s Tuesday public comment can be believed , the loss of Bayer/AgraQuest has already resulted in decreased sales at Davis Ace . . . a problem that will only get worse when and if Schiiling and/or the other companies follow Bayer/AgraQuest out of town. [/quote]
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Everything you have proposed would also be possible with funds if we developed the business park on the Northwest Quadrant. You and others are couching this discussion as if everything hinges on developing on Mace 391. That is not the only option, as you know.”[/i]
Don, where would those funds come from. The Western Innovation Park land owners already own their mitigation acres. Why would they have any incentive to come up with additional dollars to fund the acquisition of additional yellow parcels?
If there is all this pent-up demand for business sites, it seems very likely that Schilling’s site would fill rapidly. And other companies that outgrow their sites, assuming they move out of Davis, would have their sites filled rapidly. I don’t think the AgraQuest site is going to be vacant long. And as I’ve described, we are going to be gaining several hundred jobs at UCD.
If businesses move out, their sites will be churned.
There are two contradictory arguments going on here.
1. We have so much demand for space that we have to build a business park.
2. We are going to be losing all these companies that provide jobs.
At least we seem to have gotten away from ‘we need an Intel so we can be more like Folsom’.
So: we do have a jobs crisis? We don’t? Which is it?
Obviously it is great if we can provide space for some or all of our homegrown companies locally. But our space is limited. We need housing, too, rather more urgently than we need jobs. We need housing of a particular type, as I’ve mentioned many times before.
With regard to Doby’s comment, I would be curious how retail sales tax revenues in Davis are doing as the economy is recovering. It is hard to see how the loss of those particular businesses has affected Davis Ace, since I don’t think the overall population of Davis has changed. My year-to-date sales are up over last year.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”At least we seem to have gotten away from ‘we need an Intel so we can be more like Folsom’. “[/i]
That argument was never more than a figment of your imagination.
[quote]Don, where would those funds come from. The Western Innovation Park land owners already own their mitigation acres. Why would they have any incentive to come up with additional dollars to fund the acquisition of additional yellow parcels?
[/quote]
As noted by Rob White: property tax, unsecured property tax, sales tax, fees, and trade-offs as part of the development agreement. Are you saying that Mace 391 is the only way to get the funds needed?
[quote]That argument was never more than a figment of your imagination.[/quote]
It has been made explicitly on this blog so many times that I don’t even need to bother to search for examples.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”As noted by Rob White: property tax, unsecured property tax, sales tax, fees, and trade-offs as part of the development agreement. Are you saying that Mace 391 is the only way to get the funds needed? “[/i]
Those would be the funds that would narrow or eliminate the budget deficit, but they wouldn’t provide any significant funds for Ag Conservation Easement purchases in the Urban Fringe.
The scenarios with the various forms of leveraging the value of one or both of the lower two parcels of Mace 391 would clearly generate significantly more Urban Fringe Easement purchase funds.
A robust, transparent, open, well-informed public scenario analysis would show the plusses and minuses of each of the various scenarios.
Matt: “[i]I don’t think we have a jobs crisis either. We have a municipal budget crisis.[/i]”
We are a bedroom community with no jobs. We have a job crisis AND a municipal budget crisis.
Don Shor:
“[i]There are two contradictory arguments going on here.
1. We have so much demand for space that we have to build a business park.
2. We are going to be losing all these companies that provide jobs.[/i]”
Contradictory? They are really the same argument.
Without space for growth we are going to lose jobs as our growing businesses move away. Without space for growth, we won’t be able to provide a home for the start-ups. Are you really that dense, or just being disingenuous.
Don Shor: “[i]But our space is limited.[/i]”
No it is not, we just choose not to use it. Those are not the same thing.
“[i]We need housing, too, rather more urgently than we need jobs.[/i]”
No, that is a complete fallacy. We are a bedroom community with insufficient jobs to meet the needs of our citizens. We would need to add 1000’s of jobs before we ever bring the jobs/residents ratio into any semblance of balance.
Jobs brings in the money to pay for our city services, far better than more housing will. We need more jobs far more urgently than we need more housing. Jobs will provide the funds for the housing, but more housing will never provide the impetus for more jobs. Your priorities are completely backwards.
Per Rob White (all caveats noted): [quote]As a VERY rough example – if commercial and research space in a new innovation park is being leased at $1.50/square foot per month, could we add a 10% assessment that is revenue to the city for the opportunity to build?
In this example, 1 million square feet of leased space would generate $150,000 monthly, or $1.8 million annually. Some have opined that there is enough demand in the tech world that as much as 5 to 8 million square feet could be realized over the next 15 to 20 years.
To run this out a little further, that could be $9 to $14.4 million annually at full buildout and would be a percentage of the lease amount, so it would grow as values grow. And the typical commercial/research park has a lifespan of about 40 to 60 years (depending on construction). Such an assessment could legitimately generate about $360 million (low end) to over $864 million (very high end) in city revenue over the lifetime of the project.
But before anyone runs out and spends this money, this type of assessment is very tricky from a land use consideration because it likely needs to be done under a development agreement and again needs to meet the federal and state legal requirements.[/quote]
1 million square feet = 23 acres.
So your statement that
[quote] Those would be the funds that would narrow or eliminate the budget deficit, but they wouldn’t provide any significant funds for Ag Conservation Easement purchases in the Urban Fringe.[/quote]
… seems far-fetched, to say the least. But your argument here is in keeping with my original comment that you seem to be conditioning your proposal on Mace 391, regardless of how many times you say that is ‘just one scenario’.
Mark: [quote] We are a bedroom community with no jobs.[/quote]
As of April 2013 UC Davis has 22,281 full-time equivalents and a head count of 29, 735 employees. Those numbers increased from 21,983 and 29,185 respectively just since October 2012.
[quote]Or do you think we should just throw that all away and short change our children’s future for your $1.2 million ‘bird in the hand’? [/quote]
Allowing Mace 391 to go into conservancy doesn’t throw away anything except the ability to develop Mace 391. It doesn’t take Ramos/Bruner off the table (the site with the highest visibility and easiest access, both attributes that Rob White has mentioned as essential). And the $1.2M is on top of establishing the eastern urban boundary now(ish) rather than at some point in the future (the future that so often never arrives once the cherries have been picked). While harder to value dollars, for many of us that value is very substantial.
[quote]Without space for growth we are going to lose jobs as our growing businesses move away. Without space for growth, we won’t be able to provide a home for the start-ups. Are you really that dense, or just being disingenuous. [/quote]
No, Mark, [u]we will not have any net loss of jobs[/u] if one company moves out and another one moves into the space it formerly occupied.
[quote]No, that is a complete fallacy. We are a bedroom community with insufficient jobs to meet the needs of our citizens. We would need to add 1000’s of jobs before we ever bring the jobs/residents ratio into any semblance of balance.
Jobs brings in the money to pay for our city services, far better than more housing will. We need more jobs far more urgently than we need more housing. Jobs will provide the funds for the housing, but more housing will never provide the impetus for more jobs. Your priorities are completely backwards.
[/quote]
Because of the massive dislocation of our housing market caused by the growth of student enrollment and increased population of our city over the last decade with nearly no net housing stock added, our current imbalance is housing. Not jobs. By far. In a normal housing market, I would agree with you. We don’t have a normal housing market.
“While harder to value *in* dollars…”
I sure wish posts could be edited ex post (pun) facto — I sometimes type and edit faster than I can think. David, have you given any thought to adding that capability? One forum that I frequent allows the poster to edit for up to an hour after posting, which provides the ability to correct without markedly tampering with history.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”As of April 2013 UC Davis has 22,281 full-time equivalents and a head count of 29, 735 employees. Those numbers increased from 21,983 and 29,185 respectively just since October 2012. “[/i]
But Don, here is a simple question for you. Did you know that all tose 29,185 jobs on the UCD campus produce exactly [u]zero dollars of direct revenue[/u] for the City of Davis municipal budget. Given that reality, how exactly does an addition of jobs on the UCD campus help the City with its municipal budget deficit?
Mark West
[quote]Without space for growth we are going to lose jobs as our growing businesses move away. Without space for growth, we won’t be able to provide a home for the start-ups. Are you really that dense, or just being disingenuous.
[/quote]
I may truly be “that dense” or perhaps simply naive in this particular area. Can you please explain something to me. If we need an ongoing source of locations for small start up companies generated by the university, and if some of these companies will inevitably outgrow their original start up site, is it not logical that at some point, some of these companies will have to move to larger sites in order for the new companies to have sites in which to do their original development ? Surely you are not suggesting that Davis has the capacity for continual growth to meet all of the needs of every company that is ever generated by the university ? So, if you are not suggesting that, then where is the correct balance between the needs of new start ups and the need for larger sites in which for them to relocate.
Mark West
[quote]With the money from economic development we could have the opportunity to be audacious and actually plan a downtown core with housing, jobs and shopping in the same location so that people could live without a car.
[/quote]
Why do you feel that more money is necessary to be “audacious”? At present we have the beginning of a core with housing , jobs, and shopping in the same location. Maybe “audacious” could include a move to a less materialistically driven society. “Audacious” might include the concept of having less and living more simply in order to preserve more for our children. I can think of many definitions for “audacious” that do not include a constant need for more.
[quote]But Don, here is a simple question for you. Did you know that all tose 29,185 jobs on the UCD campus produce exactly zero dollars of direct revenue for the City of Davis municipal budget. Given that reality, how exactly does an addition of jobs on the UCD campus help the City with its municipal budget deficit?[/quote]
Jobs don’t produce revenue for the city, ever. The worker at McDonald’s, the worker at Davis Ace, and the worker at UC Davis all produce “exactly zero dollars of direct revenue for the City of Davis.” You know that.
It is the business that does. So what you are saying is that we need more businesses to create more sales and property taxes.
Jobs produce revenue indirectly via the multiplier effect that Rob and others have described here.
You know all that.
If you want the most bang for the buck for city revenues, add lots and lots more boutique retailers. They really generate a lot of dollars per square foot. The sales tax I generate for the city is a lot more than the property tax.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”I may truly be “that dense” or perhaps simply naive in this particular area. Can you please explain something to me. If we need an ongoing source of locations for small start up companies generated by the university, and if some of these companies will inevitably outgrow their original start up site, is it not logical that at some point, some of these companies will have to move to larger sites in order for the new companies to have sites in which to do their original development ? Surely you are not suggesting that Davis has the capacity for continual growth to meet all of the needs of every company that is ever generated by the university ? So, if you are not suggesting that, then where is the correct balance between the needs of new start ups and the need for larger sites in which for them to relocate.”[/i]
mw, good initials and a good question. The answer to your question is [i]”It depends.”[/i] What does it depend on? [i]”Velocity.”[/i] If UCD is spinning out five new incubator companies per year and 60% of them never catch fire, then the net addition to the davis economy will be 2 companies that begin a trajectory of stability and growth. If we have an addition of 2 early stage tech companies per year we can probably do both . . . add the start-ups and keep the growers. However, if the velocity of UCD’s incubation of new companies rises tenfold and the death rate stays at 60%, then we will be adding 20 early stage companies per year. That is probably a rate that will not allow us to retain all the early stage tech companies that outgrow their initial space and we will need to pick and choose the ones we want to stay.
Of course that would be a good problem to have . . . both for Davis and for UCD. Further, if we proactively plan for the ramifications of such a high velocity of incubation out of UCD, then a coordinated regional economic development strategy where Woodland and West Sac provide Yolo County-based homes for the “ones we let get away” would be a very good idea.
To put the above into context Meg Arnold, CEO of SARTA (the Sacramento Regional Technology Alliance) made a presentation at the most recent DSIDE meeting and told us that Davis has a grand total of 58 combined technology and ag technology companies. That isn’t a population of companies that is going to “break the bank” any time soon, even if all of them continue firing on all cylinders.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]Jobs don’t produce revenue for the city, ever. The worker at McDonald’s, the worker at Davis Ace, and the worker at UC Davis all produce “exactly zero dollars of direct revenue for the City of Davis.” You know that.”[/i]
Absolutely, 100% wrong Don. Jobs require infrastructure and as Rob laid out very well in his comments early in this thread, that infrastructure generates [u]direct revenue[/u] for the city. No jobs, no need for infrastructure, no revenue. It is very simple.
You know that, or have you been taking comedy lessons from Richard Lewis?
Read my whole reply, Matt.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Jobs produce revenue indirectly via the multiplier effect that Rob and others have described here.”[/i]
And that vast majority (the overwhelming majority) of the indirect multiplier revenue is produced for Davis businesses . . . not for the City of Davis municipal budget.
Read my whole reply, Matt. Again.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Read my whole reply, Matt.”[/i]
I did, Richard.
Repeating with emphasis added:
Jobs don’t produce revenue for the city, ever.
The worker at McDonald’s, the worker at Davis Ace, and the worker at UC Davis all produce “exactly zero dollars of direct revenue for the City of Davis.” You know that.
[b]It is the business that does. So what you are saying is that we need more businesses [u]to create more sales and property taxes[/u]. [/b]
Jobs produce revenue indirectly via the multiplier effect that Rob and others have described here.
You know all that.
If you want the most bang for the buck for city revenues, add lots and lots more [b]boutique retailers[/b]. They really generate[b] a lot of dollars per square foot[/b]. The [b]sales tax[/b] I generate for the city is a lot more than the [b]property tax[/b]. Having said that, there are businesses with a lot of [b]unsecured property tax[/b]. I don’t know where tech firms fall in that category.
Mark: I like your arc of redevelopment idea but would include 2nd Street from PG&E to Road 105 and the Mace tech park.
Word games Don, all you are doing is playing word games.
Revenues to the city will increase as:
sales tax revenues increase due to the growing economy
sales tax revenues increase from raising the local sales tax
property tax increase due to properties selling and increasing in valuation
property tax increase due to increased unsecured property taxes of certain types of businesses
sales tax increase if more retailers are added
sales tax increase if higher-value retailers are added
property tax increase if land is added, rezoned, and built upon with the concomitant increase in value
property tax increase if certain types of businesses with high amounts of unsecured property taxes are added
sales and restaurant revenue increases from the multiplier effect of more employees shopping and eating at local businesses
sales and restaurant revenue increases from an increased population due to more student enrollment
sales and restaurant revenue increases from an increased population due to housing growth.
Don Shor: “As of April 2013 UC Davis has 22,281 full-time equivalents and a head count of 29, 735 employees.”
I don’t think you are stupid Don, so I am sure that you realize that those University jobs do not have the same impact on the City’s general fund that the same number of jobs from private companies would have. What I am wondering is do you realize how many people in town drive beyond the City limits (and beyond the campus) for their jobs? We are a bedroom community, you may wish to ignore that reality, but I don’t.
“[i]Jobs don’t produce revenue for the city, ever. The worker at McDonald’s, the worker at Davis Ace, and the worker at UC Davis all produce “exactly zero dollars of direct revenue for the City of Davis.[/i]”
This is absolutely false, and now while I still don’t think you are stupid, I do think you are acting the fool. Jobs at private businesses do create revenues for the City because those businesses pay property taxes on their buildings and all of the equipment. The University does not pay property taxes for anything. Every job at a private business (including yours) provides the City with more revenue than any job at the University does.
“[i]If you want the most bang for the buck for city revenues, add lots and lots more boutique retailers.[/i]”
No Don. A small boutique business, if they are really successful will have perhaps $200,000 in revenues annually, generating $15,000 in sales tax of which Davis will receive roughly $3000. When a place like Shilling Robotics buys $1 million worth of equipment, Davis receives roughly $10,000 per year in property taxes in addition to a few hundred thousand worth of jobs. Businesses that buy equipment and produce high paying jobs are far more valuable to the City’s bottom line than boutique places like yours. Your business provides other intangible benefits I agree, but those don’t cover the costs of paving the streets.
Businesses that provide good paying jobs are far more important to the City’s bottom line than more retail. Job development should be our number one goal if we really want an economically viable future.
[quote]Jobs at private businesses do create revenues for the City because those businesses pay property taxes on their buildings and all of the equipment.[/quote]
You and Matt seem to have the same reading comprehension problem. The jobs create no revenues. The business property does. The taxable sales do. Not the jobs.
[quote] A small boutique business, if they are really successful will have perhaps $200,000 in revenues annually, generating $15,000 in sales tax of which Davis will receive roughly $3000.[/quote]
From how many square feet?
[quote]When a place like Shilling Robotics buys $1 million worth of equipment, Davis receives roughly $10,000 per year in property taxes[/quote]
From how many square feet?
As I said, there are some businesses with a high amount of unsecured property tax. Wineries, I’d guess. And a place like Schilling, most likely. AgraQuest? I don’t know.
[quote]What I am wondering is do you realize how many people in town drive beyond the City limits (and beyond the campus) for their jobs? We are a bedroom community, you may wish to ignore that reality, but I don’t. [/quote]
What I am wondering is do you realize how many people who work in Davis live elsewhere, because they can’t find housing here in their price range, because there is so much housing tied up in student rental? You may wish to ignore that reality, but I mention it over and over and over.
[quote]Businesses that provide good paying jobs are far more important to the City’s bottom line than more retail.[/quote]
Businesses that sell a lot of stuff, increase the value of the land they are on, or buy and retain a lot of equipment are important to the city’s bottom line. The number of jobs they create is largely irrelevant to that.
Having good-paying jobs increases the multiplier effect, which is largely a function of the shopping habits of those employees. That is obviously beneficial, but it is an indirect effect.
So using job development as a goal of city economic policy is, at best, an indirect measure of our path toward greater economic health.
[quote]When a place like Shilling Robotics buys $1 million worth of equipment, Davis receives roughly $10,000 per year in property taxes[/quote]
If the new TJ Maxx makes the industry average of $300 – 400 per square foot retail sales, and they are the average 30,000 sq. ft. size that retailer usually builds, they will generate about $9000 per year in sales tax for the city of Davis. Add 25% to that if the voters increase the local sales tax. And, of course, they will pay property taxes and some unsecured property tax.
Boutique retailers have higher sales per unit area than a discounter like TJ Maxx.
The problem with your analysis Don is that there is only just so much expendable income that Davis residents have. TJ Maxx isn’t going to bring shoppers to Davis from other jurisdictions. it is going to cannibalize the sales of other businesses. If we are lucky it will cannibalize the sales of locations outside Davis, but realistically it will take sales away from small boutique businesses. Just because you want to have more small boutique businesses doesn’t mean that those small boutique businesses will survive.
If we are going to add any significant retail to Davis it will need to be retail that has a target market outside Davis. Either that, or we need retail that will bring back the per capita sales dollars spent by Davis residents that are going to other jurisdictions rather than staying here in Davis. I don’t know whether a sales tax analysis has gotten to the granular enough level to determine what the nature of the sales that are leaking are, but I think we can all say with confidence that those leaking sales are not to/from small boutique businesses.
You appear to be wedded to a build it and they will come mentality when it comes to sales tax capture strategies.
Jim – I don’t have the exact (or even really good round numbers) for public services to a biz park. As you can imagine, everything is context. I can do some looking around and see what I can add for a later post in a few days. I can generalize this way, commercial buildings in biz parks typically require less services than residential. That has a lot to do with operational hours, etc. But let me get some better data.
I came across a document for a proposed 100-acre business park in the Kansas City area that estimated a need for 0.6 police officer, 0.5 firefighter, and 0.1 fire engine. I didn’t see any numbers for street and utility maintenance or lighting. Any other cost items you can think of?
Jim – If any open space gets dedicated, there will be maintenance on that. Off the top of my head, the items you listed seem to be the big ticket items for ongoing costs.
All – I am always amazed and am constantly amazed by the group work that goes on in these comments. I have started to collect these data and info posts as ways to be informative for the work on the reforming Innovation Park Task Force. As each of you has noted from your personal perspective, these are very complicated issues. To be truly conversant in the dialogue of sustainability, economic vitality and conservation, there is a lot of information to absorb and be mindful of while we consider the future.
And success means very different things to each of you and the constituencies you represent. And that diversity is what should be most celebrated, because we are hopefully interested in building a community that addresses the needs of the majority of the population in a way that only Davis can.
It is time to think big… and that means different things to each of you. As pointed out by medwoman and Mark West’s comments, we can see the world very differently. And we have different personal drivers to what an ‘audacious’ future might look like.
One thing I would encourage all of us to consider is that though we feel passionately about our views, they are a simplification of a complex set of circumstances and we need to carefully and robustly consider all the opportunities and outcomes they produce.
As an unrelated example to this discussion, if we in the public sector employment had had this kind of dialogue a decade and a half ago, we may not have nearly the issues we have with unfunded staffing liabilities like pensions and medical costs. Much of the issue is because we used facts that seemed self-evident all over the State that we agreed to up the ante and create very generous compensation benefits for our public employees. And we didn’t think forward about the actuarial outcomes. Now we know. Now we have to figure out how to correct the system. I personally took a significant cut in benefits to come to Davis, but it was for personally important reasons and I (fates willing) still have lots of time in my career.
My obvious point… though it is informative to discuss our personally held views, it should be done in the context of sharing diverse perspectives and informing others so that the most complete picture and solutions can be identified and implemented. None of us is completely right, and we most certainly are not completely wrong, about the information we are sharing. And no outcome is most evident yet, because we should be reserving judgment until the greatest amount of facts are presented and discussed as a community.
Thanks for listening.
Rob, the feeling is mutual. Your willingness to share illuminating information helps us all have these conversations.