I often joke with people that there is no downtime, no off season in Davis, and then prove it with articles that gain 100 comments on the eve of Christmas. But even by Davis standards, 2014 figures to be a wild and unpredictable ride.
Last year at this time, we were buckling up for Measure I. Ironically, this year, we are awaiting Judge Dan Maguire’s decision on the water measure. When voters passed the ordinance, they were asking to approve the following language: “Shall Ordinance No. 2399 – be adopted, which grants permission to the City of Davis to proceed with the Davis Woodland Water Supply Project, to provide surface water as an additional supply of water, subject to the adoption of water rates in accordance with the California Constitution (Proposition 218)?”
The key language here is “subject to the adoption of water rates…”
Michael Harrington has been arguing that this process is not over until the courts ratify the water rates. He argued back in July, “The Measure has a clause making an affirmative vote for the Measure also ‘subject to’ the adoption of rates conforming to Prop 218. Since the rates litigation has not been decided, the rates are not final. Measure I is not final.”
The city has gone forward with its planning and selling of bonds, but he wonders if that is legal. Certainly, if the court overturns the rates, he has a point.
But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Assembly Race: People keep asking me to handicap the race, and three people in the race will not like this, but I believe the race is Dan Wolk’s to lose. Yes, Joe Krovoza, the mayor, has solid fundraising numbers and yes, Mariko Yamada is doing her job in support of Matt Pope. The wild card in this race may be a guy we know little about, Bill Dodd, a former Republican in a district that has more Republicans than you might think.
But in the end, it is difficult to see Dan Wolk losing. He has most of the local endorsements, he has the name recognition, and he has strong support within Sacramento, Assemblymember Yamada notwithstanding. He has done enough to keep the unions off his back, even if he is probably not their favorite son or first choice.
There is a long way to go, but so far nothing has happened to change our minds.
City Council: As I have laid out in recent weeks, the stakes are highest in city council elections. We have noted the fiscal condition of the city, noted the nature of a series of 3-2 votes on such issues, and noted that Joe Krovoza will be gone from the council.
The first question is whether Rochelle Swanson is running for reelection. She has indicated she will. We have not seen or heard much from her, but it’s early. There are a number of reasons why she might ultimately not run for reelection, but we won’t get into those today.
What we do know is that Robb Davis is running for election and most of the Vanguard’s regular readers are familiar with his candidacy. Sheila Allen has not officially announced, but she is going to run. She has spent two terms on the school board. Daniel Parrella is running as well. He’s a local kid, who graduated from Leonardo da Vinci High.
I lament the fact that student or young candidates do not get more traction in Davis, but I don’t see him as a factor. A long time ago, in 1992 when I was a young student at Cal Poly, I saw how student organizations could run a student candidate, as a student came within a few handfuls of votes of winning. It can happen, but UC Davis would have to create a student organization that could really mobilize the student votes.
My handicap is this: Rochelle Swanson, if she runs, has a clear leg up, but she is not a sure thing. Sheila Allen is going to be very tough to defeat, given her name recognition and the fact that no one in this town will be able to say much negative against her. Robb Davis could be this year’s Brett Lee. No one really gave Brett Lee a shot of winning, but he won people over.
Will we see another candidate? Will Sue Greenwald try to win her seat back? Will Stephen Souza? Will we see someone else step forward? Personally, I think it is unlikely either run and more unlikely that either win, but this is Davis.
Ballot Measures: Candidates are fun, but ballot measures could take us into war. We will likely see at least three. The city is going to put a revenue measure on the ballot. They have to. The anti-tax people will squawk, some people will resist, but there is no way that the city closes a $5 million gap without serious damage to the services and amenities of this community.
You want to see city staff strafed, parks closed, greenbelts browned, and recreational services ended, then oppose the tax measure. We’ll guess sales tax, but it could be a parcel tax as well.
The anti-water folks claim to be close with their initiative. Which initiative? That probably depends on Judge Maguire. At the very least, we will see an initiative to invalidate the water rates and we might see the long-promised Measure J for infrastructure and utility projects. We will see.
This fall, we could see a measure on the proposed business park. Right now the word is it will not be a Measure J vote, which would require council approval, but rather would be a citizen’s initiative that would not require council approval. This is the next land use war in Davis and could decide the future of the community.
Fall Elections: Nationally, we have a battle for control of Congress. It doesn’t look like the governor is going to get a serious challenge in this heavily-blue state. Locally, the biggest race looks like school board, where there is at least one open seat, but could be as many as three.
One more thing to keep an eye on is that the governor should be filling the county supervisor vacancy in West Sacramento caused by the appointment by the governor of Mike McGowan. Filling that seat could put a potential special election in June or November. It is not something that Davis would get to vote on, but it could impact Davis at the county level.
And that’s just what we know in advance. One thing we have learned is that the unexpected are always the biggest stories. Stay tuned and thanks for reading.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Both San Luis Obispo and Davis prevent students living on campus from voting thereby diluting the power of students at the ballot box and rendering young candidates ineffectual.
Correct, but in both cases, the vast majority of students don’t live on campus.
As with all gerrymandering you simply need to marginally reduce voting power to suppress a class of voter.
Nothing would send a message stronger than a well organized student organization backing a student candidate.
Toad, do you feel a student living on campus that’s most likely only going to be in Davis for a few years should have the right to vote on parcel tax issues?
I understand that argument Growth Issue, and you can make that argument on any number of other things like voting in city elections in general. The problem is that while the individual student is only around four or five years, students in general are always around Davis and someone needs to be able to represent their interests. So you can look at it as the student voting on the parcel tax is really representing all students in the future when they caste their vote.
“Caste” is potentially an interesting ‘freudian slip’.
Perhaps you’d like to pass an ordinace that at least one student be on tbe CC
Absolutely I do. I thought the ideal was no taxation without representation not no representation without taxation.
” If there is no struggle there is no progress… Power concedes nothing without a demand.”
So being we live in a college town where more than half the population are students and most don’t own homes or have to pay parcel taxes you really feel they should have the right to impose parcel taxes on the rest of us?
They don’t have the right to impose anything, they have the present right to vote in city elections if they live in the city.
BS.. if they live in thr city limits, and register to vote, they grt to.
Plus, nobody is taking their right to vote away, they can still vote in the city, county and state where they normally reside.
That’s a weird argument because most people who move away from their hometown, they’re not going to move back most of the time.
Really, after they go away to college and how hard it is for graduates to find jobs these days you really think that’s a weird argument that they go back home? I think it’s weird that you don’t see that?
0
inShare.
More
Here’s an article that shows college grads going back home at the rate of 45% and that doesn’t count those that went back to their hometown to live elsewhere than their parent’s house:
“The unemployed college graduate moving back in with his parents has been a stock figure of the past few years, helping to cement the Millennials’ reputation as the “Boomerang Generation.” But how many young grads are returning to live with their mom and dad (or their aunt or uncle)?
The number to remember is 45 percent. What share of recent college graduates were living with family in 2011? It’s 45 percent.”
Are the voters in WIllowbank and El Macero also disenfranchised?
I’m sure Toad will argue they chose not to be part of the city.
No reason for Toad to make that argument when it is simply a fact. The residents of Old Willowbank and El Macero have chosen to stay out of the City and instead are residents of the County. Students living on campus have never been given the option to choose.
Wrong. It was rejected at least twice by the students sincevthe60’s.
Its worse than not choosing to join because there is a history of making the students live in the county while faculty get to vote in the city. Aggie Village was allowed to vote in the city and was built as faculty housing on University land yet all the new student housing on Russell didn’t get the same deal. It is clearly a policy that results in the political marginalization of a class of people who happen to be the brightest young people in the state. What it says is that we are afraid that Davis will turn into Lord of the Flies if we encourage our young people to participate at the ballot box. It is shameful. It is Davis’ own voter suppression. Another Davis Progressive policy. What do Davis Progressives stand for? High property values and voter suppression.
Ironic, considering that it was newly-enfranchised student voters that led to the council of Black, Poulos, and Holdstock that started the change in direction of the city from a business-oriented council to a much more liberal one. Mike Fitch, as usual, has a good review of the history: http://community-development.cityofdavis.org/growing-pains-chapter-2
That was a long time ago. Its sort of the Davis version of originalism. At that time and under those circumstances slowing growth made sense. Under today’s circumstances it does not. But please understand I’m not even sure about whether students who live on campus would vote as I desire on any issue. My concern is giving people the power to participate and empowering them to be heard.
I agree with you that West Village (and Nishi) should be annexed and students living there should have voting rights. I’m not sure there is any way to do that with the dorms.
Don do you support annexation of the West Village project, allowing students to vote, potentially receive City services, and and UCD will not pay 1 cent in property taxes? A City subsidy to have students commit to preojects and taxes that they are likely to walk away from?
What city services would they receive? Also, they are developing some retail at West Village, and the sales tax from that is not going to the city. I’d guess a reasonable agreement could be negotiated.
Police/Fire, recreation @ city rates. Water/sewer/drainage will not be within the City, but I can imagine the scenario where the campus would provide the service, but charge the City for the cost (not a part of their “core mission”). I stand by the essence of my previous comments re: representation w/o taxation. As a student, I found Davis retailers’ costs higher than at home, and spent relatively few dollars for clothing, etc. in Dais when I could get them @ home… but then again, unlike many students today, I had my Schwinn, my NM scholarship, and little else.
And, you did not answer my question… you only asked me to defend my question.
Yes, I think students (and anyone, really) should be able to vote where they reside. As to annexation, you raise some good points about the details of the process. But I think it could be done.
Another thought… in 1972-73, there was a movement by the ‘progressives’ at the time to annex the dorms (which, at that time, were the only UCD owned ones were on-campus). I fought that, as a UCD dorm student, because I felt that I (and others) had no right to vote for bonds, taxes, and widening the Richards Blvd OH (which the opponents said that would prevent South Davis from growing… yeah, right.) if we moved on after college, and having “no skin in the game”. We all make mistakes, as I’ve lived on-campus or City for a mere 39 years (a “newbie”), but I still hold to my opinion that UCD should not be annexed.
Wrong then and wrong now.
Our community is stronger when more participate. All excuses for failure to allow participation short of treason are in my opinion un-American.
I am coming very late to this discussion but have a point of confusion about your position. I am not sure exactly what you are claiming as the critical factor that should determine whether or not the students should have the right to vote.
1) Is it their place of residence in close proximity to the city ? If so, and voting were the critical issue for them, could they not choose to live within the city and thus with address change gain the right to vote ? Many do exactly this after their first year here.
2) Is it the fact that they belong to a specific group that you believe should be allowed to vote even though they do not meet residency criteria ? If this is true, then what about farmers who live outside the city limits ? Or what about migrant workers who are not permanent residents? Should they also be allowed to vote since they belong to recognizable groups that do not meet current voting requirements ?
3) Is it their youth that you feel we should be making a special exemption for ? I am asking because of your
Lord of the Flies reference. I would think it both unconstitutional and unwise to make exceptions for a voting
privilege beyond the lower age limit for age based voting rights.
4) The phrases “voter suppression” and “taxation without representation” have been bandied about in this context. We have a number of practices that could also be considered to represent these phrases. Citizenship laws, voter ID proposals, literacy proposals are all attempts to restrict who can vote, and therefore who has even a modicum of power in our society. Do you also oppose all of these ?
I have mixed feelings about the benefits and downsides of allowing large numbers of people who are not currently citizens of our city to vote. All I am asking here is a clarification of your reasoning.
OrI should say, high housing values and keeping young people under control.
David… is CalPoly within the city limits of SLO?
UCD is not, and I dislike taxation w/o representation about the same as representation w/o taxation.
Cal Ploy is not part of the City of SLO.
Thx
BS.. if they live in thr city limits, and register to vote, they grt to.
Don: Speaking of sales tax: have you seen the price of textbooks lately? The city is losing a ton of sales tax by not having the campus be part of the city. Has part of the holdup on annexation been the county not wanting to lose that sales tax? Or is is something on the city’s side?
My opinion is that City costs will FAR out-weigh the revenues.
Recapture could be negotiated with U.C. Its the County and City that object at least with West Village.
There are one, maybe two unions, and both are in public safety.
Barbara,
I don’t believe that the cost of textbooks is now or will be in the future a major factor. Having four students still in college, I am aware that fewer and fewer of their “textbooks” are physical entities but are being either purchased or accessed on line.
I had to chuckle looking at the tracked comments where it shows..
Mr. Toad….. Wild Ride.
David Greenwald said . . .
“Will we see another candidate? Will Sue Greenwald try to win her seat back? Will Stephen Souza? Will we see someone else step forward? Personally, I think it is unlikely either run and more unlikely that either win, but this is Davis.”
It is hard to imagine that Sue Greenwald will not in the end succumb to the temptation to run. It is also hard to imagine Davis politics without her either as a sitting Council member, or as a Council candidate. From my perspective the key will be which issues appear to be driving the campaign debate, and where she stands on those issues. Late last year I put together a list of the key issues that are likely to drive the 2014 Council Election. Those issues are:
• Keep Davis a desirable, attractive community
• Collaboration
• Budget and Fiscal Sustainability
• Economic Growth
• Housing and Land Use
• Environmental Sustainability
• Water
• Energy
• Transportation
• Accountability
Sue has articulated her vision of what makes Davis desireable very clearly over the years. The key question she will need to answer is whether that vision of Davis is fiscally sustainable.
The year and a half that has passed since Sue left the Council has seen a significant upsurge in collaboration between the City and the University, as well as the City and the County, and the City and the other Yolo cities. Sue will need to articulate her vision for how that collaboration can be continued, built upon, and/or backed away from. There are a lot of preconceived ideas about Sue’s ability to be a team player based on her Davis-centric stances on a number of issues, most especially water.
Both Sue and Steve Souza will face the stiffest challenges to their viability as candidates because they were members of the Council when most of the fiscal policies were approved that have contributed significantly to the current budget deficit. Explaining those decisions and votes to the voters will be a full time job should either of them choose to run.
What Sue’s positions on incremental additions to our current Sales Taxes and/or additional Parcel Taxes (between $150 a year and $400 a year) aren’t known.
For Sue, Economic Growth is the other half of a conundrum with the first issue Keeping Davis a desirable, attractive community. Finding the right balance between these two ying-yang issues is going to be challenging for all the 2014 Council candidates.
With the approval of Cannery, my sense is that Housing is off the table as a resonant issue for the forseeable future.
I honestly don’t know where Sue stands on Environmental Sustainability. I’m not sure that she is has much to do with Cool Davis. I’m also not sure what here stance would be on the NRC-recommended Minimum Standard Solar Energy Ordinance.
What role water plays in the 2014 Campaign won’t be clear until Judge McGuire makes his legal ruling in the next few weeks. But regardless of the ruling, I wonder if the Davis electorate will want to go through another round
Energy is likely to grow into a very big issue in the six months leading up to the Election. There is a growing sentiment that Davis residents can collectively save millions of dollars per year, if not tens of millions of dollars, by creating a municipal electric utility and getting off the PG&E grid. All the candidates are going to need to articulate their positions on Energy.
Transportation has a lot of facets, but the most immediate and compelling has to do with the streets maintenance backlog. Right now it is approximately $120 million, and if we spend only the $2 million amount in the current annual budget, the backlog will grow to $362 million over the next 20 years, and more importantly our current pavement condition index (PCI) in the low 60’s will decline to just over 30. Roads with a PCI of 60 are considered to no longer be in good shape. At a PCI of 30 they will be in poor shape. The costs to repair roads in poor shape are approximately $30 per square yard currently, while roads on the good condition/fair condition boundary cost only $7.50 to $10.00 a square yard to repair. All the 2014 candidates are going to have to merge the issue of incremental streets maintenance costs of no less than $8 million per year together with the issue of the current General Fund annual deficit of $5 million to $6 million per year.
Finally Accountability will be a mix of “How did we get into this mess?” and “How can we be sure we are not making the same mistakes?” questions. Sue and Steve will get a much more active dose of the first question than the other candidates will, since they were on Watch when the ‘getting” got done.
Here’s two graphics of street repair costs graphed against street condition. The first graphic is from the City Staff report. The second is from the web.
My handicap is this: Rochelle Swanson, if she runs, has a clear leg up, but she is not a sure thing. Sheila Allen is going to be very tough to defeat, given her name recognition and the fact that no one in this town will be able to say much negative against her. Robb Davis could be this year’s Brett Lee. No one really gave Brett Lee a shot of winning, but he won people over.
Someone, I don’t know who, will probably run as the money candidate. By that I mean someone who explicitly or implicitly lets the developers, other businesses that make money from government policies and, of course, the unions* know that he will vote as they would like him to on issues important to them. That candidate will have no trouble raising money. And certain well-known activists, like a Kemble Pope, or former members of the City Council, like Don Saylor or Ted Puntillo, will stampede in favor of him.
So far, that candidate is not running. I know Robb Davis and Rochelle Swanson have too much integrity to be that guy. I suspect that is not Sheila Allen, also. I would be very surprised if someone does not emerge as this year’s money candidate, however. Most voters don’t seem to demand integrity from their representatives.
————————
*Perhaps the unions given favor will be those which rip-off ordinary people by building overly expensive infrastructure projects, as opposed to labor groups which represent City employees. There is still a good chance at corruption as we spend millions repairing our streets and tens of millions constructing the new water works and the new waste water plant.
“Someone, I don’t know who, will probably run as the money candidate.”
“former members of the City Council, like Don Saylor or Ted Puntillo, will stampede in favor of him.”
I don’t know about the ”money candidate,” but the ‘machine’ candidate will be Sheila Allen. She is the one that the Unions will be behind as she is the one most likely to fall in line with their expectations, given her current associations.
That is why Sheila Allen must not be on the council.
Couldn’t we at least wait to see what her positions are before judging whether or not she should be on the council. I would hate to think that association was the determining factor in career trajectory. If we used that as our criteria, I would certainly never have been accepted into medical school as I had never known a doctor personally, and had only had a few visits in my lifetime. If I were to have been judged by association, I would still be in the fields picking fruit, a worthy job, but I can’t help but feel that my strengths and talents were better used elsewhere.
For what it’s worth, I’m unaware that DTA ever endorsed Sheila Allen for school board, though they had at least two shots to do so. Her endorsement page from her last run for school board is still up — link.
Although she has two union-connected endorsements (CSEA local and Sacramento Labor Council), I find it interesting that she doesn’t have the teachers’ union endorsement, locally or regionally. Her endorsement list for school board is pretty typical for a successful candidate for her position. I followed that last campaign somewhat closely, and I don’t think those two endorsements gave any indication of a “machine” candidate.
According to David in an article he wrote last week “Sheila Allen, who has spent nearly a decade on the school board, is backed heavily by individuals opposing reform.” That’s enough for me to not vote for her because I’m not taking any chances of getting another candidate that won’t keep the firefighters and unions in check.
G.I.: “backed”??
She hasn’t officially announced (that I’m aware of), and I’m not aware of backers publically announcing themselves at this point. (I don’t follow city politics as closely as I do the school district, so I might have missed some detail that you or David Greenwald are privy to)
Public office is about developing relationships, and she has held local public office, so I wouldn’t be surprised if several of those individuals in question endorse her. The implied question you’re really getting at is, “does she pander to interest groups beyond what is good for the community?”
Given her record on the school board, I can’t draw that conclusion. DTA didn’t endorse her, and she voted to lay off teachers during budget reduction measures.
Given the range of people who endorsed her, from Sue Greenwald to Don Saylor, I don’t think those school board endorsements tell us all that much about her likely positions on city issues. The key will be getting candidates to be specific during the campaign.
Sheila Allen is completely unqualified to be on the council at this point and time. In fact, she is a danger to the city. Just the fact that she is endorsed by people like Mary Zhu should generate enough concern. Toxic connections abound.
“Sheila Allen is completely unqualified to be on the council at this point and time.’
Why do you think she is unqualified? (beyond any concerns regarding the people who have or will potentially back her?)
What is her background dealing with a $15 million dollar per year budget shortfall?
What is her background leading a multi-service shrinking business operation?
What is her background with respect to public employee unions?
What is her background with economic development?
What was her position on water fluoridation?
She is too inexperienced in the disciplines we need, and too connected with all the things that have been proven to be bad for Davis.
Frankly, your points come across as being from a person whose mind is already made up and I also think your list is too narrow.
To address those two issues, let me repost what I posted yesterday with respect to a Sue Greenwald candidacy, because it applies to a Sheila Allen candidacy as well.
Right now the key issues that appear to be likely to take center stage in driving the campaign debate are:
• Keep Davis a desirable, attractive community
• Collaboration
• Budget and Fiscal Sustainability
• Economic Growth
• Housing and Land Use
• Environmental Sustainability
• Water
• Energy
• Transportation
• Accountability
Other candidates have articulated their vision of what makes Davis. Sheila will need to articulate such a vision, and then answer questions about whether that vision of Davis is fiscally sustainable.
The year and a half since the last Council election has seen a significant upsurge in Collaboration between the City and the University, as well as the City and the County, and the City and the other Yolo cities. Sheila will need to articulate her vision for how that collaboration can be continued, built upon, and/or backed away from. We need to understand more about Sheila’s ability to be a team player, both with her Council colleagues and with other jurisdictions.
wdf1 has pointed to the singular accomplishments Sheila has been involved in with respect to the School District’s Budget and Fiscal Stability challenges in recent years. The DJUSD solution of choice appears to have been repeated tax increases. Sheila will need to relate those DJUSD decisions to the City’s current budget and fiscal sustainability situation.
What Sheila’s positions on incremental additions to our current Sales Taxes and/or additional Parcel Taxes aren’t known.
Sheila is a complete unknown with respect to Economic Growth
With the approval of Cannery, my sense is that Housing is off the table as a resonant issue for the forseeable future, but Land Use will be an important component of any Economic Growth discussions that Sheila participates in.
I honestly don’t know where Sheila stands on Environmental Sustainability and its components Cool Davis, Green Waste Containerization or the NRC-recommended Minimum Standard Solar Energy Ordinance, etc. She is a tabula rasa in this key issue area.
What role Water plays in the 2014 Campaign won’t be clear until Judge McGuire makes his legal ruling in the next few weeks. But regardless of the ruling, I wonder if the Davis electorate will want to go through another round with respect to Water.
Energy is likely to grow into a very big issue in the six months leading up to the Election. There is a growing sentiment that Davis residents can collectively save millions of dollars per year, if not tens of millions of dollars, by creating a municipal electric utility and getting off the PG&E grid. Sheila (and each candidate) is going to need to articulate their positions on Energy and the viability of going to a Municipal Utility.
Sheila is again a complete unknown with respect to Transportation, which has a lot of facets. The most immediate and compelling of those facets has to do with the streets maintenance backlog. Right now it is approximately $120 million, and if we spend only the $2 million amount in the current annual budget, the backlog will grow to $362 million over the next 20 years, and more importantly our current pavement condition index (PCI) in the low 60’s will decline to just over 30. Roads with a PCI of 60 are considered to no longer be in good shape. At a PCI of 30 they will be in poor shape. The costs to repair roads in poor shape are approximately $30 per square yard currently, while roads on the good condition/fair condition boundary cost only $7.50 to $10.00 a square yard to repair. All the 2014 candidates are going to have to merge the issue of incremental streets maintenance costs of no less than $8 million per year together with the issue of the current General Fund annual deficit of $5 million to $6 million per year.
Looming in the wings is the deferred maintenance backlog of City-owned buildings. I met with a Finance and Budget Cpmmission member today, and the fact that the City has a huge building maintenance backlog and no reserves set aside to pay for that maintenance backlog is eerily similar to the streets maintenance backlog situation. Very scary.
Finally, Accountability will be a mix of “How did we get into this mess?” and “How can we be sure we are not making the same mistakes?” questions. Some of the candidate names that have been kicked around will get a much more active dose of the first question than Sheila and the other candidates will, since they were on Watch when the ‘getting” got done, but all the voters will want to know where Sheila and the other candidates stand with respect to Accountability.
My knowledge regarding Sheila is limited to what I gained from watching school board meetings as I fold laundry. So I honestly don’t know the answer to any of the above questions. I’m assuming that you do, and that you don’t like the answers. As a note while I agree that the answers to question 1,2, and 4 speak to her qualifications, questions 3 and 5 are subjective.
Frankly: What is her background dealing with a $15 million dollar per year budget shortfall?
DJUSD addressed deficits in several successive years, some reaching $6 million while she was school board member.
What is her background leading a multi-service shrinking business operation?
DJUSD
What is her background with respect to public employee unions?
Negotiating several contracts w/ DTA & CSEA
Frankly:, What is her background with economic development?
What was her position on water fluoridation?
She is too inexperienced in the disciplines we need, and too connected with all the things that have been proven to be bad for Davis.
Interesting how you judge her prior to her officially jumping into the campaign. No bother asking her these questions. You’ve already made up your mind.
I suppose all we really have to go on is her record on things like Valley Oak, closing the budget gaps, hiring superintendents, attendance boundaries, maintaining enrichment and extra-curricular programs, etc.
On the other hand, there are already two outstanding candidates declared in Robb and Rochelle, so Sheila will have to be very specific as to city issues and really can’t be allowed to try to coast into office just on name recognition.
The Best and Worst Run Cities in America
Davis isn’t on either list, but then Davis is probably too small a city for their criteria. Seems like they’re looking at population over 200,000.