There was an interesting parallel between the State of the City address given by Mayor Joe Krovoza on Tuesday and the re-election campaign speech given by Rochelle Swanson on Saturday – both of them trumpeted marked success in Davis in the last year.
To an observant listener, one could easily see the common denominators in the successes that Davis has enjoyed in the past year and underlying each of them is the success at Cap-to-Cap, progress on the budget and sustainability, and perhaps the first real steps toward economic development after a number of false starts and false hopes.
Underlying this success has been the vision of Councilmember Rochelle Swanson and the hard behind-the-scenes work of City Manager Steve Pinkerton.
In her reelection speech, Rochelle Swanson spoke of the great success of Cap-to-Cap, the great work of the council to bring Mori Seiki to Davis, and the work to bring in Davis Roots, a non-profit start-up business accelerator which has the goal of helping start-ups in their early development, and the theme of Rochelle Swanson’s reelection campaign could not be more clear.
Ms. Swanson said that the location of Davis Roots was her first choice for a reelection announcement “because it’s a really great icon of where Davis has been, where Davis is going. It couldn’t be a better representation of what we can do when we really hold tight to our roots and grow as much as we can.”
In his State of the City address, Mayor Krovoza bragged that Davis is “proud to be one of the few cities in America that has a chief innovation officer,” he said acknowledging that “Rochelle Swanson absolutely led on the council to bring in a chief innovation officer.”
In fact, it has been Rochelle Swanson’s vision to put Davis on the map, in partnership with the university, to bring economic development and innovation into Davis.
In her speech, she emphasized that Davis is “evolving” rather than changing. “We’re still the core DNA, we’re still Davis is Davis.” But she said, “It’s okay that we go ahead and grow. That doesn’t mean we grow in size necessarily, it means grow within.”
“The things that we’re looking to do is exactly like that,” she continued. “We’re not tearing it down, we’re not changing it, we’re not supersizing it, we’re just growing what’s in the envelope of what is Davis and really keeping it strong.”
This will not be smooth sailing and she will have her critics in her goal for reelection. Those who opposed the surface water project are licking their chops to have Rochelle Swanson run on the water rates she imposed. Those who back the firefighters might be upset with her casting several deciding votes on fire staffing cuts, shared management boundary drop, and votes imposing the last, best and final offers on fire and DCEA.
There will be those who opposed Cannery and those who opposed development East of Mace.
The voters will ultimately have the final say on whether the vision that Rochelle Swanson has brought to Davis is the one they want going forward. But there is no denying that she has been instrumental in reshaping the goal of the city.
On the other side of the coin is the quiet leadership of Steve Pinkerton. He was hired in part to help set Davis back on the path to fiscal sustainability and arrived in the middle of a water fight that almost exploded on him.
In November, we learned that there was an active effort underway to terminate the contract of City Manager Steve Pinkerton before the December 1 deadline, after which would enable him to receive nine months of severance for early termination.
This week, we learned that he is a finalist for a position in Incline Village, Nevada, on the shores of Lake Tahoe. The Tahoe Daily Tribune this week reports that there will be public interviews on January 30 with the possibility that they run into January 31.
The paper reported, “The board spent about 20 minutes Wednesday discussing the first draft (of a contract), which includes a base salary of $145,000, a $600 monthly reimbursement for vehicle mileage and full recreation benefits, among other clauses.”
At the same time, the board up there will be asked to approve an ordinance that would mandate bear-proof trash containers – an apparently very controversial issue that has been discussed for months according to the paper – just in case Mr. Pinkerton is unaware of what he would be stepping into.
When we spoke with Mr. Pinkerton, he emphasized personal issues as a reason that he might consider the move. He told the Vanguard on Monday, “My wife and I have always loved Lake Tahoe. Audrey lived in Zephyr Cove as a young adult and has always dreamed of going back to the mountains. We also have very close friends who live in the Reno-Tahoe area.”
He called the opportunity a unique one and denied he was actively seeking a new position.
“While I haven’t been actively looking for a new position, the position description piqued my interest,” stated Mr. Pinkerton. “The opportunity to manage a service-focused Special District in one of the most livable communities in the country is a unique opportunity.”
While that is no doubt true, the timing coincides with the time frame in which the Vanguard learned that there had been an active effort underway to terminate the contract of City Manager Steve Pinkerton before the December 1 deadline, after which a provision in his contract would have enabled him, as described above, to receive nine months of severance for early termination.
As early as September we heard rumors that firefighters’ union President Bobby Weist was trying to oust Mr. Pinkerton and muster three votes. However, we believe he fell at least one vote shy of that goal.
If these kinds of petty, personal vendettas end up costing Davis its city manager, we need to take collective stock of where we are.
We agree with what we believe to be the overwhelming sentiment on the council: while Steve Pinkerton is by no means perfect as city manager, he is the right person to lead the city at this time, during troubled times of economic hardship.
It is hard to imagine a more tumultuous beginning to Mr. Pinkerton’s tenure as city manager. In the summer of 2011, the council hired him to begin on September 1, 2011. A few days later, the early portion of his tenure would be shaped by the September 6, 2011, city council meeting in which the city council approved the surface water project in the wee hours of the next morning.
Immediately the city plunged into crisis as citizens urgently signed a referendum petition that would ultimately result in the halting of the project, a year-long public WAC process and a March 2013 election that would trigger a lawsuit.
For years when the Vanguard first arrived on the scene, the lack of professionalism in city staff was appalling. Mr. Pinkerton has set about not only to save money, but also raise the level of competency among his key staff.
But, let’s be honest, Mr. Pinkerton was brought in to save the city’s finances and that is going to cause him to have to be in conflict with some city employees and others who might have their turf threatened.
For several years, from 2008 until 2011, the Vanguard and others in the community had been warning the council that the fiscal projections were too rosy coming out of city hall.
We believed that the eventual hits would make pensions far more costly, we warned about the unfunded retiree health care liability, and most importantly warned that the city was balancing its budget by failing to fund unmet needs, many of which were infrastructure upgrades.
In June of 2011, with a new council in place, then-interim City Manager Paul Navazio put forward the same old tried-and-failed budget. It did not deal with any of the core issues. The council revolted.
In June 2011, facing down a hot room, with the air conditioning failing to work and 150 angry city employees, the new council voted 3-2 to cut $2 million from city employees and put the money into shoring up retiree health and pensions.
The council gave the city manager direction to come back in September with cuts. However, when the cuts failed to materialize, new City Manager Pinkerton essentially told the council that he could get them the cuts he needed, but he needed more time to do so.
Over the next two years, Mr. Pinkerton realigned city government to save money, brought forward budgets that cut costs, and helped push through reforms.
We understand that, given the circumstances under which he was hired and the job he is asked to do, Mr. Pinkerton is probably not going to retire as a city manager in the city of Davis.
But as the current budget realities develop, it becomes clear that we have a tremendous amount of work left to do. We have to close a $5 million one-year deficit, and a long-term shortfall that could exceed $7 million annually.
This year we are looking at a revenue hike on the ballot for June. As Mayor Krovoza noted on Tuesday, “We could be, as soon as November of this year, have a citizen’s initiative on the November ballot with regards to the east innovation park and maybe some of the other lands around town.”
As Mayor Krovoza noted, “Whatever we bring forward, we need to make sure it matches our community values in sustainability as well as our economic development side.”
“200 acres is what’s available outside of Mace if that recommendation of the Innovation Park Task Force were taken up,” Mayor Krovoza continued.
None of this would even be on the radar without the work of Rochelle Swanson to push for economic development and the hiring of a Chief Innovation Officer on the front end, and none could be on the radar without the hard work of Steve Pinkerton and his staff on the back end.
The question now is whether Davis moves forward or reverts to form, paralyzed by political backstabbing and infighting. Losing Mr. Pinkerton at this critical stage could be devastating to the progress we have achieved.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The “petty personal vendettas” mentioned is deplorable and to be exposed for what it is, and discouraged as an effective political strategy whenever possible. If this did happen, the highest possible praise is extended to the Vanguard’s exposure of this shameful and selfish power play.
But in all fairness to the named individual who was portrayed as seeking a vendetta, the allegation was presented as a rumor. Can it be said confidently, that Bobby Weist did actively seek the removal of the current City Manager? For that matter, was the City Manager in recent professional peril at all, for any reason or from any source? As has been described repeatedly, Steve has done a fine job overall.
If we can’t be sure that somebody was making a run at the City Manager, this column becomes only another layer of conjecture, all with questionable merit. That would leave us with Pinkerton’s remarks being, “it is what it is,” with no underlying motives, or pressures to leave having existed.
You make a good point Phil, I would just suggest there is a difference between conjecture and anonymous sources, and this one falls into the latter category.
I agree that Pinkerton has done a fine job overall, but included in the details associated with that fine job are winners and losers. The citizens of Davis as a whole have been the winners, but the people who have been losers are also in many cases also citizens of davis and/or are very good friends with citizens of Davis. The even though the outcome has been good overall, the message has been painful for many. It is not unusual to see the community keep the message, and at the same time assasinate/execute the messanger who carried the message.
I wanted to attend Rochelle Swanson’s event but came down with a nasty bug. I will support her reelection for a number of reasons, but primarily because I think she is the most honest and action-oriented in the area of fiscal sustainability. Her vote on Mace 391 notwithstanding, She has a demonstrated track record advocating for economic development as the primary means to that end. But she is also sensitive to the concerns of those that fear and dislike the thought of growth of any type.
Davis has three potential paths it can take with respect to fiscal sustainability:
1. Status quo revenue and spending toward bankruptcy.
2. Bringing in adequate revenue by becoming the highest-taxed comparable city.
3. Bringing in adequate revenue by developing our economy.
All three of these paths will have some impact consequences for the population. However, if we are honest in our desire to improve the overall human condition, only option #3 gets it done.
I agree with your first paragraph completely, and am happy to endorse Rochelle.
Your paths 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive in the sense that higher local taxes and economic development are not an either/or choice. I suspect all the candidates, including Rochelle, are likely to support some higher local taxes and some degree of economic development.
There is no path to a balance budget in 2014-15 that will not go through some form of tax increase.
If you raise taxes to bring in adequate revenue to meet the immediate need, you have lost the interest and resolve to develop the economy until there is another immediate need. We know this because we have allowed so little economic development over the years we have known of the looming structural fiscal problems.
I see it as an either-or proposition.
I don’t agree Frankly. However, no-growthers and slow-growthers like Don and Tia have to get engaged in the process and start coming to meetings and prosteletizing the “we can’t be tax-a-choosets” mantra.
If they don’t then we will have a permanent 9% Sales Tax and a permanent $400 per year Parcel Tax. That is the only way we will be able to close the current $13 miillion to $14 million per year deficit, which will get even larger (by several million dollars per year) when we get the transparent, honest appraisal of the deferred maintenance costs for other City infrastructure (such as buildings and structures and parks and pools).
I’m sure that G.I. will be happy to hear that the tax increases are likely to be permanent.
I agree with Matt that this is not an either-or proposition.
This is far too simplistic an idea and ignores far too much about what has occurred within the City of Davis over the past twenty or so years.
Yes, there have been tax increases.
And there also has been growth although Frankly seems firmly committed to denying it. Confirming population growth is as simple as querying Google. However, Frankly chooses to ignore the reality of population growth while failing to state what he believes is the more desirable amount and rate of growth.
This is also true of economic and business development. There have been what I consider many new businesses and business promoters in Davis. Not as many as there likely would have been had the recession not occurred, but many never the less. I’ll name a few. Rochellle Swanson who one would see as much less growth averse than I am has noted the Davis Roots, hiring of Rob White, arrival of Mori Seiki as successes so far.
To me, this is certainly not “no change”.
While I do not have any experience with change on a city level, I do have a lot of experience with change on the level of a large department
(70-80 doctors) and at the level of a large medical group (the Permanente Medical group). With this background, there are a few points that I have come to believe firmly.
Changes on the scale being discussed here are multifaceted and are best effected in an incremental fashion. Every decision that is made will have pros and cons and these need to be weighed by all affected parties.
We know what we have now. We know the downsides to the types of decisions that have been made in the past. I believe that the onus for a full discussion of the pros and cons of any proposal lies on those promoting the change. If they portray their proposals fully and honestly then more people are likely to be in agreement with the proposed plan.
If simplistic terms such as either-or, and win-win are repeated without substantial numbers and projections, I think it is safe to say that there will be substantial opposition.
And one last comment for Matt, while I agree that most of my involvement is at the county, not city level, I cannot help but wonder how much more engaged, how many more committees I can sit on and how many more meetings you would think I could attend while continuing to work full time? ; )
Tia, the key isn’t you yourself alone going to meetings and/or sitting on committees. Both you and Don clearly more than carry your weight. The challenge is to get the other “8 million stories in our Naked City” to step up and become actively involved in helping achieve a sustainable fiscal future for our community. We are facing a confirmed (by Council, the Mayor and the City Manager) deficit of $31 million over the next five years … a bit more than $6 million per year. Add $164 million of additional/incremental spending on streets over the next 20 years ($8 million plus per year) and the annual deficit grows to approximately $14 million per year for 20 years. Then you add on top of that $XX million (possibly $XXX million) to address the deferred maintenance backlog on City buildings and structures (for which we have $0 of reserves set aside). Then you add on top of that $YY million (probably not $YYY million) to address the deferred maintenance backlog on City parks (for which we have $0 of reserves set aside). Anne Brunette the Liaison to the Recreation and Parks Commission is assembling a report on the deferred maintenance backlog and other budget issues for an early 2014 Recreation and Parks Commission meeting. Holly Bishop will tell you that there is a $ZZ million deferred maintenance backlog for City Pools.
When you add $31 million and $164 million and $XX million and $YY million and $ZZ million together, what it means is that absent some new revenue sources, all Davis residents, regardless of their growth positions are looking at permanent Tax increases (both Sales and Parcel). It is not enough to pass the ball off to someone else and say, “I believe that the onus for a full discussion of the pros and cons of any proposal lies on those promoting the change,” because the presence of Measure J/R means that simply won’t happen unless we on our side clearly and unequivocally say, “This is what we need. Give us clear assurances that we (the City) are going to get what we have articulated as our need, and we will approve your next steps in a Measure J/R vote.”
If I have heard you and Jim Frame correctly what you have asked for is a pro-forma P&L of the actual Innovation Park itself, with market studies of the expected velocity of UC Davis spin-off, technology transfer companies. My understanding of why you are asking for that level of documentation is that you want to be sure that the City gets its fair share of the value growth of any approved Innovation Park … its “pound of flesh” if you will. I ask you 1) is that a reasonable request? and 2) is that even a feasible request? The reason I ask those two questions is I can’t help but wonder whether UC Davis itself can tell anyone with certainty what its expected technology transfer velocity is going to be.
In effect, I can’t help but wonder whether yours and Jim’s question (and I see you two as proxies for lots of other Davis residents) is a classic unanswerable question … and isn’t it fair to say that posing an unanswerable question is really tantamount to saying “No.” So my challenge to all of us is that if we want to have any additional revenue sources other than additional taxes, then we need to figure out what the actually answerable questions are that we should be asking of both ourselves and of any partnerships we try and forge in order to capitalize on the core competencies of UCD with respect to innovation and technology transfer.
Thank you for your engagement. Thank you to Jim and Don too. It may not be an easy dialogue, but at least we are starting to have it.
Thanks Matt for the thoughtful response.
I would like to clarify one aspect of my thought process.
I am not asking for guarantees. I fully recognize that this is not possible. What I am requesting is the best estimate of the costs and benefits of any proposal. I do believe that this is possible. Why? Well, I don’t believe that any astute business person would start a business without some kind of business plan most likely including some estimate of their initial start up and ongoing costs and anticipated incoming revenue. If this is possible for a business, why not for a business park in of course more general terms?
As a surgeon, I would certainly hope that any patient I am counseling would want my best estimate of the pros and cons of the proposed surgery even though I cannot guarantee perfect results.
Also, you made an interesting comment about the city expecting its “pound of flesh.” To this I would say that it is equally true of the businesses who hope to profit will also be extracting their “pound of flesh” from the city in terms of the added infrastructure needs for support which will be necessarily supplied in part by the city, and the burdens imposed by additional traffic, congestion, auto emissions……
Every decision we make has a complicated and unique set of pros and cons. What I am not in favor of is the “just trust me approach” from either side.
“1) is that a reasonable request? and 2) is that even a feasible request? ”
I don’t need to know UCD spinoff projections; they’re immaterial from my perspective. My basic criteria for a business park are these:
1. The city identifies the types of uses it wants to allow in a business park. These would be limited to those that are likely to provide the kind of tax revenue that have been discussed by Rob White et al, and that the city needs to backfill its budget, and for which we can generate pro forma numbers to assess acceptability. (We don’t want to zone for low-return uses that might tempt a developer to install another mini-storage facility, or get annexed and then complain that he needs to build houses because a business park doesn’t pencil out.)
2. Ensure that the city doesn’t offer unreasonable incentives to entice development. Offering low-cost incentives to attract a desirable development, fine; giving away significant city revenue just to increase the developer’s bottom line, sorry, no.
With these criteria in place, I think it’s safe to assume that no developer is going to propose a business park he doesn’t believe he can profitably fill with tenants of the required type.
The big question then becomes: Will a developer come forward with a proposal? If not, I’d take that as prima facie evidence that the business park idea isn’t feasible, at least not yet.
Currently, the university is receiving proposals for sitings to house the World Food Institute Headquarters. Is it your opinion that we would have appropriate sitings to house suitable facilities for such a prospective tenant in Davis?
realchangz, I don’t know to whom your question is addressed, but if it’s me, I’d need more information in order to respond usefully. A search for “World Food Institute” didn’t turn up anything promising. There’s a World Food Center already on campus; is that related?
Jim,
Yes. One in the same with significant aspirations for future expansion and international recognition.
Why would they not locate on campus, and in what way would a research institute generate revenues for the city of Davis?
Don, this comes from their UCD webpage: “The World Food Center will help generate economic development in the Northern California region and expand the connections between agriculture, innovation and entrepreneurship. UC Davis is the one university to make this vision come alive.”
Not sure if that means any money for the city of Davis, though.
Their stated commitments:
Research: Collaborative and strategic research results.
Innovation: Tech transfer and intellectual property compensation in ways that reward collaboration.
Industry: Pre-competitive and university partnerships that drive innovation.
Policy: Policy coordination and goal-setting collaborations through agency and government entities.
Education: Fulfilling the purpose and intent of land-grant institutions.
Don, are you asking that question because you would prefer that they locate on campus?
That is a great place to start Jim. I agree with your final paragraph; however, I do think there is a bit of a chicken/egg aspect to all of this, with any interested developer asking the question, “Will Davis actually vote to approve a UC Davis Technology Transfer Innovation Park in a measure J/R vote?”
This really is a come to Jesus time for Davis in which we have to clearly articulate as a community what it will take to get us to vote Yes. Your criteria articulated above are a good place to start.
“I’m sure that G.I. will be happy to hear that the tax increases are likely to be permanent.”
LOL, was there ever any doubt Matt?
Actually G.I. I strongly/sincerely/fervently hope that our community comes to a consensus decision that we need to develop sustainable revenue sources other than incrementally higher and higher taxation. I believe my long-winded response to Tia identifies a path toward that end. I hope that you too will help us make progress toward the building of that consensus decision … and I hope that you will encourage others to join in the dialogue.
Matt – So what about a 2 trac conversation with one addressing the issues outlined in my comments below?
Sorry Matt, history is not on your side on this point. And you probably can connect it through your challenge to Tia and Don, and Tia’s response.
We don’t need a single estimate or P&L or any other “proof” of benefit for economic development. There is absolutely no rational argument against economic development being the ONLY long term source of increased city revenue other than tax increases. It is up to Tia and Don and any other Davis voter that rejects it to come up with the alternative. There is none. They know it. You know it. I know it. The Council knows it. The City staff knows it. So stop asking for it.
And with respect to any comment that Davis HAS grown… well that is another non-point that indicates a propensity to drop FUD bombs into the minds of the uninformed… because there are copious clear facts (that I and others have posted ad nauseam) showing how Davis is orders of magnitude behind any other comparable city. Little Winters CA brings in almost 70% of the sales tax revenue that Davis does. We are so far behind it is embarrassing.
My point… and I stand by it… if we get tax increases enough to cover the structural deficit, economic development will be rejected. The picture I like is all of us Davisites plunging to our demise from a tall precipice and tax increases make enough voters believe they can prevent the development of real wings because they can fly by flapping their arms.
I am uncertain as to what I am being “challenged” on, or why anybody is suggesting that I “reject” economic development. My position on economic development has been stated repeatedly and very clearly,yet it is once again being distorted.
The persistent misrepresentation of my views is mystifying.
Don, setting aside Frankly’s rhetoric for a moment, here are my thoughts about where we are (both as individuals and as a community) regardless of what the details of our personal positions are.
Specifically we have reached the point where talk is cheap for all of us. We need to translate the talk into action. Each of us is responsible for doing that. Our $14 million per year deficit has to be dealt with in the coming 12 months one way or the other. Whether Frankly likes it or not, the only way to generate that $14 million in incremental revenue in that 12-month period (and be positioned to pay the next $14 million installment in the next 12-month period) is a combination of 1) an incremental half cent Sales Tax (which will generate 25% of the needed $14 million) and 2) a $400 Parcel Tax (or Ad Valorum Tax)(which will generate the remaining 75% of the needed $14 million).
If we do not want those two incremental Taxes to be permanent (given that the $14 million deficit is expected to last for 20 years based on the Staff presentations to Council), we need to begin taking the steps needed to translate the broad brush stroke discussions of an Innovation Park (and the potential departure of Schilling Robotics and Maronne Bio Innovations and others) into reality. I’m not presupposing the consensus answers we will collectively and collaboratively come to. We may decide that making the Taxes permanent is the best course of action, but regardless of the ultimate decision, the time for “views” is over. The time for action and engagement is upon us.
When the Mace 391 debates raged you said, get the Easement out of the way, and then we can get serious about talking about the details of what an Innovation Park will take in order to make a go/no go decision. Your position has been clear … talk only about the IPTF sites. Let’s assume that that complying with your position will not be a problem. To the best of my knowledge Nishi isn’t an option for either Schilling or Marrone, nor is the 5th Street site.
So we need to focus on the East and West IPTF sites if we are going to retain Schilling. Schilling has clearly stated that they are on a three year timeline and want 40 acres.
In response to my prior post, Jim Frame has laid out a set of criteria. Are Jim’s criteria ones that you can be comfortable with? If not, what are the criteria that you feel need to be added?
I have no problem with Jim’s criteria. I also have no problem with letting the Innovation Task Force deliberate and make recommendations, since they are the ones tasked by the city council to do so. When they’ve done that, and we know what the landowners are willing to do, we will have some basis for discussion and action.
Don the problem with the Innovation Task Force is that they aren’t the people who will go to the polls when a vote takes place. They can deal with the policy aspects of the process, but they can’t bring the dialogue to the populist, one man, one vote aspects of the davis voting milieu. That is going to have to happen virally. Is there any reason you don’t want to be a leader in that viral exchange so the Davis voting public is informed when the vote takes place.
Said another way, the Innovation Park Task Force can do the heavy lifting in responding to what the voters want, but only the voters can actually say what it is that they want.
One other thought … when you say “… [when] we know what the landowners are willing to do” isn’t that the reverse of the reality we just experienced with the Cannery process, where the true driver of the final configuration was “… [when] the various constituencies in Davis collectively know what it is that they want”?
Matt, do we any reliable information on developer interest? I recall you saying that you’d had some discussion with Dan Ramos, but I don’t know if it was specific enough to get a read on his desire to site a business park on the Ramos/Bruner property.
We can have all the discussions and public meetings and letters to the editor we want, but if the developer doesn’t see the prospect of an acceptable ROI, then we’re just spinning our wheels.
Jim, to the best of my knowledge, and I could be wrong, but there is confirmed interest for the East Innovation Park (Ramos/Brunner) and possible, but not confirmed interest for the West Innovation Park. It has also been reported to me, but I have not spoken to Schilling directly, that Schilling has interest in the East Innovation Park, but no interest at all in any of the other three IPTF identified sites.
I agree with your point, and the process I am arguing for needs to be collaborative, otherwise it will be nothing more than “make work.”
Pinkerton might retire as City Manager of Davis. It just depends on whether Davis is smart enough to keep him.
By the way, David’s original article on the move to try to fire Pinkerton claimed he had 12 anonymous sources. That would be a lot of people making up a story if it weren’t true. The absurd part is the idea that simply getting rid of the City Manager would solve the problem when the CM’s job is to carry out the policy goals of the City Council. If people want to stay the course or go a different way they will have the chance with the June election to decide. If three votes say go one way i’m sure Pinkerton will go that way. Currently they are saying get a handle on city finances and that is the way things are going. If you want to change the direction of the city you don’t need subterfuge or purges you simply need to win an election.
I largely agree with your point, but I would add that Pinkerton is particularly skilled in accomplishing a lot of these goals and I think critics see that. It’s one thing to have a goal of cuts, we saw that in 2011 with the budget vote, but at that time, the council did not have a city manager skilled enough to carry those cuts out.
Would anybody want Deputy Fife running Mayberry. I doubt that the City Council of Mayberry would ever be foolish enough to listen to Barney if he wanted to get Sheriff Andy fired.
If you are referring to the firefighters union president as Barney Fife, I suggest that your analogy is off.
No I wasn’t making that analogy. Any depiction to people living or dead beyond the City Manager is inaccurate.
Approaching a period of intense review and discussion of the current budget – it really seems like an ideal time to ask for a clear breakdown of the budget – providing clear delineation of what I have described as “Legacy costs or deferred costs” from the other legitimate, ongoing current operating expenses.
The true “budget busters” which we see beginning to dominate the spending needs of the city are not about some extravagant new spending programs – rather they are the exact opposite. The major “new” expenses we see coming into play are truly all about “making up for what we should have set aside in prior years expenditures and prior year’s budgets”.
We need to clearly understand this distinction. It’s not just an accounting thing, it is the story of why and how this was allowed to happen that is the story that needs to be told and clearly understood – before we begin the truly painful task of beginning to dig our way out of the hole that has been created.
Anybody who wants me to support some kind of “incremental new tax” to make up for the failures of previous administrations to recognize and take ownership of their true costs of operations had better be willing to fess up and own up to the failures that have brought us to where we are today.
How and why we are where we are is an important story. Mine you, Davis is clearly not alone in this mess. We have neighbors in virtually every city and county across the state – we are not unique and neither are the causes of these systemic failure unique.
Be pleased to chat further with any of you who may wonder what I am talking about. But let me be clear that the causes of the current “so called budget shortfall” are anything but the result of current or short term origin. The legacy costs need to be isolated from our discussion of the current operating budget and clearly identified for what they are – debts of prior administrations.
How one goes about paying off old debts – particularly when they are credit card bills or related to our past history of deferring legitimate maintenance requirements – we need to be discussing all available options for resolving the issues before us.
My take on Pinkerton staying in Davis: As long as a solid majority on the Council wants to keep him here and is willing to support policies which will put our city on a sustainable path, he will stay. If nothing else, Davis pays a good bit more than Incline Village. The benefits and pension plan are much richer (though there is no state income tax in Nevada*).
I don’t entirely believe Pinkerton when he says this is going on now because “Incline Village came to me; I didn’t go looking for them.” I think the fact that he interviewed with their board and did well enough to make the final two and has not withdrawn his name, suggests there is more to the story and that he is very likely trying to secure his future. That is, he doesn’t want to lose his position in Davis and have no other job to assume. I think if all 5 members of the Council were in his corner, he never would have interviewed for that job, his wife’s love of Lake Tahoe notwithstanding.
————————
*Incline Village is presently experiencing a dramatic change. It has a massive housing boom, due in part to some very wealthy Californians moving there. They are supposedly fleeing from our new, higher income taxes on the rich. This comes from The Tahoe Daily Tribune:
Since the start of the year, Lakeshore Realty has closed 39 residential sales along the Nevada shores of Lake Tahoe to buyers who are moving from California.
Fifteen of the buyers — 40 percent of the total — specifically say they’re moving to Nevada to escape the burdens of California’s Prop. 30 tax hikes, says Chris Plastiras, broker of the real estate firm headquartered at Incline Village.
Plastiras isn’t alone.
Real estate brokers through the Lake Tahoe and Reno markets say sales of upper-end homes have been buoyed since the start of the year by California residents who make no bones about their desire to get beyond the reach of the Golden State taxman.
The rush to Reno and Lake Tahoe began with a boom in the first weeks after California voters approved Prop. 30 last November, but the stream of Californians who have decided that home is going to mean Nevada stayed strong.
Here’s what they’re escaping:
Prop. 30 created four high-income tax brackets for California residents, and it boosted the tax rates by anywhere from 10 percent to nearly 30 percent for wealthy Californians.
The state tax rate for taxpayers who make $1 million or more, for instance, rose to 13.3 percent from the previous 10.3 percent.
While the measure calls for the higher tax rates to expire after seven years, many of the folks who pay the new levy — an estimated 3 percent of California’s taxpayers — have decided that Nevada’s income-tax-free environment looks far more welcoming, says Carole Madrid, an agent with Lakeshore Realty.
Madrid recently listed a $12.6 million lakefront estate in Incline Village, and she expects the property will be purchased by someone fleeing a high-tax environment.
Craig King, chief operating officer of Chase International, a brokerage with offices at Lake Tahoe and Reno, notes that home sales are stronger this year along the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe than they are on the west shore in California. That’s a reversal of last year’s trend.
“Prop. 30 probably has something to do with that,” he says.
Just saw another story, this one from today’s SF Chron, which says the same things: “State leaders closely watch migrating millionaires,”
The only mention of Nevada is similar to the Tahoe Tribune tale:
Another telling statistic: On the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, where there is no state income tax, 151 homes sold for more than $1 million in 2013. That was 86 percent higher than the previous year. On the California side, only 67 homes sold for more than $1 million, down 9 percent from 2012, according to Susan Lowe, a broker with Chase International.