Editor’s Note: Every week on Friday the Vanguard will send all five of the candidates a question that they will be asked to respond to by the end of the day on Thursday for a Friday publication. The answers are posted in the order that they were received.
Answers are limited to 350 words.
Question: The City of Davis faces massive, unfunded liabilities and structural, long-term budgetary challenges with respect to deferred maintenance of streets, buildings and structures, parks, storm sewers and fleet. What would you do to address these unfunded liability and deferred maintenance balances?
[Divider]
John Munn
To answer this question, I will repeat my approach to analyzing the budget. It is easy to look at final balances and report that City spending exceeds revenue. Knowing why takes more effort. Both revenue and spending must be examined to learn where funds are coming from, restrictions on use, how much is available for different uses, and what types and amounts of revenue are available for particular projects and services. Then we can start making choices about how, and at what rate, the City can pay for long term needs. Economic development projects may help in the future, but each needs to be evaluated individually to know that their revenue projections are real.
A budget review that brings clarity to the City’s finances is still needed, which is why the City’s Finance and Budget Commission wants to do it and why an outside effort is underway with a similar objective. One can guess at types and amounts of cuts or new revenue ahead of time, but specific answers can only be provided after knowing the facts. I prefer knowing these facts before jumping to conclusions, and have been through this before while on the School Board. It is not a quick or easy task.
It is easy to point at obvious big ticket items (such as health care, pensions, and street repair) that need attention, but solutions still need to come from the overall City budget. A more productive approach is for the City Council to work with its Finance and Budget Commission to review the City’s budget, including unfunded liabilities and deferred maintenance requirements, with results organized in a way that clearly shows available revenue and related past or proposed spending. This would promote agreement on problem areas and consensus about what’s to be done. As a Council Member, I would insist that this budget review be available before proposing any type of tax increase. Asking for more money from taxpayers without being able to explain specifically what it is needed for is not, in my opinion, an acceptable way to balance a budget.
[Divider]
Robb Davis
Properly managing the city’s budget is fundamental to fostering a sustainable community. The key to this is bringing the growth of all costs in line with the growth in all revenues. Without this alignment any solution will be temporary.
First, we need complete transparency about the fiscal challenges to inform Council decisions.
We must institute an immediate (routine) “reserve analysis” of city infrastructure to produce a complete accounting of all current and upcoming maintenance needs.
We must also conduct a staff alignment analysis. We have cut 22% of the workforce over the past 5 years in a non-strategic way, and it is uncertain whether we are properly staffed to provide “core services”.
We must engage in a broad community dialogue about what constitutes “core services” to consider service alterations in an informed way.
And, we must more fully utilize the Finance and Budget Commission to provide oversight to budgeting and reporting processes.
Second, we must continue to contain the costs of employee compensation, because it is a major driver of overall cost growth. Options include increased employee contributions to pensions; eliminating the cafeteria cash out; implementing graduated salary reductions for senior employees; and analyzing the potential for outsourcing while assuring quality control.
Third, we need a comprehensive plan to expand our revenue base.
We must use our current “footprint” more efficiently by removing barriers and creating more certain processes for property owners committed to quality mixed-use redevelopment in the downtown.
We need to acquire and use a new fiscal model to assess the potential of the three proposed innovation sites. If any site has real potential for increasing City revenue, the Council must lay out clear guidelines for its development. In this way the community will be fully prepared to cast an informed Measure R vote.
Concerning potential tax measures, while I support Measure O I acknowledge that it provides only a short-term fix. I will not hesitate to send a parcel tax measure to the voters to meet critical infrastructure needs, but only after a full accounting of need and a commitment to changing the way we do business.
[Divider]
Daniel Parrella
For starters it is important to understand just how much the balance actually is. Roads are predictable enough and we seem to finally have that maintenance backlog mapped out in its entirety. CalPERS, OPEB and current Retiree Health are an inexact science looking forward but at least we understand costs will be going up and the structural deficit takes into accounts these rising costs.
My issue is the recently updated $4.99 million dollar deficit is in many ways a made up number. It does not take into account even the full liabilities for roads, it just adds $2.5 million for repairs. When it comes to unfunded liabilities what you dont know can hurt you. Previous city councils ignored the road problem until the backlog became an incredibly expensive issue that we will be dealing with for decades.
My concern lies with city buildings, parks, pools and fleets. While the deficit includes $110,000 for Fleet Replacement I still have heard no estimate for what the entire fleet will cost, and have heard absolutely no estimates for the other three. I understand calculating those costs will cost money but at the very least we could use a placeholder number guesstimated looking at other mid-sized cities. I suspect that just like with roads, a dollar in reserves now could save us 10 dollars in the future.
When it comes to controlling costs and increasing revenues at this point I feel most vanguard readers know where each of the candidates stand at this point.
I support the sales tax in June as well as the 1.16 million in cuts proposed for the next budget year. I will likely support a parcel tax in November. That will buy us time until the next labor negotiations begin. Long-term I support the findings of the innovation park task force. Expanding our tax base seems like the only way to sustain the services that the people of Davis have come to expect.
[Divider]
Sheila Allen
We need planned and phased infrastructure upgrades for our roads, sidewalks and bicycle paths through a system that prioritizes the most urgent needs and outlines ongoing maintenance while adhering to a clearly defined funding structure. There are urgent needs, but until we have our fiscal house in order, we may not be able to address all needs at once.
I would prioritize high traffic areas and focus on safety. That being said, I do not support the narrowing of 5th Street. I understand that the majority of the funds are from SACOG, but it would have been my desire to apply for these funds for a higher need area. As I walk neighborhoods, I hear many citizens concerned about what this change will mean for their ability to get to the downtown by car.
I support safe routes for bicycles and pedestrians, but I would have a more balanced approach for what is a primary route to our downtown for vehicles.
We need to budget for and identify a funding source for ongoing and regular city maintenance for the future since some of the prior funding mechanisms or either no longer available (RDA) or are insufficient (gas tax).
I am very interested in having a forward-thinking community conversation about our waste water treatment facility. We have an opportunity as we upgrade to create a system that is more green and may be an asset to local farmers. I would like to explore using gray or partially treated water to sell to farmers as a funding source for the city and another water source for agriculture.
Our storm drain system should be a source of water for wildlife if we work to educate the community on the importance of keeping the water going down the gutter clean. The City of Davis could be a leader in decreasing pesticides and herbicides to help improve storm water quality.
In summary, I would prioritize city road projects, invest in the infrastructure with the funds we now have available, and look to identify an ongoing funding source so we can proactively approach our maintenance needs.
[Divider]
Rochelle Swanson
The first step in addressing these challenges is to incorporate them in to the working budget. This process has been underway the last few years in a move to get away from excluding unfunded liabilities and thereby declaring a “balanced” budget. I am proud to be part of a team of council members who have been pushing to include these expenses and working toward an annual budget that honestly and clearly reflects all of the city’s expenditures and liabilities.
The serious deterioration of our infrastructure has been a focus of mine since being a candidate in 2010. I learned about the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) tables and discovered how low ours are. My colleagues and I have committed to including this unfunded liability into our long term budget, ensuring that we address road repair expenses. Our current growing deficit is, in part, due to finally accounting for these backlogs. Not accounting for the deferred maintenance of streets, structures, parks, sewers and fleet — city owned infrastructure — is similar to not counting the outstanding balance on a credit card.
We then prioritized and scheduled repairs that need to be done sooner than later to avoid higher costs. Each year pavement is allowed to deteriorate and the costs grows exponentially over time. I would expect that there is a similar decline rate for structures, parks, sewers and fleet vehicles. We need a methodical approach of assessing the life of each item, and the cost of deferring repair and/or replacement to make fiscally responsible decisions.
In a recent joint meeting with the Finance and Budget Commission I suggested they develop a list of city assets, like parks and fleet vehicles, and make an assessment on the best practice for long term maintenance. In one case, they assessed the vehicle fleet and determined the return on investment from replacing with alternative vehicles over time.
Our budget problems result from poorly informed decisions in the past. The policies that I have proposed, and continue to propose, will establish institutional devices to avoid the risk of fiscal crises like the one we find ourselves in today.
Strike 2.
Stting aside whether you support or don’t support the reconfiguration plan, the simple truth is that to the best of my knowledge 5th Street will not be narrowed at all. I’m not sure where Sheila is getting her information, but I believe she needs to check back with those sources.
As I understand it, currently 5th Street is four automobile lanes wide. For the purposes of some simple “representative” math, lets say that each of those lanes is 12 feet wide and there is a 1 foot edge on each side. That means a 50 foot width total with a 1 – 12 – 12 – 12 – 12 – 1 configuration/distribution. In the new configuration the distribution is 1 – 6 – 12 – 12 – 12 – 6 – 1 which totals to the same 50 feet. The middle 12 feet provides the “protected pockets” that serve both eastbound and westbound travellers making left turns.
Someone who knows more detail than I, can adjust my “representative” numbers.
Matt, you know what she meant.
Yes I do BP, and that is why I point out the problems with her use of the word “narrowing.” It comes across as spin.
Jim Frame
I must have been watching hockey at the time. What was “strike one” ?
For me, strike one was Nishi and strike two was looking forward to restoring raises for public employees.
Strike 3 was her actions on the school board along with her letter to the Enterprise with the “move on” message.
I don’t agree with Jim Frame about her stance on 5th Street being a strike against her. I doubt a majority of Davis voters are in favor of the road diet and I think Sheila Allen is aware of this through her outreach. I feel her being against the narrowing of 5th will end up being a plus for her.
BP, I have no problem with Sheila taking a position for or against the reconfiguration project. Based on the significant amount of canvassing I have been doing over the past few months, and the large number of voter conversations that have happened during that canvassing, I agree with you that many Davis voters are against the project, and that could translate to votes for Sheila. What I have a problem with is the fundamental inaccuracy of her statement that 5th Street will be “narrowed.” The north and south curbs on 5th Street are going to be in the exact same location, and the width of 5th Street will be identical both before and after the reconfiguration.
I have heard the argument by the project proponents that it will go from the current four lanes to five lanes … two right turn (bicycle) lanes, two through lanes, and one left turn lane. Their argument is that if one is counting travel lanes, 5th Street is actually going to be widened rather than narrowed.
Once again Matt, read above. It’s called a “road diet”, since when has going on a diet ever widened anything? Practically speaking.
Again BP the choice of words conveys a reality that isn’t supported by the numbers.
restoring raises for public employees.
I understood her position on this to be conditional on available funds and meeting other required obligations first.
“I understood her position on this to be conditional on available funds and meeting other required obligations first.”
From a recent conversation with Sheila, I can affirm that this is her intent. What people who do not favor her position are consistently leaving out is the phrase “in a fair and balanced manner” while promoting fiscal sustainability. Sheila has been consistent in her prioritization of fiscal responsibility as have all of the candidates.
If she actually believes that will be possible within the next four years (a council term), then she is not aware of the magnitude of the fiscal problem.
To put your criticism in to context, Allen was asked at the DCC debate earlier this month, ‘you recently voted to give teachers a two percent raise… given all of these pressing priorities, how did you determine that the best use of the recently increased state funding pass-through was to raise teacher salaries?’
Her response was, as reported by the Vanguard:
When she referred to the city being where the district was two years ago, she’s referring to the last year that the district was dealing potential budget cuts. But the district was dealing with budget cuts from 2008 until 2012.
Which begs the question as to exactly what she thinks would be a sufficient level of income to the city to even consider giving employees a raise. The next council will be facing continued reductions in staffing levels throughout its entire term. If she doesn’t believe that, then she is unaware of the magnitude of the problem.
The problem with her comment is that it suggests she will not face the city’s fiscal problems realistically.
She was asked to justify her position on the school board, and by implication to hypothetically apply it to city government. I don’t the she expects any quick resolution to city fiscal issues, and I’m not aware that she has any predictions as to when the city will be in stable fiscal condition. But you know how to reach her. You can ask her point blank to clarify.
I prefer to have candidates answer questions in public forums such as this. She knows how to find the Vanguard and is welcome to participate in the discussion here.
Why don’t you just tell us wdf1, you seem to be very knowledgeable of her positions.
B.P.: A lot of the time I source the very same material that’s available to you. Or occasionally I stop to talk with candidates who show up at the Farmers’ Market on Saturdays or at other public campaign events.
Can’t you also find your answers that way?
WDF, the December 11, 2013 Staff Report indicated a $213 million needed Roads expenditure. Fire Chief Trauernicht said Tuesday night that the main fire station is in such bad repair that it needs to be replaced. That’s probably another $5-10 million. Acknowledging the size of the problem is a first step toward addressing the problem.
Don,
I did not hear Sheila put a time frame on her comment. I believe that the question was stated as “in the future”. If there was anything more specific, I missed it. A definite possibility even though I was at the forum personally.
I agree Tia. Sheila didn’t include a specific timeframe. She referred to “when revenues rise” The question left unanswered was “rise how much”
Correct Matt. And I think the real question is a little larger even than that. Rise how much with respect to how much expenditures have risen during the same time period.
And I think the real question is a whole lot larger than even that. The deferred maintenance bill for the roads surfaces is upwards of $213 million. Based on the 12/11/2013 Staff presentation, you could even argue it is $342 million. With an annual General Fund budget of $42 million in FY 2013-14, that equates to over 5 years of General Fund Budgets at $213 million and over 8 years of General Fund Budgets at $342 million.
Of course that 5-8 years of infrastructure maintenance is only for the roads. There are substantial additional amounts for deferred maintenance for:
— The 130 plus Buildings and Structures that the City owns,
— The Parks and Greenbelts,
— The Pools
— The Fleet of City vehicles
— The City’s share of Public Transportation vehicle (busses) maintenance and replacement
Add those all up and you have an argument for the proposition that revenues will have to rise half a billion dollars before they cover all those expenses.
But the road diet is finally going forward; what is her intention here other than ‘not being in favor’? Would she stop it if elected….half way done?
it seems she’s trying to win by taking every opposite position she can to current council policy. it’s interesting because she’s now taking a position against lucas and don saylor on fifth street.
Hi SODA,
I suspect she merely means that she would not have voted for it had she been on the council at the time it was being considered although I have not spoken with her about this.
“it seems she’s trying to win by taking every opposite position she can to current council policy. it’s interesting because she’s now taking a position against lucas and don saylor on fifth street.”
Maybe this isn’t as complicated as one might make it. Perhaps Sheila actually has the ability to formulate her own opinions based on the evidence available to her at any point in time and is not guilty of towing any particular line for anyone else. Just a thought.
Allen (Davis Vanguard): I am very interested in having a forward-thinking community conversation about our waste water treatment facility. We have an opportunity as we upgrade to create a system that is more green and may be an asset to local farmers. I would like to explore using gray or partially treated water to sell to farmers as a funding source for the city and another water source for agriculture.
I think developing gray water use is an excellent idea, not just for agriculture, but for residential use. And it might lower the city sewer rates for those who take advantage of it.
Here’s a piece I just heard on the radio about gray water use in southern California:
Here & Now, 4/18/14: Recycling Gray Water As California Drought Persists
Here we go again. Gray water has numerous problems. It is generally used only where a water district is facing third and fourth tier water reductions; i.e., severe reductions or outright banning of outdoor watering. There are building code issues with use of gray water. In extreme drought scenarios that have resulted in specific water districts being in dire straits (we aren’t, and never will be), officials have generally ignored use of grey water and not worried about it. But it is, in fact, unhygienic and it isn’t easy to ‘allow’ it via building codes.
Some greywater issues:
Products going into your outflow need to be free of salts, free of chloride.
Since distribution into the yard is usually frequent and shallow, it’s not ideal for most irrigation of woody plants. IMO it’s best for turf areas, or to water bare soil that’s covered with mulch (the mulch acts as a filter).
You need a permit, though most people don’t get them. I don’t know what city code is in Davis.
Don’t allow puddling.
Don’t allow contact with edible portions of plants.
Avoid dishwasher water.
No water from sodium softeners.
Don’t run it through drip systems.
Don’t store greywater.
We are not at a level where we need to even be considering gray water use here.
STRIKE 3….or is it 4?….5?
I think there’s enough conservation interest in the Davis community (folks like Michelle Millet and her pieces on recycling and waste reduction, some of the “Cool Davis” folks) to explore this as a flexible alternative. The solution to all our water problems? absolutely not. But one of a menu of alternatives that might be amenable to a number of residents.
I think your criticisms, Don, can be addressed in the city code and permitting process. The radio/audio piece above focused on gray water from residential clothes washers and on permitting issues.
Well, that is simple. You just install a diverter valve so you can have the water run from the washer out into the yard, and attach a hose to it so you can move it from one woody plant to another. http://www.motherearthnews.com/green-homes/greywater-zm0z11zphe.aspx?PageId=2#axzz2zGgz4pDe
Thanks Don,
Now there is an idea that I would not have encountered had Sheila not made her comment and you picked up on it to show how the concept can work in reality.
I seriously don’t think the city council or staff should spend any time on this. You can do it for very little cost, or pay a handyman or plumber to do it. It’s probably a minor code violation, but it’s completely correctible at resale and of little consequence. As Michael has pointed out, topics like grey water are pretty irrelevant to the council race. So I’m not sure why any candidate brings them up in the context of the city’s unfunded liabilities. The amount saved to homeowners and to the city would be trivial.
WDF, right now the grey water is recycled 100%. The Davis Wetlands use every single gallon of the water discharged from the existing WWTP.
The budget deficit is not $4.9M or even $5.1M. It’s only that low if you agree that we should allow the roads, bike paths and other city-owned assets to deteriorate even more than they already have AND agree that its acceptable to allow the backlog to actually increase. The $2.5M maintenance expense reflected in the city’s proposed 14/15 budget doesn’t come anywhere close to meeting the actual need. The $2.5M is an arbitrary number that seems to have been picked at random and therefore, the $4.9 number is entirely random as well. Why anyone is even pretending that these number are grounded in reality is a mystery. I’m wondering when the Finance & Budget Commission is going to get on this, so that the community can have a transparent discussion and cast informed votes in June.
-Michael Bisch
Why we’re talking about grey water and 5th Street when the thread is about the fiscal emergency is also a mystery. Perhaps we should focus on the pending insolvency instead of these distractions.
-Michael Bisch
Sheila Allen wrote
“I support safe routes for bicycles and pedestrians, but I would have a more balanced approach for what is a primary route to our downtown for vehicles.”
Apparently she doesn’t understand that this project IS a balanced approach. It will be a win-win-win for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
A UCD study predicts that after the road diet is implemented the round trip travel time for cars from A to L and back again will decrease by 45 seconds, even at the lower speed. Furthermore, this stretch of 5th street is now by far the most dangerous street in the entire city. After the reconfiguration, everybody will be safer. Pedestrians will be able to cross the street easily and safely, cyclists will be able to use the street without fear for their lives, and even automobiles should experience a decreased accident rate and increased throughput.
Mont
“Apparently she doesn’t understand that this project IS a balanced approach. It will be a win-win-win for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.”
Your second paragraph actually puts this in a more realistic perspective. You state “a UCD study predicts”.
This is much more to the point. There is a prediction and anticipation that this will be a win-win-win solution.
Time will tell if this is the reality or not. Very often predictions fall short of what their promoters predict in order to put forward their project. The Davis Target is one example of falling short of predictions.
I have no strong feelings one way or the other about the 5th St. renovation and am willing to take a wait and see attitude. That stretch of road is suboptimal as it is now, but it remains to be seen if we will actually achieve the projected benefits. I do not think that Sheila is wrong to have concerns and I certainly believe from talking with numbers folks at Farmer’s Market that she is not alone in her skepticism.
Apparently Sheila does understand that the more she talks about 5th Street and grey water the less she has to talk about the budget, employee compensation, cuts, etc. Mont, Tia, wdf1 et al seem to be on board with that.
-Michael Bisch
I’ll tell you what, if nobody else will take a crack at grading the candidate responses, I will do so when I get back from my kids’ soccer games. Rifkin, please save me the hassle.
-Michael Bisch
Michael: here’s my take on what they wrote.
John Munn: examine the budget in more detail. Have the Finance and Budget Commission take the lead.
Robb Davis: Assess infrastructure needs. Increase role of Finance and Budget Commission. Contain employee costs. Increase revenue via mixed-use downtown, peripheral innovation park sites. Supports sales tax, possible parcel tax.
Daniel Parrella: Get clearer estimates of actual deficits and deferred costs. Supports sales tax, continued budget cuts, peripheral innovation parks.
Sheila Allen: Opposes 5th Street project. Identify a funding source for deferred costs. Use gray water.
Rochelle Swanson: Make budget more realistic and honest. Council has taken steps to start addressing the backlog of repairs needed. Have Finance and Budget Commission help set priorities.
Well done Don. I’ve made a few additions below.
John Munn: examine the budget in more detail. Start making choices about how, and at what rate, the City can pay for long term needs. Have the Finance and Budget Commission take the lead.
Robb Davis: Assess infrastructure needs. Conduct a staff alignment analysis to ensure we are properly staffed to provide “core services”. Increase role of Finance and Budget Commission. Contain employee costs. Increase revenue via mixed-use downtown, peripheral innovation park sites. Supports sales tax, possible parcel tax.
Daniel Parrella: Get clearer estimates of actual deficits and deferred costs. Stop making up phony budget numbers. Supports sales tax, continued budget cuts, peripheral innovation parks.
Sheila Allen: Opposes 5th Street project. Identify a funding source for deferred costs. Use gray water. Decrease the use of pesticides and herbicides to help improve storm water quality.
Rochelle Swanson: Make budget more realistic and honest. Council has taken steps to start addressing the backlog of repairs needed. Have Finance and Budget Commission help set priorities.
———————
As a disclosure under the Fremontia Rule, I would like to point out that I am not unbiased whenever I talk about Robb Davis. I have declared my support for him in many venues. I have formally endorsed him. I volunteer for him at the Farmer’s Market every Saturday. My name is on record at the City Clerk’s office in Robb’s FPPC filings. I have appreciated Robb’s leadership and character for a long time.
DT
I cannot see how you could get from any of my comments that I am on board, or not with any of the points made by Sheila, or whether I feel that she ( or any of the other candidates for that matter) adequately addressed the question. I felt that based on a recent conversation with her, I might be able to clarify a few points.
Your last post made me smile since I started to post my evaluations of the candidates responses this morning, but then stopped because I didn’t think anyone else would be especially interested in my take on this issue.
Interesting. Neither Don nor Matt heard Munn or Allen say part of the answer to the budget crisis was to increase revenue through systematic economic development. It has got to be clear by now that in the absence of significant revenue increases through economic development, we will be experiencing large tax increases as far as the eye can see.
I’d also like to point out that once again Munn provides no specifics. Study, examine, question. I sure wish he had prepared himself for his candidacy so we could assess his positions and cast informed votes.
Why Allen introduces 5th Street and grey water into this subject is perplexing. Her understanding of the use of SACOG and RDA funds is not based in fact. Furthermore, her continuing statements about “…not addressing all our needs at once” are troubling. No need to worry about addressing all our needs at once as we essentially haven’t been addressing any of our needs.
By beef with Swanson are these two statements:
“I am proud to be part of a team of council members who have been pushing to include these expenses and working toward an annual budget that honestly and clearly reflects all of the city’s expenditures and liabilities.”
and
“Our current growing deficit is, in part, due to finally accounting for these backlogs. Not accounting for the deferred maintenance of streets, structures, parks, sewers and fleet — city owned infrastructure — is similar to not counting the outstanding balance on a credit card.”
The truth is the city is NOT fully counting the outstanding balance on the credit card. They are only counting a fraction of the balance. The budget does not honestly and clearly reflect all of the city’s liabilities and the approx. $5M deficit does not fully account for these backlogs. For Swanson’s statements to be true, the projected deficit in 14/15 would be north of $10M. How far north of $10M not even the city knows. I challenge any current CC or FBC member or a CC candidate to explain in detail how the proposed budget keeps our roads and bike paths in the desired condition while reducing the backlog.
-Michael Bisch
Michael, I have heard of asking rhetorical questions, but I can’t ever remember seeing a rhetorical challenge posed.
While I’m on my rant, I don’t recall when we got to vote on having worse roads and bike paths. Which election was that? Why does properly maintaining infrastructure require a vote of the citizens, but allowing them to disintegrate is a prerogative of the CC? Weird.
-Michael Bisch