I found this week interesting. I have long upheld and, in fact, fought for slow growth principles in this community. In fact, I continue to rent a home and live in this community because I like the small town, and the intellectually rigorous, progressive atmosphere of this community. I have fought to keep that.
I came to my current position on innovation parks slowly – very slowly – over a period of perhaps 18 months. This is not a position that I have taken lightly. I have weighed the pros and the cons. I have run numbers and done the math.
The bottom line – and Rob White yesterday did an excellent job of laying it out – is I do not believe that the status quo can hold. We are at a crossroads and something will change no matter what we decide to do.
For weeks I have been laying out the decision framework, giving us three basic options for process given the rate of growth in costs for both employee compensation and infrastructure versus the lack of growth in revenues.
We have three basic alternatives – cuts (reduction in employees, cutting back on compensation), taxes (increased taxes every five years or so to accommodate the cost increases and pay for infrastructure), or economic growth.
The way I see it is a few 200-acre innovation parks might be the best way to keep this city where it is now. Innovation Parks are the key. If we design them well, they could look and act as extensions of the UC Davis college campus.
One of our posters posted the idea of the Innovation Park from the Student 30 Report at UC Davis: “The first question facing Studio 30 was to define a 21st Century Innovation park. The business park concept has been rapidly changing as the market demands new places to do innovative work. ..
“Although Studio 30 focused on Innovation Parks, there are many similarities between the research park concept and an innovation park located in Davis. Studio 30 found ARUP’s definition of a university research park clear and comprehensive and adopted it.”
What I see here are possibilities to be able to generate revenue to pay for basic city services, while keeping this community largely as we see it today.
Is there risk? There is risk in the status quo.
Some have told me that we should have one more round of cuts – well I see that happening regardless of what we do. We simply don’t have much choice because, even in the most aggressive – and perhaps unrealistic scenario – Schilling Robotics might be ready to move to Mace Innovation Center by 2017, which I count as two and a half to three years from now.
Rob White had made the point that, without much effort, we can add a quarter to half a million square feet of space per year, but that is still going to be a slow ramp up of tax revenue. Bottom line is that nothing that we do in innovation will preclude us from another round of cuts when the contracts come up.
But I think Rob White also raises important points there, as well. The issue of employee compensation is tricky. On the one hand, the Vanguard had led the charge to ratchet down runaway employee compensation from the last decade, but it looks like the market is going to open back up.
So we have a dilemma. Davis’ spending problem has never been Davis’ alone. The Vanguard has agreed we need to raise the salary for city manager candidates to be more competitive – but it is clear there will be upward pressure across the board.
Some readers believe that we can find quality candidates for less money. Perhaps we need to take the approach of Billy Beane and the Oakland A’s, as captured in the book and movie “Moneyball,” where the Oakland GM recognized that the A’s would never be able to compete financially with the Yankees for the best ballplayers and so he developed innovative ways to remain competitive despite these handicaps.
We cannot simply write this off as one reader did – my neighbor has a BMW, I could not afford a BMW, so I didn’t get one. The problem with the analogy is that having a BMW rather than another vehicle is that is more luxury than necessary from a perspective of quality and output. Moreover, you are not directly competing with your neighbor in any way, shape or form, other than perhaps ego boost.
Here at the Vanguard we have often criticized the poor quality of city staff. I have grave concerns about this as we move forward and ask our staff to do more with less.
It may be, however, that we are never going to out-compete for money with even regional leaders, so perhaps we get smarter. Hiring good quality employees and asking them to do neat and innovation projects might be a way to attract people, to a great community like Davis, with things other than money.
There are, of course, other ways to skin a cat besides cuts. As Rob White points out, “For a city the size of Davis, we have a larger per capita amount of parks, recreation facilities, off-street bike lanes and open space than many comparable regional neighbors. These are exceptional ‘quality of life’ attributes, but they all cost money to maintain and operate.”
He adds, “Many of the City’s facilities (such as City Hall, pools and playgrounds) are of an advanced age and require significant funds to maintain (and replace) them.”
Finally, “The community has enjoyed many services in the past without paying the true costs. This can be done when there are other revenue sources. As an example of how other communities might accomplish this, if you have significant retail dollars from a shopping mall, you can subsidize after school and recreation programs. We have amazing quality of life programs and services, but the true costs of these has just now been realized and is a driver for the structural imbalance in the budget.”
We may not know the total cost, but we know enough to be concerned. We have an idea what roads alone will cost. Amenities like recreation programs, soccer fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, parks and greenbelts are all going to have huge increases in costs.
Do we want to do away with them? People lament the browning of lawns, but imagine the browning of greenbelts or the introduction of another development – development on additional greenbelts, as a multifaceted way to at once get rid of costs, satisfy our demand for new housing, and gain short-term construction fees for the city. Is that the approach we want to take?
We are having trouble putting a $100 parcel tax on the ballot when we will probably need a $500 one at some point if revenue comes in. 58% of the people were willing to support a sales tax increase in June, but what happens when it becomes a half-cent increase every six years just to keep what we have?
So, if you are concerned about parks and pools and the amenities that make this community great and unique, and you don’t want people taxed out of the city, what is the best solution?
I am sorry – that’s really where we are. Things are going to change. We will either get by with far fewer amenities, fewer city services and more cut backs to employees, or we will have to raise taxes every six years – or we can utilize our unique place and put in some relatively small (200 acres) but very cool and innovative business parks.
I’m not going to settle for just anything – we need something that the voters will support and will generate the revenue we need.
But the bottom line is this is not a sellout, this was a calculated decision arrived at over a long period of time and taking in a number of factors. The best way to keep Davis Davis is to support economic development as laid out by this process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Why the Vanguard’s ongoing extremely narrow focus on innovation parks when it comes to economic development to grow revenue, create jobs and preserve our quality of life? It’s weird. The CC adopted an ED action plan that contains many action items. Why no drumbeat for the other elements, only the innovation parks? To use David’s baseball analogy, that’s like swinging for the fences exclusively, entirely disregarding bunts, singles, doubles, triples, etc. It’s hard to win a game let alone a title with such a strategy. Some would call it reckless.
-Michael Bisch
Hello Michael: I’m caught a little off guard by your comment and would like to understand it better? The push for innovation parks is primarily due to Measure R and its vote requirements. What do you think is lacking and would you be interested in laying out your preferred course of action via an op-ed/ guest commentary?
Michael has been pretty consistent with this same message for more than a year. The Innovation Park idea is a ‘big ticket’ item when it comes to economic development, but there are many things that the City could be doing that do not require years of study or a measure R vote. The problem is that the CC and Staff were more interested in plastic bags, wood smoke, old bathrooms, the election, and many other so called priorities. In many cases, we have already done the visioning and the planning, and are only waiting on the implementation. In the end, it is simply a matter of priorities.
“but there are many things that the City could be doing that do not require years of study or a measure R vote.”
Push them forward and we can look at them.
More flexible zoning around the downtown, higher buildings, Gateway, identifying low-performing properties and incentivizing owners to improve them; I’m sure there are others from previous discussions.
none of that really seems that interesting and controversial. the big issue around town are the innovation parks.
Mark wrote:
> and Staff were more interested in plastic bags, wood smoke, old bathrooms…
I’m also wondering what the fancy NEW bathroom (100′ from the still working old bathroom that could have been renovated for a couple thousand) next to the brand new park north of the farmers market cost…
Oh, its that darned measure R again. I wish we would just get rid of that darned elephant…
Anyway I agree with Michael there is so much more we could do. I’m not sure what other things Michael is talking about but some additional retail to provide competition, product availability and reduce tax leakage would help and of course we always need more housing which if structured correctly can get you a long way towards budget sustainability. Just look at the proposal to build on that little lifetime conservation easement at Wildhorse. Which proposal generates the most revenue for the city? I bet its the one with the most houses. And not to go from Wildhorse to deadhorse but 391 would have raised a lot of money for the city.
I know people claim housing doesn’t pay but Cannery was structured to be budget positive for a long time. What was it 10,15,20 years. Long enough that its hard to do future budgeting out that far so it does actually pencil out for the foreseeable future.
So Michael is right David, you have been wrong on this stuff for a long time you have been drinking the no growth Kool-aid for years even as it works against the interests of people of your age and class, young college educated families with kids, many of whom are not all that different from you, but whom have been priced out of this town by the policies of the generation that came before you. Its good that you are coming around, albeit at a glacial pace, but you start this by talking about how you figure to be a renter forever. Not everyone wants that or can land a place with a good landlord that doesn’t screw them every chance they get. I too was once a no growth advocate having inculcated my limits to growth based environmental education. Then I realized that Davis had gone too far and that its policies were holding me back. You are coming around David but stop pussy footing around and start standing up to those that have theirs and selfishly don’t care about anybody else.
you’re becoming a one-note wonder on measure r.
“I know people claim housing doesn’t pay but Cannery was structured to be budget positive for a long time”
housing doesn’t generate revenue. the assumptions for cannery to remain positive are linked to the city holding the line of employee compensation for a long time – you okay with that?
“So Michael is right David, you have been wrong on this stuff for a long time”
that sounds more like what you say rather than michael.
” You are coming around David but stop pussy footing around and start standing up to those that have theirs and selfishly don’t care about anybody else.”
how is he pussy-footing around? what would you like to see him push?
“I know people claim housing doesn’t pay but Cannery was structured to be budget positive for a long time.”
It is a net revenue gain for TEN years, then it is a revenue loss: infrastructure costs and city services will cost the city more than the revenue from the cannery covers. This is why cites get poorer when they get bigger. It’s a game you can’t win–with subdivisions.
And why are we talking Parks plural? Wouldn’t it make sense to settle on ONE project and try to get support for that one rather than 3 or is it 4 different projects?
Why limit ourselves, if two or three parks would be beneficial, i.e. bring in significant revenue to the city? For instance, Nishi is one type of innovation park. Supposed a medical research innovation park is proposed for the Northwest Quadrant, and an ag research park is proposed for the one by I-80/Mace. If they all bring in significant revenue to the city, are well planned, why not consider more than one?
DavisBurns
Given the time lines involved before we start seeing revenue from the parks, I am in strong agreement with starting with one, presumably the best project and then moving forward. I do not like the idea of reacting to bad decisions made under pressure by previous councils pretending that such pressure from specific interests groups might not lead to undesired consequences. I would strongly urge a multifaceted approach with the best single project chosen, cutbacks as necessary, and tax increases as necessary.
One other component of our community that we may be underutilizing is our volunteers. We have many, many people in our community volunteering through a number of different organizations in an uncoordinated fashion. Has making a thorough assessment of the capacity of this group to work collaboratively rather than in isolation to donate time as well as funds to projects the city determines to be critical ? I do not believe that I have heard this brought forth in this discussion.
Tia: “Given the time lines involved before we start seeing revenue from the parks, I am in strong agreement with starting with one, presumably the best project and then moving forward.”
So as not to assume what you mean here, are you proposing selecting one project, such as Nishi or Mace or NW Quadrant, building it to completion, and then assessing whether or not we need to consider a second project? Do I have that correct?
Does the fact that it may take 10-20 years to completely build out one of the projects impact your recommendation at all or is that a time frame you are comfortable with?
Mr. Toad
“Then I realized that Davis had gone too far and that its policies were holding me back. You are coming around David but stop pussy footing around and start standing up to those that have theirs and selfishly don’t care about anybody else.”
Interesting juxtaposition of ideas in this one paragraph. So you realized that the policies were holding “you” back, and then make a statement about other people being “selfish”.
I think this nicely illustrates the human tendency to see our own desires as natural, and those of others as selfish.
Yes of course but now that I have a home I would be arguing for restricted supply if I was only interested in my own well being. Instead I argue that we shouldn’t maintain policies that lock others out. I clearly learned from my experience.
Michael, where can someone get a copy of that Economic Development Plan adopted by the Council?
David, it would be good to post that adopted Economic Development Plan here in the Vanguard as part of an article. Also, have you ever considered having a “Pertinent Documents” section here on the Vanguard that readers can use as a reference library?
No need for a long-winded op ed. You shouldn’t be caught off guard; I’ve raised the issue plenty of times in the past. And it’s not clear to me why you’re evading the question. Why the extremely narrow Vanguard focus on only one element of a diverse set of identified ED action items? Why are you not daily beating the drum for all the other elements as you are for the innovation park item?
The comment about Measure R does not seem germane to me. Community resource allocation, awareness, and action of one kind or the other is required on virtually all the identified ED action items, not just innovation parks.
-Michael Bisch
Are you talking about downtown renovation and a citywide retail revitalization plan?
I’m glad I’m not the only one not clear on what Michael is getting at.
“Why are you not daily beating the drum for all the other elements as you are for the innovation park item?”
Such as?
I agree. There is no other discussion on this site about other options. I encourage you to give us more details.
Some readers believe that we can find quality candidates for less money. Perhaps we need to take the approach of Billy Beane and the Oakland A’s, as captured in the book and movie “Moneyball,” where the Oakland GM recognized that the A’s would never be able to compete financially with the Yankees for the best ballplayers and so he developed innovative ways to remain competitive despite these handicaps.
There are four basic ingredients for this:
1. Managers trained in the art of best-practices in leadership. Employees report high quality managers as one of the top reasons they are attracted to and stay on the job.
2. High quality recruiting and hiring processes that value skills and aptitudes other than just experience… basically hiring smart and motivated people that can learn.
3. High quality training programs to bring new hires up to speed.
4. Acceptance of a higher turnover rates because of the previous.
a high turnover rate – is probably not a good thing for davis. it takes a few years to get used to it here.
Too low turnover is generally not good. Too high turnover is generally not good.
When we moved here, from Sacramento, less than 20 miles away, we heard the refrain, “I don’t know how you do it where you came from but in DAVIS we do it this way…” so often we kept a little notebook call “how we do it in Davis”. Today someone would use an app. In fact, an app would help newcomers figure out how special Davis is.
Does anyone know what it cost to tear down a perfectly good playground and build the new playground in the photo (I’m betting that is cost more to tear down today than it cost to build)? Not long ago SF spent over a MILLION to remodel a smaller playground.
When I was a kid in the 70’s SF Peninsula parents remodeled playgrounds (that made kids happy and were safe) without costing the taxpayers a penny (they paid for everything and did all the work themselves).
A while back on the way to Tahoe I stopped to use a nice roadside bathroom and did a Google search to see that I had just used a $3.5 MILLION (taxpayer paid to remodel) bathroom:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/gold-run-rest-area-colfax
When we were kids most of us heard about of the $100 hammers the Army bought. Today it seems like the “status quo” of ALL government (run by both parties) is to spend tons of money the only difference is that government is better at “hiding” what things cost (and what we actually pay people that work for and with government).
I’m happy that the Vanguard (and posters to this site) is helping to shed light on the many ways that the government spends (and hides how they spend) taxpayer money.
P.S. When the city said it would cost $25K to tear down the little Dresbach-Hunt-Boyer tank house I had to laugh since a relative recently had an old barn (about 10x bigger than the tank house) in Amador County torn down for $5K by a licensed demo firm with a big excavator. I was talking to a couple young guys with a pickup who said they would have cut up the tank house and taken it to the Yolo County landfill for $2K…
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city/tank-house-move-planned-for-friday/
I don’t believe the tank house was torn down, but moved to a different location.
Anon wrote:
> I don’t believe the tank house was torn down, but moved to a different location.
The city did not tear it down but based on the (huge inflated) price to tear it down they paid a (huge inflated) price to move it and give big gift to a politically connected people that made a ton of money moving it and the politically connected family west of town…
SoD, the city will pay $27,000 to move it, and $50,000 to add landscaping and a patio: grand total $77,000.
California’s prevailing wage laws make public construction projects much more costly than private citizens & businesses, who can use non-unionized contractors, can get away with.
For example a typical Yolo County laborer on a government project would be paid in the $26/hr range with mandatory benefits that bump their loaded rate up to $47/hr. Equipment operators earn from $29-$41/hr with loaded rates from $58-$68. The loaded rate is before payroll taxes, workmans comp, etc..
Add this up, and crew with two laborers, and an operator on a backhoe would cost $1,300 for one eight hour shift. This is before equipment, materials, office overhead, and profit.
Demolition projects are especially tricky for government agencies because they have to strictly follow hazardous materials abatement regulations. Old infrastructure is packed full of asbestos and lead paint. Removing these materials prior to demolition is costly, and often this material is not uncovered until construction begins which further drives up the cost.
The barn-removers in a pickup truck can get away with hiring help for $10/hr under the table, crushing up and ignoring the hazardous materials, and dumping the debris on some rancher’s land in the middle of the night (“Yes sir, we dropped it off at the landfill”). Government agencies can’t operate that way.
“Government agencies can’t operate that way.”
Well thank heavens for that. No one else should be able to either.
Amen. We need to stop thinking it’s okay to pay for a quick and dirty job without paying benefits or having insurance, etc. I keep hearing how cheap the private sector can get things done. Well they cut corners, hire sub sub sub contractors and the people doing the work are paid a pittance. It’s not the way honorable people do business.
Let’s not be naive. We just built half a bridge for $7.5 Billion, plus interest, and inspections were blown off and critical mistakes were swept under the rug. So we got the gold Range Rover that sounds like it was partly built by Yugo mechanics.
SoD, playground cost: $585,000
“The second phase of construction, with a new universal-access playground as the centerpiece, will cost about $585,000. The money to pay for the work will come from Community Development Block Grant funds, Quimby fees and park impact fees.
“There has been no controversy surrounding the playground.
“(The new playground is) designed to accommodate and encourage play for children with special needs,” the city says in its staff report to the council. “The play pieces are ADA-accessible, allowing children in wheelchairs to experience playground activities. The sensory playground pieces provide recreational opportunities for children stimulated by sensory touch and listening activities.””
“There are only two such playgrounds in the Sacramento area.”
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city/council-to-decide-fate-of-wpa-restroom-building-in-central-park/
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/a-playground-where-wheelchairs-can-roam/
TBD wrote:
> SoD, the city will pay $27,000 to move it, and $50,000 to add
> landscaping and a patio: grand total $77,000.
Then TBD posted a link that said:
> Based on contractors’ estimates, the city believes it would cost $49,000
> to turn the facility into storage. Hattie Weber representatives say, however,
> that they’ve received an estimate of only $3,841 to re-work the building,
> a substantial decrease in cost because much of the work could be done
> by volunteers
A few years back we paid $3.5K to add a patio a sod lawn, a sprinkler system (I bought the timer at Home Depot for $59 and hooked it up myself in an hour to cut $200 off the bid) and carpet roses (we were told that the roses came from the same place the city gets them from that they plant downtown).
It is not “just” “prevailing wage laws” we are dealing with when we have a current government “status quo” that (on average) costs about TEN (10) times more than the same thing would cost a private citizen.
I was able to put in a sprinkler timer for $59 + 1 Hour, a (licensed tax paying) Landscape firm wanted $200 and I bet it would cost the city over $2,000…
If a local city is trying to install a sprinkler timer under an existing construction contract, it will be much more costly than what you can do on your own time. The reason is deeply rooted in law and policy and is not something that the average government employee, or even a city council, has any control over. Prevailing wage is a big component of it.
Most local government construction contracts use a methodology defined by Caltrans for compensating contractors for extra costs. It is supposed to model actual costs with reasonable profit for the contractor, and is likely to hold up in court if challenged.
So assume two hours of labor to install the timer which includes the drive to & from Home Depot.
Labor = ($47/hr * 2 hrs) * 1.12 (workers comp, social security, taxes, etc) * 1.35 (office overhead, bonding, insurance, profit) = $142
Equipment = ($22/hr Caltrans Rate for F-150 truck * 2 hrs) * 1.15 (equipment markup) = $50.60
Materials = $59 sprinkler * 1.15 (materials mark-up) = $67.85
Construction Inspection = ($110/hr consultant rate * 1 hr (driving to/from site and time at site) = $110
Total = $370
Not cheap, but not $2,000.
You saved a lot of money by performing your own labor and inspection. You’re not likely to find an employee willing to do that. However, you did miss including your vehicle costs ($0.56/mile is a good estimate)
In the real world, a City might buy a commercial grade timer that is designed to last for 30 years, be remote controllable, and hold up better to vandalism.
These numbers are the reality of what government employees look at every day and hopefully they describe why home projects and government construction are apples and oranges.
SoD, thank you for illustrating the simple thinking that the uninformed fall back on. This kind of math is why so many small businesses fail. $59 for parts and an hour of your time. That’s all and it saved you $200, right? That’s great for an individual who has the time available. If you had just asked for the timer to be installed the cost most likely would have been higher. The variable costs of your job went down slightly and the fixed costs down $59. Overall, however most of the variable costs are still in the $3,500 you paid for the job. There are costs that you don’t consider in your simple outline, some of which you actually incurred. Time to drive to HD, gas, depreciation on you vehicle, auto insurance, etc. You are not a business so rent, financing costs, payroll services, liability insurance, marketing costs, and more are things you can save on.
Not all of these would apply to the city but I hope you get my point. I am also not sure how much your job would have cost if the city had done it. My overall point is it is easy to think about the world as this simple linear thing but, unfortunately, it is much more complicated than that. I don’t want to suggest that the city is the most efficient operation in the world but the public is not served by simple thinking.
Ann_O wrote:
> SoD, thank you for illustrating the simple thinking that the
> uninformed fall back on.
FYI, I’m not what you would call “uninformed”, I’ve actually worked in politics for years and I’ve seen how public sector is getting even better at hiding the crazy spending from taxpayers and how the new “status quo” spending (by elected officials in BOTH parties) is out of control (and it not going to end well for ANYONE).
If you see above the city got a bid of $49K to turn a bathroom in to storage and the Hattie Weber people said they can do it for less than 10% of that. I’m not saying we don’t need to follow the laws I’m saying that we should look how to spend as little money as we need to do to get a quality long lasting job done. Today more often than not the plan is to spend as much as we can today and not care how long it will last since it will just mean more money to (often) GOP firms and (often) Dem union workers to do the job again.
I read a great article in Time of all places (a friend who works for an elected official in Sacramento sent me the link).
To summarize a public official had a leaky pipe that would cost $300K to fix he applied for a grant but the amount was too small so “he expanded the project, proposing the government pay not just to fix the pipe but also to extend the sewers, expand the size of the pumps, and more, at a cost of $2.6 million. The grant agency gave the green light; the state and federal government put up all the money except for
$130,000, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture financed at below-market rates over a forty-year time period”
http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/
P.S. the article above is also interesting as it relates to suburban development like the Cannery…
I read comments in the SF Chronicle recently that Mayor Ed Lee is suggesting that some major projects not be put out to bid.
San Francisco also had a case where a Planning Department Commissioner was running circles around the department when he wanted to expand his own home on a hillside. Due to city rules to maintain smaller, less expensive homes, he was denied permission for a complete rebuild and 300% expansion. He also gave a laughable estimate of construction costs being something like $30,000.
How did this story evolve for this commissioner / developer / residential manager? His house “accidentally” slide down the hill!… meaning there was a much better chance he could build the large home he desired. Then the press got ahold of it. Construction estimates last I looked are well over $500,000. (The cost of the permit is based upon the cost of construction.)
So it looks like there was no local taxpayer money used on this project. Just developer money and Federal block grant money. Also, very interesting information on the prevailing wage issue. These are the kinds of things that most people have no understanding of. People might look at the $585,000 and think we didn’t need to do that we should have used the money for X. But that money wasn’t eligible for X. Or I could get that job done for 1/3 what the city paid. These arguments are over simplified and have little basis in reality. They become talking points though. Interesting.
Ann_O wrote:
> So it looks like there was no local taxpayer money used on this project
It is funny how Ann was just saying “the public is not served by simple thinking” and buys in to the “there was no local taxpayer money used on this project” line…
I wonder if her husband drove home in a Corvette that his best friend bought him (after he bought a Corvette for his best friend) if she would be happy since “none of their family money was used to buy his Corvette”)….
Oh nice, if he does I hope it’s a black Corvette.
Actually I don’t get your analogy at all. So the developer paying development impact fees and Quimby fees and the Federal Government who is promoting access for the disabled are my husband’s best friends and he somehow bought the developers park improvements and ADA access in some sort of quid pro quo?
No local tax payer money still seems correct. This money that was used could only be used for specific things. No general fund money was used. Your local property tax and sales tax were not a part of this project nor do I believe they were used to buy anyone involved with the project a Corvette.
Ann_O wrote:
> Actually I don’t get your analogy at all.
Let’s say your husband sold some family farm land to a Developer but he had the developer put part of the money in an account called “Corvette Impact Fees” then “had his boss put 10% of his earnings into a special account and called them “Corvette-Quimby Fees” and when he got his tax return check from the Federal Government he called it “a check to protect access to the back roads of Yolo County by a guy in a Corvette” and said use of the money was “restricted” would you still say “no family money was used to buy the Corvette.” Zero based budgets scare the “status quo” so we keep moving even farther away from them and politically powerful groups work hard every day to put money into restricted buckets that can only be given to them (and to fool people in to thinking that we are getting things for “FREE”)…
South of Davis, you are looking at this situation from only one angle. One of the major reasons that “restricted” funds came into existence was that the spending of “unrestricted” funds often had no resemblance to what the community thought they were getting for those fund.
Our water funds are “restricted” to ensure that they are spent on water. Our wastewater funds are “restricted” to ensure that they are spent on wastewater. I’m not sure who Mr. Quimby was, but I suspect that he saw developer payments being used in ways that were very different than the community intended, I suspect we have more than a few Quimby clones here in Davis. One that comes to mind is Holly Bishop who can tell you horror stories about what has happened with monies that were supposed to be spent on a South Davis Pool.
To DT Businessman: Please enumerate the other types of ED you are talking about. It would be very helpful for a more fruitful discussion.
To David Greenwald: “we have often criticized the poor quality of staff” I have worked with many city staffers, and have found them to be quite competent, energetic, enthusiastic and hard working. Do they make mistakes? We all do. A sweeping indictment of “poor quality staff” seems very unfair.
i think the point here is that often when things go wrong, staff gets blamed and we want to be able to blame staff and higher staff for less. that was my read anyway. i’m not sure he was actually stating that staff was poor quality. some staff is. less now, than a few years ago. for all the complaining about attrition, we got rid of a lot of deadweight that way. however, not sure why we have people like katherine hess still around.
well okay, i re-read, and he was criticizing staff, i’m not sure he means present staff though.
Based on what I have read here, David frequently complains about the city staff and puts the blame for our current financial situation squarely on the shoulders of previous city councils. I thought Rob White offered a more balanced explanation of how we got here.
By the way, excellent article, that makes sound points! 😉
DT Businessman, I’m interested in writing a joint article with you. I’m coming from a different sector (nonprofit), and thus a different stakeholder group perspective, and think a joint article might be an interesting undertaking. You up for it?
just jumping in to say that sounds like a great article.
That would be a welcome addition to the Vanguard Bill.
Given the contentious nature of the citizens of Davis, I think hiring staff who came up with creative, innovative ways to get things done would just result in citizens really pissed off because things changed, there were unintended consequences of getting said ‘things’ done a new way, etc. Expecting new hires to behave that way is a sure disaster for the employees. Ask employees who have been around long enough to know “how we do it in Davis” how well that would work out.