Yesterday’s suggestion for a path forward toward community consensus triggered some interesting discussions, but one of the more novel thoughts was this one: “People are still angry about Mace and about Measure A. You’ve been printing a steady drumbeat of articles dealing with innovation centers and there has been month and months (years?) of unpleasant comments back and forth. Maybe the community needs a break.”
The commenter continued, “I know you think these issues are urgent, but we won’t make any progress if we just keep fighting on from our current angry state. An alternative would be to talk about other ways of improving the city’s finances, such as the revenue tax you mentioned yesterday or infill projects. Maybe if we can come to agreement on something we can ease our ill will (or at least take a break from it) and come back to this with fresh eyes and a renewed spirit.”
We are three weeks away from the 10th Anniversary of the founding of the Vanguard (and, while I’m at it, please join us for the celebration), and people often ask what I believe the greatest success of the Vanguard is.
What I have learned in 10 years of doing this is that people will not be told what to think. I may offer my opinion, but people would most of the time rather be given the facts and reach their own conclusion. However, what I have found is that the Vanguard is an effective tool to put issues on the agenda.
Here are a couple of very prominent examples.
Back in the spring of 2008, the Vanguard started looking into the issue of unfunded liabilities for pensions and retiree health care. At the time, the city had promised over $120 million in future benefits to employees that it did not have the money to pay. Our view at the time was that this system, whereby we had greatly increased employee compensation, was unsustainable.
However, in the 2008 elections, incumbents Don Saylor and Stephen Souza were of the notion that we had a balanced budget and a 15 percent reserve. Never mind that even at that point we had a large and growing list of unmet needs.
Their view would prevail at the polls, but with the collapse of the financial markets that fall and the great recession, the city clearly needed to restructure their contracts. However, the first round of MOUs, in 2009, showed very little in the way of cuts or structural changes.
Ultimately, this would become the biggest issue facing the community and, over the course of two more election cycles and another round of MOUs, the city went a long way toward addressing some of these underlying structural issues.
The Vanguard’s reporting on this helped to frame the issue and helped to push public opinion and council toward structure reforms.
At the same time, the Vanguard identified the power of the firefighters’ union as a driving force in city politics. The Vanguard noted in a series of articles that the firefighters had seen first a shift in personnel from three to four on an engine. Second, they had received what amounted to a major pension increase – 3 percent at 50 – where they could retire at the age of 50 and receive 3 percent of their final salary for each year of service. Third, they had received a massive 36 percent pay increase in their 2005 to 2009 MOU.
While they received a 36 percent increase, no other bargaining unit received more than 18 percent over that period of time.
The Vanguard began analyzing campaign contributions and found that the firefighters were bundling $100 contributions to circumvent city campaign finance laws. That enabled them to donate $4000 in direct contributions rather than the single $100 contribution. They also used a PAC (political action committee) to do an IE (independent expenditure) to spend thousands more.
The result was that from 2002 to 2008, firefighter-backed councilmembers won seven to nine races and held a majority on council that they used, among other things, to vote for salary increases, defeat reform measures, and even bury a fire investigative report.
Through a series of articles in the Vanguard that exposed these tactics, ultimately a series of reforms were put into place. The council voted to impose their last, best, and final offer in 2013. They voted 3-2 to reduce fire staffing and change the management structure.
In 2009, the Vanguard published its first article on the millions in deferred maintenance on roads. The article received zero comments. It took the Vanguard numerous articles and a meeting in 2011 with then Mayor Joe Krovoza and Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson to finally get traction on the pending roads crisis.
That led to a thorough report from a consulting company that showed that the backlog was in the hundreds of millions and that the city would have to pour in perhaps $10 million a year to start getting at the backlog.
While the city has yet to pass a revenue measure, the council, starting in 2011, put aside $1 million for road repair. That number is now at $4 million, but estimates are that is probably half of what we currently need on average.
With the roads issues, it took several years but the Vanguard was really the first entity to widely report the shortfall in roads funding, which ultimately put the issue on the agenda of the council for the city to act.
In June of 2013, the issue of Mace 391 came before council. The Vanguard was critical of the process, which seemed hidden from the public and was carelessly put on the agenda as a consent item. Ultimately, Mace 391 was defeated.
However, the discussion that summer re-started the dormant discussions on the need for economic development to help the city out of its revenue shortfall. That led to an article from David Morris in September 2013 that put Mace 391 back on the agenda, only to have it once again fall short.
While the efforts of David Morris were unsuccessful with regard to Mace 391, they did lead to community discussion which led to the RFEI (Request for Expressions of Interest) process that got applications for innovation parks at the land north of Sutter-Davis Hospital, as well as Mace 200.
Ultimately, these processes bogged down in land use politics, but once again, the Vanguard was instrumental at putting the discussion forth to the community.
There are lessons from these issues and discussions.
First, the Vanguard has been successful at getting issues to the forefront of community and council discussion.
Second, the fact that these issues come forward does not mean that ultimately we will be successful at enacting change, or even determining the direction of that change.
Third, change does not happen overnight. In some cases, we had defeat after defeat until the right council, the right city manager and the right moment arrived.
The poster argues on the issue of economic development and student housing, “The more people comment on this page, the more support I see for my view that the community needs a break from this conversation. There is nothing productive here, only anger and frustration on both sides.”
I disagree. The Vanguard provides a forum where people of different mindsets come forward to exchange ideas. In that process, ideas get challenged. People learn from each other.
Over the years, people with whom I have often disagreed have made valid points that have changed my thinking. I watch the give and take over time, and, while it seems like an endless rehashing of the issue, I watch people slowly shift their positions.
For me, I was opposed to any peripheral growth for economic development until the Mace 391 discussion, where it became clear that we lacked revenue to maintain our city services without massive tax increases.
I still do not want a lot of peripheral growth. I still support Measure R strongly. But these discussions on here more than anything else shifted my thinking.
As Don Shor pointed out yesterday, “[T]he next conversation we’ll need to be having is how big a parcel tax will be necessary and when. And unfortunately for those who wish to take a hiatus from discussing economic development, that’s a key issue in the future rate of taxation that the voters will need to approve.”
My biggest concern is that, while the Vanguard is reaching a larger and larger audience, there are still huge pockets it doesn’t reach and many people in this community have yet to come to grips with the fact that we are facing real peril on multiple levels.
As Don Shor notes, “A sound budget strategy would involve keeping costs contained, modest tax increases for unmet needs, and a long-term economic development strategy to develop more income sources for the future. The nature of that economic development strategy is now seriously in question, since we have far fewer options. That leaves more cost-cutting and higher tax increases. So as you consider how high you want the parcel tax to be, keep your eye on the long-term budget numbers — particularly in the out years when the sales tax measure comes up for reconsideration.”
These are discussions that should be taking place now – even if we are lacking consensus or agreement. The purpose of yesterday’s piece was an effort to move forward toward forging more consensus.
All taking a break will do is delay the inevitable confrontation. It is better to continue to work toward at least a common understanding of our challenges, even if we disagree on the solution.
So, while I get the desire for a break, I think now is the time to push forward.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Doomed, I say.
Nothing will change until people die or are forced to move away, because they cannot afford to live here. 10-15 years is likely for a new generation to start dealing with this.
It all depends on Measure R. If it is renewed nothing will happen for 15 years. If it is not Davis can start to move ahead in 2021.
“What I have learned in 10 years of doing this is that people will not be told what to think.”
And I would hope that this will never change. People should be basing their decisions on their own values and the available information, evidence, and facts. I see the strengths of the Vanguard as the provision of information of information that is not covered in the other local news venue and the participation of people of varying views in the ensuing discussion.
rynkelly
“Nothing will change until people die or are forced to move away, because they cannot afford to live here. 10-15 years is likely for a new generation to start dealing with this.”
This is true only if you look at the world in black and white terms and define change only in terms of what you want that change to be. If you want revolutionary change, I suspect that you are correct. But if you are in favor of more incremental change, then your statement does not hold. Let’s look at what happened in the area of change over the last 10-15 years. There have been numerous changes in the business community over that time period. We have seen the upswing in small businesses and incubators over this time period. Davis Roots, Pollinate, Jump Start Davis come to mind immediately as examples. Multiple businesses have been started and some have left over this time period. So unless you are claiming that your idea of success or failure hinges only on the fate of the DIC, MRIC and Nishi proposals, I would say that your claim is exaggerated.
As a potential supporter of DIC, an opponent of MRIC, and a proponent of Nishi, I found the defeat of the latter disappointing. However, I do not understand the anger that is generated. And I do not see “picking up my toys and going home” as a productive response. I am an incrementalist. My side did not win this round ( Nishi). That does not mean that I should not consider the next potentially productive step forward.
I would strongly urge David to keep the information and discussion coming.
Tia wrote:
> We have seen the upswing in small businesses and incubators
> over this time period. Davis Roots, Pollinate, Jump Start Davis
> come to mind immediately as examples.
We all know that Davis has “some” new small business in town, but I’m interested if anyone has any real numbers of actual locally owned small business in Davis vs. 15 years ago (the national numbers show that number of small local business keeps shrinking). With the chain sandwich place Ike’s opening in the former location of the chain sandwich place Firehouse Subs on F Street it seems like we are even past the point where chains are replacing local small business and we have big corporate chains replacing other big corporate chain stores. It is almost funny to think that someone would graduate from UCD and open a small garden center or hardware store in town today like Vanguard posters Don and Doby run.
I disagree. There is too much anger and disillusionment to continue the battle over every incremental change. The process has been corrupted.
I completely understand why Harrington is told to “pound sand.” He does not hold an elected office (nor would he open himself to the scrutiny of a campaign, I believe), and has stated publicly what how poorly he thinks about everyone involved in planning, including elected representatives, landowners, architects, city staff and voters who vote in opposition to his wishes and demands. He has followers who will believe anything he says. If he doesn’t win, he sues and demands settlements and so has corrupted the process. And this is just his public life.
I think we leave it for a while, until the landscape of Davis has changed. It will take years.
The Vanguard provides the venue, some facts but not all. The venue allows the discussion sometimes contentious and for more facts to come forth. Especially now with less frequent DE, it provides real time communication. Bravo!
I have never claimed to have a monopoly on the facts, in fact, I often learn new facts through the interactions or are presented with thoughts, ideas, arguments, I hadn’t thought of previously.
The venue is in danger of becoming a soapbox for the disaffected and disingenuous, instead of a forum for the open discussion of ideas, in my low level oafish opinion.
“is in danger of” ?????
Thanks for featuring my comments from yesterday in an article, but geez — who said anything about not talking about development issues for 10-15 years???? I was thinking something more like a break of a year or two! Instead, there has been no break at all since the election! People are clearly still angry about that, on both sides. Also, it was large developments (like Mace and Nishi) that I said we should take a break from, not all development discussion. I still don’t see why it’s such a bad thing for us to try to work on infill and taxes for a little while, build some good-will and solid progress, before coming back to the bigger projects in a year or two. There is some admittedly good conversation here on the Vanguard, but it’s a low signal-to-noise ratio. Maybe you’ve become immune to the angry and unproductive comments, but some of us haven’t.
There are angry voices here, but this place is fairly tame compared to a lot of comment sections. And I end up learning a lot.
There are nuggets here and there, but I have to do a lot of skimming. Still, that’s not my point. If I didn’t think the Vanguard was a useful resource, I wouldn’t be here. My point is rather that we have been hashing and hashing over this topic for so long that things have become excessively heated and polarized, and shifting to talking about other ways to improve the city’s finances for a little while (geez!) might be helpful.
We make our own breaks. I recommend not reading the Vanguard for as long as it takes.
Thank you for the invitation to remove my voice from the conversation.
No, that wasn’t my implication.
Suggesting that there is a difference between the Davis as viewed through the odd tribe that is the community of commenters in the Vanguard comments section . . .
. . . and REALITY.
An occasional break may give perspective, and even improve physical and mental health.
Just ask Frank Lee. I heard that his blood pressure is back in the safe range!
Hmmm… might just try that home remedy…
I’m sure DG appreciates my medical advice being dispensed in these pages . . .
. . . and, oops!, Frank Lee relapsed again.
As I may…
Agreed that “there is a difference between the Davis as viewed through the odd tribe that is the community of commenters in the Vanguard comments section . . . and REALITY” and that a break could give that perspective.
But the Vanguard is trying to drive a conversation. Yes, for my own sanity and reality check, I can and probably should withdraw from it. Instead, I am trying to suggest that there is a more productive conversation that we ought to be having, rather than keep rubbing salt in everyone’s wounds.
“An occasional break may give perspective, and even improve physical and mental health.”
Oddly enough, that’s my point exactly, only I am suggesting a break from discussing large-scale development projects for a little while.
I for one really enjoy hearing your voice in the conversation. I wish you would comment more often rather than less often.
One thing I noted to David a couple of weeks ago is that the Progressives in Davis appear to have rediscovered the Vanguard. Ron and Roberta Millstein are two new progressive voices. Eileen Samitz is a long standing progressive voice. I would clearly put you in that long standing progressive category. Perhaps what is needed is an expansion of the conversation into a broader range of topics, rather than a cessation of conversation. There have to be other issues that are important to progressives like yourself.
Well, for one, as I already said, there are other avenues that would make progress toward improving the city’s finances. Let’s talk about them seriously, not just gesture at them or dismiss them. I don’t consider myself the best person to lead those conversations but I would like to see them happen.
Fair enough davisite4. Here is a start that I put together as I wrestled with the community’s challenges over the past 6 months.
Some of the positive steps I would take to address the challenges Davis faces
(1) Establish a Culture of Accountability within the City operations.
___ (A) Currently there is no Budgetary reporting to the public about what has been spent during the prior period, and whether the money spent was spent efficiently and effectively.
___ (B) No additional tax or extension of an existing tax would be approved for going to the voters until:
_______ (i) The staff provides a detailed scope of proposed and/or deferred capital infrastructure projects, as well as proposed new services, and
___________ (a) Said scope document shall include specific measurable success metrics for the proposed new services and projects, along with an inventory of the specific costs that will be incurred to provide said proposed services or complete said project;
___________ (b) Each deferred capital infrastructure project shall include its expected success metrics, as well as an anticipated budget; and
___________ (c) The scope document will be updated each year as part of the Budget adoption process;
_______ (ii) The staff provides detailed report/s in conjunction with or as a part of the annual Budget adoption process documents submitted to City Council that;
___________ (a) Reports the specific work done (accomplishments) the prior Fiscal Year on staff proposed services and projects
___________ (b) Defines where the revenues collected from any new tax/increased tax measure(s) spent on services and/or projects.
(2) Save $1 million per year of interest costs each year, every year by reducing the $14.65 million dollar net unfunded OPEB (Retiree Healthcare) liability down to $0.
(3) Pay off the $69 million of high interest rate bonds (averaging 5.66% interest rate), reducing our annual debt service costs $6.1 million … every year. Brett Lee has expressed grave concerns about this step in Council commentary. He appears to be worried that the funds used to pay off the bonds in question could go into default. His concern is heard, but because each of the bonds is backed by an existing, continuing revenue stream of payments, if an economic downturn caused broad economic problems down the road for the City as a whole, the continuing revenue streams would provide robust protection, because those revenue streams are property-based (Mello-Roos, CFD, etc.). Brett’s other concern is that the whole $122 million is not truly liquid, with some of it destined to pay for the costs of the WDCWA plant and the Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade. Before any final decision on how much, and what, bonds to pay off, a thorough, open transparent analysis should be completed by an independent financial expert. Such an analysis should take no longer than 30 days to complete.
(4) Then redirect that $7.1 million annual savings into maintenance/repair of our sadly neglected capital infrastructure (roads, parks, buildings, etc.).
(5) Work with Robb Davis to accelerate the completion of a full staffing analysis to determine match between service delivery needs and staffing, which will build on John Meyer’s April 2015 study completed last year, but largely unimplemented. This should save $1 million per year in employee costs
(6) Accelerate the completion of a thorough Business Process Re-engineering engagement to address poorly designed, inefficient, ineffective service delivery processes. At its second April meeting, the Finance and Budget Commission recommended immediate funding of $575,000 in the current fiscal year for this effort. That funding will come from the current year Budget surplus, and will be an investment in the community … a gift that keeps on giving budget savings year after year after year.
(7) Expand the 3-day (72 hour) notice period for public meetings mandated by the Brown Act to 10 days (240 hours) to ensure more open, transparent and inclusive processes. Staff Report material would be made available in full at the time of the meeting notice.
(8) Establish process standards for CEQA determinations, with, at a minimum, a focused EIR on any CEQA process that uses an outside expert/consultant to review a component of the environmental impact of the proposed project.
(9) Establish process standards whereby the findings of a focused EIR must be heard by the relevant City Commission covering that focused policy area.
(10) Establish process standards whereby all zoning variance requests must be declared at the time the project pre-application is filed. A public hearing on the declared zoning variance must be convened to get city-wide input regarding whether the zoning variance is in the best interests of the community
(11) Begin the process to change both the Zoning Code and Affordable Housing Plan to require any and all infill developments to provide the same proportion of affordable housing in the completed redevelopment as exists in the current land use. For example, Rancho Yolo is currently 100% affordable, therefore any redevelopment must also attain the same level of 100% affordability
(12) Based on the results of the completion of the full staffing analysis, establish employee compensation for all the redefined positions, matching the value of the services being delivered to the compensation level. Compensation will match the fair wages being paid in the marketplace for delivery of the same services, with the same level of employee tenure.
(13) Based on the results of the Business Process Re-engineering, completely replace the City’s out-of-date accounting information system. Implementing modern decision support technology designed to support the “best practice” human processes that emerge from the Business Process re-engineering.
(14) Work to change the planning process so that it promotes proactive thinking rather than reactive thinking. Sustainable Planning means we balance four key components, Social Sustainability, Economic/Financial Sustainability, Environmental Sustainability and Cultural Sustainability. Engage those four components with reliable, transparent, repeatable processes that engage the public, set clear expectations and then deliver on those expectations.
(15) To start that change in the planning process we have to assess the current status of our General Plan. My belief is that approximately 90% of our current citizen-based General Plan is still just as good as it was when it was adopted. The remaining 10% of the General Plan is causing 100% of our planning process problems, and there is no reason to tamper with the parts of the current General Plan that are still working well. We don’t need a “from scratch” citizens effort to recreate what is already good. We do need an inclusive citizen-driven update of the portions of the Plan that are not working well. That starts by decide how the various parts of the current Plan fall into the two categories … working or not working. Having an independent expert take a first pass at that categorization, and then share his/her assessment with the Davis community for discussion, adjustment and ratification will put us on the fast track to having the citizens weigh in on how the out-of-date portions should be updated … inclusively, transparently and openly.
That is fifteen things I would work hard to get done. The process for getting them done needs to be inclusive. It can’t be imposed on the citizens. It needs to flow from the citizens.
I believe these issues should be front –and-center in the public dialogue.
Matt… taking your words at face value, we would need to increase staff by 13-15% to meet your rigorous reporting and notice requirements… or, decrease the productivity of existing staff by a similar percentage… is that what you really want?
Thanks, Matt, that’s great. Maybe make it it’s own article, so it can get proper discussion?
hpierce said . . . “taking your words at face value, we would need to increase staff by 13-15% to meet your rigorous reporting and notice requirements… or, decrease the productivity of existing staff by a similar percentage… is that what you really want?”
I’ll be interested in hearing your thoughts on where additional staffing is needed. Here is my sense of the staffing impact of the 15
(1) No up front staffing or productivity impact. Accountability reporting would be an increase, but automated information systems should make the staffing and productivity impact minimal.
(2) No staffing or productivity impact.
(3) No staffing or productivity impact.
(4) Clear staffing impact over current steady state, but the maintenance needs to be done, so in reality there is no true net staffing impact compared to what we should be spending on maintenance.
(5) No staffing impact in the short run. Full staffing analysis to be completed by contract resources.
(6) No staffing impact in the short run. Full staffing analysis to be completed by contract resources.
(7) No staffing or productivity impact. There would be a one time 7-day scheduling adjustment to shift expectations from 3-day to 10-day threshold. The biggest impact on staff would be a mental adjustment in complying with the new deadline schedule.
(8) As you and I have discussed, the workload difference and timing difference between a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Focused EIR is minimal. Ministerial applications handled by staff would not rise to the EIR level. The current Planning by General Plan Exception environment is an incredible time waster and efficiency/productivity killer. Getting out of the Planning by Exception reality will actually have a staffing decrease impact , as well as an efficiency/productivity increase.
(9) Moving to this kind if up front proactive approach, as opposed the current ad hoc reactive approach, with its attendant time and money and staffing costs associated with law suit defense will produce a staffing decrease impact, as well as an efficiency/productivity increase.
(10) Minor increased staffing impact up front, but here too moving to this kind if up front proactive approach, as opposed the current ad hoc reactive approach (see Trackside for example) will more than likely produce a staffing decrease impact, as well as an efficiency/productivity increase.
(11) No staffing or productivity impact.
(12) Staffing and productivity impact to be determined based on the results of the completion of the full staffing analysis.
(13) Staffing and productivity impact to be determined based on the results of the completion of the project; however significant positive impacts on staffing, efficiency and productivity are expected.
(14) See (9) and (10) above.
(15) No staffing impact in the short run. General Plan Update activities to be completed by contract resources.
hpierce said . . . “taking your words at face value, we would need to increase staff by 13-15% to meet your rigorous reporting and notice requirements… or, decrease the productivity of existing staff by a similar percentage… is that what you really want?”
Taking hpierce’s at face value a 13-15% increase of staff would be 46-53 added staff (based on the 15-16 staffing level of 352 see http://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=2822) to provide the reporting and notice levels I specified.
46 to 53 added people? How did you arrive at that figure hpierce?
Matt, until there is an honest evaluation and implementation of the FBC’s recommendations as to costs and program evaluations, and 5/0 CC vote, I don’t think the City has a bat’s chance in heck of passing any new revenue source.
And, there is zero accountability by staff for bad work. Robb Davis disputed this one day on this Blog, and I hope he now sees it. If not, his Mayorship is doomed, using Miller’s word. I could make a list, and name names and projects, but I will not do it.
Wolk is handing over the keys without any plan for fixing city government, and I think it’s probably too late for Robb Davis to start a top spinning from zero to any sort of effective speed.
So for me, the issue is what is Robb Davis going to do to start things in motion that might actually set the table for Brett Lee to complete the job in 3-4 years? That’s pretty much when I see a new major revenue item on the ballot.
Not good news, but hey, the City completely wasted its time and energy for 4-5 years on those three exterior projects, without looking much into government effectiveness, staff accountability, or alternative revenue sources. Hopefully Robb and Brett will show some leadership and get things going again.
All know my word is good.