With the council elections and now the national elections over, it is time for the Davis City Council to act on priorities that may have changed somewhat in the last few weeks. Here are five things the council should do:
Plan to Put a Revenue Measure on the Ballot
The city council has now missed two election cycles for putting a revenue measure on the ballot. In December the council will consider two hotels that could generate between a half million and a million in TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) taxes. A third hotel, the Embassy Suites, remains in limbo, but these are unfortunately pennies compared to the overall needs of the city.
Rather than trying to hit everyone at once, there seem to be a few big priorities. The first would be the roads which, while the council has done a great job to fund at nearly $4 million annually, they likely need twice and perhaps more than that.
The national election probably rules out any significant roads funding from the federal government and, so far, the state government has proven unable to generate consensus for state road funding. The city could put a parcel tax or other revenue measure on the ballot, but if they want it to be a general tax, it would have to be June 2018 – should they wait that long?
The other tax needed is an expansion of the parks tax. While the roads have generally been seen as the more dire immediate need, parks are creeping up, especially because the current parks tax only funds one-quarter of our current needs.
The council should make this call and decide what and when and how much to ask the voters for.
Continue Economic Development
The city has seen good news in the last month and a half. After losing out on two innovation parks and Nishi, Sierra Energy is expanding their facilities at Area 52 and Mark Friedman and Fulcrum Property purchased Interland and will convert it to the University Research Park. That’s an investment of between $100 and $200 million in South Davis. That is very good news.
But, as we have pointed out, that is only a small portion of what a Dispersed Innovation Plan would look like. What we are missing is the large area for companies that are currently in Davis to grow into, or for larger companies to move into. A Mace Ranch Innovation park might have generated $7 million in ongoing money for the city on an annual basis. And that is on the low end.
The fact that both Sierra and Fulcrum are willing to invest millions in Davis ought to dispel any notion that Davis is a poor risk for innovation.
But the big question is whether the community can come together and support a larger venture that might make Davis economically viable and resilient into the future.
The council should reconfirm its commitment to the Dispersed Innovation Plan and create a body whose task it is to find investors and come up with a plan that can be taken to the voters for approval.
Create a Community Vision for Housing and the Future
Land use has re-emerged as the critical issue in Davis. Part of what is driving this is university growth. As we have pointed out time and time again – the plan that UC Davis has developed will not accommodate all new growth. Moreover, as we have seen, UC Davis in the past has not followed through on housing commitments and those commitments have been small.
In the meantime, land use policies in Davis have pushed talk of new housing into existing neighborhoods. We currently have conflict between existing neighbors and developers in places like Trackside and Sterling, less so at Lincoln40.
In the meantime, the city council is looking at a General Plan Update.
But before we can get to a General Plan Update, somehow there needs to be a process to develop a vision for what Davis should look like in the future. This will be difficult because the community is divided. There are those who oppose most new growth and those who will support some projects.
Can this gap be bridged? The council has utilized conflict resolution tools in the past – can they do so on the most pressing and polarizing issue before us?
Reaffirm Commitment to Civil Rights and a Safe Space for All
The presidential election has changed the way we view our community and our world. Davis is a Sanctuary City. For Davis that means the city “supports a fair and just reform to the immigration process, where local funds and resources are not used to enforce federal immigration laws, and where the Davis Police Department has actively committed not to seek out and persecute individuals within the city limits because of their documented status.”
The Trump administration has at least stated that they may cut off federal funds for Sanctuary Cities and, if that is the case, the city council will have big choices to make, as they rely on federal funds for things like grants and CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funding.
At the same time, individual councilmembers have talked about making sure that Davis creates safe spaces for its residents. What that looks like will be a key decision going forward.
Places like San Francisco have talked about creating a $5 million fund to defend immigrants from deportation.
Their public defender’s office proposed last week “the creation of a unit to defend undocumented immigrants in court beginning in January. The proposal is part of a greater push by city officials to keep San Francisco a sanctuary city, where law enforcement agencies are limited in their cooperation with immigration authorities.”
While the city of Davis has a different structure, it could work with the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic and other local groups to protect its residents, as well.
We would like to see the city reaffirm its commitment to civil rights, being a Sanctuary City, and beyond.
Reconsider a Soda Tax
A year ago the council decided to shelve the possibility of a soda tax. However, that world has changed as well. This past election, four cities had soda taxes on the ballot and all four passed them in landslide victories.
San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany (California) each passed measures that would levy a penny-per-ounce tax on distributors of sugary drinks. In Boulder, Colorado, the voters approved a 2-cent-per-ounce excise tax on distributors.
In San Francisco and Oakland, the soda tax measures passed with 62 percent support. In Albany, it passed with 71 percent, and in Boulder, with 55 percent. San Francisco and Oakland had previously attempted to pass taxes but failed when the soda industry dumped tens of millions into stopping the tax.
Is it now time for Davis to reconsider the soda tax?
Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis has called this “the public health crisis of our time,” and in January warned that we have children “whose lives are starting to be taken away by fatty liver disease and the problem of over-consumption of sugary beverages.”
“These are lives lost, these are lives changed, these are families altered in ways that we can’t take back,” he continued.
“The challenge of sugar beverages is quite simple, they’re a delivery mechanism,” he explained. “They deliver fructose to the liver in probably the most efficient means of doing so. Quickly. And rather than being cleared by the liver, that sugar stays there and is turned into fat and that fat and the inhibition of fat burning that goes along with it, means that all the precursors of diabetes, heart disease and coronary artery disease – the genesis is occurring in that location.”
Davis this past winter did not say no to a soda tax, they said not yet. Now that Davis has had a chance to think about it, it is time to get this issue back on the agenda.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How so? How much did we get under Obama?
I believe until last year, the only money we used for road repairs came from the Stimulus bill in 2009. The point is that we will likely neither get money from the federal government or the state, and therefore we need a revenue measure.
Then why did you point out that the national election was going to change things? Another cheap shot?
I said, “The national election probably rules out any significant roads funding from the federal government and so far, the state government has proven unable to generate consensus for state road funding.”
I did not say it changed anything here.
So how did the national election rule out any significant road funding? If Hillary had won would it have been any different?
I think David is saying that sometimes a national election means you can anticipate or predict one kind of change or another. I think it is a sentance that is meant to be taken on face value. I interpret the sentance to be true for HC or any pres with a no new taxes congress, too.
With respect to the States’s transportation funding, there is a succicinet analysis in the Bee this morning by Dan Walters on p 2B. Improbable, but it isnt Nov 30 yet.
Trump has proposed a huge infrastructure stimulus. And with control of the House and Senate the chances of that getting passed are very good.
Trump needs a Congress who will work with him on that one. It is still a cranky bunch IMO.
BP wrote:
> Trump has proposed a huge infrastructure stimulus
I’m not going to tell David what to do but adding a negative Trump dig to every post (like the right wing blogs almost no one reads have been adding an Obama dig to almost every post) is a good way to push people away.
i don’t see a negative dig on trump, you guys are reading into it. he’s saying that the city is going to have to pay for its own roads – you disagree?
What is your ‘starting point’, as to time?
Mrs W wrote:
> I think David is saying that sometimes a national election
> means you can anticipate or predict one kind of change or another.
I agree with Mrs W that “sometimes” you can “anticipate or predict one kind of change or another” but trying to “anticipate or predict” what a crazy orange guy who has never held elective office is going to do will not be easy.
P.S. I just heard that the President elected admitted another lie and is not going to even try to “lock her up”…
Trump’s infrastructure plans and Davis’ needs are likely not the same. If we were to rebuild the tunnel on Richards and privatize it, turning it into a for profit toll road for Trump subsidiary Milo Minderbinder Enterprises, then we could get it in a transportation bill. Otherwise we will need to see if there are any Davis projects uge enough for the Donald.
Still I’m curious, is David suggesting that we have a special election for road funding with our next regular election 1.5 years away? Special elections are notoriously bad for passing taxes.
Misanthrop wrote:
> Special elections are notoriously bad for passing taxes.
I don’t have data on all special elections but friends that have worked to pass school parcel taxes on the SF Peninsula have specifically told me that they try for special elections since most people ignore them and they can rally the base to get the 2/3 they need to pass the tax. I’m wondering if Misanthrop (or anyone else) has a link that shows that “Special elections are notoriously bad for passing taxes”?
Turnout is low and I think it would be mail in only. The last time we did this for the schools when they really had their backs to the wall it barely passed. I’d be surprised if something that isn’t as Daviscentric as school taxes would pass. Many people who live in newer parts of town don’t see the big cracks in the roads or bike paths that are happening in the older neighborhoods where I live. Plus many of these newer areas are taxed at higher amounts because of higher prop 13 starting bases and CFD’s so its unlikely people outside of central Davis are going to see the need for another tax added to their already painful property tax bills. The council could poll it but my intuition is it would poll as badly as it did the last time.
Define “newer.” I just finished a survey covering over a mile of 5th Street and Alhambra Drive in Mace Ranch because of the way the pavement has settled, leaving the manholes sticking up enough to require reduced speed signage and send everyone bouncing along the road. Same with some of the Mace Ranch bike paths — settlement and tree root growth have rendered some portions dangerous.
I would expect that every Mace Ranch homeowner is acutely aware that the streets are in need of repair.
What caused the pavement to settle there?
Don (and Jim, but suspect he knows this, too)…
The primary problem in Mace Ranch arterial streets is due to utility trench consolidation/settlement (that’s why the MH’s appear to be ‘raised’)… this has happened on older streets too, including, but not limited to, Albany and the south lanes of Covell, between Sycamore and Anderson.
On the bikepaths, in addition to settlement and tree roots, likely the type of soil, and differing moisture on either side (where there is no landscaping/irrigation on one side).
Not suggesting necessarily a special election, but rather that we figure out what we want to do so we don’t end up in December 2017 trying to throw together a last minute package.
“Is it now time for Davis to reconsider the soda tax?”
Absolutely. The argument about “Davis should not be the first to enact” has now been completely eliminated.
I do not expect that health care is at the top of everyone’s list of priorities just because it is at the top of mine. Let’s consider this from the point of view of your own wallet. Health care costs are largely driven by utilization, source of care, and procedure and pharmaceutical costs.
Our epidemic of obesity and DM II is largely driven by sugar consumption and fastest means of ingestion with no counterbalancing nutritional benefit is sugary beverages. So if we want to keep the most money possible in our wallets we will adopt measures that minimize the need for higher utilization needed by the obese and diabetic population. We will adopt measures that favor care not in Emergency Rooms, but rather in the primary care physicians office ( or better yet on line or by phone). We will adopt measures that prevent the need for very expensive procedures such as dialysis, or kidney transplant or amputation. We will adopt measures that will prevent the need for expensive medications to control blood sugars when dietary changes and expertise would have sufficed. If there is anyone whose principle interest is in maintaining as much of their own money as possible, this should be a measure near and dear to your heart for its money saving possibilities as well as its immediate financial generation.
Compared to a sugary drink tax, a tax, assessed monthly, per pound, on anyone who is obese, would be much more effective in changing behavior…
That I could support. But it would need to be at least statewide…
If a soda tax was applied to fixing our roads I would support it.
Another very productive comment…
Hpierce
Are you being sarcastic again or do you agree that a soda tax would be wisely used to fix our roads?
BP… no one has articulated, this time, how the revenue would be spent… so, roads could be a good choice, but lean to parks, as they provide even better opportunities for exercise… also good in fighting obesity…
Think I consume less than 12 oz of sugary drinks per year, so financially, don’t care…
But I do think the concept is damn silly…
I don’t drink sugary sodas either and I agree with you that the whole concept is silly. But the tax is coming and there’s no stopping it so the least we can do is try to advocate that the revenue gets spent on something that will halp the city instead of watching the revenue get poured down another rathole.
BP
“If a soda tax was applied to fixing our roads I would support it.”
So it’s not enough for you that it would raise much needed funds in the short term, and benefit your financial well being in the mid to long range ? Now it has to be spent entirely on what you want done ? Hmmmm……
You don’t support using the tax for something that would benefit everyone in our city? For something that’s direly needed?
Where would you see the sugary drink tax revenues go, Tia? Meant as a fair question…
Tia, are you saying that you oppose a clear, accountable spending plan for any revenues the tax raises? If we are going to move this community to a culture of accountability, the taxpayers need to know what the spending plan is for any new or renewed taxes. Specific spending plans mean each such tax will need a 2/3 majority to pass. Just dumping the tax revenues into the General Fund isn’t acceptable.
I personally would have no problem at all if the sugary beverage tax revenues go toward specific initiatives/programs to increase the health of the community. What I don’t have now, and will need in order to cast my one vote toward achieving that 2/3 majority is a clearly delineated spending plan that can be assessed each year for the efficiency and effectiveness of the prior year’s spending under the provisions of the plan.
I also believe that since the sugary bevarage tax is 100% avoidable (see BP’s and hpierce’s comments above . . . they already avoid it), it really won’t conflict with any special taxes that direct their funds toward clearly delineated accountable spending for roads and/or parks. Bottom-line, if the citizens see value and clear accountability for a tax they will vote for it. If either value or accountability are missing (or deficient) then they won’t vote for it.
— The value of a sugary beverage tax is improved public health.
— The value of a capital infrastructure tax for road maintenance is improved public safety and protection of home values.
— The value of a capital infrastructure tax for parks maintenance is improved quality of life and protection of home values.
Those three values are not mutually exclusive, and for BP and hpierce receiving the first of those three values costs them nothing.
As it could be for anyone that chose not to consume sugary beverages.
“Is it now time for Davis to reconsider the soda tax?”
Absolutely. The argument about “Davis should not be the first to enact” has now been completely eliminated.
I do not expect that health care is at the top of everyone’s list of priorities just because it is at the top of mine. Let’s consider this from the point of view of your own wallet. Health care costs are largely driven by utilization, source of care, and procedure and pharmaceutical costs.
Our epidemic of obesity and DM II is largely driven by sugar consumption and fastest means of ingestion with no counterbalancing nutritional benefit is sugary beverages. So if we want to keep the most money possible in our wallets we will adopt measures that minimize the need for higher utilization needed by the obese and diabetic population. We will adopt measures that favor care not in Emergency Rooms, but rather in the primary care physicians office ( or better yet on line or by phone). We will adopt measures that prevent the need for very expensive procedures such as dialysis, or kidney transplant or amputation. We will adopt measures that will prevent the need for expensive medications to control blood sugars when dietary changes and expertise would have sufficed. If there is anyone whose principle interest is in maintaining as much of their own money as possible, this should be a measure near and dear to your heart for its money saving possibilities as well as its immediate financial generation.
If we were really interested in improving the health of our citizens, then we should be talking about eliminating sugary beverages from eligibility for purchase using EBT (AKA “food stamps”). I realize that this is a national issue and it would take Congressional action to modify the farm bill.
Yes, I know that the primary driver of the local sugary beverage tax is all about generating revenue for Davis so let’s be honest about it and say that’s what we are interested in rather than pretending that it’s all in the interest of better health.
Actually, don’t think that is fully “fair” to say… proponents generally believe it will discourage folk from consuming, and will have societal benefits… I don’t believe that will happen… tax too low, other options too high…
Agree on exempting those products from ‘food stamps’… agree that sugar is not nutritional necessity…
Agree that the concept is a “feel good” thing that accomplishes nada…
I disagree Topcat. For the public health officials/professionals who are pushing the sugary beverage tax, generating revenues is far from their mind. In their ideal scenario the tax would generate exactly $0 in revenues because the consumption of sugary beverages has been reduced to zero.
Perhaps that is true for some, but those who are advocating for the money to be directed towards public health initiatives, the goal is to fund the public health initiatives. Any perceived health benefits will be secondary.
hpierce has this right…
Mark, I would agree with you if we had not had the aborted effort last year. Not one of the multiple public and private presentations I attended included even a single word about the revenues. Those presentations were to the FBC, to the Chamber Government Relations Committee, to (and by) members of the Yolo County Health Council.
The one and only time that any discussion of what to do with the revenues happened was when the Mayor Pro Tem brought the subject up from behind the dais.
With that said, have you heard any individual associated with the sugary beverage tax effort talk about what to do with the revenues?
Your projection could indeed be correct, but to date there is no direct or indirect evidence that your projection is correct. To be fair, there is no direct or indirect evidence that your projection is incorrect either.
I suggest you go back and re-read the articles and discussion here when this first came up. There were plenty of calls to support non-related public health initiatives. In fact, I recall a statement by David indicating that some of the proponents were advocating that the soda tax might replace the diminishing cigarette tax monies now funding a specific local non-profit.
Good point, Matt… ideally, instead of a sugary beverage tax, we should have a sugary beverage BAN! I could support that easily… then, the allocation of revenue would also be moot…
[Unless that means I would have to give up a mocha once every 3 months… my current consumption rate…]
We should also adopt an ordinance prohibiting the dispensing of sugary Halloween treats… I could easily support that…
Mark, I attended four different official presentations from the sponsors/proponents of the tax. The subject of revenues never was raised by them even once. In fact at the Chamber Government Relations Committee meeting where they presented they couldn’t even articulate any thoughts for or about any revenues when I reviewed with them the December 2015 FBC recommendation about mandatory accountable spending plans for any and all new taxes.
You are probably right that some of the polarized back and forth dialogue here on the Vanguard might have strayed into speculations about what might be useful uses of any revenues, but I didn’t prioritize any of those discussions over what I was hearing from the official sponsors/proponents because no law suit was being threatened.
A parcel tax, for parks/greenbelt and/or roads, of a magnitude that would really help, and particularly accompanied by a “sugary drink” tax, is very likely DOA, particularly in light of Measure H passing… as I said many times, Davis “missed the boat” by deferring to DJUSD to get their measure passed… as they have done many times over the years…
The City would be lucky to get the current assessments re-approved, at the current levels… at less than 10% of the DJUSD assessments… (yeah, am including the DJUSD CFD’s in that calc)
I think the community is waiting for the Parks tax and will be willing to vote to approve it. It is clear that the City does not have enough funds to maintain parks and greenbelts. Bike paths are sometimes dangerous with cracks and potholes. Streets are often no better, with the edges where bikes ride in serious disrepair. However, throw in a sugar fine and it will dilute the message. It is not the highest priority. Making it easier to bike around town would do more to increase the health of Davis citizens.
Point taken (agreed) … the question will be how much for parks/greenbelts, and/or roads… a sugary drink tax, on the same ballot, could well “screw the pooch”…
Still think that given passage of Measure H, any City measure is “iffy”, even just carrying current levels forward…as for me, I’d support a City measure for roads/parks/greenbelts @ $1400/year, but would not support a sugary drink tax at any level. [$1400, as that would roughly equate to what we pay for DJUSD stuff]
Just don’t see a City parcel tax above the current levels as “a happening thing”… could be wrong… has happened before…
Would actually rather see the City go for Charter City status, then impose a local income tax, exempting those with a AGI under ~ $35k… would be more “fair” than the current parcel tax structure… yet I doubt that certain professionals making over $200k/yr would agree… so, also probably not a happening thing…
Completely agree.
Rather than a sugar tax we could have a BMI tax where we charge everyone in town with a BMI over 25 $500/year ($1,000/year for a BMI over 30). The poor could work off the tax at $15/hr maintaining parks and green belts. As a bonus this will give UCD more money to build housing since they will be able to charge fat lazy kids higher rent since they will have to pay the tax if they move in to an apartment or mini-dorm in town…
David:
I am frustrated that you did not have ‘cost containment’ as the first item on your list. Nothing we do will be sufficient until we show the fortitude to reign in costs, especially total compensation. We are currently negotiating MOUs, and those agreements need to show serious improvement on our cost structure going forward or the rest of your list will all be for naught. One idea that should be considered is moving all new employees to a defined contribution retirement plan, instead of the current system. That won’t make a huge difference in the near term but could have a huge impact 20-30 years out. We cannot continue to wait in the hope that the State to bail out the pension system 5-10 years from now as some have suggested.
Cost containment needs to come first, before any new tax initiatives, otherwise, we are just throwing money down the drain.
it seems to me that the city is doing a decent job of cost containment. the budget is only growing at like 3 percent a year – no? the bigger problem is lack f revenue
In addition tot he 3% doesn’t the city and school district need to pay the ~15% increase for CalPERS and the ~20% increase for CalSTRS?
Health care costs are also going up fast. I just went to http://transparentcalifornia.com/ and see that my firefighter friend’s department is paying him “total benefits” of $178K/year (~$100K less in benifits as the higher paid guys in his department that have total pay and benifits of OVER $500K) as they desperately try and fund the pension with enough to pay him and all his friends $15-$20K a MONTH when they retire in their mid 50’s with 90% of their pay.
With CalPERS earning less than 1% last year and averaging only ~5% for the last 10 years pension costs are going nowhere but up for Davis (and every city in CA until they run out of cash and are forced to admit that it was a Ponzi and tell the retired employees that they need to take a cut in their pensions)…
Your 3% number is a fantasy. The only way that our budget shows a 3% increase is because the City continues the policy of not fully accounting for our long-term obligations. Same reason they can claim a ‘balanced’ budget when in reality we have had $10-30 million annual deficits for a few years running now.
Just look at the rate of increase in our cost per employee over the past decade and you will find a number significantly greater than 3%. 3% per year for ten years would result in approximately 35% increase in costs. If I recall correctly, the increase for the City was greater than 50% for that period (I don’t have the specifics in front of me). The last round of MOU’s increased our costs by several million per year, a number that will increase significantly as it plays through to the retirement benefits. Serious cost containment means capping total compensation, something we have not even attempted to date.
.
Yes; We are not going to be able to tax ourselves out of trouble. We need to be looking at doing the things that Mark West proposes, and this should be a high priority for the Council members.
Topcat wrote:
> We are not going to be able to tax ourselves out of trouble.
Once the city gets new taxes it will give raises to the employees and we will be “back in trouble” (and need more taxes to keep parks and libraries open)…
Same is true for DJUSD… and UC…
Yeah, EXACTLY!
Well, after listening to a bunch of Trump supporters over Thanksgiving, have two observations…
There are a lot of “checks and balances”, so the president-elect will be constrained, not only by Democrats, but also a lot of Republican folk in Congress
Those who think the president-elect is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and the right thing for the country, bravo to them if they are correct… and if it goes sideways, they need to bear responsibility… works both ways… only time will tell…
[yes, know my comment is somewhat off topic, but Trump’s name came up a lot above, so thought it was ‘fair’, in context… don’t believe that the new admin will be either positive nor negative to City financing… life goes on…]