While the council is continuing to plan to move forward on revenue measures, they received a dose of what might await a campaign if opposition coalesces against the revenue measure – which presumably would need a two-thirds vote to pass, and therefore would be vulnerable to any sort of real opposition.
The public comment therefore was telling.
Alan Pryor said the most important factor in passing a tax measure “is that the citizens have trust in city management. That their money will be used wisely and that we’ll be told the truth about what our actual needs are and what the money will be used for.”
Mr. Pryor said in previous campaigns that he trusted the city management to do what they said they would, however, this time, he warned, “I’m not sure I can do that with a straight face anymore.”
He noted that over the last 15 years, every revenue measure “was followed up within eight months with huge employee salary increases that gobbled up every penny of money we raise.
“We have a workforce that on average receives $130,000 per year, yet we’re proposing that we give out two percent salary increases every year going forward in the future. And we hear that within a 
few years, we’re going to be facing $8 million more per year for future retiree pensions and health care costs,” he continued.
He warned that we are proposing an $8 million tax for parks and roads, but will then have to come up with $8 million in the future for salaries and pensions. “I think it’s pretty obvious that some in the community are going to be scratching their heads about that if they think about it,” he said.
He added that, with respect to the parks tax, “I think we were given bogus numbers by the consultant report.” He noted it was based “on completely absurd assumptions” that “we were going to have to tear up every single park and roll out new turf.”
He said, “Fortunately cooler heads prevailed on that.” He said, “That in itself questions the validity of the entire report.” He questions the remaining report, noting that it describes “distressed equipment” at every park needing replacement. He believes that the parks are fine, “like it has 15 to 20 years at least.”
Elaine Roberts Musser questioned the need for a social services tax, which she says city staff concedes has not been historically covered by the city.
“Social services are the purview of the county,” she explained. “I am not in favor of allowing the county to abdicate its responsibilities because the city has decided to subject its citizens to double taxation for such services. In my opinion, a social services tax incorporated into a more comprehensive transportation parks maintenance parcel tax will ultimately be the poison pill that dooms any such revenue measure.”
She said that the $125 parks tax and $125 transportation tax would be warranted. But she warns, “How much are Davisites willing to tax themselves to address these unmet needs?”
She said that “$250 or $300 a year can be a real burden for seniors on fixed incomes, young families with children, or those barely making ends meet.”
She also noted that “no economic development means never ending tax increases and new tax measures. The city needs to proactively encourage economic development.”
Ron Glick said, “I always have supported the city’s efforts to raise taxes.” He turned his ire to paid parking, noting if you went downtown for two hours each day that works out to between $900 and $1000 extra just to park. “So I’m worried about how much I’m going to be paying because I like to go downtown and there’s going to be parking meters down there.
“There’s no hard figures about what parking’s going to cost downtown,” he said. “On the one hand, you’re going to tax going downtown to manage the parking. On the other hand, you want people to vote for additional taxes for the city to do things that need to be done.”
He said, “I see the need… I’m just cautious.”
Mayor Robb Davis responded to some of the public comments.
The mayor said, “We have tasked staff with doing careful analysis of our needs.”
He acknowledged that when staff got the Kitchell report, staff recognized that the turf replacement portion was not how the city does business and “they corrected it.” He said, “There was no sense that there were other parts of the report that were lacking, that was the sole part that the FBC [Finance and Budget Commission] thought was problematic, staff agreed and did something about it.”
He also noted on pensions that “our own consultant has made it clear to us that if we give zero raises over the next ten years, our pension costs are going to go up by over $6 million. That’s just a reality.
“We can’t lie to the community,” he said. “We’re not hiding anything. Some of the money from these parcel taxes will go to compensation. It can’t not go to compensation.
“Even if we did zero in terms of any compensation changes and added zero staff, those millions would be hard-baked in,” he said. “That doesn’t mean we can’t seek cost containment.”
Mayor Davis addressed the social services tax. “Not a core city service?” he asked. “Really, we’ve never been funding affordable housing in this community for the last 30 years? We didn’t build our affordable housing on RDA?
“There was a time when we considered that core to our identity, and then the state took it away,” he said. “Because the state took RDA away, does that mean that we’re no longer committed to affordable?”
He said, “I’m not buying that.” He added, “we’ve had an inclusionary housing ordinance for a long time. We used that money to create hundreds of units of permanently affordable housing here and that money is gone forever.”
He argued that a portion of that $50 parcel tax could go to a fund which is a continued housing trust fund to ensure we don’t lose the stuff we have. “We need them,” he said. “This is a core service in the community. We’ve always supplied affordable housing in this community.
“We’re not talking about something new, we’re talking about going back to what we were doing before,” he stated.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Last Day – $290 Left to Raise – Toward a Sustainable Vanguard
It’s looking like the schools will let the city go first this time seeking new parcel taxes but the public knows that the schools won’t be far behind. Are taxpayers finally hitting the wall? Is this the first sign of a groundswell of opposition? On top of everything with the new tax plan most taxpayers will no longer be able to deduct parcel taxes as they’ll be using the standard deduction and if they itemize they’re restricted to a $10,000 cap on all state, local and real estate tax write-offs.
The question is do the people of Davis want to live in a community they can afford parks and green belts and fire service And roads without potholes. Do they want schools that can afford to pay teachers. These are tough questions, but they don’t pay for themselves
As Keith previously noted, the question is what the city is going to do with the funds that are “freed up” as a result of these proposed taxes.
The other question is, do we really “want” to pay for unfunded liabilities? (A statewide problem.) It doesn’t sound too appealing, at least.
The answer to that question is obvious, so it really isn’t the important one to ask. The better question is how do we want the City to prioritize spending. Do we want the highest priority to be providing quality services to our 68,000 residents in a cost-effective manner, or do we want to prioritize job security for the few hundred city employees?
The Mayor is right in that we have very limited options regarding our existing pension obligations and that those costs are going to continue to rise. We don’t have to continue creating new obligations at the same rate, however, and we can reduce our costs long-term by making different choices. When it comes to city services, not all require city employees to perform the work. We don’t have City employees picking up our trash every week, or pruning the City’s trees, yet those services still function reliably. How many other services can we contract to outside providers allowing the City to reduce its long-term pension obligations? That is the question that we need to address if we want significant cost containment and fiscal sustainability.
Spot on…
As to PERS pensions, that has been somewhat addressed by State law… as to employees, new hires (after Jan 2013) are under a lower rate structure… 2% @ 62 for non public safety folk.
Not sure what was meant as “same”… understand where folk think it should be lower than 2% @ 62… remember, due to PERS and IRS rules, City employees rarely qualify (or have big ‘off-sets’) for Social Security…
True, as stated… good question… I think there are limits, but the question should be seriously explored… but going ‘private’ may or may not reduce costs (or liabilities)… it definitely should be explored…
If staff explores it, that will take away time from other functions… private volunteers?
Courtesy of the Republicans and Trump…
But, to the meat… most folk making 100k/year have an ‘effective’ federal tax rate of ~ 16% (or less)… so, any tax (local/State) has had 84% coming from a filer… it is not a tax credit…
The argument/observation quoted is insipid.
No sign that state taxes will follow suit as to deductibility of local taxes, but same as federal, you only ‘save’ @ your ‘effective’ (not “marginal”) rate.
You’re wrong here, the write-off comes off of the top of your income which is taxed at the higher rate.
Matter of perspective… and reality… why do you think mortgage deductions, personal exemptions, are taxed at the lowest level? And State/local at the top?
At the end of the calculations, all same-same.
Incroyable…
Howard, every dollar you can write-off comes off the top of your salary. I’d explain it to you but you aren’t worth the effort.
You are incorrect… or befuddled… or, are pushing an ‘agenda’…
Why would any dollar be different than any other?
But, ” I’d explain it to you but you aren’t worth the effort.” (your words) On that, je d’accord…
I disengage…
[Moderator… Keith’s fallacious assertion as to taxes, and marginal or effective, is not personal, but the general public needs to know it is fallacious]
Howard, you should stick to what you know.
Well, I said that I would avoid commenting about megadorms for the rest of the calendar year, but this crosses over into Affordable housing:
Probably should ensure that the megadorms contribute more than 10% Affordable beds, then.
Yeah, right. Got it.
Good. Glad that I don’t have to explain it again – as is often the case on here.
As you say, “good”… you explained it all…
Just “itching” for arguments, aren’t you? (By the way, your citation above is different from my posting.)
I’m “reporting” this statement, as well as yours (before things get out of hand). But really, your comments lately have added very little value regarding the actual issues. You seem to be focused on personal attacks, instead. I don’t know what motivates you to do this, but suggest that you find something more constructive to do.
Excuse me… I affirmed you… you take offense?
The comment section of the Vanguard would be much more useful and productive if various participants would stop sniping at each other. Please focus on the issues at hand and avoid the personal conflicts.
Quote from the “other” article today:
https://davisvanguard.org/2017/12/harrington-drops-appeal-nishi-lawsuit-opening-door-current-nishi-eir/
I understand that mixed use is also exempt from Affordable housing requirements.
The city should review its Affordable housing requirements (for all types of new developments) prior to asking voters to approve an Affordable housing “parcel tax”.
They’ve had an affordable housing workshop and in January, as reported earlier this week, we will get the consultant’s report.
Ironically (or maybe hypocritically) all of the characters in support of more taxation of local residents to use (waste, IMO) on affordable housing have been supportive of the politics and politicians that previously raided the RDA program to give the funds to the members of the state employee unions.
That is the common process:
Step-1 – Public sector employee unions mobilize their significant resources made available by their tax-exempt status to buy-in union-benefactor politicians.
Step-2 – Once elected, the union-benefactor politicians get to work on yet another pay and benefits increase for the union members to reward the funding and free-campaign personnel that helped get them elected.
Step-3 – As always happens in this common process, the government starts to run out of other people’s money.
Step-4 – Politicians look for places they can rob Peter to pay Paul… for example, the RDA program… and they make it so.
Step-5 – Out of money again and even Peter is broke.
Step-6 – Plead to the public about how the children, the poor, the homeless, the roads, the parks, the (insert your favorite victim group identity), will be harmed if we don’t tax ourselves yet again.
Step-7 – (now this step depends on if your community is more liberal or more money math-able conservative) Pass yet another tax increase.
Repeat until we actually do run out of other people’s money… or if the community has a higher percentage of conservatives that can do real money math, put an end to it.
What he said.
“the government starts to run out of other people’s money.”
I take fundamental exception to this statement. The government is not using “other people’s money”. It is using money that we have agreed to pay through the decision making of our elected representatives, whose decisions we may or may not agree with. If we do not like the decision making of our current representatives, we have two remedies available. First, if we believe that their actions are illegal or unjust, we can sue for redress. The second is to vote them out at the next election replacing them with those whose views are more closely aligned with our own. The idea that in a representative democracy, we do not have an obligation to pay taxes for use as our elected representatives decide, whether wisely or not, is simply untrue.
If this were not the case, then as a pacifist, I should never have had to pay a single dollar in federal taxes since some of “my”money would be used for what I consider immoral wars. Do any of you who believe the government should not use “other people’s money” believe that I should be legally exempt from paying federal taxes ?
““Social services are the purview of the county,” she explained. “I am not in favor of allowing the county to abdicate its responsibilities because the city has decided to subject its citizens to double taxation for such services.”
With respect to Elaine who I believe does have the best interests of the community at heart, but who sees the world very differently than I do, this is little more than a “not in my job description” argument.
What this argument is lacking is recognition of the interlinking roles of the county and cities in providing for the social/economic well being of our citizens. Taking the homeless issue as just one example. Many speak out about the homeless wanting the city to “do something” which too often means “get them out of my sight”, without any apparent awareness that we have the responsibility to pay for what we want. The county has a role to play in social well being, but so does the city. For years we have seen City Councils sit back ( despite the efforts of our current mayor) and say “social well being” is a county responsibility. If we want people off the streets, we need to provide affordable housing and resources in conjunction with the county to help reintegrate the homeless into the community. If we want a healthy population, then the city should be working in conjunction with the county to ensure health services for all. If we want an employed population, we need to support both private and public sector jobs.
And yes, it is the responsibility of those of us who have attained comfortable positions in life to help others who have been less fortunate.
[Moderator: edited for correct attribution of the quote]
Could it not be also that the City Council’s policies on housing and development on a wide range of issues from its tepid rhetorical stance re UCD’s LRDP on campus housing proposals to Trackside, Megadorms et al. have not contributed to some lack of trust in the Council on the part of many Davis citizens?
Why was it that all members of the CC unconditionally supported Nishi 1.0 as did every eminent luminary in the City (while the opposition was also outspent by 20:1), and yet the measure was defeated by the Davis voters??? (And, for the record, Alan Pryor was a leading opponent of Nishi 1.0). While it was a narrow defeat for the CC and its backers, this surely says something.
And then, or now, the City is rushing to put only a very slightly modified version of Nishi on the ballot next year. To repeat: isn’t there a connection between the citizens mistrust of the Council on many things, including parcel taxes/revenue generating measures , and its land use policies as evidenced by past and present policies of this Council? Do some citizens fear what the cumulative environmental, economic, and fiscal costs will be of these policies? I think so.
“Why was it that all members of the CC unconditionally supported Nishi 1.0”
this is not really an accurate statement. the council didn’t ‘unconditionally’ support Nishi. there was a proposal, the council and developers and the city met for months to hash out the changes to the project. Each of them got enough of what they wanted in order to vote for the project. Now, you may disagree with them. I may disagree with them. But that doesn’t mean they gave it unconditional support, because it is not true.
David,
Whether “unconditional,” or unanimous (perhaps would have been a better choice of word) my MUCH larger point stands. Indeed, correct me if I am wrong, I seem to recall you have made an observation (s) to this effect at some point? Instead of nitpicking, what is the logical flaw in my argument–if you do not agree?
I think the biggest issue has been past mismanagement of money (very serious mismanagement) but I’m not all that sure there is a huge trust gap at this point. Granted it was the week before Christmas, but schools are in session, and the council with notice in the Enterprise and Vanguard had a tax measure discussion and only four people came to speak. I’m not seeing a huge groundswell of opposition.
How do you justify using the qualifier “past” here? What has changed to convince you that the City is no longer mismanaging its funds? The FBC, through their efforts leading to Project Toto, identified the extent of our serious budget shortfalls at least two years before the City Manager and the CC majority were willing to publicly acknowledge the problem (and then they did so only after their outside consultant confirmed the FBC’s projections). In fact, earlier this year Mayor Davis presented the facts of our dire fiscal situation during his State of the City talk, only to see the City Manager’s aides immediately contradict him, stating that they had everything under control. The CC majority won’t even agree to an evaluation of our current staff to see if we have the right personnel in place to meet the service needs or to a serious discussion on cost containment.
How can we hope to meet our City’s challenges when the CC majority and City Staff refuse to even acknowledge that those challenges exist, let alone do anything to address them (beyond raising taxes yet again)?
So, David, your way of assessing Davis public or voter opinion is based solely on the number of people who show up at a council meeting to speak for or against a measure??? If you have another method of gauging it please let us know. I have lived in my neighborhood for 18 years and a majority of my neighbors are apathetic and would not dream of speaking at a council meeting but for the most part are highly critical of the City Council.
And, if my argument is so far off base, and Davis residents show complete deference to the CC views, how do you explain the Nishi 1.0 vote?
This is not to deny that there is a general perception of past “mismanagement” by the city, but I think this includes “land use policies,” among other things. In fact, take away the latter, and I am not nearly as critical of the so-called mismanagement by the City as most people in Davis. Like you I think, on grounds of fairness alone, Davis teachers deserve a raise. Perhaps unlike you and a lot of Davis voters, I do not think it excessive to give, at least the lower paid city workers, a 2% raise annually. They deserve a raise as much as teachers and lowly paid UCD clerical staff. As others have observed, Davis budget problems are almost universal across the country for a host of reasons, and, for the most part, out of the control of the Council.
Solely? Never. Is it a factor? Absolutely. I wouldn’t say your argument is off-base, I just don’t see it as the biggest factor.
But once again, I don’t see the voters likely to allow parks to close and roads to remain unrepaired – not in Davis.
Probably depends upon whether or not voters believe that’s the choice.
Regarding lack of trust, I suspect that’s a bigger factor than you might believe. (Largely based upon recent land-use decisions, but also regarding a failure to control costs. Coupled with an unwillingness to effectively confront UCD, regarding the costs and impacts that it is creating for the city.)
In addition, there might be a feeling of “hopelessness”, regarding unfunded liabilities. (Coupled with the statewide scope of that problem.) Paying more taxes to account for unfunded liabilities does nothing to provide needed services. Money down the drain, from that perspective.
there is a reason why roads have not been fully funded in over a decade. It’s because we have not put the funding into them. I don’t see how it’s a stretch that without additional funding, that state of affairs will continue.
Ironically if you are concerned about land use, voting down a tax bill will put more pressure for growth and development, not less.
Regarding roads, the problem is not immediately obvious to me. (Especially in comparison to other areas in the county and beyond.)
You’re also neglecting to acknowledge the recent gas tax increase, as well as the pre-existing state funding that the city receives for road repair. I doubt that the impact of the new gas tax has fully kicked in, at this point.
It comes back to Keith’s question, as well. What will the city do with the money that’s been “freed up”, if these new taxes pass?
Regarding pressure for more “growth and development”, we already receive a daily dose of that from the Vanguard! 🙂
By the way, didn’t the settlement with UC Santa Cruz include funding for roads, coupled with limitations regarding the amount of traffic allowed from that university?
For the most part that’s the wrong question. The money won’t be “freed up” the money is a need that is not being funded.
Perhaps some is funded, some isn’t. Probably depends on the category, as well.
At least we already know that the “unfunded” liabilities are not “funded” (throughout California). What a mess that is. A colossal statewide mistake in accounting for costs, which still hasn’t been fixed. How was this allowed to occur, on such a huge, statewide scale?
Basis for your first sentence?
Some needs related to road and park maintenance are being met/paid for.
Actually, I’m not sure if the funding related to the UC Santa Cruz settlement is specifically/only for roads:
http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/settlement-summary.shtml
I have not yet reviewed the other settlements (with other public universities in California), to see if funding for transportation is addressed there, as well.
Ron:
Some needs are being met, but the proposal is to fill unmet needs, not backfill what is currently being funded.
Well, it’s one thing to see it on paper, it’s another to use sidewalks, streets, and parks that don’t seem that bad.
In any case, perhaps it’s about time for UCD to make a contribution, to help offset their impacts. (See posting regarding UC Santa Cruz, above.)
And again, until the unfunded liabilities are dealt with (probably on a statewide level), it seems like a rather hopeless situation, regardless.
As a side note, does the chart above account for funding that will be received from the new gas tax?
Also the parcel tax, would fund less than half of that.
“And again, until the unfunded liabilities are dealt with (probably on a statewide level), it seems like a rather hopeless situation, regardless.”
Can’t throw up your hands, those bills come due, it’s real money.
I’m sure there’s real consequences that cities, counties, and the state will have to deal with. But again, you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. Maybe the State will come by and break our kneecaps, or repossess the roads if those unfunded liabilities (pensions/medical costs) aren’t paid.
Yeah, sorry for that remark.
Unlike all of the proposed megadorm developments (which will make our long-term fiscal situation even worse), I’m not losing any sleep over the possibility that the tax measures will fail.
Got to run for awhile.
” But again, you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. Maybe the State will come by and break our kneecaps, or repossess the roads if those unfunded liabilities (pensions/medical costs) aren’t paid.”
Or the employees will sue? Are you actually being serious?
No, of course I’m not being serious.
But reflecting upon it further, sometimes it’s best to let unsustainable systems collapse, rather than continuing to feed them (thereby wasting resources, delaying the inevitable or making other unwise decisions to support it).
Not saying that’s the case here, but the thought has crossed my mind. That’s sort of the reason (or some might say “excuse”) that Trump and the Republicans cut off funding for Obamacare. (However, it doesn’t seem likely to be replaced with something “better”, at this point.)
By the way, does UCD make any contribution whatsoever, similar to what UC Santa Cruz now does?
I should clarify that I’m primarily referring to the possibility of a systemwide/statewide collapse, regarding unfunded liabilities. Perhaps initiated by cities that are “less responsible” than Davis.
In the meantime, we have to plan as though we are going to have to pay for those liabilities (because most likely we will).
The reason Davis roads are in such poor shape is that the city would rather pay these people than fix the roads:
Public Relations Manager, Conservation Coordinator, Community Services Program Coordinator, Assistant Director Community Development & Sustainability, Environmental Program Specialist, Open Space Lands Manager, Conservation Coordinator, Paratransit Coordinator, Sustainability Analyst Community Services Supervisor, Rental Resources Coordinator, Community Services Supervisor, Wildlife Resource Specialist, Environmental Program Specialist, Paratransit Vehicle Specialist, Youth Intervention Specialist, Property Management Coordinator, Environmental Program Specialist, Sustainability Programs Manager, Community Services Program Coordinator, and Environmental Resources Manager
I’m pretty sure that the city would be fine (and few would even notice) without any of the above actual city employees on the payroll.
P.S. Years abo I read about a single ADA ramp that cost over $250K. I wonder if Davis knows how many ramps we are getting for $225K (two)?
P.P.S. SF paid $450K for a single ADA ramp that a non union Davis contractor could easily build for under $10K.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/wheelchair-ramp-approved-for-board-chamber-at-450k/
I fully agree with Ken’s comment here.
I agree at a 92% level… with Ken…