Unlike past Measure R projects, the approval and placement of the West Davis Active Adult Community (WDAAC) was almost routine. This was the second meeting on the project by the council, but, other than a comment during the general public comment by Eileen Samitz in favor of the project, the public had nothing much to say.
The council spent most of their time addressing language that would clean up the proposal. For example, there were still questions on the Davis-Based Buyers Program.
As articulated by Robb Davis, the issue is “there doesn’t appear from what we have read here that there are any re-sale controls.” He said, “I buy a house based on being (connected to Davis)… and I turn around and sell it to a non-Davisite, I thought we put it to you that we’d want to have a deed restriction like we have with our affordable program.”
Dave Taormino said that was acceptable. “In terms of the flipping situation, absolutely, we want to put all the protections we can into the deed restriction to avoid that.” He acknowledged that they hadn’t thought of that situation.
A member of the development team explained that they spoke with staff and the city attorney about adding that into the development agreement. “The belief is that the Davis-Based Buyer’s Program is
the applicants’ program and that the city is supportive of it in theory but doesn’t want to be involved necessarily in the details of that.
“We believe that (the CC&R) is the opportunity to address this,” he said. “In the CC&R… it would have a requirement that it be owner occupied.” He said that they are not sure they can permanently preclude it being sold to someone from outside the area, but they can at least “quell the thought of getting rich quick.”
On affordable housing concerns, “We do have the requirement that it commences on the first 60 units within the first three years… Progress is being shown… Or else that land reverts to the city and the city can find another developer that is capable of successfully constructing the site. That is the mechanism we put in place to address the concern of ensuring that the units are built – which I think that we all want.”
However, Brett Lee expressed the concern if that were to occur, the city would not be in the position to build those affordable units.
“The 150 units is quite generous, I’m appreciative of that,” Mayor Pro Tem Lee said. “My fear is… if it is not laid out in a timely manner, the parcel reverts to the city. Here you go city, here’s some vacant land. Good luck.
“Can we have some requirement such that you are working directly with the developer you have chose for the site to make it happen,” he said. “And that we’re out of the loop.” He didn’t want to be in the situation where, four years later, all of the market rate houses are built, there is a vacant parcel of land, and the developer hands it back to the city and says “good luck.”
Robb Davis said, “We don’t see at this point in time, the ability to provide significant projects.” He pointed out, “The way we financed them in the past is no longer feasible for us.” He wants to avoid: “We’re not put in the position where we have to figure out somehow how to get this money.”
The council also had concerns about multigenerational families.
“We live in an age of multigenerational families,” Robb Davis said. “The way I’m reading this, it talks about unanticipated child custody arrangements. I don’t want to have to take custody of my grandchildren if there’s an emergency. They should be able to just come and live with me.”
The developers consulted on some of these issues. On accommodating families, the team member noted about the language, “I don’t believe means you actually taking legal custody of the child, but physical custody of that child.”
He said, “We would be willing to add ‘unanticipated custody and multigenerational family living arrangements that may arise during residency to the maximum extent permitted under existing law.’”
Under current law, he said that one of the residents has to be 55 or older. They do not allow children unless there is a disabled child that needs to live with them, or the child as the caregiver. “You more or less have decided when you move into this community, that you more or less are an empty nester,” he said.
Another question was whether they would consider a contribution to the improvement of 113. Here Interim Community Development Director Heidi Tschudin explained that Cal Trans would need to agree since this would be within their right of way, and the idea would be to slow speeds coming off the freeway. She estimated the cost at around $150,000 to cover the improvements they’ve talked about.
The developer agreed to pick that up.
Lucas Frerichs moved the staff recommendations – all six of them – along with the four proposed changes to the Development Agreement. Rochelle Swanson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0 with Will Arnold having previously recused himself.
The West Davis Active Adult Community is now on the ballot for November 2018.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“CCNR”? Unfamiliar with that term… is that anything like CC&R’s?
Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR)
Good, then!
We can capitalize on the upscale tourist trade, and with the econ development, can accelerate fixing the backlog of deferred maintenance, and obviate the need for any new taxes!
Will maybe stop some folk from rhining all the time…
Spin off group from Crosby Stills and Nash
Crosby, Collins, Nash & Rollins
(Henry, that is)
Perhaps Crosby, Stills N Nash?
That doesn’t even make sense
Everyone knows CCNR = City Council No on R
Commissioner Salomon conducted an analysis of WDAAC, as he did for Nishi. Again, Salomon noted that there was no basis provided for the 75% cost allocation that was created by staff (in reference to ongoing expenses to the city, created by the development).
This is the same concern that Matt repeatedly noted, regarding Nishi.
Commissioner Salomon’s analysis shows a cumulative deficit to the city of approximately $2.3 million, at year 15.
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Finance-And-Budget-Commission/Agendas/20180312/07C-Solomon-Updated-Fiscal-Models.pdf
While it is true that a stopped clock is right twice a day, doesn’t mean one can’t make the same error twice…
Not judging the merits of the analysis, just questioning reliance of someone’s opinion, absent proof by fruition…
Minority report
Good movie… fiction, based on fact, as I recall…
Below are some of the details regarding the allocations that the city used, vs. the allocations that Salomon used (as of 3/7/18). (I don’t know if the model has since been updated.)
1) SUMMARY subject to change, the opportunity to further develop the analysis with a thorough review of the formulas, additional data, and further analysis has been undertaken.
Updates and additions are highlighted in orange.
2) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Cost allocation updated based on a division-by-division analysis of the department (tab 2). – Based on this analysis, a proportional share of all department general fund costs were allocated to the project.
– The initial model allocated 75% of department costs to the project although no analysis supporting this allocation was included in the model.
3) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT Cost allocation updated based on a division-by-division analysis of the department (tab 3). – Based on this analysis, a proportional share of all department general fund costs were allocated to the project.
– The initial model allocated 75% of department costs to the project although no analysis supporting this allocation was included in the model.
4) PARKS & COMMUNITY SERVICE DEPARTMENT Cost allocation updated based on a division-by-division analysis of the department (tab 4). – Based on this analysis, 72.4% of department general fund costs were allocated to the project.
– The initial model allocated 75% of department costs to the project although no analysis supporting this allocation was included in the model.
5) FIRE DEPARTMENT Cost allocation updated based on analysis of the 4,787 calls categorized in the annual report (tab 5). – Based on this analysis, 98.4% of department general fund costs were allocated to the project.
– The initial model allocated 75% of department costs to the project although no analysis supporting this allocation was included in the model.
Since the revenue from Public Safety and Prop 172 taxes, and general fund fees was included in the fiscal summary, the corresponding costs were added for consistency.
6) POLICE DEPARTMENT Cost allocation updated based on a division-by-division analysis of the department (tab 6). – Based on this analysis, a proportional share of all department general fund costs were allocated to the project.
– The initial model allocated 75% of department costs to the project although no analysis supporting this allocation was included in the model.
Since the revenue from Public Safety and Prop 172 taxes, and general fund fees was included in the fiscal summary, the corresponding costs were added for consistency.
7) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS General fund expenditures related to capital improvements were added to the model as there was nothing in this tab. (See t9 – CIPs – Original) – Based on this analysis (Tab 7), 94.4% of proportional capital costs were allocated to the project since these near-term expenditures will depreciate fully over time and turn into cost.
– The initial model allocated 75% of capital improvement costs to the project although no analysis supporting this allocation was included in the model.
3/7/18 Update: The model has been adjusted for historical under-spending of the general fund capital budget (tab t19b).
8) GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS (CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER, ADMIN SERVICES, ETC.) Cost allocation updated based on an overall analysis of all other department allocations. – Based on this analysis (Tab #8), 94.4% of general fund costs were allocated to the project.
– The initial model allocated 75% of capital improvement costs to the project although no analysis supporting this allocation was included in the model.
9) PROPERTY TAX REVENUE The model was updated to a consistent 2% increase in years 1 through 5. – Some of the model had the 2% assumption discussed in the January 2018 F&BC meeting while other parts of the model (e.g., t5, the property tax tab) had a 1.5% assumption.
– Property tax revenue is increased as a result of the 0.5% per year increase in taxable valuation in the first five years.
10) SALES TAX Sales tax revenue was adjusted for business-to-business sales tax. – The initial model allocated all revenue on a per person basis and did not include the effect of business-to-business (vs. consumer) taxable sales.
– EPS consultants had previously examined actual revenue data and concluded that the existing 2.6 million sq. ft. of commercial space generated $20 per sq. ft. of taxable business-to-business revenue.
– This adjustment reduces sales tax revenue by ~8%
Sales tax revenue was adjusted for nearby residents who live on the city border. – These include the 9,000+ residents on the UCD campus and estimated 1,182 residents in the El Macero subdivision who are in areas right on the city boundary.
– Adjusting sales tax revenue for these additional people reduces per person revenue by approximately 13%.
Sales tax revenue for those living in age restricted senior units was adjusted consistent with census bureau data. – Lower expenditures by this group, noted with some regularity in public comments to the commission, is confirmed by census bureau reporting which shows taxable purchases approximately 81% of average levels.
11) CANNABIS TAX An attempt was made to find revenue estimates for the city cannabis tax
– Research found that a City Staff memo to the City Council for the 8/29/17 meeting stating: “There is not enough information at this time to provide accurate estimates of the revenue potential of the proposed business types.”
– The limited number of dispensaries may limit potential city revenue (compared to the potential revenue with open licensing).
12) OVERALL MODEL DESIGN The overall model should be evaluated for design issues and updated as appropriate. – The model should be revised to ensure referential integrity (i.e., inputs should be entered only in one place and should then flow through the entire model). As with property tax, there were inconsistencies.
– The model should be revised to eliminate hard-coded formulas. Rather, the formulas should pick up the visible inputs (which should be consistent throughout the model).
“The Finance and Budget Commission has reviewed the fiscal impacts of the proposal, based upon staff analysis and preliminary concept plans. The Commission concurred with staff’s conclusion that annual ongoing revenues and costs for the city from the project would be significantly positive over its first 15 years of development, generating as much as a $300,000 net fiscal benefit in many years.”
I noticed that you haven’t addressed the differences between the “blanket” 75% allocation (created by staff – and apparently resulting in the $300,000 figure that you cited), vs. the more nuanced allocations used by Salomon as detailed above (resulting in a $2.3 million deficit, at year 15).
And once again, an external analyst is (unfortunately) not being used to analyze the costs to the city.
I spoke at length to city staff and several commissioners, and I am comfortable with the majority view as oppose to the minority view of the commission. My conclusion: the decision to support or oppose housing projects should be done independently of the fiscal analysis.
Davis City Council votes 4-0 to put peripheral (separated by distance, 45 mph street and fast egress to noisy freeway), age-restricted, low-income cloistered (at noisy end of development), natural gas normative, low-density, almost-entirely 80% 55+ residential development project on the November ballot.
Alternatively…
It has been many years since the city of Davis developed a persistent housing crisis, but with their actions on Tuesday night, by a 4-0 vote with Will Arnold recused, the council approved in well more than concept a process with multiple missing hindsightnesses that will pave the way for dependency on IPA for people who can’t stand this nonsense. Starring the Davis Police Accountability Commission (DPAC), not to be confused with the simultaneously functioning DPAC (Downtown Plan Advisory Committee).
My point of course is that the decision related to the police is several steps forward, but the decision related to housing is one small step forward and many steps backwards.
Am inclined to vote against this, but look forward to the vote.
Not fond of targeting a segment, with a non-provable “trickle down effect”… Nishi is different, as student-oriented might take pressure off ‘student-oriented’…
Not fond of building in a flood plain… doable, but not first choice as to location…
Not fond of this being “the camel’s nose” to open up all the land along covell, to County Rd 99 (one poster seems to want to postpone this until the rest is recognized as “fair game”.
Not fond of the infrastructure constraints (particularly sanitary sewer conveyance) for the site.
This project is not a “non-starter”, but has many flaws… land @ Crossroads/Covell Village, or under the Mace curve, would have been better sites…
Eileen also supports the Oxford Circle proposal, for students. She is not supporting the WDAAC simply because it’s for seniors.
However, I don’t agree with her, on this one. (At least with Nishi, one could argue that there’s a legitimate “need”. Which would be better-fulfilled, on campus.) Older folks tend to have the most money, and least “need” for new housing. In addition, much of the existing housing in Davis is already “right-sized”, for seniors. There are significant costs associated with selling, buying, and moving, and there’s (already) existing senior housing developments in place. And, anyone living in one of the few McMansions in Davis ain’t gonna move to WDAAC.
Thanks for speaking for her and letting us know she what she is not for, simply.
Seems like Howard, at least, was trying to speak for her, first. (If you define “speak” as “smear”.) Really, the kind of thing that should be moderated without having to point it out, on the Vanguard.
With respect to the concerns Ron has raised above, at Monday’s meeting of the FBC, during the Long Range Calendar item, all the FBC commissioners agreed that the FBC will conduct a detailed review of the assumptions and methodologies of the City’s fiscal model for New Development. That review will include staff from both the departments of Finance and Community Development. When the model was first reviewed by FBC in October 2017, all parties (the commissioners and staff and consultants) agreed that the model would have a “Version 2.0.” The decision by the FBC on Monday night means that review will happen almost exactly one year after Version 1.0 was presented to the FBC, which I personally believe is a very reasonable timeline, actually faster than I expected.
Ray Salomon has provided his scenario assumption adjustments (repeated in part by Ron above) to the model to staff. We will have to wait until the FBC actually deliberates, but my suspicion is that Version 2.0 will not anoint a single fiscal outcome, but rather illuminate several possible scenarios that “bracket” the likely outcome.
With that said, I personally believe that , the City’s Version 1.0 model’s outcome for WDAAC of just over $4 million surplus for the City over 15 years and Ray Salomon’s adjusted model’s outcome of just over a $2 million deficit for the City over 15 years, are a reasonable “bracket” for the likely outcome. That “bracket” describes a project that I personally believe is neither a fiscal windfall nor a fiscal burden for the City.
“Bracketing” is truly all we can do (your “mileage may vary”, as they say…) … I hate when folks use financial estimates with numbers that are not expressed in significant digits… if your estimate is +/- 10%, as to assumptions, don’t report them out as 3 significant digits… my “nerd” contribution for the day…