Back in September 2018, the Davis City Council met to discuss overall goals for the 2018-20 legislative period. In addition to reaffirming their eight overall goals for the period, the council established seven “focus items” – intended to be shorter-term and more focused tasks that could be completed in a relatively brief period of time.
These items included:
- Install lights at Toad Hollow Park (Complete)
- Create an inventory of space for economic development/innovation center (Complete)
- Develop a communications strategy (Complete)
- Develop a homelessness strategy (Initial work complete. Tasks shifted to other homelessness priorities as City direction has evolved)
- Restripe safe routes to school (This fiscal year’s work complete and plan in place for future years)
- Complete an economic analysis for a multi-sport complex (Underway and to be completed by end of 2019)
- Construct two downtown restrooms (Construction underway, complete by May 2020)
With these items either complete or nearing completion, the council is considering a new group of focus items for 2020.
Staff recommends, “Council choose 6-8 new Focus Items. Each item should be a tangible task that can be completed prior to the end of the 2020 calendar year.”
2019-20 Davis Goals:
Goal 1: Ensure Fiscal Resilience
Goal 2 – Drive a Diverse and Resilient Economy
Goal 3 – Pursue Environmental Sustainability
Goal 4 – Fund, Maintain, and Improve the Infrastructure
Goal 5 – Ensure a Safe, Healthy, Equitable Community
Goal 6 – Build and Promote a Vibrant City
Goal 7 – Foster Excellence in City Services
Goal 8 – Cultivate Positive Workplace Dynamics
Under each goal are some objectives. For instance, under fiscal resilience is: “REVENUE: Ensure fair City tax rates and fees while investigating new and sustainable sources of revenue to 
strengthen the economic base and to provide the services desired by the community.”
“COST CONTAINMENT: Seek increased cost efficiency and containment in service delivery, while maintaining high quality city services.”
“TRANSPARENCY: Take actions to enhance and promote fiscal transparency.”
Under a diverse and resilient economy includes providing a “support network for business,” utilizing “city-owned property to support economic development goals,” and addressing “the needs of new businesses and business types identified as desirable additions to our economic diversity and sustainability.”
Under pursuing environmental sustainability: reduction of the carbon footprint including a reduction of VMT, conservation of resources in an environmentally friendly way, initiating and update of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, supporting VCE, evaluating water conservation strategies on greenbelts and parks, and enhancing open space areas.
Under funding, maintaining and improving the infrastructure, “Develop plans and funding strategies to address the long term needs of the community in planning for maintaining/enhancing city infrastructure and assets,” providing for a safe and efficient circulation system, addressing long-term maintenance and funding needs for parks and open space, and continuing to expand the greenbelt and open space connectivity network.
Under a safe, healthy and equitable community they list increasing and maintaining the supply of affordable housing, reducing the number of people who are homeless, policies for a safe, healthy and inclusive community, visible and sufficient public safety services, maintaining efficient and highly trained public safety staff, creating an environment that promotes safety and well-being.
Under a vibrant city: long-range community planning, improving downtown for motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian travel, improve public spaces and downtown amenities, enhancing downtown ambiance, and expanding opportunities for local artists.
Under fostering excellence in city services: “Strive to provide transparency, valuable information to citizens in a timely, efficient, effective and respectful manner and actively seek input and feedback from the community.” They also list: creating dialogue opportunity to seek input and feedback from the community, a customer service program, and seek to improve services.
Under cultivating positive workplace dynamics: ensure human resources processes that effectively documented and structured, attract and retain a competitive and diverse workforce, opportunities for enhanced workplace morale, classification and compensation information, evaluate needs related to supervisory development as well as risk management needs.
The staff then creates a list of potential council focus items:
- Goal 1: Ensure fiscal resilience
- Debt management policy
- Legislative program (In progress)
- Consider policy for City contributions to non-profit organizations/community groups
- Goal 2: Drive a diverse and resilient economy
- Cannabis business update
- Economic development scorecard
- Food truck regulation/FED group (In process)
- Aggie Research Center application
- Economic development funding for start-up support
- Economic development strategy
- Fee waivers (Request)
- Goal 3: Pursue environmental sustainability
- Bikeshare parking pilot project/fees (In process)
- Climate Action Plan update (In process)
- Cost benefit analysis of water efficiency efforts
- EV readiness plan (completed, grant for implementation in process)
- Grant pilot program for habitat restoration (Measure O open space funds)
- Measure J/R Renewal
- Tree ordinance update (In process)
- Update on IPM implementation
- Coordinated plan for communications about sustainability efforts
- Goal 4: Fund, maintain, and improve infrastructure
- Anderson Road corridor improvements
- City Hall Gym rehabilitation
- Da Vinci sewer line disposition
- Drainage fee study consultant contract
- F Street garage improvements
- Fire hazard mitigation planning
- Mace Boulevard improvements (In process)
- Municipal broadband
- Private maintenance of greenbelts
- Pump Track implementation
- Russell bike path (In process)
- Rust property bike connection
- South Davis storm drainage
- Sports complex/aquatics studies (In process)
- Traffic calming (In process)
- Vets Theater improvements
- Goal 5: Ensure a safe, healthy, and equitable community
- Affordable housing – additional sites
- Affordable housing – exemptions
- Affordable housing – funding plan
- Animal Services Governance/Shelter (In process)
- Apprenticeship requirements
- District Elections – Governance Principles
- Fire station needs assessment
- Giving meters
- Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter shuttle, staffing funds and capacity building
- assistance (Request)
- Ladder Truck
- Lower speed limits for priority routes for school children
- Neighborhood focus/protections/additional public noticing for projects
- Overnight homeless shelter
- Renters rights ordinance updates (In process)
- Respite Center – Day (In process)
- RV as residential use pilot program
- Sanctioned camping
- Vaping/Flavored Tobacco
- Goal 6: Build and promote a vibrant city
- Additional infill sites
- Adopt form-based planning (In process)
- Arts – 1% Private Development Fund
- Arts –Mobile Stage (In process)
- City property – business start ups
- City ride share
- Downtown Plan (In process)
- General plan update
- Historic Resource Management Designations
- Housing Element update
- Parking Districts 101/Streamlining
- Ride share and taxi services follow-up
- Shopping cart management
- Short Term Rental Regulations (In process)
- Sister city policies update
- Wireless telecommunications ordinance updates (In process)
- Goal 7: Foster excellence in city services
- Broaden City-sponsored cultural events
- District Council Elections (Implementation)
- Enterprise Resource system acquisition (In process)
- Noticing Guidelines
- Goal 8: Cultivate positive workplace dynamics
- Employee recognition programs
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I didn’t want to put my thoughts into the article but here are some ideas for focus items:
On fiscal resilience I think we need clear goals on the three planks: containment, revenue and taxes and I don’t see really any of them outlined here – (A) what is the city’s strategy to contain future costs, (B) how is the city going to get short-term revenue for infrastructure, (C) how is the city going to build its economic development base.
On Goal 2: I think they are in good shape. I will be interested to see what an economic development scorecard is. The economic development strategy is a key – are they going to continue with the dispersed innovation strategy and also what is “Plan B” if Aggie Research Center does not get approval?
On Goal 3: Obviously Measure R renewal is key, climate action plan update, but there is no overarching transportation strategy, especially in light of the traffic and parking concerns.
On Goal 4: Clearly Mace Blvd is going to be the key focus right now.
On Goal 5: Affordable housing funding plan is going to be critical. Where is the city going to get funding to building more affordable housing – and that can tie back into a legislative plan to get the legislature to re-enact some sort of increment tax. I do think they make a mistake by including affordable housing with public safety and that they should consider separating them. There is a key issue not covered here – how do we protect our city from fire given climate changes and also there is another key issue with coverage for police services. One huge downside of the lack of fiscal resilience is lack of ability to expand either Police services or Fire services to better protect our city.
On Goal 6: The Downtown Plan, Housing Element, and General Plan will all be huge focuses. But looking at additional infill sites as well as some sort of densificatio nand redevelopment plan seem to be key omissions.
On Goal 7: I think figuring out better ways to engage the community and foster transparency are going to be essential for looking at things like noticing guidelines.
On Goal 8: I think the city really drops the ball here. Employee recognition is fine but that’s not what creates positive workplace dynamics. The lack of items here suggests: (A) maybe this isn’t really a priority and could be subsumed under 7 and (B) more thought needs to be given.
Personally I would separate 5 – affordable housing and homeless issues from public safety and combine 7 and 8.
It has been 20 years since J/R was passed. The unintended consequences of Measure R should be obvious to all by now. Some of these include the failure to meet even the minimum 1% SACOG growth requirement, increases in rent beyond CPI inflation rates, the repurposing of residential homes as overcrowded mini-dorms, the lack of available land for residential development, neighbor opposition to infill and the loss of Davis families to leapfrog development in Woodland. The council needs to modify Measure R if it is going to place a renewal before the voters. If people want an un-modified renewal they should petition for it themselves. If the CC places an unmodified Measure R before the voters people should vote no.
“Some of these include the failure to meet even the minimum 1% SACOG growth requirement,”
In recent years, Davis has been growing at very close to the same rate as California and the SACOG region—all close to 1%. At a 1.1% population growth rate, it has also grown at a faster rate than Woodland and the state this past year.
“The population of Davis continues to tick up annually — at a faster rate than Woodland and West Sacramento — according to the latest population estimates for cities and counties by the California Department of Finance…Overall, California’s population grew at a rate of 0.47 percent from 2018 to 2019.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/davis-population-up-1-percent/%3famp=1
Would that be actual increase in population, or dwelling units approved, but not yet built nor occupied?
How many years are “recent”, as you use the term?
As to “this past year”, see first question…
Meant as honest questions… to permit verification of ‘facts’…
I don’t think Rik’s number address household numbers or densities, just population. The change in number of people per household over the last two decades or so would answer the question as to whether housing growth has tracked with population growth, or whether the ubiquitous mini-dorms are a result of insufficient housing with an increasing population.
https://davisvanguard.org/2019/08/analysis-more-signs-that-housing-requirements-are-about-to-rise/
I agree – overcrowding is a huge unaccounted variable in this equation.
With all due respect, Don, I’d hope that Rik would answer the questions I posed to him… unless your response was based on knowledge of what he had in mind, when he posted.
In this case, you come across as an “apologist”… which you are certainly free to do…
Don Shot: I’ve already presented detailed growth numbers by households/housing units for the region multiple times. You choose to ignore the data.
Ron G.
I agree with your 7:17 post… good news… passage of a renewal of Measure R, as written, has not been a STATED goal of the CC… hope it remains that way.
May be a David Greenwald goal, but he (and others) have recourse with citizen initiative.
Bring it on!
I think the council should put two versions of Measure R on the ballot: one modified, and one verbatim version of the current measure. No need to require a petition, just let the voters choose and the top vote-getter prevails.
That leaves out the third option… sunsetting, where it just goes away… by its own terms…
In your scenario, would want it set up as a 2/3rds vote, for either to pass… could be seen as a ‘de facto’ tax on housing (increased processing costs for a project), and parcel specific taxes require a two/thirds vote…
It certainly appears you favor some version of Measure R… please be honest and say so, directly… and whether you want to see it “as is”, or what modifications you would propose. Strengthening or weakening.
I prefer sunsetting it, as there have always been other remedies, via the referendum process… so far, all of those have failed. But, if there are good reasons, one could succeed…
———-
As I understand it, the council has to put something on the ballot for the voters to approve or disapprove by statute.
So, Don, it still seems like you favor some “flavor” of Measure R, and would not favor it ‘dying a natural death’… your quotes indicate you’d be supportive of a change…
But the words you quoted still call for a vote… of the public.
I disagree with that. There are other ‘remedies’. It is true that faced with a vote of whether to renew R, as is, or modify it, to be less onerous, I’d vote for the proverbial “lesser of two evils”.
I hope it sunsets, or a third alternative (repeal) be on the same ballot… since the latter will not happen (pointless, as it is due to sunset), I hope it has to pass at least a 60% vote (like a CC vote to approve project) to renew or modify, preferably a 2/3 vote to do either.
We can agree to disagree, but that’s my views and will stick to those.
And, I’m not pro-development… I am pro constitutional law and pro ‘fair process’ (in addition to ‘due process’)…
Re: Don’s republishing of my 2018 comment on Measure R.
Comment: I agree with myself.
2019-20 Davis Goals:
Goal 1: Ensure Fiscal Resilience
Goal 2 – Drive a Diverse and Resilient Economy
Goal 3 – Pursue Environmental Sustainability
Goal 4 – Fund, Maintain, and Improve the Infrastructure
Goal 5 – Ensure a Safe, Healthy, Equitable Community
Goal 6 – Build and Promote a Vibrant City
Goal 7 – Foster Excellence in City Services
Goal 8 – Cultivate Positive Workplace Dynamics
All of this is just Space Fuzz. Nothing specific – nothing dangerous to politicians. Like running weather on the national news.
May I add one? • Davis supports the humane treatment of kittens and puppies.
Space Fuzz!
In fairness, I would say you’re looking at the equivalent to chapter titles and proclaiming that they are not in sufficient detail or scope. When you drill down a few levels, you get to something more substantial. Still plenty of room for discussion/ disagreement.
My bad & my apologies to DV and City Council. With my morning cup I sometimes have time to read the whole article and sometimes not. I read the old goals & compared to the new and the new had no specifics but the old did, then stopped and commented — but I hadn’t read down to the detail level at the bottom of the article. Premature commenting error on my part.
When and where will this discussion/formulation take place?
A significant “fact” that appears not to be addressed in the article…