Photo by Ketut Subiyanto from Pexels
By Melanie Johnson
DAVIS, CA – On Wednesday, members of the Davis City Council met with representatives from the Yolo County Board of Supervisors to discuss their potential collaboration on two particular initiatives: electric vehicle “fleet procurement” as a subset of overall climate action initiatives, and funding for the expansion of the Yolo Adult Day Health Center.
Prefacing the discussion of climate action initiatives, Mayor Gloria Partida emphasized the monetary benefits of city and county collaboration, stating that “if there is a way to coordinate that with the county, maybe we can both save some money around the efforts that we’re putting out around climate action.”
Taro Echiburu, Director of Yolo County Community Services Department, provided city council members with an update regarding the county’s progress with their climate action initiatives.
Echiburu detailed the efforts of the Yolo County climate action commission, which “set a very lofty goal for the county to be carbon negative by 2030.” He specified, “The work of the commission is two-fold. Number one is to direct and help us with the preparation of the county climate action plan aimed at meeting this 2030 goal. And second…is to identify actions that might further those goals ahead of the preparation and approval of the climate action plan. We’re calling these early action items.”
One of these early action items which received particular attention in the discussion was “fleet procurement” of electric vehicles to be used by county staff and deployment of additional electric vehicle charging stations.
Echiburu described the increasing attention Yolo County has directed towards these initiatives, stating, “Over the last three years our board and the budget process have increased the profile of looking at alternative fuel vehicles as part of our internal policies . . . I make my staff prove to me that they can’t work with an electric vehicle before I approve a non-electric or hybrid vehicle.”
However, the county’s adoption of these initiatives is not a straightforward process. Echiburu identified the “chicken or the egg” problem, which arises when considering the implementation of these initiatives, raising the question, “Do we buy the vehicles first, or do we put the charging stations first?”
Chad Rinde, Chief Financial Officer of Yolo County, asserted the utility of prioritizing charging stations by explaining that one of the goals of this initiative should be “trying to remove some of these impediments so people feel comfortable, that the vehicle will be able to be charged and ready and accessible when they need it.” An issue of electric vehicle accessibility, in other words.
Overall, the proposal of this early action item was well-received by both the Davis City Council members and Yolo County representatives present. They mutually agreed to get joint-staffs together to assess the respective situations of the city and the county and address procurement at a future unspecified date.
In addition to the discussion of climate action initiatives, City Council members and Yolo County representatives also discussed potential expansion of the Yolo Adult Day Health Center located in Woodland. According to their website, the center “offers a diverse range of services for individuals and families facing the challenges of serious health problems such as dementia, chronic medical diagnoses, mental illness or brain injury.”
Chad Rinde described Yolo County’s existing efforts to expand the Yolo Adult Day Health Center’s present operation, in which they are partnering with Dignity Health, a California-based non-profit public benefit corporation.
The intended increase of the center’s service capacity from 60 people to 120 people daily will be accomplished by establishing a new site on the St. John’s Retirement Village campus and renovating the former Stollwood Convalescent Hospital in which the new facility would be housed.
However, Rinde made the council aware of the financial difficulties St. John’s is facing and expressed the need for the county’s provision of an alternative path forward to bridge the project’s present “construction escalation gap.”
In regards to these complications, Sheila Allen, Executive Director of the Yolo Healthy Aging Alliance, attempted to provide more context regarding the importance of this expansion to Davis residents.
She clarified, “there are many people that come from Davis that are transported over to the Adult Day Health Program; it’s a Medi-Cal program. If you have Medi-Cal and you would otherwise be in a nursing home, you could be eligible to receive adult day health, which includes not just a social aspect but also physical therapy, occupational therapy, nursing; all of those kinds of things; so it definitely has an impact on Davis residents.”
Allen elaborated upon the present situation at the Woodland facility, “a good number of people who were going over to the Adult Day Program decided not to go because there was a very long wait list, which is why the expansion was originally contemplated . . . By the time you decide it’s time to do adult day health, you need it then, not waiting until later. And many people have died on the waiting list to try to get in there.”
Davis City Manager Mike Webb concluded that the City of Davis’ American Rescue Plan (ARP) funding committee would consider the ARP funding request for the Adult Day Health facility alongside other items up for consideration and report back to city council on March 1.
The city (and Gloria Partida in particular) have zero credibility regarding climate concerns (and local “climate action plans”), given their advocacy for DiSC.
I’d suggest not even mentioning such plans, while simultaneously campaigning for DiSC.
Talk about bad “optics”.
“Climate change” is a boon to the electric car industrial complex.
Electric vehicles have about 2.4 percent market share of new vehicles in 2021, that’s not much of an industrial complex.
True – but not necessarily for the climate itself (or environment).
Your comment reminds me of the “homeless industrial complex” that you previously mentioned (and whether or not that’s actually benefiting the homeless, in mass). And, if it’s really primarily benefiting the complex itself, instead.
I’d ask that same question of the Affordable housing complex, at this point. (Which overlaps with the “homeless industrial complex”.)
David, if you follow the auto industry you will see that they are ramping up production of electric cars at unprecedented rates these days.
If you include ‘hybrid’ with fully electric, you are absolutely correct Keith O… for electric only, not so much… hard to tell if David G differentiates between the two or not.
That’s two articles – this one and the one about Russell Blvd – where the author and author profile don’t match BUT much more important where the authors don’t even discuss any other points of view… actual opposition or otherwise.
Are these journalism or corporate PR students?
(Sheila Allen has started or in any case has been hired as Deputy to Jim Provenza.)
Sure, all county and other government vehicles should be EV’s, but it’s a tiny piece of the goal.
Russell’s “Imagination” conceptual kickstarter is on the other hand proposing to improve little in terms of transport safety – though the closing of the direct ramp from EB Russell to SB 113 is very welcome – and has an absolutely horrid and non-transparent process, even worse because it pretends to be the opposite. (In all fairness, IF this is supposed to be journalism, the writer was intentionally sheltered from all breakout room discussions aside from the one they were in. These were not recorded, though they could have been. Chat between participants was also closed between participants in both the group and breakouts. So she might simply not be aware that e.g. I made it clear that the demands of car owners in West Davis is the main reason why Russell won’t change in any significant way.)
As in many Vanguard posts attributed to “Jordan,” there is no information about the author of the above story, except her name: “Melanie Johnson.” Is she a student? A city or county employee?
Anyway – I would like to commend the author for a fine piece of reporting. There are clear, understandable summaries of the two major points of discussion, quotes from representatives of the city and county and, most gratefully, no apparent narrative or hidden agenda by the author. Just good reporting!
I had to wonder, though: Is it too late for the City of Davis to order an electric, hook & ladder firetruck?
you do not want to know what THAT would cost.
You’re right, Alan. What I really want to know is how much it will cost the City, County and UC Davis to replace all of their buses, fire trucks and police cars? (Oops, scratch the police cars.)
The real question is how much it would cost to replace those things over and above the general replacement cost – after all they have to replace those things every so often anyway.
How about an electric MRAP?
Hell, they’re making electric Hummers, now.
https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev
So, rather than buy something that isn’t needed, just make it electric.
Man, that grid is going to be stretched. That, my friends, is a lot of solar panels. 🙂
At this point, they probably need to cut down every tree (and not just those in hospital parking lots), to make that work! (And just hope that nighttime and winters never occur.)
Jordan is editor of the Vanguard at UC Davis who posts the student articles. We do need to get bios for the student writers something I mentioned last week but hasn’t happened yet.
It is interesting that Davis recently lost one of its private, live-in convalescent facilities (Davis Healthcare, formerly Sierra HealthCare). Apparently, it was more profitable to sell the site for small houses (30 of them planned, crammed-onto that lot), rather than refurbish the facility after an electrical fire caused damage.
Sounds like both the live-in facilities and day-care facilities are dependent upon MediCal to fund operations. One wonders if its less-profitable for private facilities to accept those payments, than it used to be (as demonstrated by the loss of the Davis facility, and perhaps elsewhere?). Ultimately, requiring government to step up (one way, or another).
While the population is simultaneously aging and in increasing need of such services.
In any case, I’m assuming that Davis is not on the hook for the cost of operating the facility, as a result of its expansion.
And in reference to the quote from the article regarding Stollwood (which will now house the adult day care facility), I see that it recently closed as well. (But since it’s Woodland, I guess there’s less-incentive to cram 30 houses on the site.)
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/woodland/st-johns-village-nursing-facility-closing-in-woodland/103-28962244-f7ce-4200-bbf7-e1c2f2173a52
Interesting – the article notes that the state apparently had to “approve” the closure. Surprising, if it was a private business.
That’s interesting – I guess there’s some kind of shuttle that picks up people from their homes, everyday? Brings them from Davis to Woodland and back, every day?
Or, brings them a long-term care facility in Davis to the day care facility in Woodland (and back, every day)?
Just wondering.
You know not of which you speak, and, yet you do, to forward an “agenda”/philosophy… surprised you didn’t bring DISC, other proposals into that mix.
By ‘recent’, do you mean in terms of years, or glacial epochs? Don’t know the exact date of the fire, but believe it was over 5 years ago…
Considering when the facility was built, there were all sorts of issues, not simplistic ‘repair’ or ‘refurbishment’… when a structure has major damage (generally 25-50%), the owners must rebuild the ENTIRE structure, to current standards… electrical codes, fire codes, asbestos remediation, energy, ADA, other health and safety, etc. … State and local codes… it had to be razed… to do otherwise would have been financially foolish… even the razing would have been so. The owners “cut their losses”…
As to the approved project, I opine it is too much on too little, and the City made concessions that I would have strenuously objected to, had it been in my purview.
But you are speaking misinformation to make other points. Which is your right. Unfortunately, in this case…
This type of comment reflects on you, not me. If anything, it’s more comparable to the loss of the Families First site.
It was about that time. Yes, I’d call that recent.
I recall that they actually started to do so, and then decided against it. However, given that they’re now building totally-new structures, don’t those also have to be built to “modern” standards?
Doesn’t any (new) convalescent hospital have to be built to “modern standards”? And if it’s too costly to do so, what does that tell you regarding their expected profit from operations?
What does it tell you, regarding the “type” of new development that they’re now pursuing, compared to the original use of the site?
Do you not understand that point?
In other words, the profit was higher from selling it for housing, rather than rebuilding a convalescent hospital. Either option would have required new structures.
Do tell. I have no opinion on that, other than the fact that it’s a lot of single-family (attached) dwellings on a small parcel of land.