Let me start with this—I really do not have a dog in the Measure Q fight. I understand where the opposition is coming from and their frustration with the city. On the other hand, I really don’t see how the defeat of Measure Q actually helps things from their perspective.
On these pages, I have laid out my own frustrations with city governance over the years—and while that has clearly changed over time, my overall assessment really has not.
In particular, I am frustrated that the council has not prioritized housing, which I consider the most crucial issue facing the community. This week, I attended an excellent housing session sponsored by DCAN where they have talked to more than 200 parents about their housing situation over the course of the last several months and, yet, the city has slowly moved forward with hiring a very expensive consultant to facilitate the General Plan update.
I understand the frustrations expressed by those opposing Measure Q and agree with at least some of them.
I suspect that ultimately the effort to defeat Measure Q will fall short.
First of all, a majority vote is a fairly low bar in Davis.
Second, the majority of people in the community are simply not engaged on the issues laid out in the various Measure Q appeals.
Third, the tax itself is fairly benign. As I have pointed out previously, one extra percentage increase is not going to be noticeable because it simply isn’t enough to impact people’s bottom line and, moreover, the same tax increase is being proposed elsewhere in the county and the region.
Bottom line, most people are not spending enough on retail products in a year to actually feel a one percentage sales tax increase. That’s a big part of defeating a tax measure—people have to feel the pain or anticipate the pain. And spending an extra $10 on a $1000 purchase is really not that painful.
That’s going to make it harder for the opposition.
The polling that we have over the years shows some level of anger and some level of distrust, but not at a level that people are actually mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.
But I want to add one more piece to this.
As one commenter yesterday put it: “The City council has a stomach that is never full–it’s time to stop feeding them.”
As the campaign put it: “This 2nd article discusses the mismanagement of city finances by the current administration, which is attempting to get their financial house in order by encouraging citizens to approve forking over millions of dollars annually rather than addressing the root causes of the city’s financial problems.”
They add, “The best way to describe this effort is that it is a ‘Bailout of financial and operational mismanagement!’”
In their conclusion they add: “The Davis City Council has squandered millions of the public’s money pursuing ‘nice-to-have,’ but unnecessary projects and acquisitions. These expenditures were at the expense of suspending paying down the City’s $42 million debt of unfunded pension obligations owed by the city, and not maintaining the desired General Fund Reserve level of 15%. This City Council does not deserve our money until they get their financial priorities straight and implement rigid internal financial controls to ensure their financial priorities are in place and followed.”
They believe, “Voters should reject Measure Q until there are checks and balances in place to limit our Council’s wasteful and profligate spending!”
But is there any evidence that voting against this tax measure will actually do that?
I would argue no.
For example, in 2018, the voters “voted down” a parcel tax that would have funded road improvements.
Has anything changed as a result of the fact that 57 percent of the people voted for a tax measure that needed 66.67 percent of the vote to pass?
I certainly haven’t seen it. The fiscal approach of the city and city council have not changed. You want to complain about the expenditure on the ladder truck, voting against the tax measure didn’t prevent the council from approving that.
Drive down most streets and it still feels like you are driving on cracked, potholed, and poorly maintained roads.
Moreover, if we look at people voting with their choices, it is not clear that there is even deep dissatisfaction. You have two council districts where the incumbent is running unopposed and when we ran our question about Measure Q in the Vanguard weekly question, all of the candidates came out in favor of it.
Bottom line—it doesn’t seem that this is really a burning issue for most residents of Davis, it doesn’t seem likely that the measure will be defeated, and, even if it is, it doesn’t seem likely to change how the city council does business.
At some point, perhaps ask yourself who ultimately gets punished if the tax measure doesn’t pass? From the parcel tax, I know the answer—it’s my car and maybe my patience hitting bump after bump driving the streets.
There are a lot of things I would like to see the city do differently, but giving them less money probably isn’t going to change any of that.
I get the anger and frustration and share some of it, but ultimately whether Measure Q passes or fails will not really move the needle.
Incumbent council members are re-elected by significant margins. Nobody even bothered to run against the two seeking re-election.
The broader public, in my opinion, doesn’t care about the changes to the commissions.
If the tax doesn’t pass, the city won’t be able to continue providing services at their current levels nor would they be able to finance some of the housing initiatives the public seems to want.
Blocking this tax won’t lead to any major restructuring of city governance. The city’s expenses are not easy to cut since they are mostly personnel costs. In 2009 the city manager did cut costs significantly due to the recession. City services were adversely affected.
Those who have run on cost-cutting platforms have been soundly defeated.
Many of those leading this charge are, in fact as noted by another commenter, among the small group who routinely attack council decisions and criticize nearly everything the city does.
Overall, the city residents seem satisfied with the city, oppose economic development proposals, and therefore are evidently willing to tax themselves and others to maintain city services and fund new programs.
So attacking popular council members and seeking to withhold funds to somehow punish them and the city’s residents is an odd way to try to bring about change. Run for council if you’re unhappy with the direction of the city. Then you can spell out exactly what you’d cut and what the impacts would be, and see how you fare at the ballot box. Prior results speak for themselves.
This group of protesters have essentially become the local Tea Party. I support sound fiscal policies and watchdog efforts of government spending. But holding up a budget or tying up the vote for a necessary tax (even if you don’t know where it’s going…..which…yes the city should say where new tax revenue is going)….is the same as a toddler holding their breath until they get their way. If these people want to hold our local leader’s feet to the fire in public meetings and public demonstrations over spending accountability and transparency; I’m all for it. But don’t gum up the city’s ability to pay for stuff (even if they won’t tell us what they’re doing with the money). Me personally, I’m not a fan of these new taxes (sales, parcel..etc..). But the city’s inability to grow the local economy and increase business and sales tax revenue sort of leaves it with little choice in order to come up with more money.
Keith in your last sentence you say “sort of leaves it with little choice in order to come up with more money.” In making that statement you are assuming that (A) the Council/City has not had “more money” at its disposal over time, and (B) that they have to “come up with more money”
The following excerpts from the City’s audited financial reports (available through the end of the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021) show that the City’s “government services” revenues in 2012 were $61.8 million and in 2021 were $92.0 million. That is a $30.2 million increase over those 9 years. That is not $30 million just for 2021. It was $22 million in 2020 and $27.5 million in 2019 and $16 million in 2018 and $13 million in 2017 and $8.5 million in 2016 and $11 million in 2015 and $6 million in 2014 and $3 million in 2013. That is a total of $137 million of “more money” over 10 years.
Bottom-line, we have been consistently seeing revenues grow 4.5% over the prior year for 10 years. And when the audited financial reports for 2022 are published, revenues will jump more than 10% because of the huge chunk of American Rescue Plan revenues received.
During the same period the reported CPI has raised costs by $13 million, so the net “more money” that the Council had to spend in 2021 was has been received by the City was $17 million. $17 million would go a long way toward repairing Davis’ roads and buildings and infrastructure.
With the above said, how do you propose to get the Council to pay attention and get costs under control?
What were the revenues in 2009?
2008:
Total City revenues, including program and general revenues were $118.8 million, which was an increase of $8.8 million from the prior year’s $110.0 million.
2009:
Total City revenues, including program and general revenues were $120.3 million, which was an increase of $1.5 million from the prior year’s $118.8 million.
2010:
Total City revenues, including program and general revenues were $118.1 million, which was an decrease of $2.3 million from the prior year’s $120.4 million.
2011:
Total City revenues, including program and general revenues were $108.6 million, which was a decrease of $9.5 million from the prior year’s $118.1 million.
2012:
Total Government-wide revenues, including program and general revenues were $101.9 million, which was a decrease of $6.7 million from the prior year’s $108.6 million.
2013:
Total Government-wide revenues, including program and general revenues were $106.4 million, which was an increase of $4.5 million from the prior year’s $101.9 million.
2014:
Total Government-wide revenues, including program and general revenues were $115.8 million, which was an increase of $9.4 million from the prior year’s $106.4 million.
2015:
Total government-wide revenues were $118.8 million, an increase of $3.0 million from the prior year’s $115.7 million.
2016:
Total government-wide revenues were $124.8 million, an increase of $6.0 million from the prior year’s $ 118.8 million.
2017:
Total government-wide revenues were $127.4 million, an increase of $2.6 million from the prior year’s $124.8 million.
Don, unfortunately you have misread the Audited Financial Statements in gathering those numbers.
The error that you have made is that you have included the Revenues for the “Business-Type Activities” which are the Water Utility, the Wastewater Utility, the Solid Waste Utility, and the Storm Water Utility in your numbers. The revenues and expenses for those Business-Type Activities are kept strictly segregated from the General Fund and the rest of the “Governmental Activities” such as Gas Tax revenues and expenses and Parks Tax revenues and expenses and Open Space Special Tax (commonly referred to as “Measure O”) revenues and expenses, to name just a few of the other Governmental Activities. Using your format, the correct numbers are:
2008:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $118.8 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $79.9 million and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $38.9 million. It is important to know that the Business-Type revenues include the proceeds of any bonds that were issued during that 12-month period, so the changes in Business-Type revenues are not “clean” since some years will have Utilities Bonds issued and others will not. Similarly, any grants from the State or Federal agencies for water, wastewater, solid waste or stormwater are recognized as a lump sum all in the year they were granted to the respective City Utility. Some years will have Utilities Grants received and others will not. So the only apples to apples number is the $79.9 million.
2009:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $114.4 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $71.6 million and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $42.7 million. The 10.4% decline in revenues was due to the Housing Bubble Crash generated reduction in assessed valuations producing a reduction in Property Tax revenues.
2010:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $114.1 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $72.8 million and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $45.4 million. Housing prices stabilized and as a result Property Tax revenues stabilized.
2011:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $108.6 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $70.7 million and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $37.9 million. Housing prices continued to be stable as did Property Tax revenues.
2012:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $101.9 million, with Governmental Services revenues bearing 100% of the decline at $61.8 million and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues rose to $40.1 million. The cause of the steep decline in 2012 was Governor Brown’ shut down of the state’s 400-plus local redevelopment agencies (RDAs). The period from 2012 to present is an apples to apples comparison of yearly numbers and creation of multi-year trends.
2013:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $108.4 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $64.9 million (up 5.0%) and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $41.4 million.
2014:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $115.8 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $67.9 million (up 4.6%) and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $47.8 million.
2015:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $118.8 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $73.0 million (up 7.5%) and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $45.7 million.
2016:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $120.5 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $70.5 million (down up 3.5%) and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $50.0 million.
2017:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $127.4 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $74.9 million (up 6.3%) and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $52.5 million.
2018:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $130.7 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $77.5 million (up 3.4%) and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $53.2 million.
2019:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $151.3 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $89.3 million (up 15.3%) and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $61.9 million.
2020:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $152.9 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $83.7 million (down 6.3%) and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $69.1 million.
2021 … the last year for which there are audited financial reports:
Combined Governmental Services and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues were $157.7 million, with Governmental Services revenues being $92.0 million (up 9.9%) and Business-Type (Utilities) revenues being $65.7 million.
For the non-RDA period from 2012 to 2021 Governmental Services revenues rose from $61.8 million to $92.0 million, a 48.8% increase, which works out to a compound annual increase of just over 4.5% year over year. ,
During the same period Business-Type (Utilities) revenues rose from $40.1 million to $65.7 million, a 63.8% increase, but as I noted above, Business-Type revenues include the proceeds of any bonds that were issued during that 12-month period, so the changes in Business-Type revenues are not “clean” since some years will have Utilities Bonds issued and others will not. Similarly, any grants from the State or Federal agencies for water, wastewater, solid waste or stormwater are recognized as a lump sum all in the year they were granted to the respective City Utility.
I didn’t “gather” those numbers. They are verbatim from the city website here: https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/finance/comprehensive-annual-financial-reports-cafr
Your decision to start your argument from 2012, at the bottom of the impact from the 2010 recession, is misleading.
Don, including RDA revenues is misleading on steroids.
Including the revenues from the Enterprise Funds is contrary to California Law. Enterprise Funds are governed by Proposition 218 and do not follow the principle of one man one vote. Each property parcel gets one vote under Proposition 218 regardless of how many owners or residents are associated with that property parcel.
I’m not sure the CPI is the correct way to calculate the necessary increased costs to the city. There’s no way it can account for things like delayed maintenance or rising costs in a local area due to economic growth (the Sac metro region in general). I’ve also seen your statements where you want to tie city employee’s salary raises to the CPI. But when hiring new employees it’s the local job market and not the cost index that determines new hire salaries…or even raises. Btw. I never head back if those revenue numbers are viable for projections in the longterm…or in other words are they relatively stable sources of income for the city. Are they simply increased tax rates?
I already stated how I think you should get the council to pay attention to cost controls. Protest in public spaces (booths at the Farmers Market for instance), in public meetings….run VIABLE opposing candidates that emphasize cost control and transparency while not sounding like a conservative complaining no growth (or fantasy growth) fiscal hawk.
The one thing I will say about the No on everything/growth crowd; they haven’t provided a vision for the city going forward (realistically viable) or otherwise. They essentially complain and oppose just about everything. Again, I support fiscal responsibility and transparency. And the group has a legitimate beef with the local leaders about this subject. Overall much of what this group opposes and complains about is procedural BS that most people don’t care about. What is the point of all the complaining? What ultimately does this group want for the city? Is it an pseudo-agrarian vision? A weird stuck in the 1960’s small college town vision? Is it some weird down town Manhatinization but no boundary growth fantasy land? Because to me it seems like all they want is more power and influence over the current leaders. And like said WHY they want more power….I have no idea because they really haven’t said why.
Keith Echols said … “I’m not sure the CPI is the correct way to calculate the necessary increased costs to the city. There’s no way it can account for things like delayed maintenance or rising costs in a local area due to economic growth”
I agree Keith, but delayed maintenance is a “self-inflicted wound” A City Public Works engineer who has passed away told me that beginning in the decade of the 2000’s, Public Works and Finance staff and management told the City Manager and the City Council that deferring maintenance was a fool’s errand, but the City Manager (Bill Emlen) counted the noses of the five Council members and knew that their personal pet projects that had been added to the Budget during the year would take precedence, and thus budgeted street repairs were bumped off the budget into the deferred maintenance category. According to the City Public Works engineer that first migration into deferred maintenance was for $3 million. He also noted that the same process occurred regularly over the years. We just saw this current Council take $1.5 million of budgeted street repairs and $750,000 of budgeted building/infrastructure repairs an move it from the Budget to deferred maintenance. So the years are different, but the song accompanying the self-inflicted wounds is the same.
Keith Echols said … “But when hiring new employees it’s the local job market and not the cost index that determines new hire salaries…or even raises.”
We can’t post images in comments any more. If we could I would post the picture of the applicants for City of Davis firefighter positions wrapped out of City Hall around to the intersection of B and 5th Streets and then all the way down the 5th Street block to A Street. Applicants are falling all over themselves to apply for City of Davis firefighter positions.
However, we do not need an image to know/understand that there are two Fire Departments in our community, one with the City and one at UCD. The UCD firefighters are paid a fraction of what City of Davis firefighters are paid. When I get the actual numbers from the public record, I will post them here.
Any argument about the commissions is irrelevant to the tax proposal. Or at best it is mostly unrelated. Punishing the city about one thing because you are pissed about something else demonstrates a level of political immaturity I would have thought beneath some of the detractors. Sadly I was wrong.
For the most part I agree with you Ron that arguments about the commissions are irrelevant to the tax proposal.
However, there is one key aspect of the commission coup that does directly affect the tax proposal. Specifically, there was no citizen input or oversight of the tax proposal as it was being formulated by staff and Council. Normally (consistently in past history) that oversight and review would have been completed by the Finance and Budget Commission (FBC), but the commission coup left the FBC with only three appointed members and five vacancies. Since the quorum for a seven member commission like the FBC, having only three appointed members meant the FBC could not legally meet … and as a result the tax proposal sprung fully armed from the head of Zeus when it was put on the Council agenda for approval of its placement on the Ballot.
As Paul Harvey would say, “That is the rest of the story!”