Davis, CA – Davis voters supported Measure Q with 64.2 percent of the vote despite a vigorous campaign in opposition. The City remains steadfast in its estimate that the tax will generate roughly $11 million for the City’s General Fund in the upcoming fiscal year.
Because this was a general tax, it is not earmarked for specific purposes and therefore the council, with newly-elected councilmember Linda Deos replacing Will Arnold, will have a chance to prioritize spending priorities.
One of the big points of contention was the reduction in the General Fund reserve. The city’s General Fund reserve policy has it between 10 and 15 percent of expenditures while the industry standard is “to keep a reserve amount equal to at least 15% of a year’s General Fund expenditures, or about two months of operating expenses.”
According to the staff report, “In order to reach a balanced budget for the current fiscal year, the City has drawn on its reserve, and is currently expected to end the fiscal year at half the targeted amount (7.5% or $6.3 million).”
Staff writes, “Over the course of the next few budget cycles, the reserve amount should be restored to the City’s policy of 10%-15%, which is a cost ranging from $2.1 to $6.75 million.”
Staff suggests that council may wish to do this over more than one year which would mean that the reserve would not reach 15 percent immediately.
Council also has obligations to pay OPEB (Other Post Employment Benefits), generally known as retiree medical costs.
Staff notes, “Previous Councils had a goal to ramp up payments so that the budget eventually included 100% of the annual unfunded liability portion, as well as the required pay-go. Unfortunately, due to COVID and other factors, the City has not been able to make extra payments toward the unfunded liability portion of OPEB costs.”
Restoring the full OPEB contributions at a 100% level would be approximately $1,750,000 in ongoing annual costs.
Another big chunk is the Pavement Management Plan.
“This strategy includes the City’s “maintenance of effort” requirement of $3 million for pavement management,” staff writes.
“The City deferred $1.5 million due to a temporary buildup of projects in progress and a lack of capacity to implement more due to staff and contractor constraints” in this current fiscal year,” staff noted. “However, increasing funding for pavement maintenance remains a critical need.”
Those are some of the big ticket projects that must be addressed along with new employee contracts.
On the other hand, there other critical programs that the City will have to address at some point.
One is a General Plan Update, although that has already been allocated, and an “additional approximately $750,000 in one-time funds will be needed to complete the plan. Staff does not expect needing this funding until FY27.”
There is also CAAP Implementation/GHG Reduction: “The City adopted the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) in 2023. Staff is prioritizing implementation options and seeking grants, and the City Council has previously allocated $500,000 in one-time funding made possible from American Rescue Plan dollars.”
The City will seek additional grant funding, but “additional funding to implement the full plan has not been identified.”
The Downtown Streets Team pilot, which “works with unsheltered individuals providing them with life skills and helps to clean the downtown, was funded for a two-year period, which will conclude this fiscal year.”
In order to continue the program, the City will need to identify approximately $400,000 in annual ongoing funding.
There are also homeless services, including “possible expanded services for the respite center, sanctioned camping/parking, a navigators program, etc. The costs for these programs (are) to be determined. Discussion on this item will return to the City Council in February.”
Then there is affordable housing, “The Council has expressed interest in programs related to affordable housing, from permanent supportive services for extremely low-income households to down payment assistance for ownership opportunities.”
The city needs about $250,000 “to ensure that the tree canopy remains vibrant and safe and that the City’s trees are appropriately inspected and maintained.”
Staff concludes, “The increase in General Fund revenue from Measure Q, beginning in Fiscal Year 2026, will allow the City to make headway on its obligations and interests. However, the City will have to prioritize spending, in some cases waiting to fund important interests and/or spreading the costs over multiple fiscal years.”
Among the actions council will be asked to perform includes a prioritization of key budget priorities for the upcoming two-year budget cycle and the appointment of a Pavement Manage Subcommittee to work with staff to refine the City’s pavement management funding strategy.
Why does it cost $400,000 to have trash picked up in the downtown but $250,000 to have professionals manage our vast tree canopy? I’m curious about how much money we are going to spend on caring for our transient and homeless population vs the number of people served. Will the money be well spent to actually help people move into permanent situations and off of our streets? Lastly, I don’t see the restoration of the turf at Chestnut Park on this list.
I vote for basic parks maintenance. For over a month I’ve taken note of leaves, berries and cones on the ground covering the paths in the North Davis Green Belt. Well, earlier last week I was jogging and stepped to the side as a bike was coming my way and didn’t see the edge of the path because it was covered in leaves. I rolled my ankle badly. I had to literally crawl to a nearby street to call an Uber to take me 3-4 blocks home. After a couple days off my feet; I’m hobbling around slowly. Well, my ski season is shot. There are parts of the asphalt path (between Catalina and Barbera) that are bumpy and uneven from…I’m guessing tree roots? It’s a tripping hazard.
“I’m curious about how much money we are going to spend on caring for our transient and homeless population vs the number of people served.”
Yes, I’ve asked this question before: to what degree are we as a community responsible for the homeless and transient population in the community? I mean certainly I believe we’re responsible for taking care of established members of the community…..but then that begs the question…what’s the definition of “established”?
“Yes, I’ve asked this question before: to what degree are we as a community responsible for the homeless and transient population in the community? ”
I get the question, but I think it misplaces a point.
There are kind of three options here:
1. Let homeless people be homeless and deal with the nuisance
2. Incarcerated the homeless and pay for the incarceration cost
3. Address homelessness
Personally I believe we end up paying a cost with any of these approaches, however, I believe the cost for option 3 is lower than the other two options AND it’s the right thing to do, again in IMO.
So you’re not addressing the question (again). You choose to simplistically break down the problem not by degree but by how to address the problem. Oh yeah….and the obligatory liberal guilt righteousness thrown in too (that’s gone over well politically hasn’t it?).
I answered your question: you have no choice but to deal with it as a community. The only choice is how.
Again…you’re willfully choosing a simplistic response. The community will never FULLY address the problem. Even if they wanted to. It’s simply not financially and logistically possible. So right off the bat the question of DEGREE comes it to play. As of now, we as a community have LIMITED services and solutions for the homeless. So again…it’s a matter of DEGREE. From a philosophical standpoint…to what DEGREE does the community have to the homeless and transients? I guess I have to go ad absurdum to illustrate the question for you? What if you had a line of homeless/transients lined up to get into Davis that stretched all the way to the causeway? How many of the homeless would Davis accept to take care of? All of them? Is it based on a hard defined budget? (and how is that budget defined)? Do you qualify those who need help? And how do you do that? Or we could simplistically do it your way and feel really bad about the homeless and just throw money for services at them in however much and however way we can with little rhyme or reason.
Keep in mind, I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything about the homeless problem. I just think we have to define HOW MUCH and WHY HOW MUCH before we get to how.
I agree with this statement: ” The community will never FULLY address the problem. ” Of course that’s true. There is a reason why we have a homeless problem.
But I think you’re missing my point – there is a certain number of homeless people in the community, the community has an option (in theory) of doing nothing, arrested them, or putting them in supportive housing. What I’m saying is whether you want to take care of them or not, if they are here, the community will bear costs for those people. That’s unavoidable. The only question and only choice is what the community chooses to do.
“there is a certain NUMBER of homeless people in the community, the community has an option (in theory) of doing nothing, ”
What is that number? Is the community obligated to address the homeless problem no matter what that number is? Do the services change depending on that number?…..suggesting there’s a FINITE budget for these services….so then what is that budget and why? Again, answering the HOW MUCH and WHY is necessary before the HOW.
What I’m saying is whether you want to take care of them or not, if they are here, the community will bear costs for those people. That’s unavoidable.
You believe in offsetting costs (that’s like Bernie Sander’s belief in how to pay for national healthcare). But there’s a difference in trying to balance things out over time financially vs. committing REAL CASH to something. That kind of thing impacts CASH flow (which is kinda important for a city to be able to pay for things). Also, you’re at the mercy of potential (and in my experience likely) negative future forces to hopefully not take away those future offsetting gains. It’s why you discount cashflow when calculating future value. My point is that there’s a much higher cost to committing funds to the problem over what you imagine “doing nothing” about the problem.
Which brings me back to: FIRST: define the scope of the problem. Then: what you want to do about it. and Finally set a budget.
Right now the number is 161.
Are they obligated to address the homeless problem regardless of the number? Again, in some form or another, they are.
” My point is that there’s a much higher cost to committing funds to the problem over what you imagine “doing nothing” about the problem. ”
Here I don’t agree.
Right now we are doing “nothing” about the problem (that’s not true, but making the point). People don’t like tripping over homeless people, having homeless people creating nuisances and messes or creating encampments.
Many people are thus willing to spend something rather than allow the status quo continue or potentially get worse.
A lot of people support the idea of clearing encampments. Arresting those who are camping on the streets. Etc. That’s more costly than doing nothing. People are willing to do that by and large.
What I’m arguing is for a third solution that will actually cost less and better solve the problem
But many people don’t support that and it might not happen. That’s a public choice. At the end of the day, no matter what they choose, the community is going to be responsible for the people who choose to reside on the streets here and any effort to remedy that, will be costly.
No, the number was 161 at a certain point in the past. It’s an ever-changing number.
Please be specific. Because you have not “argued for a third solution” in any meaningful sense. Keith makes very good points that others have made. There are limits to the available resources. If you are saying that literally all of the increased sales tax revenue should go to homeless services, then you should say so. Because the need (if it is supportive permanent housing) will cost far more than what that tax increase will bring in.
Right now the number is 161.
“Are they obligated to address the homeless problem regardless of the number? Again, in some form or another, they are.”
So uh…INFINITE RESPONSIBILITY? So INFINITE FUNDS REQUIRED? Does that seem reasonable?
But let’s go with 161. That’s the number right now…fine ask the community to come out of pocket $10 per resident a year and we can take care of 161 homeless people. What about #162….a reasonable person/community would say no problem…we can take care of one more! two more? sure three more? What about 200 homeless people? Does the community take care of all of them? Do they stretch their funds and provide less service to serve more homeless people? Do we start to qualify who the community subsidizes? What about 300 homeless people?
“A lot of people support the idea of clearing encampments. Arresting those who are camping on the streets. Etc. That’s more costly than doing nothing. People are willing to do that by and large.”
Really? So you still believe in phantom future gains benefits…the belief that you can get offset gains in savings in the long run? Anyone who’s ever invested or started something that requires time and money knows $#^&t always goes sideways…or don’t count you chickens before they hatch.
But okay…so you say that not doing anything will cost people more? Okay…who are these people? Americans? Californians? Yolo County residents? Davisites? So you’re saying that if all 161 homeless people are picked up and stuffed into prison (no…before some progressive gets outraged and offended; I’m not actually suggesting arresting all of the homeless); then those homeless would stay in city (Davis) jails? They wouldn’t go to county, state or federal prisons for various crimes (aside for loitering)? So the costs for providing emergency healthcare, food…etc… that comes DIRECTLY from the city of Davis? And you believe through phantom offsets you can get those costs back?
Again, I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything for the homeless. I’m saying your premises as a basis for action is wrong. All I’m saying is define what and why you’re doing what you plan to do before simply throwing money at the problem with no parameters. Usually after the specific goals are defined a budget is created to address the problem.
Path covered with leaves in Autumn. There is a reason we call the season Fall. As Gomer would say “Surprise surprise surprise.”
Like Trump said Maybe if we raked the forest we wouldn’t have forest fires.
Hope your ankle gets better fast.
Buckled asphalt from tree roots is a real addressablehazard