Key points:
- Davis City Council receives Market Velocity Report from GSEC.
- Report highlights opportunities and challenges for Davis’ economic development.
- Davis’ future economic growth relies on leveraging UC Davis’ research ecosystem.
The Davis City Council this week will receive a comprehensive Market Velocity Report from the Greater Sacramento Economic Council (GSEC), a public-private partnership that includes 22 cities and six counties across the Sacramento region. The report, prepared specifically for Davis, highlighted both opportunities and structural challenges that will shape the city’s future economic development strategy.
Since 2015, Davis has been a member of GSEC, paying a population-based annual fee that in fiscal year 2025 totaled $26,022. Over the past decade, the city has invested $269,243 into the regional partnership, generating an estimated $2.3 million in local tax revenue. According to the report, that return amounts to $8.59 for every dollar invested.
Across the six-county region, GSEC reported that 22 member communities invested a total of $9.5 million from 2015 through 2024. That investment generated $17.47 billion in economic output, 36,595 jobs, and nearly $4.8 billion in income. The council’s staff report emphasized that while there are no direct fiscal impacts associated with reviewing the Market Velocity Report, “the fiscal impacts resulting from economic development activities may be substantial over time, with some having direct fiscal benefits to the City, including multiplier effects, and others having more indirect benefits.”
The Market Velocity Report for Davis focused on three major areas: economic indicator comparisons, industry cluster alignment, and defining and promoting sustainable industries. The report analyzed population, job growth, household income, poverty, educational attainment, and housing costs in Davis compared to neighboring cities, Yolo County, the region, and the state.
According to the findings, “Davis’ population declined 2.54% from 2019 to 2023, underperforming Yolo County and its major communities, the region and the state.” During the same period, Woodland and West Sacramento grew by 2.59 percent and 2.53 percent respectively, while the Sacramento region grew by 3.91 percent.
Job growth in Davis from 2020 to 2025 was 3.40 percent. That was lower than Woodland (5.30 percent), West Sacramento (6.80 percent), and the region overall (6.10 percent). By comparison, California’s job growth during that period was 2.90 percent.
The report listed Davis’ median household income at $87,421, lower than both the region ($93,986) and the state ($96,334). The report noted this was “likely due to a heavy student population.” Educational attainment was high, however, with “the percentage of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher” at 75.10 percent, more than double the regional rate of 36.3 percent.
The report also pointed to housing affordability challenges. “The median home price is $829,000, almost 50.00% higher than the region’s median home price of $559,000,” the analysis found.
GSEC argued that Davis should align its industry development with the region’s targeted clusters: business services, precision manufacturing, working lands, and research and development.
“GSEC recommends conducting additional analysis to understand the needs of local companies within tradable sectors and what solutions the City of Davis can implement to address their needs,” the report stated.
Suggested areas included reviewing zoning and permitting, engaging commercial real estate stakeholders, and developing programs to address competitiveness issues.
The report identified Davis’ economic strengths in “health care and social assistance sectors (with strengths in life sciences R&D) and professional, scientific, and technical services, which align with regional clusters (i.e., precision manufacturing, life sciences, agri-food-tech research and development and technical services).”
It noted that Davis’ “real estate mix and assets (e.g., UC Davis, UC Davis regional cluster-specific innovation assets, entrepreneurial ecosystem, Inventopia, etc.) support and reinforce its strengths.”
UC Davis was described as central to these strengths.
The Brookings Institution, cited in the report, found that agricultural science represented one-third of peer-reviewed innovation outputs in the region, spinning out “more than 900 worldwide patents and 12 companies with 50 deals receiving $1.4 billion in growth capital over ten years.”
In biological sciences for human health, the region produced “some 40,000 articles leading to 4,400 new patented therapies and 130 regional startups securing growth capital totaling $1.7 billion over ten years.”
The report said Davis is “strategically positioned to capture targeted segments of the business services cluster, particularly scientific consulting, regulatory affairs services, engineering R&D consulting and software engineering services that align with the university’s student and research outputs.”
While Davis lacks the large-scale manufacturing capacity of other cities, the report emphasized that the city “is uniquely equipped to serve as a hub for early-stage research, product prototyping and materials innovation within the precision manufacturing supply chain.”
A new section of the report focused on defining and promoting sustainable industries, aligning with the Davis City Council’s stated goal of sustainable economic development. GSEC advised that the city could use two definitions: industries that produce green goods and services, and industries that practice operational sustainability. To “cast the broadest net,” city staff recommended using both definitions.
The report provided national examples of incentive programs for sustainable industry growth. In Pittsburgh, Sustainable PGH uses a scorecard approach that awards bronze, silver, gold, and platinum designations to businesses for their sustainability practices. Austin ties up to $3,000 per job in its Business Expansion Program to sustainable business practices, while Minneapolis’ Green Cost Share program provides funding for pollution reduction equipment and energy efficiency.
San Diego offers grants of up to $100,000 for job creation in clean industries, while Houston offers up to 90 percent property tax abatements for companies that meet energy transition and resilience standards.
The report noted that “common themes across programs include performance contracts where incentives are released after meeting milestones, core economic development tools (grants, tax abatement, marketing, etc.) are utilized, quality job creation and community benefits are often required, programs are aligned with local climate action and adaptation plans and more.”
The city will use the Market Velocity Report as input for its upcoming Economic Development Strategy. The staff report recommended that the Council provide feedback on how to integrate the findings. Davis City Councilmember Gloria Partida currently represents the city on the GSEC Board of Directors and participates in shaping regional strategies. The Economic Development Director also regularly attends GSEC events, including trade shows and summits, to promote Davis.
The staff noted that Davis’ future lies in leveraging its unique assets—particularly UC Davis, its research ecosystem, and its entrepreneurial community—while addressing ongoing challenges of housing affordability, lagging job growth, and the need for sustainable industries.
The Market Velocity Report concluded that, by aligning with regional clusters, Davis could attract “quality jobs, maximize local economic impact and [develop industries that] are more resilient to economic downturns.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Davis median income: $87,421
Region median income: $93,986
Davis median home price: $829,000
Region median home price: $559,000
NIMBYs run this town. Not looking forward to the City Council dropping the ball again.
I asked AI what affects students have on medium income in college towns like Davis:
College students statistically bring down the reported median household income in Davis, California. This is a common effect in college towns due to how the U.S. Census Bureau calculates income metrics.
The effect of students on median income
Students are counted as low-income households. A large proportion of college students are financially dependent, have low or no personal income, and often live separately from their parents. Because the Census Bureau defines “households” based on who lives together, these student residences are counted as separate, low-income households.
The median is pulled down. The median household income is the midpoint of all household incomes in a population. When a significant portion of the population (in this case, students) is at the low end of the income spectrum, the median income of the entire city is lowered.
Significant population share. A large university like UC Davis means that students make up a sizable portion of the city’s population, amplifying their effect on the overall median income.
Adjusted median income is higher. Studies on college towns have shown that when student households are removed from the data, the median household income is significantly higher. One analysis found that in some college towns, excluding students raises the median income by over 25%.
Honestly the first thing I thought of when he posted those stats was whether they accounted for the student factor. It’s just like the poverty rate in Davis and Yolo County. Strangely you ran it through AI without assessing whether the stats accounted for the student population (I suspect they don’t make such an adjustment).
Google is your friend:
Because student households are not explicitly excluded from standard census reporting, there is no official figure for the median household income in Davis without them. Standard median income figures include both student and non-student households.
However, the disparity in income is significant because many students have low or no income, which skews the overall median household income downward. This is most evident when comparing the low overall median income to other high-cost indicators in the city.
But you missed the point! You didn’t finish the work, because you stopped after the first step.
So here’s the actual data… even though the difference narrows, the point still stands.
Davis’ income, adjusted for students is about $109K compared to $94K for the region.
However, Davis homes cost about 48% more than the region. So while the Davis family earns 16 percent more than the regional average, Davis housing costs 48 percent more.
So even if you correct for the students, Davis remains an outlier on housing affordability.
The population vs job growth is interesting. Netting population growth, Davis’ jobs per capita rose by 5.94%, while Woodland increased 2.71% and West Sac by 4.27%. That implies the increase of those commuting into Davis increased more than for Woodland and West Sac. That supports the notion that demand for housing in Davis is at a higher level than in the other two communities.
Overall, it sounds like housing OUTSIDE of Davis is going to remain the “better deal”.
This is a pattern that’s existed forever – and not just in regard to Davis. Same reason that San Francisco was developed “first”, before spreading down the peninsula, East Bay, etc.
Same reason that Sacramento was developed “first” before spreading outward from there. (All they way toward Yuba City, at this point.)
By the way, some people view Woodland as somewhat of a “hub” of its own, and choose to live outlying towns since it’s less-expensive. Knights Landing comes to mind, as was once mentioned to me by someone.
Though truth be told, Spring Lake (“North, North Davis”) seems somewhat separate from the rest of Woodland.
I dunno why some people apparently wait decades for “cheap housing” to be built in comparatively-expensive locales. (I think the word for those people is “losers”. But if they have their way, they’ll remain losers (and will make the towns they’re trying to force growth upon losers, as well).
“Overall, it sounds like housing OUTSIDE of Davis is going to remain the “better deal”.”
Why would that change?
“I dunno why some people apparently wait decades for “cheap housing” to be built in comparatively-expensive locales. (I think the word for those people is “losers”. But if they have their way, they’ll remain losers (and will make the towns they’re trying to force growth upon losers, as well).”
Are you aware that you’re probably not winning a lot of converts when you do this?