By Matt Williams
The City and the Yes on Measure H campaign literature for the DiSC project emphasize that one of the important benefits to the City of Davis General Fund is a claimed “$3.9 million net revenue gain for the City of Davis annually to address the city’s $7 million funding gap and maintain our quality of life without a tax increase.”
Where can that $3.9 million projection be found?
The source is the December 2021 financial analysis prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) the City’s financial consultant, that was presented to the Finance and Budget Commission (FBC) in December 2021 (see full report HERE), In that analysis, Tables B-1 and A-2 provide the specific relevant net revenue data, and both those tables are copied and pasted below.
At what point in time does the $3.9 million net revenue gain actually happen?
As Table B-1 clearly shows, the $3.9 million Annual General Fund Surplus only happens when DiSC is fully built out (at the end of Phase 2B).
When does full buildout actually happen?
According to Table A-2 from the same EPS financial analysis, the end of Phase 2B isn’t projected until the end of the 12th year of the project (the end of 2034).
What is the net revenue gain in the years prior to full buildout?
Table B-1 shows that the net revenue gain is only $333,000 in Phase 1A, and $1,351,000 in Phase 1B. Both those numbers are small fractions of $3.9 million. Only when the project reaches the end of Phase 2A … projected by EPS to be at the end of the 9th year of the project (the end of 2031) … does the projected net revenue gain get to 90% of the $3.9 million, with the final 10% not coming until three years later.
How solid is the 12-year projection for achieving Full Buildout?
Given the fact that the DiSC development team has publicly stated that they will not be devoting any effort or resources to marketing until after they achieve a positive result at the ballot box from Davis voters on Election Day, that 12-year projection is highly speculative. Under those conditions, full buildout could just as easily take 25 years, or not happen at all.
What happens if Full Buildout is never achieved?
If full buildout never happens, then the $3.9 million net revenue gain never happens.
_________________________
EPS Source Documents
It perplexes me that the No on H team wants to have it both ways. They claim that it will create traffic from its buildout with their materials presenting unmitigated traffic estimates without reference to the buildout phasing, but then they also want to argue that DiSC will not be built and won’t generate the revenue projections that were prepared by EPS. You can’t have it both ways. The most likely scenario is that DiSC gets built out in 10-15 years with both its benefits and costs coming to fruition in a more uniform distribution than is suggested by the narratives the No on H team is simultaneously presenting.
No, you don’t get it: It gets approved or not but in either case never built out and there’s never any increase in traffic or all the other negative issues, or it gets approved and built out over a period of 10 to 30 years and at the end of build out in any time frame it increases the traffic congestion and other problems as projected. So in the latter case(s) it’s a wine that’s turned to vinegar, and you have to open it eventually, though its leaking foul stench increases every year.
.
wesley, the situation isn’t perplexing at all. The DiSC project is very clearly in a “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” situation. And you do an excellent job of describing both ends of that “damned” situation.
If the project achieves the projected full buildout, it adds close to 12,000 new daily vehicle trips on the already dysfunctional Mace Blvd near the Interstate 80 interchange. There is no amount of sugar coating the findings of the EIR on that subject.
Of course one of the ways that DiSC could reduce its traffic impact is to NOT achieve the projected full buildout, but as the EPS financial analysis clearly shows, the projected Net Revenue Gain evaporates if the project falls short of the completion of Phase 2B.
The truth is that YOU can’t have it both ways. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.
“If the project achieves the projected full buildout, it adds close to 12,000 new daily vehicle trips on the already dysfunctional Mace Blvd near the Interstate 80 interchange.”
This is a basically accurate statement based on the traffic models.
“There is no amount of sugar coating the findings of the EIR on that subject.”
This is a conclusion that you have made based on your opinion. However, the traffic engineers believe that the mitigation measures can improve the flow of traffic that is an existing problem on Mace. I understand that you have arguments about why that won’t work, but in the end those are your opinions and other people’s opinions, some of them traffic engineers, disagree.
Well said David. I’m currently writing an article that takes a look at the mitigation measures one by one to get a better understanding of how those measures will actually achieve the result the traffic engineers believe they will produce.
That article will start with the Mace intersection with Alhambra, and move south from there.
David is correct to point out your error, Matt. There is PLENTY of sugar-coating of the EIR findings on that subject.
It’s not just about
And never was. But anyway what’s the advantage overall of a slight improvement, e.g. a 12 min hold up instead of a 15 min hold up? And if the improvements are also about averages, many won’t even notice.
We shouldn’t be wasting time with preserving – at best – a slightly better Mace and east Davis traffic situation. It’s obviously worse if this often-touted projection doesn’t turn out so rosy.
People in vehicles can tolerate sitting in traffic longer than people on bike on public transport can tolerate the same amount of time that a trip is extended due to distance — also in the case of waiting for transit at bus stops.
The “improved flow” is a projection, but what’s a fact is all the ways this project is cut off from many things by distance or physical barriers or both. As such DISC has a little role to play in active transportation.
The “flow” thing is just one element amongst many related to transportation, and there are many in other areas. It’s clear than one or more of the more important ones would make this thing impossible to build in an evolved General Plan.
DISC is a dinosaur.
Any claim that traffic will “improve” as a result of DiSC lacks credibility and common sense.
Regardless, “improvements” themselves entail significant traffic disruption, which can go on for years. Not to mention the heavy equipment needed to connect and construct the development itself, which would simultaneously use those same roads.
And given that the buildout of DiSC would go on for years, so would the disruption.
Then there’s the traffic that will be generated from development inside of the Mace curve, Palomino Place, Shriner’s, the “other half” of DiSC, etc. (Assuming that any of those are approved, which seems likely if DiSC is approved.) None of which have been analyzed regarding traffic or fiscal impacts, let alone any plans to mitigate those impacts.
As far as roadway/freeway expansions, Darrell’s earlier comparison with “bigger pants” for the purpose of accommodating obesity seems apt. (Versus trying to maintain a healthy weight in the first place.)
I personally find it difficult to believe that a city like Davis would even consider a proposal like this, especially since the city also claims to be concerned about greenhouse gasses.
I find this analysis is sad… If it builds out we get traffic, if it doesn’t build out we dont get the economic benefit… This is how Eeyore the donkey from Winnie the pooh would look at the situation.
Life is full of tradeoffs. Period. It’s true that “We don’t get it both ways…” but that doesn’t mean that “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” applies.
Those of us who are parents know this best I think… Your kids are the light of your life and you wouldn’t trade them for anything… but they are also a huge cost, a lot of work, extreme amounts of worrying, loss of sleep…. but still WORTH IT.
Would you say having children are a “damned if you do, damned if you dont” proposition? No. But the joy, and love, and purpose that your children bring to you DO have a COST. And you need to decide whether or not that cost is worth it.
Most of us decide yes… some decide no… thats just a choice.
I live very close to DiSC. I know that the extra cars will bring extra traffic, and the conttruction will bring inconvenience.. but I also believe in the potential of the project, so I’m voting yes. That is my choice, in full awareness of the likely tradeoff.
If we get the traffic and we get the city revenue, thats not a “loss” for the city – its a net “gain, with some externalities”…
As a long-time single parent I love your example, but question it’s applicability. Children are not an either- or proposition. Children are both-and. DiSC is either-or.
You’ve done a good job of pointing out the negative outcomes we can expect at the end of a perfect implementation (full build-out) of the DiSC plan, and the negative outcomes we can expect at the end of an imperfect implementation. Nobody has assumed it will go both ways. The problem is that our city loses EITHER way it goes.
Please define… has Davis always been ‘your City’? It wasn’t ‘ours’ until about 50 years ago…
Do current residents ‘own’ Davis and all its environs?
We’ve participated in the City for many years… work, volunteering, taxes, voting, residing, spending, benefitting from services (and providing some)… as I know you have… but I don’t view it as “ours” in a ‘possessive’ sense… I view it as a part of who we were, are, and will be, as a community… but except for our real property, personal property, it is not just “ours”… it belongs to a much bigger group (if you insist on ‘ownership’), including “friends we haven’t met yet” (W Rogers)…
All of us create ‘burdens’, most of us carry them, and some have greater (seemingly disproportionate, to some), burdens in carrying them… called “community”… not just a ‘municipal corporation’ (which Davis is, technically)…
Easy to define: the City of Davis “Our” city because it is the city in which we live
I did not intend it as possessive. Or at least it doesn’t matter. The point of my comment remains unchanged.
I have a pretty good track record with predictions on here, including the prediction that MRIC/DISC/DiSC would add housing to the proposal.
But even that housing won’t be sufficient, if the commercial is successful. Says so, right in the EIR itself.
The proponents claim that the pre-existing housing element will “accommodate” that additional demand for housing.
And yet, that housing element was created without considering the additional demand for housing created by DiSC (again, assuming that the commercial is successful).
As such, it’s highly likely that the additional demand for housing created by DiSC (assuming that the commercial is successful) will be used to “justify” housing on the “other half” of DiSC, as well as Shriners, Palomino Place, the space inside of Mace curve, etc. In fact, SACOG will make sure that future RHNA “fair share” housing requirements reflect the additional demand for housing created by DiSC.
Given that housing creates fiscal deficits, any claimed “fiscal profit” from DiSC is nothing more than propaganda put forth by development activists. (Without getting into all of the traffic that hasn’t even been analyzed – let alone mitigated, regarding the other proposals that will arise if DiSC is approved.)
I left out the “ARC”, in the MRIC/DISC/DiSC comment above. So, it’s actually MRIC/ARC/DISC/DiSC. (Hopefully, to soon join the “Davis Innovation Center”, which didn’t even have a chance to get “reimagined” a bunch of times.)
A question for Matt: How much of the claimed fiscal profit is attributed to the proposed hotel? (The one that would be right-across the street from the brand-new Residence Inn?) And, what is the timeframe in which “demand” for it is expected, if all goes according to “plan”?
Three recently-built hotels in Davis, already.
LOL – and if the project is voted down the City is guaranteed to receive no revenues from the property at all.
What you say is true Mark, but in your scenario the City is also guaranteed not to incur costs from the property at all either.
… nor the congestion, pollution and housing deficit.
The bitter, ‘vinegary’ truth is EVERYONE wants it both ways… although their ‘ways’ substantially differ… called ‘human nature’… “’tis a puzzlement”… or, TNSTAAFL, or, “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too” [or for old-time country music buffs, ‘you can’t have your Kate and Edith, too’]…
No magic incantations, wands, etc., will make everything ‘perfect’ for all folk… there will always be trade-offs… and there will always be those who want the trade-offs to only benefit themselves… old Amish (attributed) proverbs: “what’s yours is mine, and what is mine is my own”; “the whole world is mad except me and thee, and I sometimes wonder about thee”… those actually explain a lot about human nature, and the resultant strains in politics, philosophies, etc.
‘The English” (using an Amish term, for the non-Amish) are sometimes honest saying, “I’m looking out for #1!”… but that’s “politically incorrect”, so gets couched in terms that seem more noble or altruistic…
Slight sidebar…
We got our sample ballots yesterday… we have 3 voters in the household… we live in Mace Ranch, and will likely be “impacted”, but as tkeller points out (quite eloquently, in his 10:40 post this morning), it is ‘tradeoffs’…
So out of the three assured voters, two are fixed on voting Yes on this measure H, the third is strongly leaning that way. FWIW…
[edited]