Davis, CA – There are a lot of curious aspects of the No on Q Campaign that I will break down shortly. Perhaps the most interesting is the surprising lack of interest in the one contested City Council race.
Actually back up half a step further – two of the three city council races are completely uncontested and the third has three candidates, all of whom support Measure Q.
Think about the optics here – we’re mad as hell and want to send the message to the city council – but at the same time, we’re completely punting on the city council elections themselves during a year when the majority of council was up for grabs.
While that does look odd on the surface (and even as we drill down a bit), there is a method here. We have noted that for some time it is far easier to torpedo Measure J votes than it is to elect slow growth candidates to the city council.
That said, it’s a tough lift to actually defeat Measure Q. It’s a majority only ballot measure – meaning it only needs 50 percent plus one to pass. Polling in late 2023, put support for such a measure near 70 percent. You have recent history of a concerted effort to defeat the school parcel tax which garnered just 32 percent no vote.
And even though a sales tax doesn’t rise to the “for the children” level, we saw a parcel tax that didn’t have a ton of support or effort behind it get to 57 percent in 2018. Moreover, other communities are pushing similar taxes and the impact of this particular tax on the average person is fairly small.
In short, I always thought this was a tough lift.
With that said, I paused when I saw a letter from Elly Fairclough the other day, opposing Measure Q (or at least questioning it using the rhetoric from the campaign):
“Elaine Roberts Musser is on the mark in calling for the city to “right its fiscal ship” with an audit and a reworked financial plan that prioritizes basic services.
“It is shocking to learn that the budget for street repairs was cut $1.5 million while daily more residential streets crumble into a failed condition with no prospect of timely repair. Measure Q funds alone (estimated at $11 million annually) are not a solution for the city’s fiscal problems; in fact they could make them worse if expended in ways that entail new ongoing costs.”
Elly Fairclough is a long time establishment figure who has worked a district rep for multiple local legislators. Seeing this letter, definitely caught my attention.
I’m not going to quite go as far as to say I think Measure Q is in trouble – I still think that’s a tough lift given all the points I raise above. But the message that the opponents of Measure Q wanted to send, definitely have registered.
With that said, I don’t know what the opponents can reasonably hope to gain here. As I have written in previous columns, cutting off funding actually doesn’t change policy unless its coupled with change in leadership – and there is no sign of that – in fact just the opposite.
Not only do all three candidates for the open District 2 seat support Measure Q, but one of the likely candidates has been recently backed to the hilt by the Firefighters.
There is also the question of what happens if the dog actually catches the proverbial car? In this case, that would mean, defeating Measure Q.
Recently, Alan Hirsch wrote, “If Q doesn’t pass, we will have deep cuts in services and programs” and “I believe creating a crisis by not passing Q…”
But Alan Pryor, one of the leaders in the No on Q campaign called that, “a false alarmist claim repeatedly made by Measure Q’s supporters.”
He argued, “it makes no sense.”
Pryor instead argued, “This is because Measure Q is NOT A RENEWAL of an existing sales tax for which a defeat would indeed reduce city revenues probably costing jobs and resulting in a decrease in services.
“Instead, Measure Q is actually a NEW TAX for which the proponents themselves have claimed will provide “additional programs and services”. Defeating Q will not decrease city revenues from existing levels. It just means the city will have less NEW money of ours to waste.”
There is of course a flaw in this argument.
It is true that Measure Q could be used to fund “new things.” But the Council has stated very clearly that the priority will be shoring up existing holes – that includes maintaining services, improving infrastructure and most importantly shoring up the general fund reserve.
Right now, the reserve is down to 7.5 percent. New revenue is needed to get back to 15 percent.
While the reserve is a “reserve” there is a fundamental flaw in this logic. If the city fails to get new revenue, the reserve will continue to decline to zero and either before that happens or when it happens the city will be forced to make substantial cuts to programs and services. That’s even if the council somehow chooses not to bring the reserve back to the required 15 percent level (which would be imprudent to say the least).
At some level, I think the opponents believe that by crashing the system, they can force a restart at the city council level. But then again, if you don’t trust the city council to have additional revenue, why do you trust them to cut into services and programs?
As I have said before, Measure Q is most definitely a band aid and you can see the extent of the bleeding by the difference between what Davis expects to bring in – $11 million and what West Sacramento expects to bring in – $20 million for the same tax increase.
History has shown that for the most part, when money falls short, the city (and other government entities) don’t suddenly get more efficient, they cut where its easiest to cut.
As I have said previously, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I completely agree that there are serious problems with the city’s financial situation, I am just skeptical that this medicine will work to fix that.
Davis is running out of American rescue funds aka Bidenbucks. Davis lost state redevelopment funds a decade ago. A tax increase will refill the coffers from the loss of these funds.
The no on q folks argue that the city can’t be entrusted to deliver the services that the community needs. But, one thing is certain, without new revenues the city infrastructure and the quality of public safety will decline while the homeless situation is unlikely to improve.
As a general fund tax the check on
Ron, look at the progression of City of Davis revenues since the redevelopment Agency funds were taken away by Jerry Brown.
2012 . $61,823,000
2013 . $64,931,000
2014 . $67,941,000
2015 . $73,013,000
2016 . $70,490,000
2017 . $74,917,000
2018 . $77,446,000
2019 . $89,314,000
2020 . $83,720,000
2021 . $91,990,000
In the 2022 Budget the reporting of a portion of the American Rescue Funds money resulted in a $10,189,000 increase in revenue over 2021. That number will change slightly after the independent auditor reviews the City’s financials, but as it exists now the next entry in the above revenue numbers would be:
2022 . $101,179,000
That is a more than $39 million increase in revenues in 10 years … a more than 63% increase. The problem is not revenues. The problem is having the discipline to control costs.
Matt – you’re posting numbers without adjustments.
What adjustments? 2012 through 2021 are directly from the audited financial statements. They are already fully adjusted and finalized. And what is it about the words, “That number will change slightly after the independent auditor reviews the City’s financials”/i> that you don’t understand. 2022’s audited financial statement is not available,; however, the 2023-2025 Budget does have “Actual” numbers for 2022.
Continued : …The check on the budget is that the voters elect the City Council.
David Greenwald said … “With that said, I don’t know what the opponents can reasonably hope to gain here. As I have written in previous columns, cutting off funding actually doesn’t change policy unless its coupled with change in leadership”
There are core members of the No on Q team who disagree with me on this, , but I don’t believe the problem in the Davis government is the people, it is the culture. As Alan Hirsch quoted Peter Drucker yesterday, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.”
Josh Chapman is capable of doing the hard work that is required to change the culture. So are Bapu Vaitla, and Gloria Partida and Donna Neville. However, they are unlikely to undertake that task if we give them more money to play with.
Changing the culture isn’t easy, but there has been work done in the past that can be used to start the task. John Meyer completed an assessment of the organizational structure of the City, and made a coherent, complete recommendation for eliminating waste. What he found were significant span of control issues, including numerous instances where a supervising employee was supervising as few as one single employee. But none of his recommendations were pursued.
10 years ago the City’s then-CFO identified serious problems in the City’s purchasing practices that were costing the City huge amounts of money. More recently a subcommittee of the FBC completed a focused study of purchasing practices and audited a significant number of purchases and found that the City’s purchasing practices that were costing the City huge amounts of money. And both of the last two audits by the independent auditing firm called out the City’s purchasing actions as being in violation of the City’s purchasing policies where they existed, and that those policies were/are woefully deficient.
That is a decade of inaction for a clearly defined, very costly problem. If we give the City more money to play with, that woeful history will just continue. That is why I have characterized the No on Measure Q position as “an intervention” and Jeff Boone has characterized the Yes on Measure Q position as a bailout rewarding a legacy of bad management and bad fiscal decisions. If your child was stewarding his/her money the way the City has, would you give that child more money to squander?
“But the Council has stated very clearly that the priority will be shoring up existing holes”
By their own actions, the Council has proven this to be a false claim. If they were focused on “shoring up existing holes” they would not have blown up their budget with new items like the ladder truck and the additional FD staff.
The first step in economic development is to make it easier and less costly to start a new business in town. If the goal is to increase retail sales, as has been stated many times over the years, then an easy fix is to expand the number of locations in town where retail businesses are allowed. All that requires is a change of zoning (to allow retail) on existing commercial buildings, and in some cases changing the municipal code. The Council could have made these steps at anytime (with very little effort) over the past two decades, but no.
Well said Mark. Very well said.