The result was not surprising. August 30. Little active effort to promote the event. Perhaps 15 members of the public showed up to the city’s budget open house at the Davis Veteran’s Memorial on Tuesday night, and that included three reporters and perhaps a few off-duty city employees.
Notably absent from participation were policymakers for the city. Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson attended, Councilmember Sue Greenwald arrived well into the evening, Mayor Krovoza was out of town, Dan Wolk was not feeling well, and we had no contact with Stephen Souza.
The format was a bit loose as well, with a brief talk by Acting City Manager Paul Navazio, in perhaps his last public effort as City Manager, a few questions from the audience, and then the meeting was opened up and people walked around the room placing color coded stickers by city programs. Green for good (programs important to you or critical), Red for bad (programs that are unnecessary or needs to be modified). More on that shortly.
“The purpose of the meeting really is threefold,” Paul Navazio told the public. “One is… to start to get community input and feedback.”
“Second is to provide information so, given that this is the first of several meetings, we want to learn tonight and see how we move forward,” he said. “But in terms of information that’s related to some budget issues the city is facing, I’m going to be here for the evening in case questions arise…”
Each of the departments was also there to take questions from the public as well.
One of the key things that was missing was any kind of detailed explanation for the public about the extent to which the city budget was facing crisis. Mr. Navazio did explain to the public briefly that the city’s tax revenues for sales and property tax have declined and stagnated during the current economic downturn.
He explained that the city’s priority now is to find a way to manage these costs. He also explained that the bulk of the general fund was taken up with personnel costs.
He said this was subject to an ongoing discussion and that they have made some initial progress. However, the challenge remains to continue to provide the public with high quality vital city services while at the same time adhering to current contracts and commitments to city employees.
“Something has to give,” he said. Notably he scoffed at the notion of across-the-board cuts – the types of cuts (he did not mention this) that were implemented initially under his predecessor. He said they have already cut $7 million and 40 positions from the budget and that the challenge going forward will be to find additional cuts.
One of the questions from the audience was why the city was only talking about cuts and not revenue or, as the school district has undertaken, fundraising. Mr. Navazio responded that that there have been multiple tax measures, but he also mentioned that, given the poor economy, water rate hikes, and the school district and other local government needs, it would be a challenge to get revenue hikes. But he also noted that this should be a community-wide discussion.
The city has a looming September 30 deadline for $2.5 million in personnel cuts. To the surprise of few, it appears that these will have to take place without changes to the fire staffing report.
The Vanguard spoke to Paul Navazio last night separately and he said that the report was “pretty close.” He is thinking it is possible it will come forward in September, but not as a stand-alone item, and not before September 20.
He believes, more realistically, this will be addressed by the end of September or early October. He said, though, it might come sooner. “There’s a chance,” he said, “I don’t want to promise.”
As we predicted earlier, the night was of questionable value to the city in terms of feedback.
The Vanguard spoke to Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson who, while diplomatic, was clearly not impressed with the outreach effort.
“I’m hoping that a lot more people show up to the second [budget outreach meeting],” she said, “We have a lot of important choices to be making and council is incredibly genuine in wanting to know what the community’s input is, just like the employees’ input, to make sure that the choices we’re making with the limited resources reflect what the community’s priorities are for maximum delivery of services but also quality of life.”
Ms. Swanson also questioned the timing of the event.
“Ideally it would have been good if we had a couple sooner,” she said, “I know some of this is scheduling. It’s my understanding that there have been meetings with employee groups. And now with the community groups coming out – the plan is, if possible, that we have a couple of more meetings as needed.”
“That’s why I’m hopeful that the next meeting that we have – we have a very large crowd of people that can really help guide, the next couple of steps,” she added.
The Vanguard also asked the Mayor Pro Tem about the amount of progress the city has made toward finding $2.5 million in cuts that are due in a self-imposed deadline by September 30.
“I believe that we are getting some draft information that is going to be coming to us – so as far as the timeline that we spoke about in that meeting that we made those decisions – I believe we are on track for that,” she said. “I can only speak for myself in that I anticipate where there’s a need to be able to have some flexibility because at the end of the day, the most important thing is that we’re making some good solid choices.”
As the Vanguard mentioned from the start, this was never a well-thought-out outreach effort. The timing was poor. The city did not do enough to get the word out. The public is disengaged on this issue, unless it involves the closing of a pool.
Nowhere was the futility of the exercise illustrated more than the feedback that the city got.
Here is the instructions that the public got for giving feedback:
(click to enlarge)
Here is the feedback itself. What you see here is only a handful of responses and the public was divided on the importance of the issues when they had a strong inclination one way or the other.
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
So staff spent several hours preparing for this exercise, there were a dozen or more staff members at the meeting, and I doubt they have any better idea than they did before this started as to what the public wants.
Our recommendation is for the city to do a full townhall meeting, engage the neighborhood associations to get their membership out, pick a better meeting time and place, having food and refreshments – the Vanguard volunteered to donate $200 worth of pizza for the next meeting.
We need to have the policymakers themselves there, rather than just city staff.
It is somewhat amazing that the city would not consult with the mayor as to timing for this event to insure his ability to attend. It is even more amazing that Councilmember Stephen Souza was not there, given this was his idea that apparently the city staff ran with, despite no clear consensus by the council to go forward with this issue. That is not on Mr. Souza, it just shows the poor planning that went into this event.
Because if you look at those results, you see a waste of time, and the worst part is that this was entirely predictable.
Clearly, the city is in need of some new ideas; hopefully incoming City Manager Steve Pinkerton will provide them with some new ideas for public outreach, because this just did not work.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In my experience, and I helped design and facilitate such meetings for Sacramento, these kinds of efforts are at best a feel good moment for the participants, and much more often a frustrating and futile exercise . Most people have no concept of the resources and personnel needed to run a city and show up to promote their pet project or shoot down some other and leave when they’ve made their pitch and placed their stickers .
biddlin
It seems that the success or failure of such an event is dependent on expectation, timing, and event design.
If the expectation is that the event will generate constructive ideas, then it would seem that the ” red and blue sticker strategy” is a very poor approach. If the goal is to simply measure existing sentiment, format would be fine, but, timing and event promotion, not so good.
What didn’t seem to happen is what some posters were concerned about, namely an outpouring of “special interests” ( as though we don’t all have our own). If the upcoming hearings are handled the same way, I would anticipate similar unremarkable and unhelpful results.
Other community forums I have attended, such as the ConAgra public information sessions have been much more instructive and generated much more in ideas than this seems to have done.
Doesn’t city have leverage with Cityscape to ensure report arrives in line with budget timeline? It would seem from Rochelle’s comment that Sept 30 is not hard and fast date.
SODA… why Sept 30? CC is currently scheduled to talk re: budget on Sept 27…
[quote]It is somewhat amazing that the city would not consult with the mayor as to timing for this event to insure his ability to attend. It is even more amazing that Councilmember Stephen Souza was not there, given this was his idea that apparently the city staff ran with, despite no clear consensus by the council to go forward with this issue. That is not on Mr. Souza, it just shows the poor planning that went into this event.[/quote]
I think this is on Council member Souza. It was his idea, and he should have been out in front leading the charge, including publicity. He was the one who suggested this idea, and then didn’t even get behind it by showing up.
Notice the high concentration of interest in transportation.
hpierce
“The Vanguard also asked the Mayor Pro Tem about the amount of progress the city has made toward finding $2.5 million in cuts that are due in a self-imposed deadline by September 30.”
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson who, while diplomatic, was clearly not impressed with the outreach effort.
“I’m hoping that a lot more people show up to the second [budget outreach meeting],” she said, “We have a lot of important choices to be making and council is incredibly genuine in wanting to know what the community’s input is, just like the employees’ input, to make sure that the choices we’re making with the limited resources reflect what the community’s priorities are for maximum delivery of services but also quality of life.”
Too bad they (the Davis city Council) didn’t take that approach when they approved the Surface Water Project just before Christmas, 2010, when most Davis citizens were busy, unaware, or away!
“Doesn’t city have leverage with Cityscape to ensure report arrives in line with budget timeline? “
I really got the impression, and I’m not trying to read his mind, that Paul was slow playing this.
“I think this is on Council member Souza. It was his idea, and he should have been out in front leading the charge, including publicity. He was the one who suggested this idea, and then didn’t even get behind it by showing up. “
I don’t think that’s fair, it’s not clear the city checked with anyone on timing, it seems like something they just did.
[quote]I don’t think that’s fair, it’s not clear the city checked with anyone on timing, it seems like something they just did.[/quote]
Are you telling me Souza was unaware of the date of the meeting? He was just as aware as the rest of us. Yet he didn’t bother to show up to something that was HIS IDEA. Sorry, but I most definitely fault Council member Souza here – unless he had an unavoidable conflict. At the very least he should make sure to show up at the next meeting, but he really should have been at both. Else how is he going to hear citizen input that he so desperately seemed to want to better inform his views on important issues?
[i]”He was just as aware as the rest of us. Yet he didn’t bother to show up to something that was HIS IDEA.”[/i]
The Vanguard has said this series of meetings was Stephen’s idea. That seems to be based on the fact that Souza said from the dais that he hoped there would be public input in the process.
But if that is all he did–express his opinion that there should be public input–it’s unreasonable to blame him for these meetings and unfair to attack him for not showing up (when you and I and the Vanguard and no one commenting on here knows why he was not there*).
*Souza, despite being the only member of the Council who runs his own private company as his full-time job, has a great record of appearing at public meetings. I think you should cut him some slack until you know why he was not there. I suspect he must have a very good reason. Since Stephen became the liaison to the HRMC, he has been at every meeting of ours for the entire meeting, save one time when he had to leave early to go to another commission meeting. The previous liaison, Don Saylor, never once over four years attended a full meeting. He only appeared one time at an HRMC meeting, and left after 10 minutes. And what he had to say for those 10 minutes–that the City wanted the members of the HRMC to play a large role in UCD’s centennial celebration–later proved to be completely false. And consider that Saylor is retired and Stephen works. Saylor gets a very lucrative 3% at 50 pension, the type that is supposed to only go to people who put their safety at risk in their jobs.
I am out of town at a CALAFCO Conference otherwise I would have been at the meeting. Being a Boardmember I had to be at the Conference. I will be at the next one. I will also follow up with staff on the community meeting and anyone can communicate with me on by emailing me at ssouza@cityofdavis.org or call me at 530-400-2222.
Sometimes a small sample can generate good info. Looking at the results 5th street redesign and affordable housing are unpopular. Sounds like Davis to me,
“Are you telling me Souza was unaware of the date of the meeting?”
He answered for himself, but I’ll just add what the Mayor told me which was he had plans already to be out of town, no one consulted with him on the date, and so he couldn’t make it. I can imagine something like that happened with Stephen Souza as well.
“Sometimes a small sample can generate good info. Looking at the results 5th street redesign and affordable housing are unpopular. Sounds like Davis to me, “
A small sample by definition produces statistical noise and you cannot tell if it generates good info. Your last sentences bares it, the data sample produces confirmatory bias, it biases you towards what you already believe.
I find it interesting that one of the Vanguard’s sponsors highlights discounts for UCD and DJUSD employees, but NOT City, County and/or State workers. A good reason for the excluded groups to boycott the store.
[quote]I am out of town at a CALAFCO Conference otherwise I would have been at the meeting. Being a Boardmember I had to be at the Conference. I will be at the next one. I will also follow up with staff on the community meeting and anyone can communicate with me on by emailing me at ‘> ssouza@cityofdavis.org or call me at 530-400-2222.[/quote]
My apologies – however I did say “Sorry, but I most definitely fault Council member Souza here – unless he had an unavoidable conflict.” Obviously you did have an unavoidable conflict. Glad to hear you will be at the next public outreach meeting. Also, I would commend you for attending commission meetings as a City Council liaison based on Rich Rifkin’s comment. This is often a problem, when City Council liaisons regularly fail to attend commission meetings they are supposed to be assigned to and attend whenever possible.
Noisy data isn’t always bad data. How do you improve upon a small sample? Collect more data but my guess is that these two positions would hold up to further criticism. As for it supporting my biases, it doesn’t, I want more affordable housing.
From a statistical standpoint it is. One shift would means tens of percentage points difference in the opinion breakdown. You could be right on the results, but you’re still making assumptions about opinion without data.
[i]”As for it supporting my biases, it doesn’t, I want more affordable housing.”[/i]
I never understood until recently how “affordable housing” in Davis is financed on an annual basis. (I am not counting the amounts extracted from developers one time for their specific projects as required by the city’s ordinances.) For those who care, here is how it works:
Inside the borders of the Davis Redevelopment Agency (which is essentially all of incorporated S. Davis and the core area downtown), all property tax payers pay their 1% assessed-value property taxes to the county tax collector. He then takes out $3.6 million*. The rest of the money–approximately $10.469 million this year–goes to the DRDA. The DRDA then takes exactly 20% of that–or $2.093 million–and deposits it in the Davis low-income housing fund.
That process takes place every year. Much of the money is used to finance bonds and maintenance costs for previously built housing projects.
It doesn’t really matter–as long as we have a DRDA–whether Mr. Toad’s preference, that we have more low-income housing, wins out, or whether those who don’t care for it win out. All of the money for low-income housing is a given, every year.
Now, as to my view on low-income housing, I have three takes:
1. I think if the general plan would simply zone more undeveloped properties for multi-family housing (that is, big apartment complexes), almost all renters (most of whom are not rich) would be materially better off, because the supply-demand equation would tilt in their favor. That is, they would pay less in rent. For a very long time in Davis, the tilt has favored the landlords, because the supply has never fully kept up with demand; and
2. Instead of building or subsidizing public housing projects, I think low-income renters as a class are better served by getting housing vouchers instead. This kind of a program cuts out the middle men, some of whom in Davis have a well-earned reputation for being shysters, for making hundreds of thousands of dollars of profits “managing” these scams. I would prefer those “management fees” just go directly to low-income renters as housing vouchers; and
3. When it comes to owner-occupied low-income housing, I think the best and fairest idea is for the City to help young families buy their first homes in Davis by loaning them money for a down-payment.
In the past, we used to sell these sorts of homes in a lottery; and the winners would turn around a few years later and sell their low-income houses at market rates, pocketting the profits and killing the supply of low-income for sale housing. We have since changed to the idea of selling the homes at a reduced rate and restricting how much the owners can re-sell their places. This, of course, is a disaster for the low-income home owners. They have no incentive whatsoever to keep up their houses; and by restricting any gain from a sale, they are effectively just renting their houses.
My solution–helping with down-payments–is far superior. It helps far more people; and when the money is repaid (even at a low interest rate) it can help more after that.
——————-
*Why $3.6 million? That is 1% of the amount ($360 million) that all the properties in the DRDA were assessed at in 1987, the year the DRDA was formed.
“Looking at the results 5th street redesign and affordable housing are unpopular”
Excuse me Mr. Toad, but two and a half thousand people signed the petition urging the City Council to move on the redesign of 5th Street.