Support for the CFD came in with a 3-2 majority, it left with a 3-2 majority, and there was never a time on Tuesday night when that 3-2 majority appeared to be in jeopardy of changing. Despite strong public sentiment and an impassioned plea by the Mayor Pro Tem, council would vote to approve the staff recommendation with a small caveat that they attempt to lower the overall cost of the CFD.
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson, who eventually made the motion, stated early on her intentions: “The last council already negotiated the goodies that were in the Development Agreement… that’s done, we’re not opening the DA. That’s a misunderstanding in the community, now isn’t the time to go after more goodies.”
Councilmember Brett Lee noted that there was an email going around about election patterns. The email suggested that the Mace Voters supported the parcel taxes at similar levels to the city. Councilmember Lee ran the numbers and found, “There seems to a clear pattern, it may or may not be associated with the CFD, but it’s quite clear that the Mace consolidated precinct… for the past three school parcel tax measures have supported it at a far lower rate than the general population of the city.”
“I just think it’s bad public policy to have such a dramatically large CFD Assessment on one neighborhood within our community,” Councilmember Lee said in wrapping up his thoughts. “If the CFD were a smaller amount, I might be willing to go there. I think ten years from now we’ll look back and we’ll know why the parcel taxes aren’t passing anymore.”
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs acknowledged he was the author of the “mysterious” email detailing some of the election results in terms of its support of various parcel tax measures in the community. He disagrees with the notion that the parcel taxes have been suffering in the community due to Mace Ranch.
He also said, “One of my issues is I don’t think you can just assign motives for why people vote the way they do and certainly not just take as a fact that having a CFD in place is the primary motivator or cause for any area of town for not supporting the parcel taxes.”
He continued, “For me, the primary interest is ensuring major infrastructure, particularly parks and greenbelts infrastructure, is installed at the get-go.” He said, “If I’m moving into a new neighborhood I would not want to move into a neighborhood and five years later some of this infrastructure come along. I would definitely prefer to have it come in at the beginning.”
He did acknowledge that he shared some concern about the impact of the CFD on parcel taxes. However, he said, “It’s very much our responsibility as policy makers but also along with the school district as well, to actually be out there showing the value to people in the community what they’re being asked to pay for and what they should be paying for.”
Councilmember Frerichs concluded, “Yeah, there is a potential worry there, that if the burden is too high then the neighborhood could not be as supportive of the parcel tax measures.”
Mayor Dan Wolk’s main theme was that this was what Prop. 13 has done to local government. It was a theme he sounded all night long, and that he returned to later in his comments.
Councilmember Lee would jump in to note, “We are talking about the specifics of the Cannery agreement where the developer agreement specifically states they will [provide] for all these things. This is essentially a private transaction between the homebuyer and the homeseller. What we’re being asked to do here is introduce ourselves into the middle of that transaction.”
He noted that the parks, greenbelts and infrastructure have all been agreed to. “This is not about pre-Prop. 13 or post-Prop. 13.”
Mayor Dan Wolk also warned that the Nishi property is going to need a CFD, and the Innovation Parks, as well.
Councilmember Swanson said, “It comes down to what did we ask of them.” She stated, “We’re not just some community, it’s our community. Necessity in Davis is different from necessity in Elk Grove, Rocklin, Roseville ‒ not to pick on those communities, or Woodland, but they’re different.”
She added, “(We are) asking for a lot, much more than you would see in any other community.”
Councilmember Swanson said, “This isn’t the 11th hour, this is the 13th hour. We negotiated all the amenities that we wanted.”
Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis stated that he had no problem with The New Homes Company asking for a CFD. It is not only within their rights, but part of their responsibility to their shareholders to request the CFD.
“Every community amenity that you just stated was enshrined within the Developer Agreement,” the Mayor Pro Tem stated. “I’m not opposed to CFDs, I’m opposed to this CFD.”
He spoke to Councilmember Frerichs, “You negotiated with (former Mayor) Joe (Krovoza) the current developer agreement with all the infrastructure, all the amenities specified, the quality of those amenities and the timing of the construction of those amenities for all the infrastructure and all the amenities. You did all of that with no CFD guaranteed.”
Mayor Pro Tem Davis continued, “I reviewed the comments from the night that the development agreement and the entitlements were made and I can find no evidence that the timing and ability to cover the cost of the infrastructure or the quality of the amenities from home sales was a concern to anyone.”
He said, “That meant that the assumption had to be that the home sale price was going to cover them.” He said, “That was what was signed, that was what was agreed to in a public meeting in this room.”
He asked rhetorically, “What has changed? We struck a deal and all parties have upheld their contractual agreements.”
Mayor Pro Tem Davis would add, “It’s certainly not efficient for our city. This is important, it requires staff time to administer a CFD.” He said they would get reimbursed for staff time, “but there is still an opportunity cost.”
He said, “I’m operating under the assumption that the homeowner is going to pay for it one way or another. I’m saying if you pay for it through a CFD, it’s a terribly inefficient way to do a piece of construction.”
Once again, he argued, “We are in an inelastic demand curve and I think that leads to other distortions that we seem unwilling to talk about.”
He said that New Homes is “a mature company.” He asked, “How can a company enter into an agreement with a known set of infrastructure and amenities and a timeline based on all the community demands that were made… how can that happen if they are not sure if they have the revenue to cover it?”
Rochelle Swanson responded that was going on at the time “was basically at an impasse.” At the time, “that’s why the ‘may’ was put in there, it was a compromise with an understanding… that this would be coming back. In fact this should have come back a lot sooner than it did. I agree with you it should have been in there hardcore, but we shouldn’t have ask for what we asked for.”
Councilmember Frerichs would state, “For me it’s about the timing of those items.”
Mayor Pro Tem Davis asked, “Why didn’t you negotiate the timing differently?”
Councilmember Frerichs responded, “Because there was an impasse on the development agreement subcommittee between the former Mayor and myself.”
Mayor Pro Tem said, “I’m really asking one of you who voted for it the last time to reverse your vote. Just get rid of this thing.”
Mayor Dan Wolk argued, “There is no free lunch. The residents are going to pay for this one way or the other. CFD’s are part and parcel to this post-Prop. 13 world where it’s a funding tool for infrastructure.”
“We’re going to be looking at one for Nishi. I suspect we’re going to be looking at them for the business parks. It’s part and parcel of how you finance development in this post-Prop. 13 world,” he said.
He addressed the school parcel tax issue and felt that Lucas Frerichs addressed it well. He stated, “I would not be supporting a CFD if I thought it was jeopardizing schools or somehow jeopardizing their future.”
“This community has supported tax after tax,” he said, even with the Mace Ranch CFD. “Davis voters have been very generous with their schools and the parks and with libraries. They may not continue to do so, but that’s not going to be because of this CFD.”
Rochelle Swanson made the motion to approve the staff report with discussions about the reduction of costs. It was seconded by Lucas Frerichs. Dan Wolk joined them in the majority.
Brett Lee and Robb Davis voted no.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David,
Where is silent Joe Krovosa? He helped negotiate the DA for the city. What is this impasse on the development agreement subcommittee between Joe and Lucas that resulted in the “may” regarding the developer asking for a CFD? What are the specific differences between the CFD and DA for the timeline for the amenities. Are there hard dates in one and not the other? What is the specified qualitative differences? What are the upgrades and cost associated with those upgrades? Just a number of questions that come to mind after reading this article.
Good questions… good luck getting real, truthful, ‘transparent’ answers. Betting that’s not going to be a ‘happening thing’. Appears someone (on CC) is in “spin control” mode. Notice the picture David posted. If the caption is correct, appears Dan and Rochelle are smirking.
last night, someone texted me that there were differences of opinion as to what happened with regards to the subcomittee and the “impasse”. it appears that both rochelle and lucas were trying to blame joe, forgetting of course that they had three votes on council to do whatever they wanted (or at least whatever those three could agree on).
Well, it was the best I had expected. Robb, Brett, thank you for sticking to a principled vote.
First of all, the 4th paragraph under the measure O graph needs to be corrected, Lucas said that NOT Brett.
I was there. Every argument made last night by the majority screamed ILLOGICAL, ILLOGICAL.
Lucas wants the infrastructure fast tracked so people who buy early don’t have to wait for the regular timeline for parks etc. TNHC agreed to a 5 year timeline apparently and in that 5 year time line agreed to pay for all that infrastructure already in the DA, but they need home sales to generate the revenue. So if this is what Lucas now wants, a 5 year loan paid back as homes sell would cover it, NOT a 30 year BOND added to the homeowners tax bill.
Rochelle went on and on about how we promised the community all these great things and we can’t go back on that now. WAIT, it is all already in the DA, TNHC has already contractually agreed to deliver WITHOUT a CFD. What is she talking about?
Dan went on about prop 13, how there is no free lunch and the people who live at the Cannery will need to pay for all the infrastructure one way or the other. Yes they will, and they will pay the highest tax possible because all their homes will be new and expensive and taxed at that assessed rate. Money from the CFD goes to the developer, property tax goes to the city. Then he went on about how we’ll need a CFD for Nishi; what does that have to do with the Cannery and the fact the developer has already agreed to all the infrastructure and a time line for it and will charge the market rate for the homes to pay for it?
Lucas is the only one who made any sense at all why he wanted something, but again, the developer already agreed to pay for that and to do it faster should not entail a 30 year loan paid back by the homeowners, it should entail a 5 year or less loan paid back by the developer and maybe the interest paid by the homeowners. And it CERTAINLY needs to have a clear revised timeline commitment.
What I am about to say is not stated lightly. I am going to come at the discussion of the Cannery CFD last night from a different angle, with a viewpoint that I think is both instructive and meaningful for future reference. Let me preface what I am about to say with the comment that I have great respect for all five sitting City Council members, and I believe they are all trying to do what they think is in the best interests of they city. However the impression I took away from last night’s meeting on the Cannery CFD issue (JMO) was that those Councilmembers expressing the minority view were disrespectful and rude towards the majority view. I was frankly quite surprised and somewhat appalled, particularly because public comment was fairly benign on the subject of the Cannery CFD (kudos to the citizens who spoke up at public comment for remaining polite and non-confrontational). This is why I make the observation of what I deem to be the poor behavior of the minority view:
1. The minority view expressed was often contradictory and illogical, and felt to me as if in their desperation to kill the Cannery CFD they were grasping for any straw they could glom onto;
2. Data to “prove” that Mace Ranch did not support city taxes was clearly “cherry-picked”;
3. Much of the commentary cited by the minority view, that went on at great length, was completely irrelevant;
4. The minority view disparaged the developer agreement with vehemency, literally confronting the majority view Council members as to why they made in effect such a lousy (“lousy” was not the exact word used but that was the gist of what seems to be meant) agreement;
5. Several times with great impatience the minority view rudely cut off the majority view, rather than allowing each City Councilmember to take their turn in expressing views, which was very disrespectful and certainly not according to proper parliamentary procedure;
6. The minority view chose to filibuster, so that the Mayor, who would have liked the opportunity to say more but felt the hour was growing too late, had to eventually call the question.
7. The minority view seemed to feel the need to raise their voices to be very strident, at one point patently insisting at least one majority member switch their vote away from support of the Cannery CFD, while those City Council members with the majority view remained cool, calm, and professional.
I realize that in the heat of the moment one can get worked up about an issue, and I will chalk last night’s performance up to the extreme passion felt by the minority view for their way of thinking and their frustration they could not budge the majority’s position. But I would urge those holding the minority view to review the video of this meeting, and ask themselves if it wouldn’t have been better to tone it down a few notches, as well as practice proper decorum and civility in the City Council chamber, remembering not to cut off fellow City Council members when they are speaking.
And here is my gravest concern: this does not bode well for innovation park discussions in the future. The innovation parks will be contentious issues in their own right, because of so many competing interests in this town. It will be extremely important for City Council members to express their views in a way that is thoughtful, truthful, respectful, allows for everyone to explain their positions fully without interruption, and not point fingers of blame as to why a Council member holds a certain view or engaged in negotiations in the past in a particular way.
No disrespect was meant from my comments, but it is offered as constructive criticism, and is only my perspective of what I witnessed last night. Others may feel differently. But I do not want to see incivility creep back into City Council discussions. It is never comfortable to be on the losing side of an issue, but nevertheless it is important to keep cool under fire no matter the circumstances, especially in light of the innovation park discussions coming up in the very near future.
Although there are many of your points I strongly disagree with, note that I previously posted, and still believe, that in regards to non-residential developments, CFD’s are fine. Why? Non-residential buyers/investors/entrepeneurs are “sophisticated” as to “pencilling things out”, compared to SFR buyers. They buy in, with “eyes wide open”, calculators, spreadsheets in hand. If not, they will exit the economic gene pool early.
Tying the arguments against this particular CFD to the innovation parks is total, unmitigated male/’unaltered’ bovine excrement.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but was the disrespectful way it was expressed necessary? Can we agree to disagree without the nastiness?
If, and only if, you can.
“while those City Council members with the majority view remained cool, calm, and professional.” Of course. They had a “lock”, knew it, and may well have told Lucas that he was toast if he bolted. The minority only did what they had to do. But perhaps you have a general belief that “minorities” should limit their input, and suck it up, politely, when the majority is doing “wrong things”. Am sure Ferguson, MO officials will appreciate that “general belief”, if indeed you hold it. No, am not equating the CFD action to what happened in Ferguson. Am equating the idea that ‘minority’ ideas should “suck it up” and “quiet down”, when it is obvious that the ‘majority’ has already decided something.
Sorry, I don’t agree with cutting off City Council members in mid sentence; don’t agree with the blame game, especially when the person blaming does not have the facts and is clueless, I don’t agree with cherry-picking data; I don’t believe in bringing in irrelevant issues; nor do I believe it appropriate to filibuster – no matter which side of an issue one might be on. Apparently we will have to agree to disagree on this issue, and I don’t feel the need to disagree with you by talking about excrement!
Ok, so you have a problem with Dan bringing Nishi and the other innovation centers into the discussion (irrelevant). You have a problem with Rochelle’s bringing “past council actions” into the discussion [CC cannot bind future CC’s on policy, as it definitely was not “contractural” (also irrelevant)]
“No disrespect was meant from my comments”. Yeah, right. Did you not say, ” contradictory and illogical, and felt to me as if in their desperation to kill the Cannery CFD they were grasping for any straw they could glom onto”, “clearly “cherry-picked”, ” was completely irrelevant“, “rudely cut off”, “chose to filibuster“, “very strident, at one point patently insisting“, ” very disrespectful and certainly not according to proper parliamentary procedure”, ” does not have the facts and is clueless”?
Yeah, no “disrespect” expressed at all.
Am pretty sure you regard the vote as a “win” (tho’ I can’t image why), and now feel a need to slam the those who didn’t agree, and felt strongly enough about their convictions to try to get a third vote for their view. Democracy/advocacy has to be constrained and deferential, right?
If a council majority chooses to give away the store to developers of the business parks, I hope those discussions get contentious.
The store was not given away to the Cannery last night, if you listened carefully to the discussion.
absolutely it was. rochelle was completely wrong when she said now wasn’t the time to ask for more form the developers. of course it was because they wanted $12 million of community money. i have lost complete faith now in wolk, frerichs and sadly swanson.
To DP: The developer agreement negotiations were over. Only the CFD was at issue. To not approve a CFD would have meant the developer would have been forced to phase in amenities and downgrade amenities in quality. Suddenly the nice “innovative” and attractive Canneyr development would not have been no “innovative” nor attractive. Council member Rochelle Swanson was absolutely correct.
Where and when did this reality intrude on the sales push for The Cannery that took place before the project was approved? When did you, as a strong advocate of The Cannery project, become aware of the likelihood that those amenities might need to be “phased in”?
no, the developer reopened negotiations when they wanted the city to pass a cfd.
Anon
I personally do not like the phrase “store given away”. However, I have a serious question for you that I did not hear addressed by any of the majority either in private or public communications. Who other than the developer do you believe actually benefitted ( beyond the $750,000) which I have already stated that I see as the only “goodie” being offered from the CFD and neglgible in terms of the amount they stand to gain? What tangible or intangible benefit is there to anyone other than the developer ?
If you can lay out a confirmable benefit to any other member of our community, I will seriously reassess my position.
“The store” has nothing to do with it. The CC majority merely increased the developer’s profit at the expense of SFR buyers. No skin off my, or the rest of the community’s nose, financially at least. CFD’s can work great for non-residential developments… with everyone’s eyes open wide. I’ll be the LAST to oppose a CFD for the innovation park proposals, and likely will question anyone who opposes those potential CFD’s.
This is not true. CFD or not amenities will be phased in, without a CFD in place it might take a little longer, but from what I understand we are looking at 5 years at the longest. The quality of the amenities are not tied to the CFD. It baffles me why this statement was even made.
Think the terms that apply are “spin control” and “cover” (as in CYA).
“2. Data to “prove” that Mace Ranch did not support city taxes was clearly “cherry-picked”;”
that’s not true at all. the data was the last four elections. how is that cherry picked? if anything the data YOU presented (with wrong information at points) was more misleading going back ten years. it also appears that you pulled it from lucas’ email.
Oh the information by the minority view was definitely cherry-picked, and Lucas tried to point that out before he was rudely cut off.
you didn’t answer the question – how is pointing out the last four elections cherry-picking?
How about the last 8 elections? How about showing how other parts of Davis voted, which in the last election was similar to Mace?
the problem is that up until 2008, we were voting on renewing a $100 a year parcel tax. they were non-competitive elections. that started to change when the parcel taxes increased. the last four elections show the recent trend. brett’s analysis teased that out.
“3. Much of the commentary cited by the minority view, that went on at great length, was completely irrelevant;”
how was robb’s commentary that the developers agreed to the developer agreement without a guarantee of a cfd completely irrelevant?
Oh there was plenty of detail that was completely irrelevant to the discussion.
yes but you had the long discussion on prop 13 that took up like 20 minutes and was completely unnecessary
The Prop 13 discussion was completely relevant, and was rudely cut off, which was completely inappropriate.
Prop 13 is maybe a year older than Dan Wolk himself. It’s a firm and immutable reality of state and local financing and has been for decades. Barely relevant.
how was the prop 13 discussion relevant to the issue of whether the city should approve a cfd? to me this comment just proves that your picking and choosing what’s relevant based on your view of the issue not on any sort of objective basis.
Prop-13 is the new political narrative of the Democrat-union political machine. Note, it is NOT run away spending on government employees including their absurd early retirement defined benefit pensions and OPEB… it is that nasty Prop-13 that has and is bankrupting the state and cities. If you are a Democrat political insider you got the memo… TARGET PROP-13 AS THE BLAME SO PEOPLE DON’T TURN ON THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS!!!
“4. The minority view disparaged the developer agreement with vehemency, literally confronting the majority view Council members as to why they made in effect such a lousy (“lousy” was not the exact word used but that was the gist of what seems to be meant) agreement;”
i’d argue the opposite. they held up the da as the agreement that was going to change.
The minority view literally started shouting, demanding to know why every single detail had not been nailed down in the DA. When Rochelle tried to explain she was rudely cut off and more shouting ensued. The same thing happened to Lucas. It was embarrassing to watch such disrespect.
i didn’t hear any shouting. there was discussion back and forth. i don’t recall anyone being cut off.
Then watch again – because it very much did happen – the video will prove it. It was quite frankly out of character and very disrespectful, so I chalk it up to the heat of the moment.
I did not witness any shouting. I did witness some eye rolling, snarky looks, and giggling, and not from the high school kids.
Anon, your comment gave me a sense of deja vu … taking me back to the Water Advisory Committee meeting of December 13, 2012. The parallels between certain aspects of that meeting and last night’s CFD discussion are noteworthy. In both cases there was a Council Majority vote as background. Mayor ProTem Davis cited the November 12, 2013 Council vote last night. Elaine Roberts Musser cited the December 11, 2012 Council vote at the referenced Water Advisory Committee meeting. Both Robb and Elaine argued strongly, passionately, thoroughly and with volume of voice that the respective Council decision they were referencing should be clearly and prominently honored. As a member of the WAC at the time, I both respected Elaine’s opinion that night and disagreed with it. Many of my fellow WAC members commented after that WAC meeting that they felt that Elaine was “lecturing us.” I disagreed with my fellow WAC members. Elaine was both clear and logical in her arguments that night, just as Robb was clear and logical in his arguments last night. Elaine had organized her thoughts prior to speaking that night and as such her points came across forcefully. Robb had organized his thoughts prior to speaking last night and as such his points came across forcefully. In both cases I see that as “good democracy in action” rather than “embarrassing to watch such disrespect.” My hat is off to both Elaine and Robb, for in their own ways fighting to make Davis a better place.
“6. The minority view chose to filibuster, so that the Mayor, who would have liked the opportunity to say more but felt the hour was growing too late, had to eventually call the question.”
the mayor said his piece.
No, he was not able to say his “piece”, said so, but in the interests of time called the vote.
he said he wasn’t going to but then he proceeded to talk for five minutes laying out his key points. we were joking that it wasn’t even that late, dan could have gone for another five minutes, but he knew he had the votes, so why bother? that was the bigger factor.
Try and parse it any way you want, Dan stated from the dais he wanted to say more but in the interests of time he called the question. I take Dan at his word.
He was “was able”, but made a ‘choice’ not to pursue it. His choice, no one took that away from him. I call BS on anyone who says otherwise. He counted to three… he knew there was no need.
exactly nobody stopped dan from spending another five minutes on the topic, he chose to call the question because he had the votes.
“I was frankly (because you aren’t) quite surprised and somewhat appalled (because you are) . . . “
Anon-As someone who was also in attendance I have to say I came away with a very different perception of how the meeting and council members conducted themselves.
I would say the opposite was true. Brett and Robb were staying focused on the Cannery and the development agreement, while many times other council member who supported the CFD continued to discuss Prop 13, which IMO has little relevance in this discussion.
This statement is very confusing to me, as again, Brett and Robb were both focused on The Cannery which is relevant, unlike the lengthy conversations that occurred from others about the mostly irrelevant Prop 13.
This is completely off base, and factually inaccurate. Neither Brett or Robb disparaged the contents of the developer agreement. Robb did question why, if the CFD was so essential to the project, it was not included in the developer agreement. As an aside, I found the answer to this question, disturbing. (see my post below).
This just didn’t happen.
Just because you think the minority was “filibustering” does not make it true. I don’t think it is fair of you to present your perception as fact.
Yes, Robb did ask one of the majority members to switch their vote, but he did it, like he does most things in a respectful and dignified way.
““How can a company enter into an agreement with a known set of infrastructure and amenities and a timeline based on all the community demands that were made… how can that happen if they are not sure if they have the revenue to cover it?”
I can answer this question from a very straight forward point of view. They can certainly do it if they can count to three and be relatively assured that the majority will vote in their favor and that those votes will hold through a challenge. This is exactly what I see as happening here. The developers where betting that they had enough CC votes to come through on the “may” built into the contract. And their bet has paid off for them and for those who believe that it is the job of the city to act in favor of one specific group, namely business and developers, at the potential cost to others as CC member Frerichs admitted when he said that future voting patterns might be a concern.
There you go again, assuming that if someone was in favor of the Cannery CFD, they feel it is the job of the city to act in favor of developers. You certainly don’t speak for me, and I doubt you speak for the majority view on the City Council.
i think the votes were sincere in this case, there was simply honest disagreement on the best thing for the city. however, there was an agreement that they signed, had john munn gotten a few hundred more votes last june, there would have been no cfd and the new homes folks would have had to have lived with it.
What does John Munn have to do with anything? Talk about bringing in irrelevant issues and grasping at straws!
Damn, I hate when I have to agree with you, DP, but I do on this post.
[although, there is no way I’d vote for Mr Munn]
“I’ll be the LAST to oppose a CFD for the innovation park proposals, and likely will question anyone who opposes those potential CFD’s.” For me, their is a much bigger issue here than CFD or no CFD. For me, this is a process and yes, as Rochelle pointed out, an integrity issue. When a deal is made contractually with the city as a participant to that deal, the terms should be clear and transparent to all. And I would go further and say that the entire city should be the appropriate constituency, not merely one developer. It may well be true as Lucas has stated that for him, it was always clear that the possibility of the CFD approval was always there. What he does not note is that while it was clear to him as a negotiator of the deal, it certainly was not clear to many members of the community that he was elected and sworn to serve. Rochelle is willing to claim that this is about integrity, but seems to define that only in terms of what is best for the developer, not what has potential to harm other members of the community has admitted by Lucas, albeit indirectly. Where is the “integrity” when we are considering the well being of the community as a whole ? And where is the transparency ? Why was this not presented as an incomplete contract straight up before the final council vote on the Cannery when special negotiations with select groups were occurring between the developer and well defined constituencies pushing their own agendas right up until the afternoon of the vote ? I am sure that Lucas as one of the negotiators is telling the truth when he said that he knew it was there. So why not go public with that knowledge prior to the vote unless it was known that this would be controversial and there was the hope that it might slide by unnoticed as it appears to have done except for a vocal minority. As Anon pointed out, we do not know the view of the majority because it has appeared that they have not yet weighed in. I hope that the flaws of this process do not come home to roost in other ways that may be more detrimental to the city over all.
Well said. I agree.
Time has stopped.
I had trouble responding to your comment because time had stopped.
Anon
You are certainly correct that I do not speak for the CC majority.
However, I would again separate stated intent from the consequence of actions. Of course none of the majority would say, at least in public, that their vote was specifically to benefit the developer. They might not even believe that themselves. But once again, I would ask the very simple question.
Who, other than the developer, was helped by the majority vote ?
You could make a case that the CFD option was allowed during initial DA negotiations as a compromise between disagreeing parties in order to actually secure a DA.
But this reminds me of the US negotiations with Iran… a bad agreement is worse than no agreement, IMO.
The problem with that view is that they didn’t need Joe’s vote, they already had three. Also, at least some involved dispute the recollection of the councilmembers from last night.
David, “some involved dispute …”? Care to elaborate?
Since it was not on the record, all I can say is that there seems to be a difference of opinion as to what happened on the developer agreement.
Maybe they had three with the CFD option included, but not three without it.
Huh? The three that voted to approve the Cannery are the same three that are supporting the CFD. Unless one of them has changed positions on the CFD since the developer agreement was signed this argument make no sense.
That was my point. Maybe there was one or more demanding amenities that the developer and other CC members (Joe, Steve?, Fred?) did not want and the compromise was the CFD. And now it is time to vote for that thing that got it passed.
Stock tip… since New Homes is a publicly traded entity, BUY. Today.
Actually just checked. Stock is up 4.3% SINCE LAST WEEK. Obviously, investors could count to three. Suggest HOLD. [NWHM]
What this has shown to me is that the majority of this City Council cannot be trusted to act in the City’s best interests when the City’s interests compete with developer interests. I am going to be extremely skeptical about any claims those three make about the proposed innovation parks and their supposed benefits to the City. This was their chance to show where their priorities lie and they did. Thanks to Robb and Brett for acting in the interests of the City and the future community members of the Cannery.
exactly
To davisite4: No surprise there… but remember those who voted against the Cannery CFD were the minority view.
the minority view on council, i think a majority in the community.
The importance of the next council election is becoming increasingly apparent.
To DP: Now that is entirely your opinion, that the minority council view on this issue represents the majority view of citizens. Certainly not according to the people I talk with; certainly not according to viewpoints expressed during public comment.
of course it’s entirely my opinion. i told you what it was based on.
here’s my view based on conversations with people in the community and commentary elsewhere – the majority on council does not represent the majority of the people of davis. that’s a real problem. i see that winters for instance voted down a cfd due to the fairness issue.
And you know that the majority on the City Council do not represent the majority of people in Davis how? The people I talk to seem to think otherwise, particularly on the Cannery CFD issue. In fact, public comment was split fairly evenly over the issue last night – which does not back up your contention – and despite the Vanguard’s commentary to try and sway the vote away from approving the CFD.
The scuttlebutt around town seems to be the usual suspects (who oppose growth and who were opposed to the Cannery) were opposed to the Cannery CFD. Stop and think about that statement for a while…
that sounds good except that you had a number of people last night who spoke up against the cfd who were in favor of cannery – glick, kidd, the other developer.
Interesting comment Anon… if there were 5000 voters, and something passed 2501 to 2499, it clearly is a “majority”, but also clearly not a “mandate”. Only 5 votes mattered last night. Only one voter affected the outcome. You won.
Public Commenters last night
Jim Kidd – strongly against this CFD
Donna Lemongello – strongly against this CFD
Michelle Millet – strongly against this CFD
Matt Yancy – strongly supports this CFD
Mike Berry – against this CFD
Elaine Roberts Musser – strongly supports this CFD
Matt Williams – strongly against this CFD
Ron Glick – against this CFD
Ken Wagstaff – strongly against this CFD
Anon, looking at the nine public commenters, how do you see them as fairly even over the issue last night?
I did not speak against the CFD last night, I spoke against the way our council was handling it’s negations with the developer. Here is what I said,
“When the city enters negotiations with a developer, like the one we are currently in with The New Homes Company regarding it’s request to form a Community Funded District~ I believe as council members, it your responsibility and duty to advocate for, and represent the community in these negotiations.
When this issue was before you a month ago, I watched Council Member Brett Lee and Mayor-Pro Tem Robb Davis do just this. They expressed concerns over the potential negative impacts a CFD might have on our community at large, and the negative financial impacts it may have on future homeowners in the Cannery. They also put forth ideas on how some of these negative impacts could be mitigated by the developer. In short they advocated for the community.
Unfortunately the got little support from the rest of the council, who seemed instead, at times to be representing the developer. There was a sense from members of council that the The New Homes Company was unquestionable entitled to the 12 million dollars that would come with formation of a CFD. One council member even stated that it would show a lack of integrity on the council’s part not to approve the developer’s request.
I would argue that it shows a lack of integrity on councils part not to consider and take seriously the potential negative impacts the formation of the proposed CFD may have on our community, and make every effort to negotiate with the developers to mitigate these concerns, and to attempt to negotiate better terms for the city, before basically writing The New Homes Company a check for 12 million dollars.
As we move forward with this development project, and any future developments including the innovation parks, I hope all the council members will keep in mind that it is the developer’s job to advocate for developers interests, and it is your job to advocate for ours.”
My bad Michelle. I heard your comments as being against the CFD. With that apology made, in your comments were you stating that you were for the CFD?
Matt, it does not change the fact, but you counted me twice 🙂
That is the Wrigley effect . . . you are double good!
Or you could call it the Blackjack effect . . . double donn – a
In addition, most of those citizens were originally in favor of the Cannery
Was Matt Yancey speaking as a private citizen, or on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce?
On behalf of the Chamber
Anon, here too the list of public commenters last night is illustrative
Jim Kidd – I believe he supported the Cannery
Donna Lemongello – I believe she supported the Cannery
Michelle Millet – I believe she opposed the Cannery
Matt Yancy – I believe he supported the Cannery
Mike Berry – I don’t know where he stood on the Cannery
Elaine Roberts Musser – I believe she supported the Cannery
Matt Williams – I supported the Cannery as it was configured in the end
Ron Glick – I believe he supported the Cannery
Ken Wagstaff – I believe he opposed the Cannery
Add me to that list of those supporting growth and the Cannery who is also opposed to the CFD.
No, I did not oppose the Cannery, and I would appreciate it if you stopped guessing, and misrepresenting how people, including myself, stand on issues.
For the recored, if I had been on council at the time, I would have voted with Brett Lee and Joe Krovoza, not because I opposed the Cannery but because I opposed the proposed developer agreement.
I believe that statement stands on its own. If you check your phone log you will see that I called you to attempt to confirm directly with you. I did get secondary corroboration that you supported Brett’s and Joe’s “No” votes.
Jim Kidd – I believe he supported the Cannery
Donna Lemongello – I believe she supported the Cannery
Michelle Millet – I believe she opposed the Cannery
Matt Yancy – I believe he supported the Cannery
Mike Berry – I don’t know where he stood on the Cannery
Elaine Roberts Musser – I believe she supported the Cannery
Matt Williams – I supported the Cannery as it was configured in the end
Ron Glick – I believe he supported the Cannery
Ken Wagstaff – I believe he opposed the Cannery
Alan Miller – Isn’t going to say if he supported The Cannery or not; and if you care to guess rather than ask, I’ll tell you to [expletive delted] [expletive deleted] where the sun doesn’t shine.
What I don’t support is the increasing frequency with which the head, the boarders, and the commenters of this [expletive to guess at] bloggie put in writing what they think another said/believes.
Time to ask instead of thinking you so smart; that goes for all of yous . . . but of course the world (Davis) revolves around those that comment in the Vanguard.
What I WILL say is that I am in favor of rebuilding the original cannery, because I absolutely loved and do miss the smell of burnt tomatoes in the summertime.
Ahhhhh . . . . . those were the daze.
Alan, the qualifier “I believe …” was very consciously and purposely used by me.
Hey A-Non and DP: how many Davis citizens in the majority does it take to dance on the head of a pin?
One, but his name has to be Lucas.
hpierce
“Tying the arguments against this particular CFD to the innovation parks is total, unmitigated male/’unaltered’ bovine excrement.”
While this may be true from a strictly factual point of view, votes like any other political act, as our friend Frankly has frequently pointed out, are frequently based on perception as they are on fact. Philosophy, viewpoint, and vision do matter in political behavior as much or possibly more than just the numbers.
Here we have the perception, if not the reality, that the majority of our council is biased towards developers and businesses at potential cost to other members of the community. When you add to this perception the quote from one of the majority that Davis should, as a community “grow as fast as we can” and from the dais , the idea that this was a matter of “integrity” in dealing with the developer fairly, I think that you have the basis at least for the argument that the majority of the council is not unbiased when it comes to development in general and will favor business interests over the interests of any other group not because they are evil or duplicitous, but because they have bought into the idea that if something is good for business, it must be good for everyone else and that we can and should “grow our way out of trouble”.
Some might argue that these admittedly “cherry picked “quotes are “twisting her words”. I feel differently. I believe that this is a matter of taking her at her word and that this philosophy of business above all else is being born out through the current actions of the majority.
“Here we have the perception, if not the reality, that the majority of our council is biased towards developers and businesses at potential cost to other members of the community.”
This is your perception, and those of some of the commenters on this blog. But these perceptions are not necessarily the perceptions of the majority of citizens of Davis. In fact, City Council members advised me they had not received much in the way of communications from the public on the issue of the Cannery CFD. Public comment for the B Street issue went on far longer than public comment for the Cannery CFD issue.
how do you know what the perception of the majority of the citizens is? we saw an interesting cross section last night – only two people from the public spoke in favor of it.
The “majority” of the citizens of Davis are at least as “clueless” as you have accused CC dissenters to be on the issue at hand.
And, the majority of the Davis citizens, on the CFD, frankly don’t give a damn.
“And, the majority of the Davis citizens, on the CFD, frankly don’t give a damn.”
Until someone runs into a CFD that someone left in the bike line for the claw to pick up.
Sorry, Tia… by environment growing up, natural instinct, and training, I tend to be “factual” as much as I can. My “bad”, but not about to change.
hpierce
Factual is great and I have built a career around it. I just don’t ever anticipate that my patients will be working on the same basis. To do so would have led me to a great deal of disappointment in my life. This is why I make such a big deal about separating out fact from my opinion when posting and citing my sources when I am asserting that something is factual or at least evidence based.
“Here we have the perception, if not the reality, that the majority of our council is biased towards developers and businesses at potential cost to other members of the community.”
I take umbrage at this comment. Once again Tia has shown her bias against the business sector. I have not heard a single business owner publicly or privately support the CFD. Quite the contrary (Frankly, Shor, myself, etc.). All business owners I know have expressed skepticism regarding this CFD being in the best interest of the community. We are all entirely perplexed by the CC action in this regard. It is entirely a political drama having nothing to do with business, which is why the official Chamber position on the issue is so confounding.
-Michael
Anon
“But these perceptions are not necessarily the perceptions of the majority of citizens of Davis. In fact, City Council members advised me they had not received much in the way of communications from the public on the issue of the Cannery CFD.”
Agreed. But since this issue does not seem to have generated much concern off the Vanguard, we simply do not know the perceptions of the majority. We may or may not become apprised of their opinion when it comes time to make decisions on the “innovation parks” or future parcel taxes.
I would hate to see innovation park controversies “created” for the sake of bolstering certain minority viewpoints overly represented. I want honest discussion, not behind the scenes maneuvering/gamemanship.
How would you know those are minority viewpoints?
obviously, because Anon doesn’t hold “those” viewpoints.
I, for one would try to put a kibash (sp?) on any CFD issue on the innovation parks. That, truly, would be irrelevant, unless proposed as a city-wide CFD. In the latter case it would be a “death-knell”. Just don’t see that even being suggested.
Anon
“I want honest discussion, not behind the scenes maneuvering/gamemanship.”
Even if it is only me, there is one viewpoint that pretending that the word “may” and the word “will” have the same meaning might to some seem to be very close to “behind the scenes maneuvering/ gamesmanship” that you seem to abhor.
I wish I could have attended the meeting. It sounds to me like previous council punted on the negotiations to get the DA executed with some verbal acknowledgement that the CFD would be an acceptable mechanism for the city to get all their goodies.
And if this did verbal agreement did take place, people need to understand how this impacts the developer. Most business, especially large business, uses the accrual accounting method. They also have to complete projections with assumptions for future revenue and expenses that fold in to budgeting and strategic plans. Then management manages to those accruals, plans and assumptions. Management is accountable for the expected results. And when there is a transaction that adversely impacts the expected results, it is managements’ responsibility to prevent it.
So, if there were verbal agreements about a future CFD, those agreements would have resulted in expectations for the developer that then turned into accountability for management to achieve the planned results. The argument “the developer is making enough so he can afford to accept the $12 million hit.” does not hold water with respect to how business really works. The error would have been made previously when the previous Council verbally agreed to stuff the CFD into the agreement in order to actually have a DA that all parties would agree to.
I am still onboard with the minority on this, but NOT because of any concern about monetary impacts to future Cannery buyers… (and I urge any of you continuing down that path to consider that your arguments will put up in the IRRATIONAL camp.) … and NOT because I think it will impact future parcel tax votes… but for two simple reasons:
1. TRUST – How can voters trust a City Council that does not stand firm on this DA to stand firm on future DAs for the innovation parks? The can’t now.
2. FUTURE COSTS – 10-20 years down the road the Cannery owners will grow fussy that theirs is no longer that shiny and new development and demand that the city absorb the remaining cost of the 30-year note. This is essentially more can kicking down the road.
Mayor Dan kept making the Prop-13 point. That is weak-ass stuff. Sort of like continuing to blame Bush for everything wrong with the economy and terrorism. It was weak-ass negotiations upfront to get an ironed out DA, and weak-ass city management to demand the developer comply with the terms of the DA. There is a bunch of weak-ass leadership on display… except from Brett and Robb. And I completely disagree with Anon (although I appreciate his thoughts) that Brett and Robb were out of line. It is about time that at least some of the CC demonstrate some backbone to do what they think is right for the city.
In the end we all need to accept some responsibility for this end result. We demand our goodies. We attempt to leverage the artificial scarcity of developments from our no-growth history to get as many as we can. But we tend to over-shoot. Our expectations for getting everything and getting perfection cloud what little business sense we own. Again, it isn’t the final assessment of what the developer makes that we should use to drive our opinion for how things should play out post agreement… it is the negotiated expectation of the overall project return that the developer has entered in his books and plans.
So, my point here is that the history of negotiations is where the conflict is. There is a need to know what was actually agreed to (verbally and otherwise), and then we need to demand greater transparency and greater strong-ass negotiations going forward.
As I have written before, the problem as I see it is that we have city leadership lacking enough business sense. Time to grow it as we move into more series work to develop an innovation park or two.
Now all you have to do is explain why they use accrual rather than cash accounting. 🙂
They didn’t hold firm on the Second Street Crossing development agreement, either. As far as I can tell, developers generally just consider development agreements to be placeholders, subject to change as needed. There’s a fine line between flexibility and contortion.
For complex business with significant accounts payable and accounts receivable, the accrual methods leads to a more accurate accounting of how the business is really doing. However, it also demands that the business keep tabs on cash flow as the books don’t really report cash in and cash out. This is another consideration… the developer is not pressured to achieve results on a single project/sale… the pressure is for the entire company to achieve the expected results. In the case where some transactions and projects fail to meet expectations, it will put pressure on other projects and transactions to exceed expectations in order to make up the difference.
This is the reason that overall performance of a company should be a factor in selection and also for the terms of an agreement. If Davis is known for weak-ass negotiations, developer company management will target DAs with Davis as the ones that can be pushed to exceed expectations. The word gets out pretty quickly.
We don’t want to be THAT city. We want to be the city and says what we mean and means what we say. We want the developers to recognize upfront that we will negotiate hard for a good agreement and then enforce the terms. We want the developer business to look elsewhere for opportunities to exceed their expectations for returns.
Exactly… although I probably see it as a more definitive wider line.
I think part of our problem is that we lack collective leadership experience for development because we do so little of it. And then this problem is acerbated by us looking at those few developments as a crown jewel that must shine with every consideration of Davis DNA.
Think about it… you don’t have much experience buying a car, and when you go into the dealership you provide a long list of all the features you demand down to the last detail. Then the dealer finds that one car matching all of your requirements and you can’t understand why he is demanding a premium price for it.
Picky and demanding = higher expense. That, we should accept. But what we absolutely should not accept is weak-ass agreements and weak-ass management of the terms of the agreements.
“And I completely disagree . . . that Brett and Robb were out of line. It is about time that at least some of the CC demonstrate some backbone to do what they think is right for the city.”
Seems some equate strength and conviction with verbal abuse. I suspect this comes from being brought up by a verbally abusive person.
btw anon, how come when you talked about the unpleasantries you focused on robb davis rather than the rather obvious and low blow shots taken by both rochelle and lucas against joe?
This was the most disturbing interactions to me last night. The answer to why the CFD was not made mandatory in the development agreement was because it created an “impasse”. Council Member Frerich’s attributes this to Joe Korvoza’s lack of support. So did they just let it slide, thinking when it came back up again Joe would be gone, so they wouldn’t have to worry about it? Is this how we negotiate something of this importance with developer?
I was just thinking… are some of our elected officials in over their heads dealing with the innovation parks? Bringing in Rob White was an indication that then current CC got it. However, he has been largely silenced since the new CM was selected. Now this CFD fiasco starts to look like it was amateur hour at our side of the negotiating table. These developments are big projects and the developer is bringing his big guns to the table. If we have inexperienced people in city leadership positions sitting on the other side of the table, Davis residents are going to face greater risks getting a bad deal.
One the one hand, all of the CC members say they support economic development and some more housing development. I believe them. I think the question comes down to their capability to see it through.
People writing songs that voices never shared
No one dared
Disturb the sound of silence
– Simon & Garfunkel
Ah, but the words of the prophets are written on the blog-way walls, Olive Drive halls. Better there than on the UP fence, right? On the last, totally agree with your comments on that subject last night, Alan.
HP,
I appreciate you agree with me on that subject . . .
. . . although I would be surprised there would be many in this town that would disagree with me, except the taggers!
Perhaps it is my approach that you praise . . . annoying the railroad and the City mercilessly into compliance?
Alan… a “court of last resort”, but it seems you have tried all the “normal” channels. It is my experience that when “normal” channels don’t work, the “abnormal”/confrontational ones need to be tried. Long explanation to say, yes I understand and support your tactics/”approach”. Ghandi and others, even when they were “voices in the wilderness”, have accomplished many good things.
“Ghandi and others, even when they were “voices in the wilderness”, have accomplished many good things.”
Wow . . . . . I’ve been compared to Ghandi in the Vanguard comments.
You ain’t there, Alan, but suggest that might you could aspire to. Or, you could be the “stopped clock” that is right twice a day. In my view, you’re a “tweener” between those two extremes. I’d like to think I’m in the same “tweener” class. That’s for others to judge.
Regardless of whether homeowners will pay for infrastructure features now or later (and forever), folks do not like surprises – not in their private life, not in their work life, and especially not in public life when it comes to money.
Someone in a decision-making position played a gambling game of “hide the ball.” The use of a CFD should have been abundantly transparent from the very beginning and not sprung upon the community at the “13th hour.” It reminds me of cute procedure (“low-balling”) that lobbyists use in Sacramento – amending a bill with just a few weeks left in session and juicing legislative leaders so the public does not have time to review the new bill before it passes.
Playing hide the ball = not a good game to play, at least with adults. Kids OK.
“It reminds me of cute procedure (“low-balling”) that lobbyists use in Sacramento – amending a bill with just a few weeks left in session and juicing legislative leaders so the public does not have time to review the new bill before it passes.”
Weeks? I was following a bill with a coalition that was working with the authors on changes, and the night before around midnight (we imagine in a smoke-filled room) the bill was gutted and amended and passed the next morning in the last day of session!
Working in Sacramento for a few years you realize everything said about sausage making is far worse than one ever would have believe. My advice: don’t eat sausage.
Damn… love sausage, but only about once a month… point well taken, though…
I’d like to know more about this supposed “impasse” that possibly led to a verbal agreement, if my math is correct.
It seems illogical to me to negotiate the smallest of details on a huge development (for Davis), and to then kick the can down the road on infrastructure, amenities, and $10 Million. It smells. It smells like a backdoor fee, a massive bonus to the developers. Just put it on the front steps when they buy the darn houses.
I listened in person for an hour and later on the website on the iphone.
Heard both sides; bottom line for me goes for simplicity and lack of government involvement. Brett and Robb convinced me, going the CFD route would involve government rather than a transaction between buyer and seller; involving gov’t will lead to higher costs. As well, the cost is not hidden in a direct transaction.
“TRUST – How can voters trust a City Council that does not stand firm on this DA to stand firm on future DAs for the innovation parks? The can’t now.”
When Frankly and I are in agreement, you know that something really bad must have occurred. This just keeps sounding worse and worse the more I hear about it. I do not know that much about financing, or business, or economics. But trust is something that my reputation and career are built upon. Before making an important life decision, my patients have to know that I am sharing with them the truth as I know it, and the full truth, not just the parts I want to share. I know a great deal about the establishment of trust and this is not the way that trust is created.
no come on tia, this is just a bunch of people who are anti-growth and anti- the cannery, whining about sour grapes (sarcasm)
so anon, i think your notion that the comments were evenly split and that the opposition are just anti-cannery people has been debunked. agreed?
Might be a topic for “myth busters”. Think the myth is pretty clearly “busted”. But for some, a myth is as good as a mile,
Or, a smile.