On Tuesday night, the Davis City Council voted to create the Sports Park Task Force, amending the composition slightly to allow for each councilmember to select one member each, with the rest of the composition from the pre-designated groups.
The Vanguard pointed out earlier this week that the make up of the task force was heavily skewed, or stacked, in favor of those who would support having a task force.
This was an issue that Elaine Roberts Musser raised, noting that if the purpose is “to explore the idea of what a sports park would look like or that sort of thing, I don’t really have a problem with the make up.”
But, she added, “There’s been a point raised by the Vanguard that is this fair if what you’re talking about is whether we need a sports park. That’s what you need to make very clear.”
For Councilmember Rochelle Swanson who made the motion, the issue isn’t whether we need a sports complex. She said, “We know we need a sports complex.” She said anyone who has had a kid in sports in this community knows what it’s like to be in a car driving across the region.
“The idea for the task is it’s not if, because we do need it, it becomes the where and the how,” she said.
But does everyone else in this community agree with Councilmember Swanson? Shouldn’t the first question we ask be whether we need a sports park?
There are several problems I keep coming back to on this issue. The first is that we have increasingly finite resources in our community and a growing list of needs from roads to parks to infrastructure to bike paths, city buildings and pools.
It is all well and good to say we can separate the question of a sports complex from the question about a utility user tax or a parcel tax. But in the end, whether it is roads, parks, sports complex, or school parcel tax – it is one pie and a bunch of competing needs.
The question, therefore, is probably poorly cast as needs versus wants, and more properly cast as where it falls on the list of expensive priorities.
There was a report this week that CalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System) officials are preparing for the fact that, with the retirement of baby boomers, payouts will exceed fund contributions. Therefore, the retirement fund is once again considering a proposal to lower its assumed rate of return, even following several periods of strong performances.
This change would once again require the city to pay more into the system to keep it running.
Part of the problem that we face here in Davis, along with the rest of the state, is that decisions we made 10 to 20 years ago have repercussions now that will impact our ability to commit to new projects.
I also very respectfully disagree with Elaine Roberts Musser on her comment – I still have a problem with the make up of the committee even if the question is “how” rather than “if.”
Here’s why that remains important, and it has to do with the funding mechanisms.
While the ability of each councilmember to appoint their own representation is crucial and could mitigate some of my concerns – I think there is a danger that if you have a committee with only one person who understands the state of the city’s finances, those considerations will be under-appreciated by the body overall.
The danger I see rests in the nature of sports leagues in the city. What happens is people get involved in them when their kids are young and in sports, and then when their kids grow up, they drop out of their involvement.
So the people involved today will not be the same people involved in even in five years, and certainly in 10 years. Without the perpetual commitment of the sports league, funding sources are likely to wither and dry up, and that leaves the city in a bind – do they allow their assets to deteriorate or do they pump public money into them to make sure that the fields are safe and well-maintained?
This week I laid out the thin line that the city is perched on for being able to pay its bills. And in some ways, as a reader rightly pointed out, I actually gave the city budget more credit than it deserved.
I stated that the city is in the black. That was technically true. But the reality is that the city faces far more in deferred maintenance deficit and unfunded liabilities than it uses each year for the general fund. While that does not at least presently present a solvency danger, it does demonstrate that the city’s finances are not in great shape.
The city’s general fund is propped up by deferred maintenance, by a temporary sales tax, and a lot of hope in the future about economic development – much of which will be dependent on the whims of the voters.
So I think a vital question ought to be whether we can afford to make this commitment, because I don’t think we can rely on the voluntary sports organizations to pay the ongoing costs. It would be nice if they could, but relying on it, I think, sets us up for more problems down the line.
In 2010, the Vanguard wrote a commentary that the MOU that the city council approved by a 3-2 vote effectively punted the problem to the next council. That is exactly what happened. And, in effect, it punted the problem beyond the next council to where we are still paying for it.
The city manager, by refusing to consider additional employee concessions in this round, is doing the same thing.
If the council wants to build a sports complex, then I think it needs to be the one to do it. It needs to figure out the financing. And it needs to be public and not private financing, so that we are honest about what the future costs are most likely to be.
In my view, we have the danger that, if people on the task force are not taking a skeptical and oppositional view, these types of tough questions can be glossed over.
I urge the council to make this a fair process. Structure a more balanced approach here, with more people who can speak to fiscal, management and open space concerns. Make the first question be whether we need this and, second, how it would be funded, both in the construction as well as the maintenance.
If we do that, at least this process won’t appear to be rigged from the start.
I am not necessarily opposed to the idea that we may need additional sports facilities in this community. I do think we need a discussion about where these fit into a very long list of expensive community needs, and I don’t think this task force is equipped to address that question.
I also fear that the timing of the completion of this will be the spring, and three of the members on council will be facing various forms of elections – that might not be the best time for tough and possibly unpopular choices.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“But does everyone else in this community agree with Councilmember Swanson? Shouldn’t the first question we ask be whether we need a sports park?”
I think that this particular point is more a matter of wording than reality. I am in complete agreement with Rochelle Swanson that we need more sports facilities in our community. I further agree that if we are truly looking towards our future, then this should be a major priority since it involves the future health and wellness of our community. This is a very different question from “do we need a sports park” ?
“So the people involved today will not be the same people involved in even in five years and certainly in ten years….. “
Your argument implies that they will be less committed to the sports facilities.You have made this assertion a number of times without any consideration of the flip side. Perhaps the immediate beneficiaries of the sports facilities ( todays children) will themselves be even more cognizant of the importance of sports, health and wellness in their lives and therefore more willing to step up to the plate ( so to speak) as tomorrow’s adults in support of such facilities. We simply don’t know. But for me, repeating only one of the possible scenarios is unnecessarily defeatist.
“we have the danger that if people on the task force are not taking a skeptical and oppositional view, these types of tough questions can be glossed over.I urge the council to make this a fair process.”
Skeptical I will buy. Starting off with an “oppositional” point of view is no more “fair” than starting off from and “advocacy” point of view. For me, this is not an issue of “fair” vs “unfair” which completely begs the question of ” Fair to whom and under what circumstances ?”. What we should be attempting is to create is a panel willing to come in with open minds, willing to assess all relevant information, and willing to act on the basis of the best available evidence. I doubt that we will find a group of such neutrals willing to spend the requisite time and energy, but that should be the goal.
“It is all well and good to say we can separate the question of a sports complex from the question about a utility user tax or a parcel tax. But in the end, whether it is roads, parks, sports complex, or school parcel tax – it is one pie and a bunch of competing needs.”
And this to me is the really crucial issue, the MISSION OF THE TASK FORCE, rather than the makeup. If the City Council is ASSUMING a sports park is a community “NEED”, at the SAME TIME PROPOSING A NEW TAX because allegedly there is not enough money to pay for existing infrastructure repairs/maintenance, citizens are going to be left wondering. Citizens will think to themselves: if the city has money to fund a sports park, then perhaps they also have money to fix roads. I am paraphrasing a bit here, but a vehement statement made at the Finance & Budget Commission was: “I’m not giving one penny more until the City can justify its expenditures”.
I know the City Council has “bifurcated” the sports park issue, claiming it will somehow be funded through grants and “public-private partnerships” (whatever that means). How has the public-private partnership thing worked out in regard to fixing our pools? It hasn’t, unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible). So what happens if a sports park is somehow developed with grants and a public-private partnership, that dries up in the future when it comes to operating and maintaining the sports park over the years, which is a costly undertaking? Will the city end up being responsible for those costs?
Bottom line is the city’s mixed messaging. On the one hand the city cannot say it has the money for a sports park, while at the same time saying it doesn’t have money to fix existing basic infrastructure like roads. Citizens are not going to believe/understand the nuanced distinction in regard to where the funding comes from. By forming the sports park task force now, at a time when the city is asking citizens to dig deeper in their collective pockets and pay for a new tax, couldn’t be a more counterproductive strategy IMO. Proper messaging is crucial, and bringing in the issue of a sports park at this time is likely to damage the chances of a utility user tax being approved by the voters. Voters are already tax fatigued as it is.
What the strategy should have been is to form a task force to explore the option of a sports park, with the idea that it would be seriously considered when economic development comes on line that is well planned and generates substantial tax revenue to support such a facility. Instead it seems as if the cart (sports park) has been put before the horse (road and other existing infrastructure repair).
This reminds me of the Sac Kings new arena. Rammed through by the politicians. We need to vote on a sports park. They didn’t.
The City Council needs to make a list of priorities. Once done we start with the most important. A sports park will be way down the list.
Spot on!
interesting question whether they need a measure r vote or they can get it through by calling it a park
That is an interesting question. One can argue that a park is not an urbanized land use. It is harder to argue that a “sports park” is not an urbanized use just because it contains the word “park.” The expression “parking lot” also contains “park” and I doubt anyone would argue that converting open space into a parking lot was not an urbanization of land.
Here is the language from the Municipal Code found at
Article 41.01 CITIZENS’ RIGHT TO VOTE ON FUTURE USE OF OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS
41.01.010 Purpose and findings.
“The purpose of this article is to establish a mechanism for direct citizen participation in land use decisions affecting city policies for compact urban form, agricultural land preservation and an adequate housing supply to meet internal city needs, by providing the people of the City of Davis the right to vote, without having to evoke referenda, on general plan land use map amendments that would convert any agricultural, open space, or urban reserve lands, as designated on the land use map of the City of Davis general plan, dated August 1, 1999, to an urban or urban reserve land use designation and on any development proposal on the Covell Center or Nishi properties.”
One of the possible approaches (assuming annexation by the City) that could possibly bypass a Measure R vote would be to give the sports park an Agricultural (A) district zoning designation and then provide the sports park a conditional use permit. The language from the Municipal Code governing conditional uses in an A District does not specifically address this contemplated sports park use. It does address other recreational uses such as country clubs and golf courses and swimming pools.
The language in Section 40 Zoning Article 40.02 AGRICULTURAL (A) DISTRICT is:
40.02.040 Conditional uses.
The following conditional uses may be permitted in an A district:
(a) Private noncommercial recreation areas, uses and facilities including country clubs and golf courses, subject to the provisions of Section 40.26.100, and swimming pools, subject to the provisions of Section 40.26.350.
to me the issue of “if” cannot be separated from “how”
we need people who understand the fiscal challenges of the city and when i listen to the proponents of the sports park, i see people who seem to have no idea.
One significant item for the sports complex will be type of and construction of the playing fields. Will they be grass or artificial turf that uses used tire crumb fill. There is good accumulating medical and scientific evidence that playing on artificial turf with used-tire crumb infill has very very serious health impacts. This evidence must be made public and reviewed and discussed by the committee, sports groups, city council and the public and a careful assessment made in regard to health and cost. A precautionary approach might put more weight on carefully maintained grass using best practices to greatly reduce chemical inputs than artificial turf. Significant amounts of water are used to “cool” down artificial turf that can be used to irrigate grass. In any event, an unbiased cost/benefit analysis, including health and environmental parameters, would be recommended in my view.
all of the soccer fields are grass. i doubt artificial turf is going to be used.
My Sacramento grandson has come to Davis with his soccer team to compete at Playfields. It is artificial turf
“One significant item for the sports complex will be type of and construction of the playing fields. Will they be grass or artificial turf that uses used tire crumb fill.”
Talk about putting the cart before the horse!
What is the horse supposed to eat, tire crumbs?
LOL
Watch out, Nancy… crumb rubber from tires is part of the asphalt concrete pavement mixture being laid down as part of the current street resurfacing projects.
“There is good accumulating medical and scientific evidence that playing on artificial turf with used-tire crumb infill has very very serious health impacts.” Can you give ONE credible cite? I believe the statement you wrote is bogus [not credible], but can be persuaded otherwise. But only based on credible evidence.
Road repairs = essential
Sports facilities = luxuries
Talk about putting the automobile before the child.
In fairness, it’s not just roads – it roads, bike paths, sidewalks – it’s putting transportation and infrastructure needs above recreational needs.
No it isn’t necessarily putting infrastructure needs above recreational needs. Part of the existing infrastructure, such as buildings (senior center), parks and pools, is recreational.
Good point
If you want to be “fair”, it’s more about proportionality rather than strict ranking. If transportation needs are #1 priority, doesn’t mean 100% of funding goes to that.
To Tia: You are setting up a false dichotomy here. It is more a question of “fix it first”. You fix the facilities you have (including existing sports fields and swimming pools) BEFORE YOU BUILD ANY NEW FACILITIES.
So here is a question for you: if a utility user tax was to be successfully imposed, would you want the funds from the tax to be spent on building a new sports park before spending it on fixing existing infrastructure that is in disrepair?
Anon said . . . “It is more a question of “fix it first”. You fix the facilities you have (including existing sports fields and swimming pools) BEFORE YOU BUILD ANY NEW FACILITIES.”
I completely concur Anon. To put it into personal terms that almost everyone can understand, if you have an unpaid $500,000 balance on your Visa/Master Card/American Express, you don’t go out and buy a new $101,500 Tesla Model S Roadster using your credit cards, when you have multiple recent model automobiles already available to you in your garage. Of course it is a lot of fun to drive the Tesla instead of the Toyota/Lexus/Mustang/Camaro. The Tesla is definitely nice to have, but is its purchase when you have such a large existing unpaid balance fiscally responsible.
We need to pay our bills.
Great analogy!