When the Davis City Council met in December, by a 3-2 vote they asked staff to return with options for a potential transient occupancy tax (TOT), a potential parcel tax and/or a potential sugar-sweetened beverage tax.
The deadline to put a revenue measure on the June ballot is February 16. A general tax (with a 50 percent majority requirement) needs four votes to put it on the ballot and can only go on the ballot during the council election. A special tax with a two-thirds requirement can go on any ballot with three votes.
Despite pushback from the city manager, the city has at the last minute returned with options on, really, five taxes: the TOT, two different parcel taxes (an increase to the existing parks maintenance tax and an infrastructure tax), the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax, and the marijuana tax (which would only occur if voters passed a ballot measure in November).
If you recall, City Manager Dirk Brazil complained publicly at the December 15 council meeting: “This is a lot of workload in what you’re recommending we do.” He added, “It is a workload issue. I realize that it’s a couple of months but if you look at our January meeting, you look at the size of the items that are on there, you’re asking us to do some really serious research on revenues with a lot of competing interests here, that’s huge.”
What is interesting is that the council asked for more information on three taxes, and yet a reportedly overworked staff has provided analysis for five – including one, the marijuana tax, that is highly speculative and would not even be completed until at least the end of this year. Moreover, the council majority never asked for a parks-only tax – that came from Mayor Wolk, who was outvoted on his proposal.
Mayor Dan Wolk, during his comments, noted that “we have an exacting amount of defined needs that we need in the area of parks and rec.” In expressing his concerns “over going the route of a soda tax to fund those items, it seems like it might behoove the council to look at something like an increase in our parks tax by a certain small amount or moderate amount to be able to begin to pay for some of these items as opposed to going the route of a soda tax.”
“That would be something that I’d be interested in sort of seeing,” he said. He suggested a $50 increase in the parks tax to $99, “which would be a special tax and require two-thirds vote but it [would] provide needed funds for our infrastructure.”
He added, “I don’t think we can shy away at this point from… I’m not willing to wait another year before putting something on the ballot.”
Ultimately the council would pass the motion pushing for, among other things, a parcel tax that focused on infrastructure needs rather than a parks tax.
However, the staff report claims that council “requested staff look at two different parcel taxes: an increase to the existing parks maintenance tax and an infrastructure tax.”
There was no evidence that we could find to support the idea that the council, as opposed to Dan Wolk – again on the losing end of the vote, requested that staff look at a parcel tax that was merely an extension of the parks tax.
This is what a parks tax would look like:
One councilmember in addition to Dan Wolk, Lucas Frerichs, seems to be moving toward a parks tax, or at least a parcel tax with a park component.
As he explained to the Vanguard last week, right now we have a $49 per parcel tax that was passed in 2012. He said, “At the time, there was not the willingness to increase that parks parcel tax…even though the council at the time in 2012 knew that the $49 per parcel tax only covered about 25 or 30 percent of the parks’ needs. It passed as a renewal with 84 percent of the vote.”
Lucas Frerichs, in hindsight, sees that as a mistake. “That was a lost opportunity,” he said. “It should have been increased.”
The Vanguard agrees on that point. The council should have been able to get passed a larger parks tax that would have closed the funding gap.
Mr. Frerichs stated that a parcel tax is what he is most interested in. He sees that raising the parks tax to $99 would bring in about $2 million in additional revenue, specifically dedicated to parks. “That allows the ability to free up that otherwise reserved money from the general fund to be spent on infrastructure needs,” he explained.
However, the Vanguard felt out the other three members of council and there was zero support for a parks-only tax. In fact, the response was notably unequivocal.
The Vanguard would oppose a parks-only tax. In fact, I would personally feel inclined to work against such a proposal.
First, this is seen as a cynical ploy to roll off the soda tax flip-flop while still being able to claim the family-friendly mantra for the Wolk campaign. The city manager staged a protest at the last meeting complaining about workload, and then added two taxes into the analysis that the council did not ask for.
Second, while there are parks needs, the Vanguard supports funding for roads and other infrastructure needs well before adding in nice-to-haves. The analysis in the staff report identifies roughly $3 million in one-time and $2 million in ongoing parks needs. However, even with reduced projections, we are looking at an additional $5 to $10 million in overall infrastructure needs.
The Vanguard supports a general parcel tax on the order of $100 ($2.8 million per year) or even $150 ($4.2 million per year) that would address roads and other critical infrastructure (including some parks infrastructure identified here) first, before getting to nice-to-haves.
Any attempt to put on a parks-only tax will be met with strong opposition – and a potentially serious campaign. We do not believe there are the votes to do this, but we wanted it out on the table should the thought arise.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Frerichs onboard with Wolk, no surprise there.
Or other things such as employee compensation.
By who, the Vanguard? Is there really a ground swell of residents who are already up in arms about a park tax?
Under the rules of non-profits, we can take on a policy issue if it fits our mission – which I think given the good government issues, it could. I could also do it personally. I don’t think it’s going to come to that because three councilmembers immediately were unequivocally opposed, but I wanted to throw it out there because such an opposition would be much more formidable than what we’ve seen.
It comes off sounding more of a threat unless you know there’s already organized opposition against a park tax. I certainly haven’t read or heard of much opposition as of yet.
Not many aware aware of the proposal or the behind the scene machinations. I have a way to launch a pretty effective campaign. All it needs is 34% of the vote to succeed. But again, I don’t think it will come to that.
I have said this before and so apologize for the repetition. I do not agree with David’s assessment that roads and infrastructure are essential while parks are “nice to haves”. I know that this is the more common view but I see it as short sighted. I believe that it is just another factor contributing to our current health issues of obesity, metabolic disorders and cardiovascular disease based partially in our convenience driven, sedentary life style.
The absence of facilities such as Rainbow City and a community pool is the absence of healthful activity options for the children of our community. I cannot in good conscience remain silent while the Vanguard places smooth passage for vehicles above major health needs of Davis children. I strongly believe that money spent on parks and other opportunities for healthful activities is money much, much better spent than on facilitation of smoother driving.
tia, i see a lot of problems in your comment. first, david came out against a parks only tax, probably because the costs for roads will continue to escalate without a funding source. second, he never precluded the possibility of a park tax – only a parks only tax. short-sited seems subjective here, since david is supporting a soda tax, it seems he values these things too, just not within the lump sum.
finally, if i’m reading this right, his largest concern is the political games being played by the mayor and city manager.
Agree DP. At least the way David presented it, I am disappointed in both the mayor and CM.
DP
I think that you interpreted my criticism much too broadly.
I was restricting my comment only to David’s repeated reference to the roads as “necessities” and the parks as “nice to haves”. It is this values assessment with which I am in disagreement. I see recreational spaces as necessities for the health of individuals and the community and roads as “nice to have”.
I was not referring to any other aspect of his comments especially since I have not yet made my personal prioritization of the pros and cons of all the possible taxes.
Tia’s comment essentially says we need to compare and contrast our City’s competing needs and then make an informed decision about how to use our limited resources to do the most good for the most people. The Finance and Budget Commission has stated very clearly that the only way to efficiently and effectively do that compare/contrast evaluation is to get all the needs out on the table. Until we know what the whole picture is, we will be making under informed judgements that are likely to produce the same kind of sub-optimal results that have produced cracks in our roads and cracks in our pools.
The time has come to be fiscally honest with ourselves.
Matt
You are correct about the broader implication of my comment.
Ahhhhh the joys of fortuitous timing. Item 5F of the Council Consent Agenda this Tuesday is titled “Building and Park Facilities Assessment Draft Report.” The Staff Report for that Item begins as follows, and the dollar figures speak for themselves.
Mayor Dan Wolk, during his comments, noted that “we have an exacting amount of defined needs that we need in the area of parks and rec.”
I know that all the members of the Finance and Budget Commission will be surprised by Mayor Wolk’s quote. FBC has been asking staff for an inclusive report of all the deferred maintenance/repairs/replacement needs for over a year. Staff hired an outside consultant to complete that inclusive report over six months ago, and to date there is no report for the FBC to review in order to make recommendations to Council . A draft of the consultant’s report was reviewed by staff in the 4th Quarter of 2015 and reportedly sent back to the consultant for significant revisions.
Mayor Wolk’s words “an exacting amount of defined needs” are incomplete at best. He is willing to look at a part of the capital infrastructure “report card” and chart a course of action that will only address part of the problem. In its recommendation to Council on December 14th the FBC unanimously agreed that the City needs to be honest with itself about its fiscal situation. I have highlighted in bold the key provisions from that motion that apply in this situation.
The time has come to be more prudent/responsible about the City’s fiscal decisions. If staff’s assurances that the full accounting of the City’s deferred maintenance/repair/replacement needs is going to be in our hands in the next few months, then we can make a fully-informed, inclusive decision in November. That would be far preferable to a partially-informed, exclusive decision rushed to the ballot in June.
Since I am totally naive about the fiscal operations of a city, I am sure that there will be many objections to and reasons why what I am about to suggest would not fly and even more sure that many of you will be quick to point out the errors in my thinking, which I hope you will do. However, please be aware that I am not totally fiscally naive having been on our administrative team which did have financial responsibilities for a more than 80 member department and the workings of such and our support staff.
My proposal is the following. I believe that in order to responsibly vote on proposed taxes, we the citizens should have access to the following. A complete listing of city assets including what we have now, and what we could expect to obtain from each of the proposed taxes. A complete listing of our our city debts including what we owe now, and what we can expect to owe annually based on our current obligations. A complete explanation of the intended use for any revenue generated by each of the proposed taxes ( knowing that circumstances can change and other needs might at some point take precedence). I believe that all of these assets, debts, goals and obligations should be spelled out in a single document written at a level suitable to the reading skills of a high school graduate or lower.
Then I believe that the city council should not engage in a game of choosing the winners and losers, but should rather place all of the proposed tax initiatives on the ballot and let the voters decide which to approve and which to vote down.