Budget/Fiscal

Phantom Decisions Seem to Plague City Budget

The city comes out finally with its midterm budget report, and buried in the middle is a somewhat shocking revelation, because we cannot find indication of a policy decision or change that has been publicly announced.

The staff report reports, “While these expenditures were intended to be off-set by corresponding General Fund personnel reductions, implementation of additional personnel reductions are being deferred pending the outcome of current labor negotiations.”

by Louis A. Gonzalez, Jr.

The Davis City Council’s editorial in the March 7, 2012 newspaper was not only improper, as it spoke to confidential settlement communications, it was erroneous and a piecemeal (re)characterization of the events that have been ongoing since 2005.

It was not even a year ago that we continued to accuse the city of being in denial about the extent of the fiscal dilemma it faced.  Remarkably, the budget that then-interim City Manager Paul Navazio brought forward last spring continued to have no provisions for dealing with pensions or retiree health, little to no money for road repair and infrastructure, and despite this, projected future years to be in the black.

While we believe the city council gets it now, and certainly the 3-2 vote on the budget last June should have set in motion real reform, a series of events threatens to blow up the best laid plans of mouse and men.

by Matt Williams –

Let me start by saying that the opinions and perspectives presented here in this article are those of the author and are not the opinions and perspectives of the Water Advisory Committee (WAC).

Like the meetings before it, meeting number 5 of the WAC contained considerable discussion of how the WAC should conduct its activities, votes and recommendations.  Bill Kopper presented to the Committee a Resolution that put into words how he (in consultation with a Brown Act compliant number of WAC members and alternates) believed the WAC should chart its course.  After one friendly amendment that aligned the description of the three Council Check In items to the actual wording of the actual WAC motion sent to Council, Bill’s Resolution failed to pass with a 5-5 vote.

Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza,
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson,
Councilmember Sue Greenwald,
Councilmember Stephen Souza,
Councilmember Dan Wolk  

In response to public interest regarding the Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association (DACHA), the City has decided to release information about settlement offers the City has made to David Thompson, Luke Watkins and the Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation (Twin Pines).

UCD Vice Chancellor Cites Compensation Disparity as Officials Insist Reports of Its Death Are Premature

Earlier this week, we evaluated whether Davis was in compliance with the Palmdale decision that invalidated the water rate structure of the City of Palmdale, based on a ruling from the Second District Appellate Court of California. The court found their rate structure failed to comply with the mandates of Proposition 218 and its “proportionality requirement which specifies that no fee or charge imposed upon any person or parcel as an incident of property ownership shall exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.”

Some believed that the problems of Palmdale were, in fact, unique to Palmdale because “in this instance, the District failed to demonstrate that the proposed budget based rates for one customer class were proportionate to the cost of providing water service in violation of Proposition 218.”

Contrary to charges by some that the city has spent over 800,000 dollars defending itself on the DACHA issue, the true cost, at least according to the city’s disclosure in response to a Davis Vanguard Public Records Act requests, is about half of that.

The request was sparked by public claims by those associated with Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines Cooperative principals David Thompson and Luke Watkins, claiming the higher figure.

The Answer Depends On Whom You Talk To

On August 9, 2011, the Second District Appellate Court of California struck down the water rates for the City of Palmdale, located in Los Angeles County, ruling: “After conducting an independent review of the record (Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431, 448), we conclude PWD failed to satisfy its burden to establish that its new water rate structure complies with the mandates of Proposition 218 (as set forth in article XIII D of the California Constitution (article XIII D)), including the proportionality requirement which specifies that no fee or charge imposed upon any person or parcel as an incident of property ownership shall exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.”

The question that has emerged in recent weeks is what that decision will mean for Davis.  There are really two questions embedded within this.  One is a prospective question in that Davis, like all other cities, will have to take this decision into account when it conducts its rate study and ultimately sets its water rates, should the surface water project go forward.

by Matt Williams –

At Thursday’s Water Advisory Committee (WAC) meeting, in response to Mayor Joe Krovoza’s public comment, Michael Bartolic took the time to clearly state that he feels his responsibility as a member of the WAC is more to the citizens of Davis than it is to the members of City Council.  If I heard Michael correctly, his reasons for that position are that in many ways over the past few months many of the citizens of Davis have voiced their concern and/or outright opposition to the Surface Water Plan put forward by the Joint Powers Authority (JPA).

In this latest installment of my series of articles about water/wastewater, lets take a moment to drill down into the point Michael is making, and list and categorize the key interest groups that have expressed their opposition to or concern about the current Plan.

by Matt Williams

On Monday here in the Vanguard we took a look back at the 2007-2008 Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) process, in order to see how well the Assessment Factors that the HESC adopted in April 2007 have held up in the five years since their adoption.  In that article we asked the following questions:

• Now that five years have passed, how well do you think the HESC’s set of factors for evaluating potential sites for housing has held up?
• Would you add any factors to, or deemphasize any specific factors on, the HESC’s list?

By Matt Williams –

If the animation team Warner Brothers or Disney were using last night’s WAC meeting as creative fuel for a short cartoon I imagine that their cartoon would have the appearance of the preparations for a Drag Race.  Lots of wheel spinning.  Lots of smoking tires.  Short forays forward followed by backing up to the starting line.  All with the anticipation of a fast and furious race once the starting lights actually flash green.

Council Also Agendizes Future Discussion on Timing of Agenda Items

With Mayor Joe Krovoza leaving early due to illness, the council briefly discussed the possibility of delaying the discussion of the Davis Diamonds Conditional Use Permit.  Ultimately, they decided to go forward with it, with some slight modifications, by a 3-1 vote with Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson dissenting.

According to the staff report that the Vanguard only received at noon on Tuesday, “staff has been working with the applicant to evaluate the feasibility of an alternative site.”

The preamble to the Ralph M. Brown Act reads: “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

The Brown Act only requires the public noticing of every meeting with a posted agenda at least 72 hours before the meeting and the agenda must contain a brief description of each item of business.