On Tuesday night it became clear that despite the vote to continue to pursue options, that the idea of annexing West Village is on life support. The problem is logistical and financial.
The bottom line is that from the standpoint of either the city or the university, there may be a good reason for annexation to occur as studies have shown that the project loses the least amount of money under an annexation plan.
And why not, it is essentially free money to them as they are not providing the municipal services to the project. As long as the county opposes the annexation, this is an impossibility.
Even a hybrid model would prove vexing where the city may not provide municipal services but people would still be able to vote in the elections on tax-measures that they do not have to pay.
Councilmembers Sue Greenwald, Lamar Heystek, and Stephen Souza however still believe in the notion of annexation and want to see if some sort of special assessment concept would work.
The bottom line for me is that it does not make sense to have a segment of the population, probably five thousand people between staff and students upon full build out being essentially a separate entity.
Think about it, in every way these would be Davis residents–they would shop in Davis, purchase their gas in Davis, go to Davis downtown for their entertainment, they would in essence utilize our services in our community and provide sales tax dollars to it, and yet not be full voting members of the community. And yes, I realize that there a few small subdivisions like El Macero that are in a similar boat, but we are talking 5000 people.
I believe that urban development should take place in cities. Cities are best suited for providing municipal services and representation.
If people live under UC Davis control in many ways they would be disenfranchised, not only from the city, but from decisions that govern their own living conditions.
And yes, I realize there are students currently residing on campus who cannot vote in municipal elections, but these are students in dorms and they only do so their first year or so. These would be long term residents of Davis essentially who have no so say over their own community really unless UC Davis chooses to create some special designation.
While I understand the county’s fiscal predicament, $200,000 is not going to save them. In fact, as the finance director Paul Navazio pointed out, if the project were annexed it would generate roughly $240,000 in vehicle license fees. As Councilmember Sue Greenwald suggested, given that, there should be some arrangement that could be reached.
More than that, I think this is going to increasingly become an issue over time. There are provisions after the construction of West Davis whereby it could be annexed. The process includes a declaration and a vote, but it still takes approval by the university and county.
I simply do not see this as a tenable situation and I think it will become less and less so over time as people live in Davis but are not a voting part of the community. From a basic standpoint of enfranchisement and voting, annexation makes sense.
Unfortunately, money talks here and until and unless the city can come to a reasonable agreement with the county, this is a dead issue.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David… annexation of the UC Davis students (dorms) is an OLD issue. Last big time it was floated was in the late sixties/early seventies when a different Asmundson was on the council. If you want to look at fiscal issues, perhaps you should explore how many apartment complexes and office complexes the campus leases &/or owns, the services that the city provides, and the revenue these bring to the city, particularly in property taxes. Annexation of the West Campus area is, in my opinion, a losing proposition.
I agree with hpierce. Sorry Vanguard but this idea of annexing is a total loser for Davis. It will just bring on more growth requirements for Davis. Besides the university has made it pretty clear that they don’t want to be hampered with city requirements for design, affordable housing requirements etc. Why on earth would they put any limitations on how, when and what they build? They can do anything they want, anytime they want now and so why would they give up that freedom? But even beyond that, annexation of West Village is a terrible idea for both the city and the university.
“Sorry Vanguard but this idea of annexing is a total loser for Davis. It will just bring on more growth requirements for Davis.”
How so, I think SACOG already counts West Village towards Davis’ growth allotment, I don’t think it has any impact on growth requirements, that’s why Sue Greenwald is pushing for annexation along with Lamar Heystek. Can you explain how it would bring more growth requirements?
Actually, West Village is not counted as Davis growth for SACOG. So it actually would just bring on more growth liability.
This is a quote from Sue Greenwald from August 29 ([url]http://www.davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2965:Providing-internal-housing-for-the-workforce-in-davis&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url]):
“SACOG took into account West Village when they issued their guidelines for Davis.”
OK… the “logic” has always been the ‘voters’ …. where is the economics? the old (and new?) bent was to get the students to affect city policies, but where is the money coming from?
It makes more sense fiscally for the city to annex West Village than for it to stay in the county. The city staff report was an exercise in political spin.
Staff compared the default scenario, which is West Village remaining in the unincorporated county and the county getting all the property tax, with a scenario where the city provides all of the services and splits the property tax in a standard fashion with the county.
Since the University is providing all the services in the default scenario, we should compare apples with apples, i.e., the scenario where the University still provides all of the services, but West Village is annexed to the city with a standard tax split with the county.
Under this scenario, it makes more sense for the city to annex West Village. The entire project will generate under $300,000 in property tax. If the city annexes West Village, the state will provide $240,000 in vehicle license fees revenue per year that would otherwise be kept by the state. The county would not receive this revenue under the default scenario. In other words, at least $240,000 a year is simply lost if the project is not annexed before the residents move in.
If the University provides all of the services, the city breaks even. In fact, the city breaks even in a way it does not in any other project. All other projects show a fiscal gap eventually developing, since the cost of services is not keeping up with the cost of revenues. If the University provides the services, then the University is taking on this long-term liability.
This is a baseline comparison, and it illustrates why it makes more fiscal sense for the the city to annex West Village than for it to stay in the unincorporated county.
There are any number of ways that the provision of services could be arranged, but this is the underlying economics.
The University seems to be amenable to either scenario. The county subcommittee of Helen Thompson and Jim Provenza, the two Davis supervisors, have been opposed to annexation. Don Saylor has expressed opposition, citing the bogus argument that the project loses money for the city.
One important hint: The Davis Firefighter leadership has expressed opposition to annexation.
The most important thing to remember is that the $240,000 year vehicle license fee revenue, which is almost equal to the property tax yield from the project, will simply go away if the project isn’t annexed BEFORE THE RESIDENTS MOVE IN.
Although Steve Souza said he was in favor of annexation, at the city county 2×2 last Friday, he merely repeated Don Saylor’s inaccurate statement that the project is a fiscal drain for the city.
Unless students mobilize, the $240,000 a year vehicle license fee revenue will be lost to the region, and it will be much harder for the project to pencil as a win-win for the city and the county.
It is incredible to me that in this time of fiscal hardship, Don Saylor and Steve Souza would throw away $240,000 a year in revenue.
“One important hint: The Davis Firefighter leadership has expressed opposition to annexation.”
Why would Fire have an interest? Would the new campus fire station threaten the Arlington fire station “space”? or do they feel annexation might lead to the consolidation of the UCD and City fire depts?
Why would students mobilize over the $240K revenue the City would get? what do they get out of it? Davis has seriously restricted housing growth which is the reason West Village is being built so what would motivate the students want to benefit a community that has contributed to their financial burden?