Big Issues Loom in Davis For January

Depending on how things shake out, January may be one of the biggest non-election months we have had in recent memory.

However, more immediately, he creates two immensely important duties for the City Council to accomplish.  The first will be to name a new mayor.  We have discussed this issue a lot, most recently earlier this week, and barring the unexpected, Joe Krovoza appears poised to become the next Mayor of Davis. 

It is not completely clear when that will happen, as the item is not agendized for the next meeting on January 4.  The bigger question may be who ends up Mayor Pro Tem.  With Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald poised to run for reelection in a year and a half in 2012, and the council perhaps not wanting to pick favorites in that fight, it seems possible that Rochelle Swanson could end up Mayor Pro Tem and never become Mayor.

The bigger question is, of course, who will fill Don Saylor’s seat on the city council.  Again we have discussed this issue at length.  The council has decided to go with an appointment process, imperfect as it is. They need to find three votes to support a candidate and they pretty much have to do it by the end of February, because that is the deadline to have a June election , which otherwise would be costly and cause additional problems.

From the staff report, it does not appear much will be decided at January 4th’s meeting, but they will approve a timeline, a process, an application and a public input form.  All of these are key questions that we will cover more thoroughly, closer to Tuesday’s meeting.

The likely answer is that no one could be chosen before we get into February, which means that some of the tougher issues that abound will have to be address by a four-member city council.

And this becomes interesting, as we will now see for the first time whether a Joe Krovoza-Rochelle Swanson centrist bloc can assert itself as the power center on the council.  We will also see how Stephen Souza responds without his coalition partners of Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson.

The next week, on January 11, the council will tackle or at least discuss the vexing issue of the proposed railroad fence.  Again, this is a much-covered issue, most recently by the Vanguard on December 15. 

Last night’s Davis Enterprise touched on the subject, reporting that railroad representatives are expected to attend the meeting on the 11th.  It is a tricky issue for the city, as the city lacks direct authority and as Sue Greenwald told the Enterprise, Union Pacific believes it has “a right to do this on their property.”

Neighborhood residents are concerned that a wall would cut off Olive Drive residents from the rest of Davis – because diverting them west to the Richards underpass would greatly increase the travel distances, as would diverting them east to the freeway offramp on the eastern end of Olive Drive.

Some have questioned whether the fence would even increase safety, as most of the fatalities would not have been avoided with a fence and a fence may induce some to act in a more irresponsible manner.

Obviously a fence is inevitable, and the real question is whether there can be some sort of pedestrian crossing. Such a crossing would be expensive and require approval from multiple jurisdictions.

As I said, this is tricky for the city, as they have no clear authority over a situation occurring in the very heart of the downtown.

Meanwhile, the biggest issue facing us is our ongoing budget situation, particularly with regards to retirement pensions and health benefits.  The city has racked up millions in unfunded promises to employees.  On January 18, the council will have a workshop and discussion on pensions and unfunded liabilities.

Part of the problem is trying to find things that the council can do to fix these problems, when they have just approved new employee contracts that have only very modestly addressed the issues.

We have discussed at great length the challenges facing the city here, most recently last week in an article that laid out the new larger than expected PERS hit.

We now know what the numbers are, but Interim City Manager Paul Navazio stressed that the city is still working out what the impact of these rate hikes will be on the city’s budget.  That information should be ready to roll on January 18, when the council has their study session on pensions and the city’s unfunded liability, which is soaring with this latest report.

As we discussed, the two-tiered approach, that likely the city will at least look into, will do little to solve the problem.

Many unions have moved to concede to a two-tiered system.  That offers their current membership several advantages.  First, it offers a concession at the table when they are under pressure to do so.  Second, it does not impact current membership.  And third, while it does disadvantage future members, the unions understand that they have twenty to thirty years to get the benefits back for their members.  All it takes is one negotiation during good times by the right legislative body and they get their full benefits back.

From the city’s perspective, a two-tiered approach does little to solve the problem.  The city would get no short-term savings.  There would be savings, but it would occur over the next twenty to thirty years, which is not when the city needs the help.

The city, in the meantime, is going to have to seriously look at its budget priorities.  Moving to multiyear budgeting is a good start, but just part of the issue.  Thus far, the city has balanced short-term deficits through attrition, they have allowed employees to transfer or retire and then not filled those positions.

That achieves a goal of not laying off current employees, but from an organizational standpoint it is not a good approach.  The city needs to figure out how the organization will look and it then needs to re-organize on that basis. 

In short, we need to decide what services are the priority and which ones we might have to do without.

Finally, the issue of West Village is coming to a head.  Don Saylor’s move to the County Board of Supervisors poses an interesting dilemma, because he has been the most ardent opponent against annexation.

At this point, the university is neutral on the issue.  The council has several key proponents, including Sue Greenwald and Joe Krovoza, who currently sit on the subcommittee charged with having talks with the county.

The county is reluctant to allow annexation because they are looking at ways to create revenue.  It is not clear that West Village would give the county revenue, but from a lot of standpoints it simply does not make sense for this to remain University-controlled, which would require that the university has to contract or provide for vital services and expand its police to patrol neighborhoods, something that its officers lack training in.

We can get into the rationale for annexation, and from my standpoint it makes little sense to have 5000 people on the edge of Davis who are not Davis residents.  And that only includes the first phase of build-out.

From a political standpoint this is a negotiation between the city and county.  The dynamics are that both Davis Supervisors would have to support annexation in order to reasonably get three votes.  It seems unlikely that Matt Rexroad or Mike McGowan would support annexation over the objections of Don Saylor.

Thus, Don Saylor becomes the critical Supervisor on this issue.  Given his animosity to the prospects of annexation, it might be an uphill battle.  The city needs to be able to find a way to make the county whole without putting its own financial position at risk.

In the meantime, it would behoove the city and university to work towards a consolidation agreement of the police departments, along the lines of the fire departments.  This is an issue that has not been discussed nearly enough.

While the annexation deal will not be acted upon in January, it seems likely that critical groundwork has to occur in January, given timelines and the realistic notion that a decision one way or the other should be arrived at this spring.

This is of course the tip of the iceberg, but it will be interesting to see the dynamics of a four-vote council for at least a month.

—David M. Greenwald reporting