It’s a Workshop…It’s a Meeting…It’s LIVEBLOG!

Winter will close its icy grip in 21 days.  A new year will dawn in 31 days. Our current City Council will give up the ghost in 34 days after meeting 3 more times.  And in 4 short hours, I’ll be liveblogging from tonight’s City Council meeting!

Below, as per usual, find all of the agenda items with the hyperlinks directing you to supporting documents by City Staff available for download.  The proceedings tonight begin an hour early at 5:30pm for a joint meeting with the Finance & Budget Commission to discuss the city’s goal of fiscal stability and priorities for the commission’s 2011 work plan.  Unfortunately, I won’t be able to cover the workshop as I’ll be otherwise engaged rehearsing for this Friday’s performance of some incredibly complex and beautiful music by the UC Davis Chorus.

So, expect me back around 6:30pm to begin live coverage of YOUR City Council.  Feel free to report on the F&B Workshop in the comments section.  Also, leave any notes or questions about agenda items in the comments and I’ll answer you posthaste!

Joint F&B Workshop: 01 FBC Joint Discussion.pdf

Redevelopment Agency Agenda

• 02A-RDA Management of Former DACHA Units.pdf
• 02B-RDA RDA 06-01 & 06-15-10.pdf

Consent Calendar

• 03A SDE Application 2011-12.pdf
• 03B Affordable Housing Screening Guidelines.pdf
• 03C Verona Final Map, Subdivision No. 4772.pdf
• 03D Davis Climate Action & Adaptation Plan Update.pdf
• 03E Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance – 2nd Reading.pdf
• 03F CC Minutes 06-01 & 06-15-10.doc.pdf
• 03G-1 FBC Minutes 10-11-10.pdf
• 03G-2 HRC Minutes 10-28-10.pdf
• 03G-3 PC Minutes 05-26-10.pdf
• 03G-4 SSC Minutes 09-20 & 10-18-10.pdf
• 03G-5 Tree Minutes 10-21-10.pdf

Regular Calendar

• 04 2010 California Building Standards Ordinance – 2nd Reading.pdf
• 05 Fire Code Adoption 2010 Ordinance – 2nd Reading.pdf
• 06 Recreation Program Fees for FY11-12.pdf
• 07 Crown Castle DAS Network Pre-Application.pdf
• 08 CC Budget Workshop.pdf
• 09 Solar Farms Workshop.pdf
• 10B-2 Long Range Calendar.pdf

6:40pm – I arrived HERE in Council Chambers just in to HEAR Mayor Saylor gavel this meeting of the Davis City Council to order.  The agenda for the RDA and Council was passed unanimously.  Public Comment is open and closed with no participation from the people of Davis.  Items 3B & 3C have been removed from the Consent Calendar and will be heard at the next meeting.  The rest of the Consent Calendar passes unanimously.  Items 04 & 05 are the second public hearing (go here for the first reading, starting at 7:16pm) for changes to local ordinances as per direction from the state on updated guidelines from Building Standards and Fire Code… no public comment… Adopted unanimously.

6:48pm – We’re going a little bit out of the published order.  Next up is 90 minutes dedicated to Item 08 – The Budget Workshop. Interim City Manager Paul Navazio is giving a brief overview of the quarterly update.  This workshop is being held to (from staff report):

1. Receive First Quarter Budget Report & Baseline General Fund Forecast
2. Discuss FY 2011/12 Budget Development Processes and Timeline, including: a. Consideration of transitioning to a Multi-Year Budget, and b. Performance-Based Budgeting
3. Discuss initial FY2011/12 Budget Priorities consistent with City Council Goals
4. Review of options and timeline to address expiration of the Parks Maintenance Tax (June 2012)

The Long Range Financial Plan exists to maintaining a balanced operating budget for current levels of service, develope appropriate funding strategies to address priority unmet needs not provided for in the current budget and reserving (or replacing) current revenue sources that are subject to expiration/renewal, contingent on voter-approval (AKA Parks Maintenance Tax (Measure Q) – subject to renewal June, 2012).

7:02 pm – Our new Budget Manager is giving us some quick snapshots of our current financial picture as compared to projections and actual income/expenditures… no surprises yet… but its lots of numbers coming at us pretty quickly… you can find all the charts and spreadsheets in the agenda packet.

How much does the City of Davis spend?  For FY 2010/11, the  Adjusted Budget Expenditures come to a grand total of $147,663,706.  Yes, that’s 147 milllliiioooon dollars.

Navazio is noting that this budget was created to both balance the budget AND restore the City’s reserve from 13% to 15%.  State law mandates 10%.

7:12pm – I’m going to take a quick break to bolt down a delicious Turkey Burger and Salad from our good friends at Burgers & Brew… I’ll try and be back for the presentation on multi-year budgeting and performance based budgeting, both of which are practices that good government folks are trying to implement at the state level.

7:33pm – And we’re back.  Looks like good timing too.  the current slide is about the process enhancements for multi-year budgeting.  Bear with me here, I know that this is a bit boring… but with our unstable state financing system, this could help us avoid short-term fixes, give stability to the city staff organization and most importantly break the crushing grind of the yearly budget cycle and allow our electeds and staff do more meaningful assessments of specific programs and departments in off-years and then re-allocate those resources as needed.  Some constraints include the ability to integrate financial systems and the need to time the budgets with council elections.

Staff is recommending that Council begin the process of moving to a multi-year budget with the goal of beginning FY2012/13 (two years from now).

7:43pm – Performance-based budgeting is fascinating … staff says it can take many forms.  I first heard about this practice from Sir Michael Barber, Tony Blair’s advisor who actually implemented performance based budgeting on a national scale in Great Britain.  Mayor Saylor has noted that there are 30 minutes remaining for this agenda item, so Navazio is wrapping it up.  Basically, he’s asking for Council direction on prioritizing some of these potential changes to budget processes.

Navazio is now talking about how to replace/extend the Parks Tax, last renewed in 2006 as Measure G.  Saylor is now opening the floor to Council comments.

Greenwald is trying to make a Point of Order…Saylor reiterates that now is the time for questions from Councilmembers to City Staff.  Navazio will take all of the questions, then respond to all of them at once.

Swanson’s question is about the percentage points assumed for future year projections.  Souza wants to know what the plan is for identifying future unmet needs and he wants information about the savings that were projected from the last round of labor negotiations.  Greenwald is asking about unfunded liabilities (pension plans, I assume) and questions the efficacy of using staff time now to move toward multi-year and performance based budgeting.  Krovoza wants to know how we’re going to prioritize our unfunded needs and I missed the second one.  Saylor wants to know why we’re not moving more quickly to ensure that the 15% reserve is replaced.  Saylor is now opening and closing Public Comment for lack of participants

8:09pm – Each Councilmember will have 5 minutes to comment/question and then Paul will answer the questions… the City Clerk is going to turn the timer on them!! I love it!

Except that Greenwald has a Point of Order concerning her inability to exchange further comments and questions with Staff.  Saylor says that he wants to ensure that every Councilmember gets a total of minutes… and Swanson is up first… she’s expressing general support for multi-year budgeting to line up with our priority timelines.  Souza is up now… this is his 10th budget… among other things, he is reminding his colleagues that their biggest challenge is a year away with the next round of labor negotiations and that they should do everything they can to stabilize their budget over the long term.

Greenwald is commenting that “unmet needs” and “unfunded liabilities” are really budget deficits… not sure I understand what her point is here… semantics? She’s chiming in on the pension plan and health care liabilities, but painting a darker picture.

I should be taking bets on how long Greenwald goes over her 5 minute red light… 8:22pm – the red light is blinking and she’s still going!!!  Ok, Sue just wrapped it up and I saw the official timer, she took 3 minutes and 31 seconds over her allotment… without the Mayor asking for her to finish.

8:26pm – Krovoza is up now and his comments echo Rochelle’s interest in multi-year budgeting.  Krovoza also wants more specific input from Department Heads on where cuts/increases can be made now.  Saylor’s comments include the need for specific actions to restore the 15% reserve fun and he would like to advise the F&B Commission to be more proactive in their long-term studies and projections i.e. Parks Tax.  Saylor think that we need to identify what we’re currently doing to budget by performance rather than simply adding a layer of work for staff.

8:33pm – Swanson is now expanding on ensuring that we have budget benchmarks and supporting the Department Head idea proposed by Krovoza.

8:40pm – Since this is just an informational item, Saylor is calling an end to it.  Next up in Item 06 – Recreation Program Fees.  See the liveblog from the last meeting (starting at 7:08pm) for more in-depth information on this item.  Krovoza has concerns about our current stance on the Fee Recovery Policy… are we changing it mid-stream due to the economy?  He is now asking F&B Commission to take a look at this policy well in advance of Recreation & Parks Commission’s consideration of this item next year.  Swanson is now asking for Johannes Troost, Chair of the F&B, and Charles Russell, Chair of the R&P Commission, for input on this matter.

8:50pm – I’m experiencing technical difficulties on my end, so I’m going to log out and log back in… comment below if anything looks wacky on your end.

8:54pm – And, we’re back.  Swanson is trying to get to the bottom of why the F&B and R&P Commissions didn’t get to weigh in on this item… also, she’s calling out some discrepancies in the proposed fee structure that do not match up with any stated policy or Council direction.  Swanson ran for election with a heavy “eye on the budget” message and she’s fulfilling that promise now.  Her main concern seems to be that she didn’t get the information soon enough and that although she support parks and recreation services, she can’t support this fee structure because it doesn’t match with any stated policy.

9:00pm – Saylor is concerned with the lack of attention to detail on how the subsidies for each program are being decided… declining participation in specific activities should inform the next decision on cost recovery for that activity.

OK, it’s motion time.  Souza moves the resolution as recommended by staff and directs staff to work with the F&B and R&P Commissions for this process next year, Krovoza seconds with a friendly amendment that this item come next year no later than October 15th.  Motion carries 4-1 with Swanson dissenting.

9:08pm – 10 minute break… pop your corn, people and get on back here soon for Item 09. Solar Farm Workshop.

9:20pm – Break is over, and the Chambers are now full of solar power folks.  This next segment is being presented by Mitch Sears, Sustainability Director.  From the staff report, here’s what we’ll be doing tonight:

1. Conduct a workshop to discuss various factors influencing the feasibility and potential benefits/impacts associated with the development of community scale solar power production facilities on City owned properties;
2. Provide Council feedback on the following, and other policy issues identified during the course of the workshop, relative to the development of community scale solar projects on City owned property(ies):

Sears has lined up an impressive panel of experts to present presentations on various subject matters.  A little background: The General Plan has policy support, The Climate Action plan calls for solar energy production and there are several city owned properties that are currently in process: expansion on the PVUSA at Old Landfill, Howatt/Clayton Ranch, and around the Muni Golf Course.

9:27pm – John Young, Yolo County Agricultural Commissioner, is now beginning the first presentation about Technical Considerations, County General Plan, Zoning compliance and possible affects on our farming output.  44% of our total land is classified as Class 1 or 2 and should therefore be protected… and any solar energy production sites should be placed on less desirable soils.

Phil Hogan, of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service‘s Woodland Service Center, is now presenting examples of the depth and breadth of information that his agency can provide to ensure that we don’t follow the national trend of converting productive agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.

9:39pm – Interesting to note that Mayor Saylor is asking Councilmembers to pose their questions, as they formulate them, on note cards and give to Mitch… a great facilitation tool that I’ve used in the past with success.

Jim Estep, a Wildlife Biologist, is now presenting Council with information on how large scale solar farms can affect habitat and whole food chains.

Greg Breh, of OPDE (you might need to click on the ‘Select Language’ American flag button near the top right), is now at bat with a presentation on interconnections and existing transmission/system capacity in the local area.

Harriet Steiner, our City Attorney, is now speaking about the laws, regulations, and other processes that the City could be subjected to if it were to create a solar farm.  For example: General Law City considerations; open bid vs. exclusive negotiating;  CEQA considerations; limitations on certain uses of city properties and/or funds; effect on the pass-through agreement with the County; and the opportunities/challenges presented by a public partnership with the County.

Bill Julian, energy policy consultant, is now speaking about state and federal regulations.

10:00pm – Kudos to Mitch Sears: we’re getting a lot of quality information directly from experts in a timely manner.

Now, it’s time to think about project financing barriers and opportunities.  Mark Northcross, a financial advisor, is now talking about the multitudinous options for financing solar projects today: PPA, private financing opportunities, municipal lease, PACE, and state/fed support.

Craig Wetmore, of PVUSA, is talking about the current economic situation AND that the City of Davis is uniquely placed and politically situated to create a large solar farm… we’ve got transmission, flat land and sunshine.

10:17pm – Sears is now transitioning into a Council discussion time to determine what community objectives are served by developing community scale solar project AND are the available locations suitable and is the timing right to move forward with these types of projects.  Public Comment is open and closed due to lack of participation.

Sears is now going to choose from submitted questions:

Q1. Does the installation of solar farms damage the quality of the soil underneath? A: by Jim Young – probably not, but it would cost to return the soil to it’s original condition to remove the concrete, pipes etc.

Q2. Is it possible to use these types of short term installations (20-50 yrs) and then return them to their previous cultivation use? A: Yes, again with cost and could be placed in the contract.

Q3. Is animal husbandry compatible with solar farms? A: If the land is historically used for grazing, then yes.  But if the land was cultivated and then goats were used for weed control, then no because it degrades the land.

Q4 . missed it

Q5. Are there any preferred types of ownership for such a project? A: Depends on the goal… a public process could take longer for public input, but would more closely align with our priorities.

Q6. Can we place solar farms on rooftops or parking lots rather than open land? A: The limitations include increased costs for structures and economy of scale.

Q7. How much land is needed for a profitable, large scale facility? A: Depends on construction costs, sale price of energy etc etc BUT today, it takes about 5-6 acres to create a profitable 1 MegaWatt facility.

NOTE: In addition to Council and staff, there are about 20 people in the Chambers… half of those are local solar folks.

Souza has some direct questions for Steiner regarding our potential to take ownership of facilities at the end of the term of Public Purchasing Agreements… I’m drifting here and lost most of that exchange.  Souza, you out there? Want to correct me in the comments? Do it!

Krovoza is following up and I missed most of it again… mainly options for public financing, ownership and tax credit options…

10:38pm – Saylor has indicated that he’ll close with comments from each Councilmember… don’t expect much from me, as my attention keeps getting caught by the fine wood grain of the dais… what is that? a lightly stained beechwood?  I’m gonna guess it’s a water-based stain.

Greenwald is first up… she wants to ensure that the City sees real benefits (unlike what she views as a giveaway to PVUSA) and that the County is agreeable to our plan… and the need to ensure that a site remains available for the possible relocation of the PG&E Utility Yard…

Krovoza is up now… grateful for the grand overview, puts it all into perspective… concerned that we’re not only doing something green for the electrical grid, but that our community also benefits.

Souza gives it a go now… he’s got pics to emphasize that agriculture and solar farming can be compatible if placed correctly… He thinks that we need to move quickly, the time is right to bring cleaner power to the citizens of Davis.

Swanson’s turn now… we should remember to focus on the term ‘sustainability’, in all of it’s applications: financial and environmental… we should pursue these opportunities that keep us on the cutting edge…

Saylor closes it up… appreciation for weighing the conflicting need of preserving prime ag land… need to investigate different types of community ownership structures like co-ops… more detailed discussion to follow.

11:04pm – That item is now done, finito.  Now it’s time for Item 07.

Ken Hiatt is now detailing how this whole New Path Communications deal is moving forward… quickly: a year ago Davisites noticed unsightly telecom poles owned by NewPath going up which hadn’t been properly noticed, City Manager stopped the work and found that proper procedure had not been followed, City rescinded work permits, NewPath sued City, NewPath was bought by some other company, NewNewPath has agreed to put a hold on the lawsuit if they could be allowed to go back through the City’s permit process… the new poles would now mostly be co-located with existing city owned poles (a height extension)…

NewNewPath = Crown Castle

Saylor is the only comment and thinks that the current application package is a vast improvement over the original information.  Staff recommendation is as follows: Review and comment on the proposed process for review, community engagement, and consideration of a pre-application for a wireless communication Distributed Antenna System, as outlined in this report.   Council approval is not needed, so it’s going ahead.

11:13pm – RDA Item 02  DACHA Financing.  Ugh, this one is no complex, litigious and financially unstable that I don’t know where to begin… Read the staff report to scratch just very lightly one side on this matter.

I couldn’t help myself and made a public comment (in my lethargic state)… basically, this Council needs to take a comprehensive look at our priorities for public subsidies for housing… with this debacle, the current mess at Pacifico Co-op and the removal of the middle-income housing development requirement, it’s clear to me that we need to know where we stand.

Greenwald is responding to my comment and making the case that this isn’t “tax-payer” money… it’s from dedicated sources or extractions…

That’s all semantics to me. This money was raised as a direct result of OUR votes at the ballotbox, by OUR government, on OUR behalf… it didn’t appear as manna from heaven.  I’m suggesting that our city government has no clear set of practical priorities on this matter and continues to throw good money after bad to fix problems (property management) that it’s not qualified to fix.

Souza moves the budget adjustment, Krovoza seconds.  Swanson asks for staff, and Souza agrees, that they need another Affordable Housing Workshop.  Motion carries 5-0.

Now, it’s time for Council communications and adoption of the long-range calendar.  There are three people in the audience including me: Will Arnold & Steve Boschken.

11:40pm – They’re moving to closed session now: negotiating for the purchase of water from the Sacramento River.

Next meeting is December 7th, same bat-time, same bat-blog.