 So, welcome to Civ Energy's Community Forum on the City of Davis Measures HINJ. I'm Leslie Hunter, and I really appreciate you coming out today, and I appreciate our participants as well. And for Civ Energy, we rented this community chamber today to give voters the opportunity to hear both sides of the ballot measures. So, thank you very much for being here, and I'm going to introduce Bob Fung. Thanks, Leslie. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking time out of your weekend to attend our forum. We'd like to thank the people discussing the measures on measure H. Will Arnold and Mike Nolan will represent, we'll talk, and they're already up on the dais. On measure I, Elaine Roberts-Musser and Brett Lee will represent the yes side. Mike Nolan again will represent the no side. On measure J, Sandy Whitcomb and Rob Davis will represent the yes side. Colin Walsh and Matt Williams will represent the no side. My name is Bob Fung. As Leslie said, I founded and manage Civ Energy. Civ Energy is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit experiment in democracy. Civ Energy is designed to help voters quickly get the information they need in order to make informed voting decisions. For this election cycle, with the help of Leslie, we decided to reach voters both through the Civ Energy website, which is at www.sivenergy.org, and with traditional methods like this community forum and the Davis City candidate forum that we had on March 18th. I will be moderating the forum, and Norby Kumagai, who's sitting over here, will be the forum timer. These forum will cover the three city of Davis ballot measures, measure H, I, and J. For each measure, we have allocated 40 minutes so we can finish the forum in two hours. For each measure, 25 minutes is allotted to a discussion between those on the yes and the no side. Each discussion will consist of three rounds. The yes side will go first as is customary in formal debates. For each measure, 15 minutes is allotted to questions from the audience. We will be collecting questions from the audience on 3x5 cards. If you have a 3x5 card that you want collected, the woman in the green there, my wife, will collect them. We will be collating and combining the questions to use our time efficiently, so your question may not be stated exactly as on your card. Also depending on how many questions there are, we may not have time to answer all the questions. However, we will be posting all your questions verbatim on our website, and the yes and no sides are invited to answer your questions. We did that for the after the March 18th candidate forum. It worked pretty well. Syvenergy would like to thank Davis Media Access, who is cosponsoring the event. DMA is videoing the event, which will be available at the Syvenergy website and at DCTV. Davis Media Access is the non-profit community media center serving Yolo County. Its mission is to enrich and strengthen the community by providing alternatives to commercial media for local voices, opinions, and creative endeavors. For more than 30 years, DMA has produced voter education programming for races ranging from school board to Congress. So that's the intro, and now we'll start with Measure H. We have previously sent instructions to all the discussants. The yes side will open with five minutes of opening statement, and then the no side will have five minutes for their opening statements and additional two minutes for rebuttal. And then the yes side will have four minutes more. The no side will have two minutes more. In the third round, both sides will have two minutes for their closing statement. Let me just read the ballot statement to orient people to Measure H. It says, shall ordinance 2521, which renews the existing park maintenance tax of $49 per year on residential units and on non-residential units in amounts specified in the ordinance for 20 years, adds an annual 2% inflator and is expected to generate 1.4 million in the first year to fund maintenance of park streets, street trees, green belts, bike paths, medians, public landscaping, urban wildlife, and habitat, swimming pools and public recreational facilities be adopted. You guys have any questions? Are you ready to start? Yes. Thank you. You want to start the timing, Normie? All right. Thank you. Well, thank you, Bob. Thank you, Leslie. And thank you to Civ Energy for hosting this forum and for the work that you do to build community throughout the year, and in particular during election season. And thank you to Davis Media Access for your work in expanding community dialogue and transparency. I certainly don't expect to take the full five minutes because Measure H is a known quantity as it's been around for 20 years. The voters of Davis first passed this $49 parks tax in 1998, and the city is now asking for a simple renewal of this tax at the same rate with two important differences. For the first time, this tax will maintain its spending power by including an inflator not to exceed 2% a year and second in the interest of giving some level of long-term predictability to both our citizens and our city budget. We're asking that this revenue measure, which has been on the books for 20 years, be extended for that same amount of time. This tax generates $1.4 million in annual revenue, and it's used to offset parks maintenance costs. In 1998, this funding source generated 75% of our parks maintenance costs. Today that number is just under 18% of the cost, which is why the small inflator is included. Over the last two decades, our parks and recreation services have expanded and become more inclusive to all residents. Our parks acreage has increased by more than a third. All the while, the funding we received from the state has significantly diminished. It's for that reason that many have argued that the parks tax ought to be increased, but the city is taking the conservative approach and asking for a simple renewal at that same $49 a year. And we believe that 13 cents a day is a very small price to pay to help maintain our neighborhood parks and playgrounds, our green belts and walking paths, and our recreational facilities and programs. These essential city services and the positive impact they have on our community and our home values cannot be overstated. In fact, one of the arguments the opponents of this measure have made over the years is that the cost of living in Davis is already very high compared to our neighboring communities. We all know that that's true. Homes in Davis sell for nearly twice per square foot as those in neighboring communities such as Woodland or Dixon. The reason for that is not because houses here in Davis are somehow nicer or that we have oceanfront property here in Davis, but because of our remarkable civic amenities, most notably our public school system, but also our network of parks, pools, green belts, and recreational opportunities. In 1998, the original parks tax was described as vital if the city is to continue to provide the quality of life Davis residents expect by former mayors, Vigfus Asmanson and Julie Partansky, who signed the ballot statement in favor. Two decades later, this essential truth has not changed. Our parks and recreation services remain vital to our community and they deserve our continued support. Please vote yes on measure H. Michael. My name is Michael Nolan. I represent the Yolo County Taxpayers Association and the members of the association that live inside the city of Davis. I want to make a clear that the Taxpayers Association is not against taxes. We fully believe that taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society. But there's two caveats that we insist on. One, the tax has to be legal. If it's not legal, you're reduced to the sheriff of Nottingham of stealing the goods of people for Sherwood Forest. And that's not right. The second is, the tax has to be focused on what it is supposed to pay for and limited to those measures. I want to thank, before I go any further, Bob Fung and Leslie Hunter and Davis Community Access for having this forum here. Theodore Roosevelt called, he expressed this local government or any government as the ordeal of self-government. And we have a opportunity here that we're gathered here to actually carry on that important function. Unfortunately, we're all missing the Pence Gallery garden tour because of that. But that's because this is an important matter for the future of our city. What I want to say in regards with Major H is that the problem is that there are several serious deficiencies in the ordinance. And the ordinance should be, well, sent back to the council. Unfortunately, what we've seen throughout California in local government is that there's three times that local government will listen to people, the citizens. One is if you agree with them. Two, if you threaten to sue them. And the third comes from a decision by the state Supreme Court many years ago. That said, ballot voted by a voter at an election is a statement from the voter to the government, expressing their choice to approve or disapprove a major. And so your ballot here is an important statement, the only statement that the city council must listen to. And the statement we have to send is just not to vote no on Major H. But the idea is send it back to the council and clean this ordinance up. One, make it legal. Keep it from, the council has unfortunately tied Major H with Major I at the hip. Both of those measures are funded the same, exact same way. And if you're going to attack one, you have to attack the other. And what's going to happen is the council has to address the fact that this is an invitation for litigation and massive attorney's fees. Keep it fair. The problem with the taxes, it distinguishes between parcels and people of property. Part of the problem with it is what I would say is send it back to the council and eliminate the special tax on daycare centers. That just is bizarre to me. I would say eliminate the tax on people who live in group homes. That's not right at all. I'd also say that the, and one of the most bizarre things for this park measure, if you read the measure as it was, as it is written, as it is proposed, and read the current measure, the current measure contains language. I'll quote this right here. This is the current park tax that was adopted six years ago. Revenue may be used to operate and maintain property owned by the Davis Joint Unified School District and other public agencies. So long as the property is so maintained, is available for use by the residents of the city for the purposes of a park. They dropped that language out, and I'd like to know why. You know, one of the great problems with our, one of the best aspects we have in our city is that we have unified the city and the school district have worked in hand and hand for 60 years. And in many places you see schools and parks put together because they're used by the school during the day and everybody by night. That's, I would like that to be fixed. Thank you. Well, you have four minutes. Well, thank you. Look, I was here when we made that decision regarding the school's element. It was out of clarity so that we, it was not inferred that we would be using this money to fix school property. And I certainly imagine that had we kept that language in, perhaps the opponents would be saying we shouldn't be using this money to fix the schools, let the schools do it. The reason I say that is because this measure first came in front of the voters in 1998, was passed overwhelmingly, has been renewed again in 2006, again in 2012. And every time the Yolo County Taxpayers Association has been opposed to it. And the reasoning changes from year to year. So for example, the opponents of Measure H in their ballot statements and ballot arguments and in fact those are reiterated in a piece in the vanguard today. The opponents of Measure H are predicating their argument around on this time that we don't have a revenue problem, they say, but that we have an employee spending problem. And that's the reason why this time you ought to vote no on the parks tax. In the ballot statement, for example, they throw out some numbers and try and make a case for fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the city from 2012 to 2016. Fortunately, they provide a link to transparentcalifornia.com so we can all take a deeper dive into the numbers and see for ourselves. What the opponents argue is that the average salary of a full-time city employee increased in that time period, which it did. But what they fail to mention is that the total number of full-time employees in the city decreased in that time period from more than 400 in 2012 to just over 300, 303 to be exact in 2016. So of course that average went up. We have fewer employees doing far more now and serving a larger population. A more pertinent number, however, would be total city employee compensation, which went down significantly in that time period for more than 51 million in 2012 to 43 million in 2016. That translates to a decrease in city employee compensation cost per resident from $787 in 2012 to $643 in 2016, a savings of nearly 20% or $144, which as it turns out is roughly the total of measures H and I combined. That total compensation number, by the way, is down even further. It's now less than $38 million. The opponents of measure H make similarly misleading claims when they talk about average salary of park maintenance workers. They completely ignore the budget savings that have been achieved through attrition that have reduced the total employee compensation for that position by more than 13%. So much for doing, quote, virtually nothing to control employee compensation as the opponents of measure H claim. Again, this information is all available at the website transparentcalifornia.com, which the measure H's opponents refer to in their ballot statement, so you can look it up for yourself. Look, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Nolan and the organization he represents, but the fact of the matter is the Yolo County Taxpayers Association has consistently opposed this park's tax since its inception 20 years ago. Their reasoning changes from year to year and apparently day to day. For example, in 2006, they argued, if you can believe it, that the city cannot possibly justify the threat of cuts when its own budget figures show huge revenue increases in budget reserves. So I guess we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. The opponents of measure H continue to cherry pick arguments to suit their needs at the time, but the bottom line remains the same. If you believe that $5 a month is a reasonable investment in maintaining our parks, pools, green belts, and recreational programs and facilities, as 84% of Davis residents believed when we last voted on it in 2012, then vote yes on measure H. Thanks, well, you have two minutes, Mr. Nolan. I would point out with the school district that the language in the current ordinance, the word is allowed. The city is allowed to use money to help the school district. That language having been taken out, the city is no longer allowed to do that. And what that does is at a time when the school district is talking about a parcel tax for increased, for their underpaid teachers. And the school district is talking about a bond measure in November of $150 million to deal with their building program. The city is just saying, yeah, you're on your own. We're not gonna, don't expect us to cut your grass at Nugget Field or at the Sycamore Park, the playground, the field behind Willett School, and the other schools around here. Now, the past arguments of the Yellow County Taxpayers Association were signed by somebody else other than me, not me. And I seriously doubt that that may have been someone else. And I'm not quite honestly, I'm not sure if the association voted one way or the other. But what has happened since this park tax was adopted was that the rationale for having a tiered parcel tax, that taxes apartments the same way it taxed, that the same amount that it taxes houses that are on the green belt is that, well, the school district did it. Well, in 2013, after this measure was passed, the Court of Appeals said you can't do that. You have to run a straight parcel tax. Go to your board members, go to the school district. Can you do a tiered parcel tax? They'll say no, we can't. And now the city's saying, oh, well, no, that doesn't apply to us anymore. That's where the problems come, and that's why you should vote no. Thanks. Well, you have two minutes for a closing statement. Thank you. And again, thank you to Civ Energy for the opportunity to talk about Measure H. Look, I'll say it again. This is a simple renewal of a measure that's been on the books for 20 years. If you think that 13 cents a day is an investment in our parks, an investment in our community, an investment in our home value that's worth making, then you're gonna vote yes on Measure H. If you go down the rabbit hole of whatever the argument du jour is against it, then be my guest. We're asking for a simple renewal of this tax. All nine candidates for city council have endorsed Measure H, as has the Sacramento Bee. They believe, as I do, that less than five bucks a month is an incredibly small price to pay to ensure that our parks, playgrounds, and green belts remain safe and accessible to all. So please join me in voting yes on Measure H. Thank you, Will. Michael. As a final, to wrap this up, I think what we have to, what we're, again, we're not against a tax to take care of the parks. What we need, though, is a tax that is fair, that is uniform, and that addresses the problems that the city has. So we need tighter language to focus this on parks. You also need a tax system where everyone pays the same amount, I believe. And I think it's wrong that the people that benefit the most, the ones who live on the green belts, who live next to the parks, they pay the same as the people stuck in a little apartment in East Davis, the same amount as if they're being paid equally. They have the equal access. I really like Will. He's a great guy. I think public service is an important job. It really is difficult for everyone here. But I would like for you to read the ordinance. You can look at the impartial analysis by the city attorney. As long as you remember, the city attorney was the principal drafter of the ordinance. Only in city government can an impartial analysis be drafted by the person who drafted the ordinance. Read the ordinance. Ask yourself if it's fair. Look at the different costs that it can be spent on. And I think you will agree with me that this should go back to the council and come back with a better ordinance. Thank you, Michael. We don't have any questions for measure H. So we'll just, is that right? Does anybody have any questions on measure H? So let's move on to the next round then to the next measure measure. Next up is measure I. We have two people on the yes side. Elaine Roberts-Musser and Brett Lee. And we have Michael Nolan on the no side. I'll just read the ordinance again for measure I. Shall ordinance 2522 be adopted to add article 15.21 to the Davis Municipal Code to establish a street and bike path maintenance tax of $99 per year on residential units and on non-residential units in amounts specified in the ordinance to fund maintenance of streets, bike lanes and paths, sidewalks and related transportation infrastructure which is estimated to raise $2.8 million with a 2% annual inflator for a period of 10 years. You guys okay with the times? Okay, so the yes side starts with five minutes. Brett? Yeah, so thank you Bob. Thank you Leslie, thanks Mike and thanks Elaine. So I'll just give a very brief sort of thumbnail description of how we arrived at proposing this parcel tax. So the city has a pretty robust financial model and the financial model includes realistic assumptions about changes in pension contribution requirements, employee salaries, inflation, information on expected revenue increases just through the natural increase in property tax amounts limited by Prop 13 but also when there's a change of ownership. And through that financial model we realize that we do have an ongoing shortfall. The financial experts and these discussions were held in open city council meetings in view of the public. The financial experts have basically told us that we are short on an ongoing basis of about $8 million a year in terms of where we are today and this is sort of projected out for the next 20 years. What we have been doing is we have been funding some important infrastructure repairs and maintenance but nowhere near the level that is needed. So we have roughly about an $8 million shortfall going forward and the council discussed options for the dealing with that. And what we sort of settled on was we thought that it would be reasonable to ask the public to help us cut that gap in half. So look for about $4 million in additional revenue and the council's responsibility would be to find an additional $4 million of savings per year or enhanced revenue to equal that $4 million a year. And that's why we see a parks tax of $49 which is the same amount that it was 20 years ago. And if you heard from Will, you heard that it funds roughly 18 to 20% of the park's budget whereas before it provided much more funds for that. And the $99 on the roads parcel tax is really to help us get to what is, so this is sometimes confusing to people, different outside consultants have told us we should be spending about $8 million in total to maintain our current road bike and sidewalk infrastructure. So the $8 million shortfall in an ongoing city budget, slightly different than the $8 million we should be spending towards street and sidewalk repairs. We currently spend about $3 million towards road repairs, maintenance, including sidewalks and bike paths. So this is to help us bridge the gap. In addition, we should be receiving some state funds from SB1 which will be estimated about close to 1.3 and $1.4 million as we move forward. So the $3 million that we're spending plus this, plus SB1 funds should get us to where we should be in terms of our long-term expenditures for roads, bike paths and sidewalks. We know it's not popular for people to have to pay more than tax but we think we've sort of got the balance right which is this community helping us bridge that $8 million gap by about half and the city council looking for ways to find cost savings and also revenue economic development to increase the revenues to the cities. Did you wanna add anything, Elaine? Sure. I also wanna know, oh sorry, let me state that again. The current PCI or pavement condition index is 63 currently and what that means is the rehabilitation may be needed to prevent rapid deterioration. That's serious. Also any money that you spend, the dollar that you spend now, you may have to spend $10 later on to repair roads. So the bottom line is it's a lot cheaper to fix the roads now than it is later. Thank you. Michael, you have seven minutes. All right, thank you. Again, thank you, Brett and Elaine, it's nice to have you here. It's nice, I'll reiterate as little as I can on my original statement. The problems with major I are very much similar to major H. It's a tiered tax, it's the exact same people that are paying the bulk of the tax. In other words, the city looked at who's using the parks and they taxing those people more and then now they have the transportation. Well, who's using the transportation? Oh, it's the same people. I find that when they drafted that, they didn't really look at what the actual use, who uses the roads and where the costs come from. In March 26th, excuse me, March 26th earlier this year, Dan Walters wrote an article in the Cal Matters is where he writes now. And it was commentary, local tax hikes cleverly packaged. And what he said was that the local governments are facing a yawning gap of pension costs. And that CalPERS, the California Public Employee Retirement System is assessing local governments huge amounts of money coming down the pike. To meet that, the cities have to raise their taxes. But if they raise taxes to meet the pension costs, there would be a demand by the voters to do something to show fiscal restraint and to get a grip on the excessive compensation for public employees, especially upper management. But instead of doing that, Mr. Walters basically said, no, they're running parks measures and road measures to be approved because everyone likes the roads and everyone likes the parks. And then they're going to backfill with the special money. This is Mr. Walters, use that to meet the obligations that they're facing with CalPERS. So what are those obligations? You know, the little town of Loyalton up in the Sierras is sort of like the canary in the coal mine. And for those of you who don't remember mining, the old miners would bring canaries down to the mine and it would chirp and when it would stop they would look and if it had died it meant toxic gas was filling the mine that miners had to get out. Well, when Loyalton realized they could no longer afford the pension requirements that CalPERS demanded, they said, well, we have to leave. CalPERS put them out of the system that expects a 7% return, 7% return. And instead of put them into a category where there's only a 2% return, with the result that the pensions of the employees of that little town were cut 60%. Now, I want to make it clear. I believe that the city owes, it has to pay its debts. And I believe that government has to rely on the goodwill of being honest to the people. And when I see what happened in that little town and that was just last year, I'm afraid that, what are we gonna do to our employees? Are we ever gonna be in that situation? Or will our expenditure for CalPERS grow further and further and further? The basic problem with Major I is that it, as he says, as my friend Brett says, that we spend about $3 million on roads now. A couple of years ago, it was $5 million. But the city has been decreasing that amount as time's gone on. And the problem with it is that with this parcel tax, they're gonna fill the, they're gonna use that money to do what they had normally done before and then take the other revenue and deal with the pension costs without coming through a stated plan on how to fix this problem. So consequently, again, as with Major H, this measure should go back to the city council. We should use our vote to say no and redo this, focus more closely on what we wanna do. And if you read the proposed ordinance, there's included, as when they say, what will we spend this for? It includes the cost of collection of the tax. It includes administrative. It includes election. It includes legal. And my fear is, going back to the argument earlier, that this ordinance is not gonna stand a court test. And that what it will do is raise money that will find its way in the pockets of attorneys. Ask the school district. When the school district lost the parcel tax measure, they had to pay $50,000 attorney's fees to the person who brought the action. This matter dealing with the cities would be much more expensive. And the citizens have to realize that the city is begging for a lawsuit. And that the money raised here is not gonna go to the paving your roads. It's gonna go to the lawyers for the first couple of years. And believe me, the cases are clear in this, that the tiered parcel tax is not legal. It's actually, instead of a parcel tax, you could say it's an attacks on employees. It's attacks on daycare centers. It's attacks on commercial and industrial property. It's attacks on apartment dwellers. Much more than anyone else. And the voters here have to make the decision that, you know, give us a chance to let the council work on this. Make it legal, make it fair, and take care of these problems that we have. I'll let you. Thank you, Michael. Brett, Lane, you have four minutes, please. Yeah, thank you. So, you know, it's interesting this election season and the one, you know, recent election system, elections on the national level and also in the regional level, there's this idea that the ends justify the means. You know, I had perhaps this naive idea that, you know, people lay out what the objective facts are and we would discuss them and we can agree or we can disagree. I get that people don't wanna pay more taxes. I get that. This is not a foreign concept to me. I went to the Yolo County Taxpayers Association. They say they're not opposed to all taxes. They ask that when taxes are proposed, they're a specific tax requiring two thirds, so the use is specified. On this tax, it is specified. We currently spend $3 million on road repairs and maintenance and specifically, this is for over and above this. This tax is not to supplant that existing $3 million. So the idea that there's somehow some switching of money going on, it's written into the ballot proposal because we wanted to provide surety to the people who are voting on it that this money would be over and above the $3 million that we currently spend. It's in there. I find it sort of nonsensical, this idea of sort of tried and true methods of taxation. Somehow this cycle being subject to lawsuit. If that's true, then the tax won't be collected. If the answer, if you're worried that somehow this is illegal, if you don't know, then if the attorney's prevail, then you won't be charged the tax. This is just sort of a red herring designed to confuse people. The reality is pensions, calpers, all of that is built in the city's fiscal model. We have people in the audience who are happy to talk about that. Afterwards, we're happy to talk about it. We have in the model, anticipated calpers increase contribution requirements. This is not a simple back of the envelope model. This is a very robust financial model for the city. Has headcount assumptions, pay insumptions, all sorts of things. But at the end of the day, here's the real question. And it's kind of funny because this council, actually I'll go and talk about one point. This idea that we were spending $5 million, well in my six years on council, we have not spent $5 million on road repairs. So I'm not sure what this $5 million mark is referencing comes from. I can tell you that 15 years ago, the state did a much better job of funding local governments and funding their local road repair needs. The state has absolutely retreated from that. We hope that it would come back and imagine our disappointment that when SB1 figures came back out, that we were looking at about 1.3 or 1.4 million dollars when our need is about $8 million. The state has definitely retreated, but this idea that, oh, we were just recently spending $5 million on road repairs is patently false. I've been on the council for six years. We have not been here that number. I'll let Elaine do the closing here. I'll just follow up. I'll just say one other thing about this. You want your elected officials to be open and transparent. If you look at the council meetings, where we discuss these issues, where we have our financial consultants with us, all these issues were brought up. And if you don't like the truth, I'm sorry, but the truth is the city does not have enough money currently to maintain the roads. And so the choice is, do we imagine some fantasy scenario where Santa Claus comes up and helps us with this, or do we say yes to a tax of $99 a year that will allow us to properly maintain our roads like paths and sidewalks? And if I apologize to Elaine, I'll let her do the closing because I didn't mean to hog up all the time. You did fine. Michael, you have two minutes. Okay, thank you. The problem, as I've made my point, I think, but the problem with the two majors, let me just point out one other major, one other problem with it is that where all the people of Davis are fully aware of the parcel taxes that the school district puts through. And the school district has voted, the people have voted for those, parcel taxes. In every tax major, there always has been the provision in the schools that the taxes and collection of the money and the expenditure would be reviewed by an independent citizen's oversight committee. And I think that's an important measure to allow an independent body review what the school district is doing. In these two majors, H and I, they don't have an independent citizen review committee. They have an advisory commission or commissions. And if you read this section of the proposed measure, the city council may ask a certain advisory committee for its input once a year or may ask another advisory commission for its input. And so it's either sometimes one, sometimes the other, for again, for 10 years, for major H, 20 years for major, 20 years for major H, 10 years for major I. The problem with advisory bodies is that they're appointed by and controlled by the city council. And I think that it's a mistake to give money to the government, here, the city government, without an independent review process that we're otherwise used to. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Michael. The yes side has two minutes for our closing statement. This particular tax measure has what's called a maintenance of effort clause in it, which requires that it supplement the existing three million that's spent for road repairs, not supplant it. So that you're guaranteed that this money is not gonna be spent on anything but roads and it will not supplant what is already there. It will supplement it. This requirement was suggested by the chair of the Finance and Budget Commission. They all thought that that was the way to go. The commissions are very independent. If you know anything about commissions, I've been on two of them. They are very independent and they do review these things and they let the city council know exactly where they stand. The bottom line is it's either pay me now or pay me much more later. It is very expensive to fix your roads if you wait too long. We can't afford to wait any longer. Back to the matter is the funding from the state and federal government for transportation has not come in. They have their own budget problems and so less and less is coming to the city. Thank you. Thank you. I'll just conclude with the maintenance of effort, as she said, is discussing roads but this whole measure talks about bike paths, sidewalks, many associated improvements associated with transportation. And there's a real concern that there's no maintenance of effort for them and that the while they focused on the expenditure for the $3 million for roads, there's enough leeway. I will ask you if you read the ordinance, the proposed ordinance, both of them. What I found the first time I read it was when it came to where the expenditures were, they listed them all, but there was always these words that said, but not limited to. And so when the expenditures that we're gonna only, these are the items we're going to pay for, but we're not limited to X, Y, Z. The problem is that no one, there's no real oversight, once the taxes put in, there's no real ability to look and say, wait a minute, are you actually spending the money you're supposed to be doing this way? So anyway, I'll conclude that the importance with this measure is that with major age, it needs to be redrafted and tightened. The language needs to be more focused. It needs to have a funding mechanism that comports with the court of appeal. The Barracas versus Alameda Unified School District is a 2013 court of appeal case that closed the door on this kind of parcel tax. Why the city is refusing to do so is beyond me. But the second thing is that the council has that ability to do this now. Otherwise, if it approves, we're gonna have litigation and it's going to, we're not gonna have the ability to do all the things that the city promises that they'll do. But I repeat, finally, the yawning problem here is the pension costs. And the problem that we face is that the city has not come down and told us exactly how they're going to deal with this. They may talk about how the number of employees have dropped, but their compensation has gone up so that you have 88, 83,000. I mean, the faction figures are all out there. So I'll conclude. I wanna thank Elaine and Brett, again, fine public servants. But I think the best thing to do is to send these measures back with a no vote and let Mayor Lee deal with it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have two questions, both for a measure I. First, we'll start with the yes side. You have 90 seconds to answer the question. Don't all residents require goods and services? Don't we all benefit from the roads without which delivering goods and services is impossible? So I'm not, I mean, yes, right? So that's, so I don't need 90 seconds, but I think perhaps that gets to some of the discussions about the legality of the parcel tax and this idea that the council specifically chose to charge the same rate for a single family residential parcel as a per unit in an apartment. The idea here is that all residents benefit, that this should not be a tax that is just borne by the homeowners, but people who live in apartments do also benefit from good roads, bike paths and sidewalks. And the area of California law that Mike seems very concerned about is quite different than the area of law that deals with school parcel taxes. So the area of law that we operate in as a city municipality, we feel that the law is definitely on our side in terms of the method of taxation, Mike. Well, I'll just say that having read the cases for the city and the school districts, I think the city is on very thin ice. The second point is that the, if you read the ordinance as you will note that some of the biggest impact we have on our roads and are on the community come from the university, but the university property is not taxed. Public off-campus housing owned by the university will not pay a tax. They're exempt from that. I would like to see the city use their ability to figure out how can we get the university to pony up and contribute to our infrastructure. But instead, we're gonna tax daycare centers and apartment dwellers and employees in commercial buildings. So again, we have, Davis is a great city. It can be so much better. But what we have to do is look at our ability to think outside the box and find new ways to fund these programs. With the recent tax situation, the federal income tax, more and more there's this feeling that we have to go, why don't we go towards charitable deductions to take care of charitable contributions to deal with these measures. The city has all sorts of things they can do and I wish they would. Thank you. Thanks, Michael. Our second question is about the tax burden or the burden of property owners versus renters. The question reads measures H and I combined result in a one-time $148 increase for property owners. Meanwhile, renters face $200 to $600 rent increases per year due to the artificially created housing crises. Those residents most capable of absorbing housing cost increases are sticking it to those residents least able to do so. What does this say about our community values? No, you take that one. So unfortunately, the different taxing abilities that municipal governments have access to, whether it's a sales tax or property tax, they tend to be a bit regressive but we have the tools that we have. And so I think if we were to discuss this and imagine that we had an exemption for apartment units, what would that seem like to us? Because clearly parks, green belts, good streets, good bike paths, good sidewalks, they benefit all residents. And so the idea is and was as we discussed this that all of the community benefits and all the community should help pay for it. And while I understand the sentiment, I think when we talk about much larger sums of money, then I understand that the rental situation in Davis, there is an extreme shortfall of units. And absolutely, renters are constantly being subjected to much higher rents each year. But when we think of the magnitude of what we're asking for, we're asking for roughly, both measures combined, less than $15 a month. So for the average unit, which is something like $1,000 or so-ish depending on one bedroom, two bedrooms, something like that, $15 a month, I think is a reasonable price to pay for all the benefits that accrue to both the people living single family homes and apartment units. And so I understand the issue of equity and fairness and that was discussed when we were talking about placing this tax. But the magnitude of the amount, $15, it seems reasonable for all to share in the costs and the benefits. Thank you, Brett. Michael? I would say that the problem is, I think that Brett has indicated what he's described as a property tax. And I think in the findings of the ordinance, they're saying, well, no, this is not a property tax. And so we're getting into legal weeds in this point. The problem is that what the tax is on is property, not on people. People use the infrastructure, though. And the city doesn't have the ability, has a limited ability to tax the people to do that. When we have, the fundamental thing is you're driving up the cost of housing. And you're in a situation where you have a, you have somebody working at Safeway or a student just trying to, they are paying this tax that's being passed through to their rent. And then if they work in an industrial place to help pay for their college education, well, they're being taxed, the owners of the company are being taxed on that too. You're taxing employees and you're taxing renters. And the important thing is those are the least people to afford the measure. I would say that bottom line, read the ordinance, look at it, read the arguments pro and con. And I think you'll make a decision that we should go back and have another crack at this later on. Thank you. Could I just make a clarification on this? So it's not. Sure. It's, the tax is for $99 per single family residential unit. It's $99 per multifamily residential unit. So for each sort of apartment door, that there might be 10 apartments, that would be 10 taxes being applied. And so just to be clear, so I'm not gonna editorialize on that, but just, I think that might, that message might have been lost. It's $99 per door. So whether that door is a single family residence or you live in an apartment complex. Michael, would you like to say anything more? I would just say that the, in the legal authority, it says this is not a property tax. It's based on the, it's not based on the status of ownership of property, nor on the proper. It's an excise tax. That's what the idea. The problem is with so much is that the, what you have is poor kids who are renting an apartment, a one room apartment, or are paying, being an assessed tax on that apartment. The same as the people who live on the green belts, the people that have huge mansions, the people with three different cars driving all the time. Thank you. So Bob, I didn't editorialize on mine, so I understand that you gave, so I would like to take the same amount of time to editorialize. Many of the same arguments that Mike mentions can be applied to single family residential residents. We have seniors on fixed incomes, we have a variety of folks on fixed incomes. We have people who lived in their homes for many, many years who are retired and they also face financial challenges. In this ordinance, there is the ability to come up with plans to address folks who are low income status to assist them with this. And that would apply both to single family residential residents as well as people who live in multifamily. But the arguments apply to both groups of folks. We have people who are struggling with their budgets, whether they live in an apartment or in a house. So this argument to me, while interesting, doesn't seem to indicate why you should vote no on this. Let me just add for five seconds. Go ahead, Michael. The taxes on the property owner has to pay this as part of their property taxes. If you're a poor person renting, theoretically, you're not being assessed the tax. The property owner is. And so he has to go, as far as I can see, and show I'm being assessed, I'm a poor property owner and I need this. That's all. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, can we start the next round, please? This will be on measure J. The yes and no sides have switched sides. So Sandy Whitcomb and Rob Davis are there on the right and Matt Williams and Colin Walsh on the left. City of Measure J states shall resolution 18023 amending the Davis General Plan to change the land use designation for the Nishi property from agriculture to medium high density residential and natural habitat area as set forth in the resolution and establishing the baseline project features for development of the Nishi project be approved. The yes side has five minutes. Hi, I'm Sandy Whitcomb and thank you, Bob and Leslie for having us and it's good for everyone to be here. I know with Measure J and R, it's everybody in Davis wanted the right to look at this stuff and so I think it's really important for people to learn all the facts and the details and the merits of the project. So I'm here to talk about yes on Measure J, which is a proposal for new student housing next to campus on the Nishi parcel. First, I wanna talk quickly about the current local environment and trends we're seeing in Davis. We all know about the housing crisis. We're all learning how severe it is. It affects everyone and especially students. UC Davis is increasing enrollment each year, estimated another six or 7,000 over the next decade. Students are facing extreme financial stress and housing insecurity. Some of you I've seen at the city council meetings here listening to students line up out the door telling their nightmare stories. Thousands, well, they just simply can't find a place to live in many cases and there are thousands now commuting from other cities into our, just to go to school, which is causing more traffic and it's not healthy for the commuters or the environment. We also have a parking problem downtown and our single family homes, when kids can find a place to live here, many of them are crowding into those. So neighborhoods like the one that I grew up in are disappearing. We're turning into a town of students and seniors with a diminishing middle as far as demographics go and we're busing in kids from hundreds of kids from other towns just to keep our schools afloat and our teachers aren't getting paid as much as they are in Vacaville. So I think we can all agree we need more housing, I hope. This location is ideal. Oh, thank you, Vanna, for many reasons. As you can see, it's sort of a strange shape land. It's actually in Yolo County. It can't be farmed because it's a weird shape and it's just really being underutilized right now. It is right near, it's on campus basically and downtown is right over along the Davis bike loop. So you can roll out a bed if you're a student and get on your bike or go to campus, go to town. It's gonna be very much of a walking and biking community which is what students have really been calling for. They want to live here. Also with parking for fewer than one third of the residents and no parking within the actual building area, this will really encourage even further car-free living which is much more affordable for students as well because a car these days with insurance and all of that costs $200 or $300 a month and that's a lot of money for a student. We also have the downtown parking problem. Well, one of the solutions to that everybody knows is to build higher density housing near town centers where people can walk to businesses. This helps not just the people looking for parking spaces, the customers, but it helps the businesses with 2,200 new customers right there. It also will open up some single-family homes around town for actual families they were intended for. Now you can put that down. I'll talk about just quickly the baseline features are sort of baked into the zoning and that's what we're voting on. So they cannot be changed without another vote of the people, just the very basics up to 700 apartments for up to 2,200 residents. 330 of these residents will have below market rate rents with our affordable program. I'll go into that later, hopefully. Other features include 2,300 bicycle spots. Half of those are covered. We have extras for people who have two bikes. Over 13 acres of open space, including our urban forest buffer which I think is very innovative, very exciting. I hope to talk more about it because I think this will put us back on the map in planning schools around the country on their curriculum because it is really, really amazing. Design changes versus 2016. We can go into that later. No business park, no access to olive drive, all private vehicles with a new underpass to campus. Very reduced parking, no peak hour travel. So those concerns have been fixed. Thank you, Sandy. Are you going, Colin? Okay, you have seven minutes. Hello, I'm Colin Walsh and longtime Davis resident. Went to junior high with Sandy. We had PE together, stood on numbers right next to each other, Whitcomb and Walsh. Just want to also introduce Matt Williams. I'm a member of the Finance and Budget Commission as a candidate two years ago. I took a position of yes on Nishi because we did certain fiscal steps in order to make a good project. I'm unfortunately, from my perspective, a no on Nishi this time. So first, thank you, Bob, Fung and Leslie Hunter and Civ Energy for hosting the forum today. So we voted on Measure A two years ago and the city rejected it. This was a similar project in the same location yet the council has brought this back and put it on us. And when they did, there was every single member of city council agreed that this project was inferior to the project that was voted against two years ago. So I have two specific concerns to address. First, there are real environmental concerns about this site. Prominent air quality experts have put forward a lot of evidence that this is not a healthy place to live and they've cited specific unique aspects of the site as why that it's the freeway narrows that there is with three lanes, that there is excessive braking there, that the diesel on the rail line is particularly bad. The braking, by the way, is heavy metal particulate, something that you carry through your life. But what we know for sure is that there has never been on-site testing. There was testing done nearby. The pro side has actually claimed that the testing nearby is over elevated because it was done near a lawn mower shop. So even they don't think that the testing that's been done is adequate. So with no testing, I don't see how we move forward with this project. So we would need to test it. We need to know what the situation is before we know anything else. The second part is the financial component to the project. And as a member of the Finance and Budget Commission, this is something that I've dug into pretty extensively. But before I go into those fiscal points, I'd like to address one of the points that Sandy just said was that we need higher density housing near downtown. When each of the five council members came out and said that this was an inferior project to the one of two years ago, that project had a density of 66 units per acre on 9.8 acres of residential. This project has 27 units per acre on 25.8 acres. How is going from 66 units per acre down to 27 units per acre a commitment to higher density housing next to downtown? I have a hard time figuring that out. To me, what this is is a squandered opportunity. When it first came up long before council had even sent it to any of the commissions, I said in public comment that I felt that this needed to be at the same density of the prior project. If we did that, we would have between 5,000 and 7,000 students rather than 2,200. And the reality is that means that for the neighborhoods out where we are experiencing the conversion of houses over to mini dorms, we would have 5,000 less demand for mini dorm space. So every one of you who's concerned about mini dorms in your neighborhoods, you would see that if they built this project at the same density they did, they proposed two years ago, it would solve much more a problem that exists. The second thing is that we went into this in the finance and budget commission and we came out of the analysis with two different numbers. One was, and imagine that you're buying a property when you look at your mortgage and your taxes and your insurance and all the monthly bills and you just worry about that, finance and budget said that this project would be a $1.4 million a year surplus. Here we are this year, 90 cents on a dollar has evaporated of that 1.4 million. The finance and budget commission analysis by the city brought that 1.4 million down to 140,000. If I gave you a dollar and a dime, which one are you going to choose? Second, we in the finance and budget commission listening to the financial consultants and there have been no financial consultants this time around also arranged for a savings account of $900,000 a year to address the things that we've just talked about in the prior efforts to address the things like in your personal life, repairing the roof, replacing the roof, fixing a tree that needs to come down, replacing your flooring, replacing your carpets, the things that happen in a pulsed way not on a regular monthly basis. We had $900,000 in the prior proposal. There is nothing, there is not a single dollar being saved for that capital infrastructure. There's nothing being set aside. If you subtract $900,000 from 143,000, the city's number on the run rate, you get a deficit of $750,000. That means Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You have the $8 million that both of the last two presentations have talked about and we're adding 750,000 more to it. That's insanity. That's not fiscally responsible. And if we had had the presentation of those numbers in finance and budget, you would be getting both the numbers so we could make an informed decision. Thank you. Sandy, Rob, you have four minutes. Oh, thank you very much. I believe we will be, some of this stuff that you brought up will be probably covered in the question and answers. So I will continue just to talk about some of the features of the project right now. I haven't covered the sustainability features yet and the project will be, of course, fully solar powered with a goal of zero net energy maxed out on the solar and for any additional energy that the residents might use, the surplus will be at the green rate in participation with Valley Clean Energy Alliance so all the energy will come from renewable sources. We're also gonna have e-vehicle charging stations and infrastructure to roll that out as they become more popular because the thing about e-vehicles, electric cars, is they're coming down in price but people who live in apartments have nowhere to charge them so we're really excited about that. It will also be lead gold. It has an affordable housing program that I'm sure will also come up in the question and answers so quickly I'll go over it. It's privately subsidized and this is something that's also new from last time. There was no affordable housing and now there's a groundbreaking affordable housing program for students. Students don't typically qualify for big A affordable housing and now we're going to offer 110 beds at Yolo County's extremely low income rates, 220 at the very low income rates that are tied to Yolo County incomes for the life of the project and will help students for generations to come. As far as just the big picture on the fiscal benefits for some of the stuff that Matt said, I think Rob will answer to that but upfront there's 15 million in fees to the city, 2.2 million in fees to Yolo County, upfront, these are upfront and 2.1 million in fees to Davis Public Schools and so I know my dad's company offers about pays 30,000, donates 30,000 or 40,000 to the public schools each year and it's a big deal to them so I can't imagine what 2.1 million dollars is gonna feel like, it's gonna be a good thing and in addition to the upfront fees, sorry, we have property taxes for the property like everybody else pays and a lot of those go to the state, a lot stay in town and the ones that stay in town they looked at those versus the costs. Finance and Budget Commission voted on this, it is a net positive for the city annually and then you have to look at that, net positive millions of dollars over the life of the project, actually a hundred million dollars if you add everything up over the life of the project and most of that we would lose out on completely if those 2,200 students had to be housed on campus so this is 2,200 students less that have to be housed on campus out in West Village, we should do it together, we should grow together as a college town like we've always done hand in hand with the university and then you can go ahead and. The Finance and Budget Commission gave us one motion and it was that the project was net, fiscally positive. Matt is talking about things that he had hoped that the commission would vote on but they did not because they did not see the value in the method Matt was putting forward. We have one recommendation which is that it's net positive for the city. We also in the development agreement have made it clear that the, and it's required that the developer pay for all costs of infrastructure on the site and therefore we do not need to have a CFD or other forms of financing because the costs are born. I'll get into some of the air quality issues in a little while. Colin, Matt, you have two minutes. I'd like to address the point that Rob just made. In 2016, the Finance and Budget Commission had one recommendation. It was passed by a five to one to one vote. We said the 1.4 million was what the benefit was going to be. Staff presented on their own in consultation with EPS to counsel the information on both the full life cycle costing and the pay-as-you-go cash accounting. There was one vote then, there was one vote now. Responsible reporting to the council would have made them, had them prepare them to make a more informed decision. So Sandy said we all know there's a housing crisis and she talked about the stress and the nightmare stories. Let's remember though, Nishi is five years away from being built. Where this is not a short, quick fix to our housing situation. There are other things that can be done though. Pacifica co-ops are four buildings owned by the city two of which have been vacant for 10 years. This was supposed to be a student housing project. This is something that the city can do now. And instead it's being repurposed and probably won't be student housing. That's 120 beds, it could be even doubled up, it could be more. It's not, it doesn't compare in the big picture but it's something that could be done now. There have been reports of students having no place to sleep at night. Yet the city has done nothing about that. They could be allowing students to park in the lot here and at least use the showers as a short term fix until housing is available. Tandem properties which is owned in large part by the same folks who are bringing us Nishi own 13 separate properties around town. Some of which haven't been, were built 40 years ago. Every one of these properties could be densified without a measure J vote. That could, there's almost 2,000 units in them now that could be quite a bit bigger. We just have to really look at what they say. Thanks Colin. You guys have two minutes for closing statement. Okay. I'll just say really quickly on Pacifico, the good news is that we're housing people who are at imminent risk of homelessness in those spaces and rehabilitating the rest for that purpose. Charles Salox is a PhD Davis resident and a toxicologist from the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment. He said, there is no scientific basis for concluding that air quality at the Nishi site as influenced by freeway traffic is any different than any other residential location existing and proposed along the interstate 80 quarter. The no side wants you to believe that there's something unique about Nishi there is not. They have made much of the elevated freeway but a Los Angeles Times article from earlier this year made it clear that elevated freeways actually disperse particles better than flat. They have neglected to tell you that same article pointed out that overnight matter from particulate matter from freeways goes one mile inland away from those freeways. That means that virtually every, when children arrive at schools and virtually every school in this city they are experiencing the air from interstate 80 and I and Road 113 when they arrive. There is nothing unique about Nishi in terms of air quality. Matt is misstating and I think misrepresenting the finance and budget commission. There were not two looks this time. There was one, it's net positive. Go to the recommendation from the finance and budget commission and realize that the city council in the baseline and development agreement took into account and responded to every single one of their recommendations including having the developer pay for the cost of infrastructure on the site. We are dealing with a housing crisis in our city in multifaceted ways. We have not been sitting still. We have entitled two projects for students pushed back from the community on both of them. One reason why we cannot do more with this property is because we were told by voters that the commercial was gonna cause too many impacts. We've gone to housing only as a major priority and we can house 2000 students there. Thank you, Rob. Rob, miss heard me. There was one vote by the finance and budget commission in 2016. There was one vote in 2018. The difference was that staff took the one vote and augmented it with the additional information and shared that with the council. Sandy has said, roll out of bed and go to campus, car free living. Why is there five acres of parking if that's what we're going to do? The reality is if this is a student-only project, the students have access. When I moved here with my ex-wife, she got a parking permit in order to go to class. So you end up in a situation where those students all have access to parking on campus. They have to pay for them. I would certainly hope that John and company and Sandy would have paid parking on site so that we're discouraging cars. We need to have a clean air project and I personally think this is an excellent site for exactly what it is. I don't agree with all the other people I'd like to see and I said this nine months ago. I say it again now. I'd like to see 5,000 students there, not 2,200. So to be clear, Pacifico still has 50% unoccupied. Two buildings have been empty for 10 years and continue to be empty today. The mayor cites the developers expert, but no independent expert has ever been hired by the city to look at this. And there has been no on-site testing at any time. Without on-site testing, we don't even have the inputs to put into the equations to know what we're talking about. They cited the cost of the roads as a positive, but these are going to be private roads. What's the oversight that the city will have for maintenance of these roads long-term? The mayor cited two projects that have been approved. What the mayor failed to mention is that there are 12,000 bedrooms, 12,000 beds on the way, including on campus and those projects and other things. Thank you, Colin. As you can see, I have a lot of questions. And what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna try to, because of all the different issues, I'm going to increase the time limit for answering the question from 90 seconds to two minutes. And we're just gonna try to attack the issues in broad categories. I'll try to find the questions that relate to the category and read as many questions as I can, and then you could just answer the question with respect to the broad category. So the first one has to do with the, Sandy brought up the affordable housing that Nishi is putting forward. So I give you two minutes to talk about, two minutes more to talk about that affordable housing, what you're doing at Nishi, and then the no side can respond for two minutes. Okay, so I think I went through the numbers. You wanna talk about it? You know all about this too, okay. So there's some indication in the community that people are saying that this is unique and different than the way the city's done affordable housing in the past. That's not true. We have affordable housing and market rate units all over the city. And in each case, the city monitors those units. Those are private developments made with private money that include affordable, covenant restricted affordable housing. The city has been doing this type of monitoring of those types of establishments for 30 years. There's nothing new here. It is true we've reduced the requirement from 35%. And that is because we could easily put a plaque on the wall over here and say look, we require 35%. And that would be a beautiful plaque and we could tell our friends how great we are. But if we don't build a single unit because that's not practical in this day and age then we have zero. We have a beautiful plaque and we can be telling our friends how cool Davis is. 15% based on the fiscal analysis done by an outside expert is reasonable for this project. 300 students, 300 will have an opportunity for affordable housing. That's what the story needs to be told here is we're actually getting to the place where we have affordable units coming online after more than a decade of no affordable rental units in this city except for capital A affordable which come with government money and are much more costly to develop and administer. This is the true story of affordable in this project. Thank you, Rob. Go ahead. Thank you. The affordable housing component. So the affordable housing component is only referenced in the baseline features and actually appears in the project development agreement which may or may not be changeable by a city council vote. But what we do know is in the section, the affordable housing section it reads as this that there are some circumstances under which the city may on its own initiative or at the request of the developer consider and make modifications to this affordable housing plan including but not limited to expanding the availability of affordable beds to non-students provided that any such modifications shall ensure to the satisfaction of the city in its discretion of the developer shall provide affordable housing in an amount consistent with the requirements of the affordable housing plan. The mayor just made an argument about how the 15% is better than 35% and yet the very document that he's arguing in favor for allows a great deal of flexibility in the future for the city to change the affordable housing plan. There is no guarantee that this affordable housing plan will be there in perpetuity. Thank you. The next question is about the access under the railroad tracks from Nishi to UC Davis. So can the, yes, I'd talk about that. What is the question specifically? It says what happens if the access under the railroad tracks and or the access of Nishi to UCD do not happen? Well, that's in the baseline features and if it does not happen, no site can be occupied. It has to be built in order for any apartment unit in that site to be occupied. That's clearly in the baseline features and I'll take a few seconds to go back to the affordable and simply say, oh, you don't want me to do that? Okay, I won't. I'm happy to hear it. I just want to. No, no, no, that's okay. If they're gonna get the last word on everything though, I mean, we don't have any opportunity to correct errors that they're consistently making. I see. Let me think about that for a second. Would you like to go? And I'm perfectly happy to let them have the last word. I just think people need to recognize that if they have the last word, they can load in falsehoods, which they've been doing throughout this time. Oh, wow. Sorry, sorry, Michael. Do you want me to point out where I feel they've made those statements that are inaccurate? Rob. Let's all just continue with the forum. Let's, we can have a good discussion. Yeah. Let's see. Can I ask the no side? Would you mind if Rob makes a statement about the affordability and then I would give you an opportunity to respond? I would, yeah. Okay. We'd welcome clarification. Go ahead, Rob. So it's a clear legal opinion of the city, which has been published now that changes to the affordable would trigger a new vote. And that's what I meant by inaccurate statements. That legal opinion has come forward. The fact that there is a legal opinion on the table makes it actionable now in a court of law if any changes are attempted. The affordable is based on the amount of affordable in the current ordinance of the city, which is 15%, that's what we voted on the night that we changed the ordinance. And that's what it must remain or according to the legal opinion offered by our attorney would require a new vote on Nishi. I believe that I've read the email from the city manager that you're speaking of and I don't believe it addressed the section that I specifically read here, citing that there are specific instances where the affordable housing can be changed. That concerns only the question of students. And that is a question that's on the table. Can it be limited to students? We believe it can be, but there is a statement clearly I think it's in the baseline features, I don't have it in front of me, saying that current housing law must be satisfied. That allows for us to modify so that current housing law can be followed while maintaining the 15%, it may expand out, that opens the door for the potential of expanding out beyond students. I think that there's a question here about that, about how that applies to students. Bob, can I address the question that was on the table about the underpass? Sure, go ahead. As a candidate for council two years ago, one of the things I did was to listen to the opinions of many of the voters and I don't want to be saying how to turn lines or Christoph and I talked. And one of the reasons he was yes right up till the entity ended up voting no, because when he read through the information, what was happening by the vote was that the zoning was being changed and being changed permanently. And if the project didn't go forward, we were stuck with a permanently changed vote. So the question that I have regarding the underpass is if the underpass doesn't go forward, are we stuck with a property that has been changed, the zoning has been changed from its current agricultural subject to measure to a measure R to, you know, it's projected new use. I don't know the answer. The answer is yes. So and the MOU that we have currently is worth nothing. I mean, it says that this MOU does not and is not intended to constitute a commitment contract or any other binding agreement or promise of any kind or nature whatsoever. It goes on. Would you like to respond? That is also correct. These are both correct statements. Nothing can go on that property unless there's an under crossing. We understand that. And if the university decides that they do not want to finally, not just an MOU, but create a legal document allowing for the passage through the university, then no development can house people on that property. That's clear. The project development agreement only requires that construction begin on the under crossing before construction begins on the backbone. That's correct. You can construct it. There's no requirement that there be approval before construction begins and there is no definition of what construction begins means. I mean, is this a couple of surveyor stakes? The bottom line is no one can live on that. I don't really care when construction starts. Any smart construction person isn't gonna start a project that they don't know they can complete. I think we'd agree on that. The bottom line is if there is no under crossing, no one can live on that site. So the site could get built out and then no one could live there. That's theoretically possible. I'd be curious if any developer would want to participate in a project. Let's turn to the next, I believe we... I mean, unless there was belief that the project could get approved to connect at Olive Drive, for example. That is disallowed in the baseline features that would require a new vote of the people if Olive Drive were to be used. And an election where the project had already been developed and was sitting there ready for occupancy if that went out to the public, I mean... What bank is going to allow that, Colin? Can we go to the next issue? You cannot get financing for a project like that. There's no way to get financing for a $100 million project or whatever it's going to be without... With saying, telling the bank, oh, and by the way, we don't know how people are gonna get here. That's, I mean, we need to focus on reality and the need and the merits of the project and not all these weird red herrings, honestly. Like, this is serious. Let's get rational. Let's talk about what's real. People need housing. This is good for everybody. Please. Can we switch to... There's a lot of questions about the finances. One question is, is it correct that the Finance and Budget Commission voted in favor of Nishi being positive financially? That was answered in the discussion. What other project has put aside money for the future costs? Same, some time in the future. And this next one is a recent article in the enterprise by Matt Williams pointed out that there were questions about how much the Nishi development might cost the city in the future. Please enlarge on this, e.g., our current projections, our current projections including the long range view. So, could the S side start off? I think the question was to Matt. I want to... So, I've already stated... All those questions together just to talk about the financial impacts of Nishi on the city. So, on page 213 of the staff report when Nishi came to us, there was a motion by the Finance and Budget Commission that runs just past one page. The initial estimate, now there were caveats. They didn't have the development agreement in front of them and so they asked for a CFD. We dealt with the CFD by putting the responsibility of maintenance on the project with city monitoring according to city standards, that's stated clearly. But the Finance and Budget Commission in the only act that was officially taken, they had many discussions, the only act that was taken was the initial estimate, sorry, we generally concur with the estimate that annual ongoing revenues and costs for the city from the project would be modestly net positive over time. That is our Finance and Budget Commission sending a formal finding which they have not contravened, they have not come back on since. That is the basis of our decision saying we don't know the exact amount, there's too much uncertainty, but the overall proponents of evidence for the Finance and Budget Commission was that this would be net positive for the city. That's the finding we have from the Finance and Budget Commission, the only finding we have. Now let me read what the staff report for the 2016 Nishi Project read. That the Nishi Project is a net fiscal positive for the city of Davis. The Finance and Budget Commissioners did not agree on the amount of benefit the city would receive. The final motion to conclude 1.4 million of annual benefit passed on a five to one to one vote. That's exactly parallel with the numbers being different to what Rob just described. Staff went on to say, dissenters agreed that the benefits would be positive but suggested numbers in the $500,000 range. The dissenters weren't just the one person who voted against it and the one person to abstain, they were also the city's economic consultant. The question that I have as a member of Finance and Budget Commission and in that January meeting when the vote took, I was in a plane coming back from New Zealand so I didn't get to vote but I would have asked this question is where is the same economic consultants and analysis of the full life cycle costing? The second part of the question was is there any other place where they're sitting aside? We had a formal report from EPS, Godwin and Associates and Plescia that said that the tax rate for Nishi 2016 would be the same effective tax rate of 1.6% as cannery. So the answer is cannery is paying those kinds of dollars to be set aside in order to have a fiscally responsible development in the city. Nishi one agreed at a 1.6% effective tax rate. There has been no reporting whatsoever by staff or the Finance and Budget Commission or Council as to what the effective tax rate is for the Nishi two project and we don't know where the special taxes that got them up to the 1.6% for Nishi one that Finance and Budget insisted on the developer agreed to and Council agreed to are. The answer to this is really straight forward. It's really a straightforward answer. Cannery has a CFD, Brett and I opposed it. It went through anyway. Community financing district. Nishi one and Matt keeps going back to Nishi one. We're not, it's very different projects. Nishi two does not have a CFD rather we've chosen the route of having the developer responsible for the maintenance of a much reduced infrastructure compared to Nishi one. So we are going to get the 1% tax, relatively small amount of it comes to the city but we are gonna get it and that's the difference between Nishi and Nishi one and Nishi two and Cannery, there is no CFD, there's no need for a CFD. We're gonna continue to get the 1%. That's the straightforward answer and that's why a further analysis was not necessary. We do not need the analysis we needed for Nishi one because there is no commercial part of this. This is a straightforward housing project of which the city has analyzed dozens and dozens over the years including Cannery itself. Thank you, Rob. Matt, would you like to respond? For it very quickly. There was no community facilities district, no CFD for Nishi one, just as there is no CFD community facilities district for Nishi two. You may be right about that, Matt. Nishi one is pretty far retreated in the rear view mirror. I will correct this and make right on the claims that I'm making if I'm wrong because I don't wanna state what is wrong. My understanding was that there was additional taxation built in. There was also a commercial element that generated unsecured property tax which we do not have now as well as sales tax which we have very little of now. But I will go back and if I need to correct that, Matt, I promise to do it. Big picture though. Any way you slice it if you're going to look at a line item and analyze it in 10 different ways. We have a big portion of property taxes coming to our city from this and the expenditures that they take out of this model are parks and general services, streets, police, that kind of thing. These kids are not coming if we build this. They're gonna be here. So all these costs are happening anyway. So we're either going to get all of the property tax revenue and the other fees and the other revenue to help pay for the costs or we're gonna have nothing and the costs are gonna be there. Would you guys like to respond? Sandy, that statement confuses me. In your opening comments you said there are thousands of students who are commuting to Davis. This housing will hopefully provide whether it's 2,200 units or 5,000 units. Hopefully what it's going to do is eliminate the number of commuters who are coming across the causeway, coming from Dixon, coming from Vacaville, coming from Woodland. So those students who would be living here actually will increase the amount of services and that need to be provided. We have EPS got direct reports from Chief Pytel and Assistant Chief Martinez when they looked into this in 2016 and both of those chiefs stuck by the EPS full life cycle costing numbers. Colin? I think you, thank you. Thank you, Rob. So this is a more family friendly place than the other apartments, the Sterling and Lincoln 40 where it's four and five bedroom apartments. It could very well be not just students. Indeed in the zoning, the zoning contemplates nursery schools, daycare facilities, urban agriculture uses, it anticipates a farm stand, all the things that you would think might be inconsistent with the air quality in the area as well. But certainly this is being considered and even the affordable housing may be expanded to be more than students. Certainly they're considering that this may be more than just students. I think that's an accurate statement. I can respond to that actually. Go ahead. So this is just a student oriented community. We have some that are, some of our most student oriented communities that are a couple miles from campus actually house about 95% students as far as the demographics go. And this is going to be right next to campus with the only access coming to campus property. Now they will be mostly students for three reasons. There might be a handful of people that wanna work downtown or work at the university that wanna be able to just not to live car free. And that's fine. I think that's okay to everybody. But three reasons these will be students and we will not be drawing people from, I don't know, San Francisco. One, rent up will be early spring for the academic school year. September 1st to September 1st, that's number one. Number two, these will be rented by the bed. So somebody's gonna have to be okay with living with a few other students if they're in a whole community full of students really. And number three, we have very limited car spaces. So basically one per apartment unit. So if it's somebody moving from out of town, they're gonna be pretty lucky. They're gonna have to accept, likely accept living car free. We estimate with all of that and our experience in the industry, it'll be about 99% students. It'll be interesting to see if there's, it sounds like by practice then that it is discriminating against non-students possibly, but in any case, there are two people who called me today reporting a push-pull with a phone number that reported to be someone who we know has been affiliated with their campaign in the past that specifically stated that it was a student-only apartment complex. So the campaign that the Yes on A site is running is stating it's student-only. I don't think we're doing a poll right now, but I could be wrong. And if that was wrong, I'm sorry, you know what? I wanna just say, we're in the student housing business. We've been in the student housing business for 60 years. This is what our core competencies is and we love doing it. We're not politicians and we're doing the best we can. We're trying to run a campaign to educate an entire town of people about a very complicated land plan and all of the merits and all of the facts. And it's not easy to do that, especially when you're in student housing and you have to come and try to suddenly be in politics. Sandy for council in 2020. Why don't we end there? Thank you very much. I will put all these questions on the internet. Well, they have to respond. Yeah, they would have to respond. So thank you very much. We're coming. Thank you.