Fact Checking False Ballot Statement Claims by Yes on Measure Q
September 24, 2024
by the No on Measure Q Campaign Committee
This article factually analyzes and discusses patently false claims made by the Yes on Measure Q campaign in their ballot statements presented to voters.
Introduction and Background
This article is the 3rd in a series presented by the No on Measure Q campaign committee about the significant problems associated with the new tax measure. The first article (see here) provided three good reasons for citizens to vote No on Measure Q including a decided lack of transparency and disclosures by the City Council in bringing the measure to a vote. The 2nd article (see here) gives additional reasons to vote No on the tax measure, discussing the mismanagement of city finances by the current administration.
About Measure Q
If passed on the November ballot, Davis Measure Q would double the extra sales tax from 1% to 2% imposed by the City of Davis on all goods purchased or used within the City except for some food and medicines. Based on the expected $11 million per year generated by the new tax and a Davis population of about 66,000, this works out to be approximately $165/year tax for every man, woman, and child in Davis. And like the previous two ½ percentage point sales and use tax hikes, this tax is permanent. It doesn’t matter if the City’s financial condition substantially changes for the better in the future, this tax never goes away!
In the Past Decade, City of Davis Revenues and Expenses Soared Far in Excess of the Inflation Rate or Population Growth.
Mark Twain famously popularized the saying, “There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” We can now add a 4th type of lie – Lies told by the Davis City Council.
In their ballot statement in support of Measure Q, the Davis City Council unequivocally stated, “The City of Davis has worked diligently to manage existing resources efficiently, trimming expenses. Now we need to catch up to inflation, increasing costs, and our growing population.
But is this true? The facts say otherwise. The following is a comparison of the annual increase in the inflation rate with annual changes in City revenues and annual changes in employee total compensation in the past decade.
Fact Check #1 - As shown above, from 2014 through 2021 the average annual rate of increase in City Revenues is 4.5%. The average increase in City Employee Total Compensation is 5.7%. Yet the average rate of Inflation for that time-frame is only 3.8%. Only in a distorted reality is an average revenue increase of 4.5% not keeping pace with a local average inflation that is only 3.8%. The City’s profligate spending increases simply cannot be explained away by the inflation rate.
Fact Check #2 - The population of Davis increased from 66,741 in 2014 to only 67,171 in 2021 (430 people) – or a compound average annual growth rate of less than 0.1%. So population growth is not a valid excuse for out-of-control spending despite claims to the contrary by the City Council. _________________________
Summary and Conclusion
It is obvious from the above data that one of the major forces driving the increase in expenditures by the City, besides spending on new programs and services the city cannot afford, is the soaring cost of City employee compensation – mostly on the high end of senior City management. It has risen far in excess of the inflation rate or other City expenditures. So inflation or population growth, as the Council claims, are certainly not the cause of the City’s excessive spending increases.
_________________________
PLEASE VOTE NO ON MEASURE Q – QUIT WASTING OUR TAXES!
Could you be more specific about what "spending on new programs and services the city cannot afford" the City is engaged in?
Also, has outsourcing of services formerly performed by city employees resulted in a greater expense or a "cost saving"? And was the result of such outsourcing equal or less satisfactory service, considering the loss of experienced city employees? (There seem to be compliants on NextDoor lately about lack of communication, unsatisfactory work, etc. for such outsourced work as park, tree, and street & sidewalk maintence for examples.)
Posted by: Valerie Vann | September 24, 2024 at 02:10 PM
From today's Vanguard article (regarding the proposed sales tax increase):
“Prop 13 essentially caps property taxes at 1% of the purchase price, which means that property taxes in California stay relatively flat even as home values soar,” Councilmember Chapman said. “So, cities turn to sales taxes, parcel taxes and retail growth to fund essential services. Meanwhile, the costs of delivering city services continue to rise, outpacing revenues.”
Sounds like council member Chapman doesn't know how property taxes work in California. As anyone reading this should know, the "1% of the purchase price" only applies to the initial/first year of ownership. After that, property taxes generally rise 2% per year, until the property is sold again - at which point the tax is reset to reflect the new purchase price (rising 2% thereafter, again).
Of course, this ignores all of the other parcel taxes and CFDs that are also attached to properties - some of which (can) also rise each year - just like regular property taxes, and/or can rise when voters approve an increase.
These are all part of "housing costs", by the way.
In the case of parcel taxes in particular, apartment owners do not pay a proportionate share.
Posted by: Ron O | September 26, 2024 at 09:30 AM
When Ron wrote: "In the case of parcel taxes in particular, apartment owners do not pay a proportionate share." That reminded me that I got a flyer asking me to vote yes on Measure T increasing the library tax and the flyer said that there was a per home and "per unit" charge (that like Ron I thought I remembered reading that "per unit" taxes were no longer allowed):
shall the measure increasing the annual special library tax by $49 per parcel (multifamily parcels would increase by $24.50 per unit),
https://ace.yolocounty.gov/420/Measure-T---Community-Facilities-Distric
Posted by: South of Davis | September 26, 2024 at 10:48 AM
Correct Ron, my property taxes go up 2% every year and that doesn't count all of the add ons. 2% is supposed to be the fed target for inflation. If the council had held fast and kept wage increases under control things would be much more controllable.
Posted by: Keith | September 26, 2024 at 10:55 AM
That's interesting, SOD. So apparently, "per unit" charges are allowed. But in this case, are proposed at half the amount of a single-family dwelling.
Don't mean to be "that guy", but the library probably wouldn't even be "justifiable" had Davis not already pursued so much Affordable housing for families near that site.
Keith: Just wanted to point out that property taxes actually do rise faster than 2% overall, due to turnover (properties reassessed upon sale). So in any given year, the rate is usually more than 2% that the taxing agents collects (in total).
Also, property taxes can rise more than 2% for each property (in a given year), if the taxing agency "makes up for" years in which they did not charge the full 2%. (They do so quite often, I understand.)
I've also heard of "shenanigans" regarding avoidance of reassessment for commercial properties (e.g., apartment buildings, etc.). This is apparently accomplished by changing ownership structure very carefully, so that there is no "change of ownership".
I don't know how much property and parcel taxes are collected from housing that's specifically designated as "Affordable" (subsidized). Perhaps it depends upon the specific type of Affordable housing.
Posted by: Ron O | September 26, 2024 at 06:15 PM
Wow - Matt Williams really nailed the issue, regarding this comment (in today's Vanguard):
"How the City recently spent the $19.7 million American Rescue Plan dollars clearly shows how Council spends additional money when it has it … and is a good indicator of how additional sales tax money will be spent if the voters pass Measure Q.
The detailed list of the spending can be accessed at https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/city-of-davis-american-rescue-plan-arp
Here is a summary of that spending …
$3,795,000 was spent on Revenue backfill, Employee Furlough restoration, Three firefighters hired for staff ladder truck, and 4 changeable parking message boards
$1,080,000 was spent on Healthy Davis Together
$7,152,000 was spent on eleven Social Services programs
$1,815,000 was spent on Downtown projects like the closure of G Street
$2,470,000 was spent on new facilities/buildings but only $100,000 on maintaining the existing buildings.
$805,000 was spent supporting the Arts Alliance, the Chamber of Commerce and Explorit.
$0 was spent on maintenance of the streets or filling potholes."
Posted by: Ron O | October 01, 2024 at 10:59 AM
"$3,795,000 was spent on Revenue backfill, Employee Furlough restoration, Three firefighters hired for staff ladder truck, and 4 changeable parking message boards"
Wait, WHAT ???!!! You can spend American Rescue Plan dollars on Revenue Backfill ?????? Isn't that kinda exactly what it's not supposed to be for?
And WTF about ALL the priorities. Bang Bang Bang goes my head against the wall. And the stupids of Davis will of course pass this load of S***
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 01, 2024 at 10:47 PM