Like most things it seems in Davis, the answer to that question depends on who you ask and how they factor in their budget assumptions. If you ask Paul Navazio the city’s finance director and assistant city manager, he would tell you that the city has closed up its structural deficit, has a balanced budget, but also has a large amount of unmet needs. If you ask Sue Greenwald–part of the unmet needs are the budget deficit. We have merely papered over the deficit and the looming fiscal crisis with fancy work, heavily dependent on budget assumptions and elaborate models.
For Don Saylor, the city of Davis is making use of extraordinary planning to be this fiscally responsible that we do not have a budget deficit in a time of economic downturn across the state.
In his closing comments for example he said:
“This framework of budget balance for us includes a 15 percent reserve, that’s really pretty uncanny.”
He cites the number of jurisdictions whether it the schools, the university, the county and other cities that are making huge budget cuts. But not the city of Davis.
He does acknowledge that we have unmet needs that will exceed our revenues, but argues that this is based on the choices that we have made as a city.
“We see that the service demands of our city will exceed the revenues available and that’s partly because of our own choices. Our sales tax revenue of $9 million per year is based on per capita collections of about $93… We’re in the bottom third of sale tax collections. If we simply were at the state average we would bring in another $6 million. I’m not suggesting that we be at the state average, because that’s not who we are. But minor changes in different pieces of our economic strategy will make a tremendous difference in the revenue picture for our city.”
This seems to be an acknowledgment by Don Saylor that there is some kind of deficit. Also he argues both that we are in better fiscal shape than our neighbors and better fiscal shape than we have been in the past. Ironically, the reason we are in better fiscal shape than our neighbors is that our revenue sources so far have largely been immune to the economic downturn. The impact of the housing slump in Davis, in a market somewhat cut off from the rest of the state, has been far lower. Because we have a tight business market, we have weathered that better. And we do not heavily rely on state money as both the university and school does. The policies that Don Saylor and his council majority will explore will actually make us more vulnerable rather than less to economic downturns.
Stephen Souza likewise cites the fiscal health of the city. In 2004-05, Souza argues we had over a $2 million general fund deficit and we had to use reserves to balance the budget. This year it was $800K and we did not have to use reserves. He argued both that we need to celebrate what we have done but also that there is still work to do.
“We’ve been able to through a very logical process identified what are the amounts of money that would get us to a point where the people’s assets are going to be taken care of and replaced and the services that we have all enjoyed will not only be at the levels of today, but they’ll be better tomorrow. I think that’s incumbent upon us to do that also. We’ve looked at economic redevelopment and we’ve done some of that. We’ve looked at cost recovery, we’re going to more of that. We’ve looked at fee augmentation and we have to do more of that. We’ve talked about for a long time recovering some of the costs of the 911 service, maybe that’s a path we go… We’ve look at some tax measures, and I think we’re going to have to ask the public, do you want better… [services than you have today]. We’re also going to have to ask the question beyond the $2.9 million for public works, about public safety, we want a fourth fire station, do we want more police officers on the roadways? If we want those things, it will be our choice as citizens of this community to determine after we put forward this information if want these services or we don’t want these services.”
The question and the point that Stephen Souza does not put forward is whether we can get to these kinds of services–if we need them–by tightening our belts, becoming more fiscally prudent in the decisions that we make.
That’s really where Sue Greenwald begins.
“We’re not in better shape than we’ve been in years. That’s just not true. We are locked into a 3% at 50 retirement for the next 70 years for public safety employees and now 2.5% at 55, early retirement for all miscellaneous employees. That’s got to affect our longterm budget situation. We have a $42 million post-retirement, unfunded employee retiree health liability. That’s huge. That’s coming due in only 15 or 20 years…”
According to the Mayor all of these will impact our budget and how much sidewalk and other maintenance we can do.
“We have postponed a number of projects and we have to remember that we have hanging over our heads first off the school fiscal crisis, if we keep taxing residents it is going to be harder for the schools to raise the funds they need… Passing the sales tax and the parcel tax, that just keeps us afloat, that does not get us anywhere… We’re asking for those to be renewed at the same time we need more taxes for the schools.”
Furthermore, we have not taken into account $365 million in sewer and surface water projects. These projects will add over $1000 per year to the utility fees for residents and the Mayor thinks that will be closer to $2000. Are we going to be able to renew the sales and parks taxes to stay even to the revenues we have today? This does not even touch the unfunded needs that we have today. These renewals are merely what we need in order to stay even.
Contrary to the claims by Souza and Saylor, Sue Greenwald pointed out:
“We’ve always had a five year budget, in fact, when Carl was around we had a seven year budget forecast.”
She goes on:
“Carl was the one who about six months after we passed 3% at 50 back in 2000, he came in with his face ashen, he held up this projection and he said, we’re going to be having huge deficits. I didn’t realize this. He was very upset, he was looking at the seven year forecast. Well we were bailed out by the housing and real estate bubble, and the housing bubble and we’ve been bailed out. That’s over, those days are gone.”
Mayor Greenwald said we are fortunate however that we have citizens willing to shoulder the load, but will they continue to as the load gets heavier and she is concerned about the 800 pound gorilla in the room in the form of the water projects that will add another $365 million over a period of time to our costs.
I think the most interesting aspect of the budget discussion is that really Don Saylor and Stephen Souza are looking at very much the same things as Mayor Sue Greenwald, but coming to very different conclusions about our fiscal health. One of the critical questions is that of unmet needs–does their existence constitute a deficit?
The other serious problem is that of retirement benefits to employees. I think Sue Greenwald has recognized from an early period of time that the benefits that we are giving out are unsustainable. They are going to eat up a larger and larger portion of the budget and as a result we will have to struggle to find ways to meet those costs in addition to the regular costs to do business in the city. We are putting a lot of strain on the very generous taxpayers of Davis. In addition to the taxes the city will be asking residents to pay just to maintain the level of revenue we currently have, residents as the Mayor points out will be asked to pass another school parcel tax, we will ask residents to pay a higher level for water. $1000 per year at minimum means that your water bill will INCREASE by nearly $100 per month. If it is closer to $2000, you may be paying an additional $150 to $200 per month for water. That’s a lot of money especially for people on fixed incomes, but really for all of us.
The cost of living in Davis is about to go up. The question about the fiscal health of the system is an open question and depends on the budget assumptions and your perspective.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
The term “unmet need” is confusing. An unmet need is a me needing a vacation. An unmet need is not health insurance co-pays that I have committed myself to paying in the future. If the city has committed itself to future payments this is a growing liability. Someone pointed out that an individual fire fighter would need to set aside $2500 per month to adequately finance retirement at the level of 3% at 50. So the City really needs to do the same. If we are not, then this isn’t an unmet need, this is planning for bankruptcy.
The term “unmet need” is confusing. An unmet need is a me needing a vacation. An unmet need is not health insurance co-pays that I have committed myself to paying in the future. If the city has committed itself to future payments this is a growing liability. Someone pointed out that an individual fire fighter would need to set aside $2500 per month to adequately finance retirement at the level of 3% at 50. So the City really needs to do the same. If we are not, then this isn’t an unmet need, this is planning for bankruptcy.
The term “unmet need” is confusing. An unmet need is a me needing a vacation. An unmet need is not health insurance co-pays that I have committed myself to paying in the future. If the city has committed itself to future payments this is a growing liability. Someone pointed out that an individual fire fighter would need to set aside $2500 per month to adequately finance retirement at the level of 3% at 50. So the City really needs to do the same. If we are not, then this isn’t an unmet need, this is planning for bankruptcy.
The term “unmet need” is confusing. An unmet need is a me needing a vacation. An unmet need is not health insurance co-pays that I have committed myself to paying in the future. If the city has committed itself to future payments this is a growing liability. Someone pointed out that an individual fire fighter would need to set aside $2500 per month to adequately finance retirement at the level of 3% at 50. So the City really needs to do the same. If we are not, then this isn’t an unmet need, this is planning for bankruptcy.
I love Davis… the liberal blogger writes about the need for long-term fiscal planning, the union organizer talks about the need to stop runaway union expenses and the lady in the purple robes and big hat understands the fiscal implications of our “unmet needs” better than the bean-counters. All this while the “conservative” candidates appear to be asleep at the switch. In this city, labels are useless. I love it.
I love Davis… the liberal blogger writes about the need for long-term fiscal planning, the union organizer talks about the need to stop runaway union expenses and the lady in the purple robes and big hat understands the fiscal implications of our “unmet needs” better than the bean-counters. All this while the “conservative” candidates appear to be asleep at the switch. In this city, labels are useless. I love it.
I love Davis… the liberal blogger writes about the need for long-term fiscal planning, the union organizer talks about the need to stop runaway union expenses and the lady in the purple robes and big hat understands the fiscal implications of our “unmet needs” better than the bean-counters. All this while the “conservative” candidates appear to be asleep at the switch. In this city, labels are useless. I love it.
I love Davis… the liberal blogger writes about the need for long-term fiscal planning, the union organizer talks about the need to stop runaway union expenses and the lady in the purple robes and big hat understands the fiscal implications of our “unmet needs” better than the bean-counters. All this while the “conservative” candidates appear to be asleep at the switch. In this city, labels are useless. I love it.
Mike Hart nails it.
Mike Hart nails it.
Mike Hart nails it.
Mike Hart nails it.
“The policies that Don Saylor and his council majority will explore will actually make us more vulnerable rather than less to economic downturns.”
The city’s second largest general fund revenue source is the sales tax. More than 40% of Davis’ sales tax revenue originates from automobile sales. Project the pending impact on such sales of $4.00 per gallon gasoline, peak oil, and climate change initiatives. Failure to diversify the city’s sales tax base will have significant implications for the revenue base.
“The policies that Don Saylor and his council majority will explore will actually make us more vulnerable rather than less to economic downturns.”
The city’s second largest general fund revenue source is the sales tax. More than 40% of Davis’ sales tax revenue originates from automobile sales. Project the pending impact on such sales of $4.00 per gallon gasoline, peak oil, and climate change initiatives. Failure to diversify the city’s sales tax base will have significant implications for the revenue base.
“The policies that Don Saylor and his council majority will explore will actually make us more vulnerable rather than less to economic downturns.”
The city’s second largest general fund revenue source is the sales tax. More than 40% of Davis’ sales tax revenue originates from automobile sales. Project the pending impact on such sales of $4.00 per gallon gasoline, peak oil, and climate change initiatives. Failure to diversify the city’s sales tax base will have significant implications for the revenue base.
“The policies that Don Saylor and his council majority will explore will actually make us more vulnerable rather than less to economic downturns.”
The city’s second largest general fund revenue source is the sales tax. More than 40% of Davis’ sales tax revenue originates from automobile sales. Project the pending impact on such sales of $4.00 per gallon gasoline, peak oil, and climate change initiatives. Failure to diversify the city’s sales tax base will have significant implications for the revenue base.
Anonymous makes an interesting point about diversifying sales tax. But there are a few problems with the point.
First, it is not as though cars are in danger of disappearing off the face of the world. If anything, auto sales will become more important as manufacturing make greener and cleaner burning counterparts.
Second, Don Saylor’s solution to diversifying the sales tax base is to bring in big box. Talk about unsustainable. If you are worried about gas and oil, the Targets of the world are doomed.
Third, the point DPD was making is that Davis is afloat right now precisely because its economy is not subject to the kinds of market forces that exist elsewhere. More sales tax, more business, more housing, puts it at the mercy of economic trends.
Fourth, if there is a solution to Davis’ revenue it is with green technology, high tech, R & D, etc. That’s something I think every councilmember and every candidate understands.
Anonymous makes an interesting point about diversifying sales tax. But there are a few problems with the point.
First, it is not as though cars are in danger of disappearing off the face of the world. If anything, auto sales will become more important as manufacturing make greener and cleaner burning counterparts.
Second, Don Saylor’s solution to diversifying the sales tax base is to bring in big box. Talk about unsustainable. If you are worried about gas and oil, the Targets of the world are doomed.
Third, the point DPD was making is that Davis is afloat right now precisely because its economy is not subject to the kinds of market forces that exist elsewhere. More sales tax, more business, more housing, puts it at the mercy of economic trends.
Fourth, if there is a solution to Davis’ revenue it is with green technology, high tech, R & D, etc. That’s something I think every councilmember and every candidate understands.
Anonymous makes an interesting point about diversifying sales tax. But there are a few problems with the point.
First, it is not as though cars are in danger of disappearing off the face of the world. If anything, auto sales will become more important as manufacturing make greener and cleaner burning counterparts.
Second, Don Saylor’s solution to diversifying the sales tax base is to bring in big box. Talk about unsustainable. If you are worried about gas and oil, the Targets of the world are doomed.
Third, the point DPD was making is that Davis is afloat right now precisely because its economy is not subject to the kinds of market forces that exist elsewhere. More sales tax, more business, more housing, puts it at the mercy of economic trends.
Fourth, if there is a solution to Davis’ revenue it is with green technology, high tech, R & D, etc. That’s something I think every councilmember and every candidate understands.
Anonymous makes an interesting point about diversifying sales tax. But there are a few problems with the point.
First, it is not as though cars are in danger of disappearing off the face of the world. If anything, auto sales will become more important as manufacturing make greener and cleaner burning counterparts.
Second, Don Saylor’s solution to diversifying the sales tax base is to bring in big box. Talk about unsustainable. If you are worried about gas and oil, the Targets of the world are doomed.
Third, the point DPD was making is that Davis is afloat right now precisely because its economy is not subject to the kinds of market forces that exist elsewhere. More sales tax, more business, more housing, puts it at the mercy of economic trends.
Fourth, if there is a solution to Davis’ revenue it is with green technology, high tech, R & D, etc. That’s something I think every councilmember and every candidate understands.
Many people work out of town, so people will still buy automobiles, however, they will choose more fuel efficient autos as opposed to gas guzzlers.
Many people work out of town, so people will still buy automobiles, however, they will choose more fuel efficient autos as opposed to gas guzzlers.
Many people work out of town, so people will still buy automobiles, however, they will choose more fuel efficient autos as opposed to gas guzzlers.
Many people work out of town, so people will still buy automobiles, however, they will choose more fuel efficient autos as opposed to gas guzzlers.
Business to business sales is where we need to grow – something that is manufactured here and shipped to the consumer/business = less traffic, less need for parking, jobs with good income. Hunts cannery is the perfect site for this kind of thing.
Business to business sales is where we need to grow – something that is manufactured here and shipped to the consumer/business = less traffic, less need for parking, jobs with good income. Hunts cannery is the perfect site for this kind of thing.
Business to business sales is where we need to grow – something that is manufactured here and shipped to the consumer/business = less traffic, less need for parking, jobs with good income. Hunts cannery is the perfect site for this kind of thing.
Business to business sales is where we need to grow – something that is manufactured here and shipped to the consumer/business = less traffic, less need for parking, jobs with good income. Hunts cannery is the perfect site for this kind of thing.
“Third, the point DPD was making is that Davis is afloat right now precisely because its economy is not subject to the kinds of market forces that exist elsewhere. More sales tax, more business, more housing, puts it at the mercy of economic trends.”
What does this really mean? To me it means the Davis model is based on a rather weak tax base – marginal business environment. During lean times things can not get much worse because they are bad to start with. During robust periods the community is left behind. So in the long run there is a revenue shortfall relative to other cities. The city services costs are similar (per capita) to other cities, but there is not enough revenue to pay for them.
I agree a solution would be technology business – something that generates sales and sales taxes. R&D by itself is no good because there is no generation of sales taxes.
“Third, the point DPD was making is that Davis is afloat right now precisely because its economy is not subject to the kinds of market forces that exist elsewhere. More sales tax, more business, more housing, puts it at the mercy of economic trends.”
What does this really mean? To me it means the Davis model is based on a rather weak tax base – marginal business environment. During lean times things can not get much worse because they are bad to start with. During robust periods the community is left behind. So in the long run there is a revenue shortfall relative to other cities. The city services costs are similar (per capita) to other cities, but there is not enough revenue to pay for them.
I agree a solution would be technology business – something that generates sales and sales taxes. R&D by itself is no good because there is no generation of sales taxes.
“Third, the point DPD was making is that Davis is afloat right now precisely because its economy is not subject to the kinds of market forces that exist elsewhere. More sales tax, more business, more housing, puts it at the mercy of economic trends.”
What does this really mean? To me it means the Davis model is based on a rather weak tax base – marginal business environment. During lean times things can not get much worse because they are bad to start with. During robust periods the community is left behind. So in the long run there is a revenue shortfall relative to other cities. The city services costs are similar (per capita) to other cities, but there is not enough revenue to pay for them.
I agree a solution would be technology business – something that generates sales and sales taxes. R&D by itself is no good because there is no generation of sales taxes.
“Third, the point DPD was making is that Davis is afloat right now precisely because its economy is not subject to the kinds of market forces that exist elsewhere. More sales tax, more business, more housing, puts it at the mercy of economic trends.”
What does this really mean? To me it means the Davis model is based on a rather weak tax base – marginal business environment. During lean times things can not get much worse because they are bad to start with. During robust periods the community is left behind. So in the long run there is a revenue shortfall relative to other cities. The city services costs are similar (per capita) to other cities, but there is not enough revenue to pay for them.
I agree a solution would be technology business – something that generates sales and sales taxes. R&D by itself is no good because there is no generation of sales taxes.
While you all are dreaming about which hi-tech and green industry you’d like to locate here, you are missing an important point. Companies are moving out of CA because the costs of doing business is so high.
Remember that labor is always pricey for any company and what company wants to pay out the kind of salaries needed to support living in Davis on top of all the other expenses required to operate in CA. No one wants that kind of hit to their profit margins.
So if you have a company looking to relocate, what’s to keep them from passing over Davis completely and moving to another highly educated town? There has to be an incentive other then bike lanes, expensive (and IMO highly unaffordable) houses, and a cash strapped infrastructure.
Do some research on recent CA CRE investment, it’s not pretty out there.
Don Saylor is Davis’ current political “carpetbagger” He plans to be well on his way up the political ladder before the bills that he plans to leave with the Davis voters come due.. Steve Souza??… well… I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that his enthusiasm “clouds” his business judgement. His pool-cleaning busniess(benefiting from new and EXPENSIVE residential growth) could never survive such pie-in-the-sky
business models.
While you all are dreaming about which hi-tech and green industry you’d like to locate here, you are missing an important point. Companies are moving out of CA because the costs of doing business is so high.
Remember that labor is always pricey for any company and what company wants to pay out the kind of salaries needed to support living in Davis on top of all the other expenses required to operate in CA. No one wants that kind of hit to their profit margins.
So if you have a company looking to relocate, what’s to keep them from passing over Davis completely and moving to another highly educated town? There has to be an incentive other then bike lanes, expensive (and IMO highly unaffordable) houses, and a cash strapped infrastructure.
Do some research on recent CA CRE investment, it’s not pretty out there.
Don Saylor is Davis’ current political “carpetbagger” He plans to be well on his way up the political ladder before the bills that he plans to leave with the Davis voters come due.. Steve Souza??… well… I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that his enthusiasm “clouds” his business judgement. His pool-cleaning busniess(benefiting from new and EXPENSIVE residential growth) could never survive such pie-in-the-sky
business models.
While you all are dreaming about which hi-tech and green industry you’d like to locate here, you are missing an important point. Companies are moving out of CA because the costs of doing business is so high.
Remember that labor is always pricey for any company and what company wants to pay out the kind of salaries needed to support living in Davis on top of all the other expenses required to operate in CA. No one wants that kind of hit to their profit margins.
So if you have a company looking to relocate, what’s to keep them from passing over Davis completely and moving to another highly educated town? There has to be an incentive other then bike lanes, expensive (and IMO highly unaffordable) houses, and a cash strapped infrastructure.
Do some research on recent CA CRE investment, it’s not pretty out there.
Don Saylor is Davis’ current political “carpetbagger” He plans to be well on his way up the political ladder before the bills that he plans to leave with the Davis voters come due.. Steve Souza??… well… I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that his enthusiasm “clouds” his business judgement. His pool-cleaning busniess(benefiting from new and EXPENSIVE residential growth) could never survive such pie-in-the-sky
business models.
While you all are dreaming about which hi-tech and green industry you’d like to locate here, you are missing an important point. Companies are moving out of CA because the costs of doing business is so high.
Remember that labor is always pricey for any company and what company wants to pay out the kind of salaries needed to support living in Davis on top of all the other expenses required to operate in CA. No one wants that kind of hit to their profit margins.
So if you have a company looking to relocate, what’s to keep them from passing over Davis completely and moving to another highly educated town? There has to be an incentive other then bike lanes, expensive (and IMO highly unaffordable) houses, and a cash strapped infrastructure.
Do some research on recent CA CRE investment, it’s not pretty out there.
Don Saylor is Davis’ current political “carpetbagger” He plans to be well on his way up the political ladder before the bills that he plans to leave with the Davis voters come due.. Steve Souza??… well… I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that his enthusiasm “clouds” his business judgement. His pool-cleaning busniess(benefiting from new and EXPENSIVE residential growth) could never survive such pie-in-the-sky
business models.
Note:
During the living wage agenda item, I made a motion to include a living wage in our budget. The motion failed 3-2.
As I predicted, the living wage did not appear in our budget. It did not even appear as an “unmet need”.
Note:
During the living wage agenda item, I made a motion to include a living wage in our budget. The motion failed 3-2.
As I predicted, the living wage did not appear in our budget. It did not even appear as an “unmet need”.
Note:
During the living wage agenda item, I made a motion to include a living wage in our budget. The motion failed 3-2.
As I predicted, the living wage did not appear in our budget. It did not even appear as an “unmet need”.
Note:
During the living wage agenda item, I made a motion to include a living wage in our budget. The motion failed 3-2.
As I predicted, the living wage did not appear in our budget. It did not even appear as an “unmet need”.
I’ve reviewed the Davis General Fund. Basically, from 99-00 to 07-08, expenditures grew by almost 73% while expenditures grew by about 88%…to paraphrase our Governor, this is not a revenue problem, this is a spending problem. Per Capita expenditures have increased by about 74%. Per capita expenditures today are $623 per person. Had per capita expenditures simply grown by the rate of inflation, per capita expenditures should be closer to $460.
Despite all of these increases, there are still some serious “unmet needs.” I’d like to know what the City is doing with all of the increased expenditures…union salary increases? Non-essentials? And, those figures don’t include the sewer issue or the retirement funds. If we increase general taxes again (i.e,. sales tax), the City will just find a way to spend the money. If the city decides to increase taxes in any way (which it shouldn’t), they should at least be taxes dedicated to a particular project and with a sunset date.
I’ve reviewed the Davis General Fund. Basically, from 99-00 to 07-08, expenditures grew by almost 73% while expenditures grew by about 88%…to paraphrase our Governor, this is not a revenue problem, this is a spending problem. Per Capita expenditures have increased by about 74%. Per capita expenditures today are $623 per person. Had per capita expenditures simply grown by the rate of inflation, per capita expenditures should be closer to $460.
Despite all of these increases, there are still some serious “unmet needs.” I’d like to know what the City is doing with all of the increased expenditures…union salary increases? Non-essentials? And, those figures don’t include the sewer issue or the retirement funds. If we increase general taxes again (i.e,. sales tax), the City will just find a way to spend the money. If the city decides to increase taxes in any way (which it shouldn’t), they should at least be taxes dedicated to a particular project and with a sunset date.
I’ve reviewed the Davis General Fund. Basically, from 99-00 to 07-08, expenditures grew by almost 73% while expenditures grew by about 88%…to paraphrase our Governor, this is not a revenue problem, this is a spending problem. Per Capita expenditures have increased by about 74%. Per capita expenditures today are $623 per person. Had per capita expenditures simply grown by the rate of inflation, per capita expenditures should be closer to $460.
Despite all of these increases, there are still some serious “unmet needs.” I’d like to know what the City is doing with all of the increased expenditures…union salary increases? Non-essentials? And, those figures don’t include the sewer issue or the retirement funds. If we increase general taxes again (i.e,. sales tax), the City will just find a way to spend the money. If the city decides to increase taxes in any way (which it shouldn’t), they should at least be taxes dedicated to a particular project and with a sunset date.
I’ve reviewed the Davis General Fund. Basically, from 99-00 to 07-08, expenditures grew by almost 73% while expenditures grew by about 88%…to paraphrase our Governor, this is not a revenue problem, this is a spending problem. Per Capita expenditures have increased by about 74%. Per capita expenditures today are $623 per person. Had per capita expenditures simply grown by the rate of inflation, per capita expenditures should be closer to $460.
Despite all of these increases, there are still some serious “unmet needs.” I’d like to know what the City is doing with all of the increased expenditures…union salary increases? Non-essentials? And, those figures don’t include the sewer issue or the retirement funds. If we increase general taxes again (i.e,. sales tax), the City will just find a way to spend the money. If the city decides to increase taxes in any way (which it shouldn’t), they should at least be taxes dedicated to a particular project and with a sunset date.
Also, a living wage would only exacerbate this problem.
Also, a living wage would only exacerbate this problem.
Also, a living wage would only exacerbate this problem.
Also, a living wage would only exacerbate this problem.
A living wage frankly is not going to be a lot of money. And when the city is shelling out what they are for some people, it’s hard to justify paying the low enders less than 13 per hour. We are talking about a drop the in barrell, maybe 30 to 50 people tops.
A living wage frankly is not going to be a lot of money. And when the city is shelling out what they are for some people, it’s hard to justify paying the low enders less than 13 per hour. We are talking about a drop the in barrell, maybe 30 to 50 people tops.
A living wage frankly is not going to be a lot of money. And when the city is shelling out what they are for some people, it’s hard to justify paying the low enders less than 13 per hour. We are talking about a drop the in barrell, maybe 30 to 50 people tops.
A living wage frankly is not going to be a lot of money. And when the city is shelling out what they are for some people, it’s hard to justify paying the low enders less than 13 per hour. We are talking about a drop the in barrell, maybe 30 to 50 people tops.
“The other serious problem is that of retirement benefits to employees.”
This year, the unfunded liability for retiree medical benefits is $2 million. Next year it will be higher. The year after higher. And on an on.
What disappoints me is that it has been more than a year since I wrote in my Enterprise column (on March 7, 2007) that our current policies for giving lifetime free full medical coverage to every city of Davis employee was unsustainable — and we still have not changed our policies; we still have not gotten rid of this albatross.
I was as sure when I raised this issue — long before anyone from the city had publicly acknowledged it was a serious looming threat — as I am now that this policy is going to bankrupt our city.
If you understand that this is a liability that is not going to go away but is only going to get much, much worse, you would understand that our city’s budget right now is seriously in the red. We are accruing debt at an unsustainable rate.
We not only need to be putting aside a lot more money now to pay for the looming expenses; we need to get rid of or seriously amend this policy of giving away the store.
“The other serious problem is that of retirement benefits to employees.”
This year, the unfunded liability for retiree medical benefits is $2 million. Next year it will be higher. The year after higher. And on an on.
What disappoints me is that it has been more than a year since I wrote in my Enterprise column (on March 7, 2007) that our current policies for giving lifetime free full medical coverage to every city of Davis employee was unsustainable — and we still have not changed our policies; we still have not gotten rid of this albatross.
I was as sure when I raised this issue — long before anyone from the city had publicly acknowledged it was a serious looming threat — as I am now that this policy is going to bankrupt our city.
If you understand that this is a liability that is not going to go away but is only going to get much, much worse, you would understand that our city’s budget right now is seriously in the red. We are accruing debt at an unsustainable rate.
We not only need to be putting aside a lot more money now to pay for the looming expenses; we need to get rid of or seriously amend this policy of giving away the store.
“The other serious problem is that of retirement benefits to employees.”
This year, the unfunded liability for retiree medical benefits is $2 million. Next year it will be higher. The year after higher. And on an on.
What disappoints me is that it has been more than a year since I wrote in my Enterprise column (on March 7, 2007) that our current policies for giving lifetime free full medical coverage to every city of Davis employee was unsustainable — and we still have not changed our policies; we still have not gotten rid of this albatross.
I was as sure when I raised this issue — long before anyone from the city had publicly acknowledged it was a serious looming threat — as I am now that this policy is going to bankrupt our city.
If you understand that this is a liability that is not going to go away but is only going to get much, much worse, you would understand that our city’s budget right now is seriously in the red. We are accruing debt at an unsustainable rate.
We not only need to be putting aside a lot more money now to pay for the looming expenses; we need to get rid of or seriously amend this policy of giving away the store.
“The other serious problem is that of retirement benefits to employees.”
This year, the unfunded liability for retiree medical benefits is $2 million. Next year it will be higher. The year after higher. And on an on.
What disappoints me is that it has been more than a year since I wrote in my Enterprise column (on March 7, 2007) that our current policies for giving lifetime free full medical coverage to every city of Davis employee was unsustainable — and we still have not changed our policies; we still have not gotten rid of this albatross.
I was as sure when I raised this issue — long before anyone from the city had publicly acknowledged it was a serious looming threat — as I am now that this policy is going to bankrupt our city.
If you understand that this is a liability that is not going to go away but is only going to get much, much worse, you would understand that our city’s budget right now is seriously in the red. We are accruing debt at an unsustainable rate.
We not only need to be putting aside a lot more money now to pay for the looming expenses; we need to get rid of or seriously amend this policy of giving away the store.
Well said Rich. I think that the benefits packages for public employees should be no better or worse than those offered in the private sector. I am completely in favor of making those changes as soon as possible. The unions in Vallejo are realizing that they did such a good job of “beating the house” in their negotiations that their winnings are worthless… hopefully a commitment to sustainable compensation will guide the Davis public employees in this effort to correct the imbalance.
Well said Rich. I think that the benefits packages for public employees should be no better or worse than those offered in the private sector. I am completely in favor of making those changes as soon as possible. The unions in Vallejo are realizing that they did such a good job of “beating the house” in their negotiations that their winnings are worthless… hopefully a commitment to sustainable compensation will guide the Davis public employees in this effort to correct the imbalance.
Well said Rich. I think that the benefits packages for public employees should be no better or worse than those offered in the private sector. I am completely in favor of making those changes as soon as possible. The unions in Vallejo are realizing that they did such a good job of “beating the house” in their negotiations that their winnings are worthless… hopefully a commitment to sustainable compensation will guide the Davis public employees in this effort to correct the imbalance.
Well said Rich. I think that the benefits packages for public employees should be no better or worse than those offered in the private sector. I am completely in favor of making those changes as soon as possible. The unions in Vallejo are realizing that they did such a good job of “beating the house” in their negotiations that their winnings are worthless… hopefully a commitment to sustainable compensation will guide the Davis public employees in this effort to correct the imbalance.
To me, the issue is one of both sustainability and progressivity. I would like to see benefits as generous as is sustainable, and fair to those who make lower salaries or wages.
Initially, the City of Davis decided to give more generous health benefits than most other cities because it is a progressive benefit, i.e., the cost is the same for each employee, so it constitutes a higher percentage of the compensation of the lower paid workers.
The idea behind giving this more generous benefit was that salaries would be commensurately lower. For example, if all workers took a hypothetical 3% salary cut in pay for the health benefits, management and the highest paid workers would be paying more in absolute terms to provide this benefit to everyone. This is the definition of progressive.
Unfortunately, this benefit is not sustainable unless everyone takes that (as a hypothetical example) 3% salary cut and the money is put into the health insurance fund, or unless some less progressive approach is taken. I fear that the council will take the latter approach to paying off the $42 million unfunded liability, if they take any action at all, since the council has become less and less committed to a progressive compensation structure over the years.
To me, the issue is one of both sustainability and progressivity. I would like to see benefits as generous as is sustainable, and fair to those who make lower salaries or wages.
Initially, the City of Davis decided to give more generous health benefits than most other cities because it is a progressive benefit, i.e., the cost is the same for each employee, so it constitutes a higher percentage of the compensation of the lower paid workers.
The idea behind giving this more generous benefit was that salaries would be commensurately lower. For example, if all workers took a hypothetical 3% salary cut in pay for the health benefits, management and the highest paid workers would be paying more in absolute terms to provide this benefit to everyone. This is the definition of progressive.
Unfortunately, this benefit is not sustainable unless everyone takes that (as a hypothetical example) 3% salary cut and the money is put into the health insurance fund, or unless some less progressive approach is taken. I fear that the council will take the latter approach to paying off the $42 million unfunded liability, if they take any action at all, since the council has become less and less committed to a progressive compensation structure over the years.
To me, the issue is one of both sustainability and progressivity. I would like to see benefits as generous as is sustainable, and fair to those who make lower salaries or wages.
Initially, the City of Davis decided to give more generous health benefits than most other cities because it is a progressive benefit, i.e., the cost is the same for each employee, so it constitutes a higher percentage of the compensation of the lower paid workers.
The idea behind giving this more generous benefit was that salaries would be commensurately lower. For example, if all workers took a hypothetical 3% salary cut in pay for the health benefits, management and the highest paid workers would be paying more in absolute terms to provide this benefit to everyone. This is the definition of progressive.
Unfortunately, this benefit is not sustainable unless everyone takes that (as a hypothetical example) 3% salary cut and the money is put into the health insurance fund, or unless some less progressive approach is taken. I fear that the council will take the latter approach to paying off the $42 million unfunded liability, if they take any action at all, since the council has become less and less committed to a progressive compensation structure over the years.
To me, the issue is one of both sustainability and progressivity. I would like to see benefits as generous as is sustainable, and fair to those who make lower salaries or wages.
Initially, the City of Davis decided to give more generous health benefits than most other cities because it is a progressive benefit, i.e., the cost is the same for each employee, so it constitutes a higher percentage of the compensation of the lower paid workers.
The idea behind giving this more generous benefit was that salaries would be commensurately lower. For example, if all workers took a hypothetical 3% salary cut in pay for the health benefits, management and the highest paid workers would be paying more in absolute terms to provide this benefit to everyone. This is the definition of progressive.
Unfortunately, this benefit is not sustainable unless everyone takes that (as a hypothetical example) 3% salary cut and the money is put into the health insurance fund, or unless some less progressive approach is taken. I fear that the council will take the latter approach to paying off the $42 million unfunded liability, if they take any action at all, since the council has become less and less committed to a progressive compensation structure over the years.
What is the problem with progressive compensation? You end up overpaying the low end workers and pay everyone else the same as they would be paid in a non progressive plan. The only losers are the taxpayers. Stop trying to give things away and run the city more like a business.
What is the problem with progressive compensation? You end up overpaying the low end workers and pay everyone else the same as they would be paid in a non progressive plan. The only losers are the taxpayers. Stop trying to give things away and run the city more like a business.
What is the problem with progressive compensation? You end up overpaying the low end workers and pay everyone else the same as they would be paid in a non progressive plan. The only losers are the taxpayers. Stop trying to give things away and run the city more like a business.
What is the problem with progressive compensation? You end up overpaying the low end workers and pay everyone else the same as they would be paid in a non progressive plan. The only losers are the taxpayers. Stop trying to give things away and run the city more like a business.
The first obligation of the city council people has to be financial responsibility. Everything else has to take a back seat to that at all times. If they get caught up trying to accomplish too many secondary goals and neglect financial responsibility, we will face the Vallejo problem and won’t have enough money to pay for cops and fire and safe streets.
The first obligation of the city council people has to be financial responsibility. Everything else has to take a back seat to that at all times. If they get caught up trying to accomplish too many secondary goals and neglect financial responsibility, we will face the Vallejo problem and won’t have enough money to pay for cops and fire and safe streets.
The first obligation of the city council people has to be financial responsibility. Everything else has to take a back seat to that at all times. If they get caught up trying to accomplish too many secondary goals and neglect financial responsibility, we will face the Vallejo problem and won’t have enough money to pay for cops and fire and safe streets.
The first obligation of the city council people has to be financial responsibility. Everything else has to take a back seat to that at all times. If they get caught up trying to accomplish too many secondary goals and neglect financial responsibility, we will face the Vallejo problem and won’t have enough money to pay for cops and fire and safe streets.
Thanks Hardy,
Now I get it. A living wage for the people who clean our buildings and trim our trees is secondary, but paying more and more to the already overpaid firefighters is our real responsibility.
How could I have been so dense?
Thanks Hardy,
Now I get it. A living wage for the people who clean our buildings and trim our trees is secondary, but paying more and more to the already overpaid firefighters is our real responsibility.
How could I have been so dense?
Thanks Hardy,
Now I get it. A living wage for the people who clean our buildings and trim our trees is secondary, but paying more and more to the already overpaid firefighters is our real responsibility.
How could I have been so dense?
Thanks Hardy,
Now I get it. A living wage for the people who clean our buildings and trim our trees is secondary, but paying more and more to the already overpaid firefighters is our real responsibility.
How could I have been so dense?
It should be noted that Vallejo employees are now willing to take pay cuts to avoid the city filing for bankruptcy, and have offered up the pay cut solution to remove 2/3 of the city’s deficit. The employees now expect the city to somehow come up with the other third. Let’s face it, the employees bargained their way right out of their own lucrative contracts, which will be renegotiated by a judge, from what I read in the Davis Enterprise. Meanwhile, the property values in the town will probably decline, and businesses will be reluctant to do business with the city. Legal fees for the bankruptcy will be steep. There will be huge repercussions for the monumental decision to file bankruptcy.
As far as I know, Sue Greenwald was the very first to point out the problem with the overly generous pensions for fire and police, from a financial point of view. For the city’s budget officer to ignore pension benefits and health insurance as part of the fiscal picture is misleading and dishonest. What is Paul Navazio saying – the city will or won’t pay such benefits depending on whether there is a budget surplus? If that is not his position, then those two items (pensions and health benefits) are something the city will be required to pay, and need to be included as an integral part of any city budget.
Who agreed to such generous compensation packages on the City Council, without really thinking it through as to whether the city could afford it? It was not Lamar, and it was not Sue Greenwald. It is easy to ignore such basics as balanced budgets – when you don’t plan to stay in the City Council long enough to be held accountable for your vote on budget issues! When your eye is on a bigger prize, your attention tends to wander –
It should be noted that Vallejo employees are now willing to take pay cuts to avoid the city filing for bankruptcy, and have offered up the pay cut solution to remove 2/3 of the city’s deficit. The employees now expect the city to somehow come up with the other third. Let’s face it, the employees bargained their way right out of their own lucrative contracts, which will be renegotiated by a judge, from what I read in the Davis Enterprise. Meanwhile, the property values in the town will probably decline, and businesses will be reluctant to do business with the city. Legal fees for the bankruptcy will be steep. There will be huge repercussions for the monumental decision to file bankruptcy.
As far as I know, Sue Greenwald was the very first to point out the problem with the overly generous pensions for fire and police, from a financial point of view. For the city’s budget officer to ignore pension benefits and health insurance as part of the fiscal picture is misleading and dishonest. What is Paul Navazio saying – the city will or won’t pay such benefits depending on whether there is a budget surplus? If that is not his position, then those two items (pensions and health benefits) are something the city will be required to pay, and need to be included as an integral part of any city budget.
Who agreed to such generous compensation packages on the City Council, without really thinking it through as to whether the city could afford it? It was not Lamar, and it was not Sue Greenwald. It is easy to ignore such basics as balanced budgets – when you don’t plan to stay in the City Council long enough to be held accountable for your vote on budget issues! When your eye is on a bigger prize, your attention tends to wander –
It should be noted that Vallejo employees are now willing to take pay cuts to avoid the city filing for bankruptcy, and have offered up the pay cut solution to remove 2/3 of the city’s deficit. The employees now expect the city to somehow come up with the other third. Let’s face it, the employees bargained their way right out of their own lucrative contracts, which will be renegotiated by a judge, from what I read in the Davis Enterprise. Meanwhile, the property values in the town will probably decline, and businesses will be reluctant to do business with the city. Legal fees for the bankruptcy will be steep. There will be huge repercussions for the monumental decision to file bankruptcy.
As far as I know, Sue Greenwald was the very first to point out the problem with the overly generous pensions for fire and police, from a financial point of view. For the city’s budget officer to ignore pension benefits and health insurance as part of the fiscal picture is misleading and dishonest. What is Paul Navazio saying – the city will or won’t pay such benefits depending on whether there is a budget surplus? If that is not his position, then those two items (pensions and health benefits) are something the city will be required to pay, and need to be included as an integral part of any city budget.
Who agreed to such generous compensation packages on the City Council, without really thinking it through as to whether the city could afford it? It was not Lamar, and it was not Sue Greenwald. It is easy to ignore such basics as balanced budgets – when you don’t plan to stay in the City Council long enough to be held accountable for your vote on budget issues! When your eye is on a bigger prize, your attention tends to wander –
It should be noted that Vallejo employees are now willing to take pay cuts to avoid the city filing for bankruptcy, and have offered up the pay cut solution to remove 2/3 of the city’s deficit. The employees now expect the city to somehow come up with the other third. Let’s face it, the employees bargained their way right out of their own lucrative contracts, which will be renegotiated by a judge, from what I read in the Davis Enterprise. Meanwhile, the property values in the town will probably decline, and businesses will be reluctant to do business with the city. Legal fees for the bankruptcy will be steep. There will be huge repercussions for the monumental decision to file bankruptcy.
As far as I know, Sue Greenwald was the very first to point out the problem with the overly generous pensions for fire and police, from a financial point of view. For the city’s budget officer to ignore pension benefits and health insurance as part of the fiscal picture is misleading and dishonest. What is Paul Navazio saying – the city will or won’t pay such benefits depending on whether there is a budget surplus? If that is not his position, then those two items (pensions and health benefits) are something the city will be required to pay, and need to be included as an integral part of any city budget.
Who agreed to such generous compensation packages on the City Council, without really thinking it through as to whether the city could afford it? It was not Lamar, and it was not Sue Greenwald. It is easy to ignore such basics as balanced budgets – when you don’t plan to stay in the City Council long enough to be held accountable for your vote on budget issues! When your eye is on a bigger prize, your attention tends to wander –
Did you read the Enterprise tonight? Things don’t look so great even though the headline says otherwise.
I found the information on page A3 to be an admittance that all is not well as some would like us to believe.
I did a cut and paste here of part of the article.
Enterprise article – The city funded benefits under a pay-as-you-go method until last fiscal year, when it added an extra $500,000 to the payment. To fully fund the program, which would save millions in the long run, the city would have to pay in about $4 million per year, Navazio said.
‘Given the level of benefits and the cost of benefits, we need to be setting aside 6 percent of our employee salaries, and that percentage is pretty high compared to other cities,’ Navazio said. ‘That’s also a reflection of the city’s benefits, which are pretty high, and how that’s packaged.’
‘We have got to find the means to fund that,’ Councilman Stephen Souza said.
‘We are fully intending to deal with it, we’re just not dealing with it fully in this fiscal year,’ Navazio said.
Labor negotiations will reopen during the 2009-10 fiscal year, Navazio said, and money has been set aside to address the cost-of-living increases expected.
Council members agreed there is a bright side to the city’s budget picture. For one, Davis has maintained a healthy, 15 percent reserve, totaling about $5.6 million.
The reserve could be used to address further state cutbacks that may be part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s revised budget, expected out today. The reserve also could soften any blows if property and sales tax assumptions built into the budget are incorrect.
Did you read the Enterprise tonight? Things don’t look so great even though the headline says otherwise.
I found the information on page A3 to be an admittance that all is not well as some would like us to believe.
I did a cut and paste here of part of the article.
Enterprise article – The city funded benefits under a pay-as-you-go method until last fiscal year, when it added an extra $500,000 to the payment. To fully fund the program, which would save millions in the long run, the city would have to pay in about $4 million per year, Navazio said.
‘Given the level of benefits and the cost of benefits, we need to be setting aside 6 percent of our employee salaries, and that percentage is pretty high compared to other cities,’ Navazio said. ‘That’s also a reflection of the city’s benefits, which are pretty high, and how that’s packaged.’
‘We have got to find the means to fund that,’ Councilman Stephen Souza said.
‘We are fully intending to deal with it, we’re just not dealing with it fully in this fiscal year,’ Navazio said.
Labor negotiations will reopen during the 2009-10 fiscal year, Navazio said, and money has been set aside to address the cost-of-living increases expected.
Council members agreed there is a bright side to the city’s budget picture. For one, Davis has maintained a healthy, 15 percent reserve, totaling about $5.6 million.
The reserve could be used to address further state cutbacks that may be part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s revised budget, expected out today. The reserve also could soften any blows if property and sales tax assumptions built into the budget are incorrect.
Did you read the Enterprise tonight? Things don’t look so great even though the headline says otherwise.
I found the information on page A3 to be an admittance that all is not well as some would like us to believe.
I did a cut and paste here of part of the article.
Enterprise article – The city funded benefits under a pay-as-you-go method until last fiscal year, when it added an extra $500,000 to the payment. To fully fund the program, which would save millions in the long run, the city would have to pay in about $4 million per year, Navazio said.
‘Given the level of benefits and the cost of benefits, we need to be setting aside 6 percent of our employee salaries, and that percentage is pretty high compared to other cities,’ Navazio said. ‘That’s also a reflection of the city’s benefits, which are pretty high, and how that’s packaged.’
‘We have got to find the means to fund that,’ Councilman Stephen Souza said.
‘We are fully intending to deal with it, we’re just not dealing with it fully in this fiscal year,’ Navazio said.
Labor negotiations will reopen during the 2009-10 fiscal year, Navazio said, and money has been set aside to address the cost-of-living increases expected.
Council members agreed there is a bright side to the city’s budget picture. For one, Davis has maintained a healthy, 15 percent reserve, totaling about $5.6 million.
The reserve could be used to address further state cutbacks that may be part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s revised budget, expected out today. The reserve also could soften any blows if property and sales tax assumptions built into the budget are incorrect.
Did you read the Enterprise tonight? Things don’t look so great even though the headline says otherwise.
I found the information on page A3 to be an admittance that all is not well as some would like us to believe.
I did a cut and paste here of part of the article.
Enterprise article – The city funded benefits under a pay-as-you-go method until last fiscal year, when it added an extra $500,000 to the payment. To fully fund the program, which would save millions in the long run, the city would have to pay in about $4 million per year, Navazio said.
‘Given the level of benefits and the cost of benefits, we need to be setting aside 6 percent of our employee salaries, and that percentage is pretty high compared to other cities,’ Navazio said. ‘That’s also a reflection of the city’s benefits, which are pretty high, and how that’s packaged.’
‘We have got to find the means to fund that,’ Councilman Stephen Souza said.
‘We are fully intending to deal with it, we’re just not dealing with it fully in this fiscal year,’ Navazio said.
Labor negotiations will reopen during the 2009-10 fiscal year, Navazio said, and money has been set aside to address the cost-of-living increases expected.
Council members agreed there is a bright side to the city’s budget picture. For one, Davis has maintained a healthy, 15 percent reserve, totaling about $5.6 million.
The reserve could be used to address further state cutbacks that may be part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s revised budget, expected out today. The reserve also could soften any blows if property and sales tax assumptions built into the budget are incorrect.
Frustrated Taxpayer said;
“Vallejo City employees bargained their way out out of their own lucrative contracts”. I would agree with that statement.
Now what we all need to do is elect another union rep to wreak havoc on the taxpayers. Can anyone guess who I am referring to?
Frustrated Taxpayer said;
“Vallejo City employees bargained their way out out of their own lucrative contracts”. I would agree with that statement.
Now what we all need to do is elect another union rep to wreak havoc on the taxpayers. Can anyone guess who I am referring to?
Frustrated Taxpayer said;
“Vallejo City employees bargained their way out out of their own lucrative contracts”. I would agree with that statement.
Now what we all need to do is elect another union rep to wreak havoc on the taxpayers. Can anyone guess who I am referring to?
Frustrated Taxpayer said;
“Vallejo City employees bargained their way out out of their own lucrative contracts”. I would agree with that statement.
Now what we all need to do is elect another union rep to wreak havoc on the taxpayers. Can anyone guess who I am referring to?
The person you are referring to seems to be one of the more realistic and responsible people in this regard. Perhaps it is time to question the policies of those who are not union organizers because they seem to have far more questionable policies and track records.
The person you are referring to seems to be one of the more realistic and responsible people in this regard. Perhaps it is time to question the policies of those who are not union organizers because they seem to have far more questionable policies and track records.
The person you are referring to seems to be one of the more realistic and responsible people in this regard. Perhaps it is time to question the policies of those who are not union organizers because they seem to have far more questionable policies and track records.
The person you are referring to seems to be one of the more realistic and responsible people in this regard. Perhaps it is time to question the policies of those who are not union organizers because they seem to have far more questionable policies and track records.
TO THE ABOVE:
Who are you referring to? I assume the anon statement was referring to Cecilia Greenwald. Can you see that most,not all,of the candidates,(Cecilia included), are making general statements about serious issues?
Did you get Cecilia’s latest flier. A staged photo in front of the Police Department making it look like she has the support of the Police Dept.
People that run for public office should not stage things for appearances. People who run for public office should be honest as to their intentions and not make general statements such as,”I will work to maintain public safety and the effectiveness of police and fire services”. How are you going to do that is the question.
What we have, with one or two exceptions is a number of wannabe and some current BSA’s running the city. My vote is going to Eileen Samitz for coumcil.
(p.s. BSA? The first letter is for bull and the last letter is for artist).
TO THE ABOVE:
Who are you referring to? I assume the anon statement was referring to Cecilia Greenwald. Can you see that most,not all,of the candidates,(Cecilia included), are making general statements about serious issues?
Did you get Cecilia’s latest flier. A staged photo in front of the Police Department making it look like she has the support of the Police Dept.
People that run for public office should not stage things for appearances. People who run for public office should be honest as to their intentions and not make general statements such as,”I will work to maintain public safety and the effectiveness of police and fire services”. How are you going to do that is the question.
What we have, with one or two exceptions is a number of wannabe and some current BSA’s running the city. My vote is going to Eileen Samitz for coumcil.
(p.s. BSA? The first letter is for bull and the last letter is for artist).
TO THE ABOVE:
Who are you referring to? I assume the anon statement was referring to Cecilia Greenwald. Can you see that most,not all,of the candidates,(Cecilia included), are making general statements about serious issues?
Did you get Cecilia’s latest flier. A staged photo in front of the Police Department making it look like she has the support of the Police Dept.
People that run for public office should not stage things for appearances. People who run for public office should be honest as to their intentions and not make general statements such as,”I will work to maintain public safety and the effectiveness of police and fire services”. How are you going to do that is the question.
What we have, with one or two exceptions is a number of wannabe and some current BSA’s running the city. My vote is going to Eileen Samitz for coumcil.
(p.s. BSA? The first letter is for bull and the last letter is for artist).
TO THE ABOVE:
Who are you referring to? I assume the anon statement was referring to Cecilia Greenwald. Can you see that most,not all,of the candidates,(Cecilia included), are making general statements about serious issues?
Did you get Cecilia’s latest flier. A staged photo in front of the Police Department making it look like she has the support of the Police Dept.
People that run for public office should not stage things for appearances. People who run for public office should be honest as to their intentions and not make general statements such as,”I will work to maintain public safety and the effectiveness of police and fire services”. How are you going to do that is the question.
What we have, with one or two exceptions is a number of wannabe and some current BSA’s running the city. My vote is going to Eileen Samitz for coumcil.
(p.s. BSA? The first letter is for bull and the last letter is for artist).