On August 14, 2008 the Vanguard acting on a tip examined an aspect of the overtime given to the police department. We learned of an “extra duty” program that is sometimes given to police officers in their time off. For instance it could be for various groups event who contract with the city, it could be for patrolling apartment complexes for four hours at a time when they have had problems with parties. Some officers like to pick up the extra work, some do not.
The groups who request the extra duty officer get sent an invoice and the officer gets paid time and a half. The city accounts for this under program number 5619–everything listed under 5619 is being paid by sources other than city money.
It turns out, roughly $70,000 of that $627,000 in overtime is not paid for by the city but rather by these private groups.
At the time, we were told that this money was paid for by these private groups to the city. The belief was that it was not costing the city anything to administer these programs.
That belief turns out to not be true. But to the credit of the city in this case, they have re-negotiated this portion of the MOU with the police department in order to plug this hole and make it revenue neutral. This past week, it appeared as a consent item on the agenda.
The staff report begins as follows:
“For years, the City of Davis has contracted with local businesses within the city to supply sworn Police personnel to provide private security. Previously employees electing to participate in the extra duty employment program were paid at time and a half their normal rate.”
Here’s the key point however:
“Unfortunately, the rate the City charges the local businesses did not cover the cost of the program.”
It goes on:
“Currently the City charges businesses $66.50 per hour to provide sworn Police services. The cost to the City has been higher than the priced charged due to the combined cost of salary and benefits at time and one-half of the employees providing the services. In the past two fiscal years the Police Department had to absorb approximately $23,000 to cover deficit this program has caused.”
So this program actually cost the city a net $23,000 over two years to cover something that should have been cost neutral.
Again to the credit of the city in this case, they have plugged this hole.
“Staff met with Police and Finance staff and members of DPOA to try to come to an agreement that would stay within the fee currently charged and to fairly compensate the sworn Police personnel performing the work. An agreement was reached to pay all sworn Police personnel at step 5 of the Police Officer Salary with Longevity and Advanced Certification pay. This rate of pay should keep the program cost neutral to the City, without having to raise the current rate charged to the public.”
The Vanguard believes that there are problems dozens of programs like this that should be cost neutral to the city, but are not for various reasons. This is a simple way for the city to save money–find these problems and fix the holes to make them as a close to cost neutral as possible. No one loses in these types of exchanges. In this case, the city will save an additional $11,500 per year. That might not be a huge amount by itself, but if they find a number of them, it will begin to add up. The Vanguard applauds the city for spotting this problem and fixing it.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Oh my gosh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh my gosh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh my gosh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh my gosh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In gov’t there is waste of taxpayers money everywhere, (including the school district). It is so easy to spend OPM (other people’s money). That is why there needs to be an incentive program that rewards saving money, not a reward for wasting it. And by the way, IMHO, Bill Emlen is a lousy city manager. His arrogant staff often runs amok.
In gov’t there is waste of taxpayers money everywhere, (including the school district). It is so easy to spend OPM (other people’s money). That is why there needs to be an incentive program that rewards saving money, not a reward for wasting it. And by the way, IMHO, Bill Emlen is a lousy city manager. His arrogant staff often runs amok.
In gov’t there is waste of taxpayers money everywhere, (including the school district). It is so easy to spend OPM (other people’s money). That is why there needs to be an incentive program that rewards saving money, not a reward for wasting it. And by the way, IMHO, Bill Emlen is a lousy city manager. His arrogant staff often runs amok.
In gov’t there is waste of taxpayers money everywhere, (including the school district). It is so easy to spend OPM (other people’s money). That is why there needs to be an incentive program that rewards saving money, not a reward for wasting it. And by the way, IMHO, Bill Emlen is a lousy city manager. His arrogant staff often runs amok.
I have a very different take than you do, “Against Waste.”
First, I think there is “waste” taxpayer money, but I think there is wasted money in any industry.
People like to argue that there is waste, but that’s not particularly helpful. What is more helpful is to find where the waste is and how to plug the holes. Simply stating that there is waste is akin to suggesting there is population–it does not do a thing to get rid of either.
Second, I don’t think it is very easy for government to spend other people’s money. That assumes there is an infinite supply of it. There is not. Instead, there are very finite funds to go with huge demands by the voters and residents for services. As a result, any new project given the difficulty of raising more revenue, needs to be heavily evaluated against old projects. Expenditures of money have to in most cases be offset at the local level with cuts. Unlike the federal or even state government, cities and school boards do not get to have huge and perpetual debts which means every spending decision is a very difficult one.
If you want to keep your job, if you want to stay in power, you have to find better ways to provide services while holding the line on costs.
I have become a hawk on this issue because I have recognized these very problems and that the only way we can provide the services and programs I want to spend money on is to find programs and waste in the system. Contrary to popular belief, that is a very difficult thing to do.
I have a very different take than you do, “Against Waste.”
First, I think there is “waste” taxpayer money, but I think there is wasted money in any industry.
People like to argue that there is waste, but that’s not particularly helpful. What is more helpful is to find where the waste is and how to plug the holes. Simply stating that there is waste is akin to suggesting there is population–it does not do a thing to get rid of either.
Second, I don’t think it is very easy for government to spend other people’s money. That assumes there is an infinite supply of it. There is not. Instead, there are very finite funds to go with huge demands by the voters and residents for services. As a result, any new project given the difficulty of raising more revenue, needs to be heavily evaluated against old projects. Expenditures of money have to in most cases be offset at the local level with cuts. Unlike the federal or even state government, cities and school boards do not get to have huge and perpetual debts which means every spending decision is a very difficult one.
If you want to keep your job, if you want to stay in power, you have to find better ways to provide services while holding the line on costs.
I have become a hawk on this issue because I have recognized these very problems and that the only way we can provide the services and programs I want to spend money on is to find programs and waste in the system. Contrary to popular belief, that is a very difficult thing to do.
I have a very different take than you do, “Against Waste.”
First, I think there is “waste” taxpayer money, but I think there is wasted money in any industry.
People like to argue that there is waste, but that’s not particularly helpful. What is more helpful is to find where the waste is and how to plug the holes. Simply stating that there is waste is akin to suggesting there is population–it does not do a thing to get rid of either.
Second, I don’t think it is very easy for government to spend other people’s money. That assumes there is an infinite supply of it. There is not. Instead, there are very finite funds to go with huge demands by the voters and residents for services. As a result, any new project given the difficulty of raising more revenue, needs to be heavily evaluated against old projects. Expenditures of money have to in most cases be offset at the local level with cuts. Unlike the federal or even state government, cities and school boards do not get to have huge and perpetual debts which means every spending decision is a very difficult one.
If you want to keep your job, if you want to stay in power, you have to find better ways to provide services while holding the line on costs.
I have become a hawk on this issue because I have recognized these very problems and that the only way we can provide the services and programs I want to spend money on is to find programs and waste in the system. Contrary to popular belief, that is a very difficult thing to do.
I have a very different take than you do, “Against Waste.”
First, I think there is “waste” taxpayer money, but I think there is wasted money in any industry.
People like to argue that there is waste, but that’s not particularly helpful. What is more helpful is to find where the waste is and how to plug the holes. Simply stating that there is waste is akin to suggesting there is population–it does not do a thing to get rid of either.
Second, I don’t think it is very easy for government to spend other people’s money. That assumes there is an infinite supply of it. There is not. Instead, there are very finite funds to go with huge demands by the voters and residents for services. As a result, any new project given the difficulty of raising more revenue, needs to be heavily evaluated against old projects. Expenditures of money have to in most cases be offset at the local level with cuts. Unlike the federal or even state government, cities and school boards do not get to have huge and perpetual debts which means every spending decision is a very difficult one.
If you want to keep your job, if you want to stay in power, you have to find better ways to provide services while holding the line on costs.
I have become a hawk on this issue because I have recognized these very problems and that the only way we can provide the services and programs I want to spend money on is to find programs and waste in the system. Contrary to popular belief, that is a very difficult thing to do.
“Second, I don’t think it is very easy for government to spend other people’s money. That assumes there is an infinite supply of it.”
There is – it’s called raising taxes! Politicians believe taxpayers have bottomless pockets. Boy, didn’t they get a surprise when they almost voted for the federal bailout!
BTW, I applaud your efforts to find waste. Keep up the good work!
“Second, I don’t think it is very easy for government to spend other people’s money. That assumes there is an infinite supply of it.”
There is – it’s called raising taxes! Politicians believe taxpayers have bottomless pockets. Boy, didn’t they get a surprise when they almost voted for the federal bailout!
BTW, I applaud your efforts to find waste. Keep up the good work!
“Second, I don’t think it is very easy for government to spend other people’s money. That assumes there is an infinite supply of it.”
There is – it’s called raising taxes! Politicians believe taxpayers have bottomless pockets. Boy, didn’t they get a surprise when they almost voted for the federal bailout!
BTW, I applaud your efforts to find waste. Keep up the good work!
“Second, I don’t think it is very easy for government to spend other people’s money. That assumes there is an infinite supply of it.”
There is – it’s called raising taxes! Politicians believe taxpayers have bottomless pockets. Boy, didn’t they get a surprise when they almost voted for the federal bailout!
BTW, I applaud your efforts to find waste. Keep up the good work!
I would argue in most jurisdictions, most of the time, it is extremely difficult to raise taxes. In California it either takes a 2/3rds vote of the people of a jurisdiction or of the legislature. That’s not an easy thing to do politically. Even at the federal level, I think you have to go back 15 years for the last tax increase.
I would argue in most jurisdictions, most of the time, it is extremely difficult to raise taxes. In California it either takes a 2/3rds vote of the people of a jurisdiction or of the legislature. That’s not an easy thing to do politically. Even at the federal level, I think you have to go back 15 years for the last tax increase.
I would argue in most jurisdictions, most of the time, it is extremely difficult to raise taxes. In California it either takes a 2/3rds vote of the people of a jurisdiction or of the legislature. That’s not an easy thing to do politically. Even at the federal level, I think you have to go back 15 years for the last tax increase.
I would argue in most jurisdictions, most of the time, it is extremely difficult to raise taxes. In California it either takes a 2/3rds vote of the people of a jurisdiction or of the legislature. That’s not an easy thing to do politically. Even at the federal level, I think you have to go back 15 years for the last tax increase.