Anyone who watched even a portion of the Davis City Council meeting last night saw some amazing maneuvers by some on the council along with the city manager to avoid the real tough issues and attempt to balance the budget by nickle and diming the city to death. In order to do justice to this, we are going to break this into multiple parts.
This first part will focus on a memorandum by City Manager Bill Emlen that pretty much proves he is missing the point. There is some serious denial going on in this city and it begins with the city manager. He writes:
“Much has been written about employee salaries and benefits and how they contribute to the current budget challenges. There is no doubt that salaries and benefits afforded local government employees have significantly increased over the past few decades. The City of Davis employees are no exception; our compensation package is generally competitive with comparable local government entities. Conversely, the data and information provided at our October compensation workshop show that overall salaries and personnel costs are well within the range provided in similar cities in our region. Furthermore, our overall staffing levels are within the norms for similar cities and in fact the range of services we provide is actually more extensive than many cities. Moreover, the City currently employs fewer positions per capita than we did in 1991-92. The reality is that sans the current historic economic crisis, there likely would not be the focus we are seeing on City salaries and overall compensation.”
This is an absolutely extraordinary paragraph that defends unsustainable processes and policies. The city manager here is essentially saying that there is nothing broke with this system that we will have to fix. The problem is entirely caused by the current economic criss. So we do not have a pension problem. We do not have an unfunded mandate problem. We do not have $13 million in unmet needs. And the current system of escalation in salaries is not problematic to our long term fiscal health. We and other cities are completely justified in the current employee compensation process and policies of used comparative cities as baselines for compensation.
To me there is no more proof needed that Bill Emlen does not get it. Moreover, he along with Paul Navazio and the HR Director Melissa Chaney presumably are the ones carrying out the negotiations on behalf of the taxpayers. I am sorry, I was skeptical before, this is the last straw. This man has no business negotiating on behalf of the city. This is appalling.
He continues:
“None of this obviates the need to take a hard look at our organization. There are compensation issues and there are structural organizational issues that should be reviewed. The fact that we compare favorably with other cities with more severe budget challenges does not mean we do not have our own challenges. There clearly are aspects of our compensation system that need to be re-looked at as relatively benign benefits approved over the years with relatively small up front costs have compounded over many years and now have significant effects.”
This paragraph seems at odds with the previous paragraph. He just told us that we are completely justified absent the economic crisis for our salary structure. Now he’s talking about compensation issues and structural organizational problems. Which is it Bill?
I am glad you are exploring all of these things now that we are in crisis, but people like Sue Greenwald have been warning you about this for years and up until the last paragraph you were defending your policies.
The City Manager asked the city to address each of these five points plus an additional six points. I will make a few comments on each myself.
“1. Do not use the reserves to balance the fiscal year 09/10 budget.”
I agree. The city should preserve its one time monies to the best of its ability. If this were going to be short-lived then it might make sense, a multi-year downturn would eat up that reserve very quickly.
“2. Concur with the tiered reduction approach with possible adjustments as determined by Council discussion.”
Like Councilmember Lamar Heystek, I disagree with this approach. Mr. Heystek called it nickle and diming the tax payers. I agree. We need to get to the core issues and look at them. I am not interested in looking at these approaches without addressing the serious core issues involving staffing and compensation which accounts for most of the general fund.
“3. Ask staff to begin transitioning to a more performance-based programmatic budget with groundwork in this year’s budget and a more complete transition in the following fiscal year.”
Fine. Probably should have done this awhile ago.
“4. That labor negotiations include a discussion about acceptance of mandatory furloughs. The $400,000 in savings that could be achieved by using non-public safety furloughs on a one day a month schedule would not be factored into the fiscal year 09/10 reduction list, but would serve as a contingency, and would be implemented only if revenue were to fall short of current projections, or the State budget crisis has unexpected and negative effects on the City budget.”
Finance and Budget Commission Chair Johannes Troost suggested we go to a 15% across-the-board cut including public safety, I’m tempted to look at that. To me furloughs are not the way to go. I would look toward salary cuts first if we can get them rather than reduction in service. He argued that the way we do business has to change, this is not going to be a short-termed crisis, this is a change in the way we do business. Councilmember Heystek argued that we have to change the fundamental way that we provide city services.
“5. To stay proactive in addressing the long term retiree medical liability, continue to build in a general fund contribution beyond strictly “pay as you go”. My recommendation for this year would be $500,000. Last year’s contribution was $450,000, while the baseline budget for FY2009/10 increased the General Fund set-aside to $600,000. Re-allocate the resulting $100,000 savings to a new general fund account for roadway and sidewalk maintenance, and adding an additional $150,000.00 in general fund dollars would provide $250,000 for streets and sidewalks. This is essentially establishing a baseline general fund account for roadway maintenance to be augmented by outside funds we receive on an irregular basis. Our goal is to build up this fund in the next few budgets to a more substantive level.”
I think we have to go well beyond this. $250,000 for streets and sidewalks is pennies. As a concept this is okay, but I think we really need to move beyond this.
In addition, he had six suggestions to the tiered reduction proposals.
“1. Further minimize impacts of reductions on law enforcement. Pursue COPS funding under the Federal Stimulus package to retain the Police Officer positions that are on the cut list. Consider additional tier of reductions to retain the positions if the COPS funds fail to materialize.”
I am not convinced that cuts and reductions to law enforcement are a good way to balance the budget. We really need to look at what we are doing first rather than the dollar bottom line.
“2. Determine that complete closure of the Fire business office is impractical. It is currently a tier 4 Fire Department cut. As an alternative, direct staff to look at reorganization opportunities and changes in operational assumptions that would reduce costs, particularly in overtime. Also look for sufficient cost reductions to retain the two firefighter positions that are tier 3 and tier 4 reductions. Retain current levels of firefighters, even if there are changes to the operational model.”
I don’t think closing the fire business office is practical. There are certainly ways to save much more money in the fire department. More on this later this week.
“3. Ask staff to reduce and restructure the Community Development Department. If feasible, transfer personnel to other departments with position vacancies that have less or no General fund support. Also, consider transferring one Building Inspector to the Public Works Department where there is a vacant Inspector position. This will facilitate balance to the Building Inspection fund.”
Possibly, just do not know.
“4. Authorize administrative staff to pursue retirement incentives for up to 5 positions with focus on middle management positions. Ongoing savings of over $500,000 could be achievable. Incentives would not include the PERS golden handshake, which is too costly and constraining on future organizational changes.”
Everyone from Mayor Pro Tem Saylor to Councilmember Greenwald had questions about this. I think this is the wrong way to go. We really need to be careful who we are asking to retire and why. I just do not see this is as a huge savings. I certainly do not see an ongoing savings of half a million as possible.
“5. Some but not all positions on the reduction list are current vacancies. Even for those vacant positions not on the reduction lists, hold off on filling the vacant positions upon adopting this budget until at least mid-year 09/10 to further assess the City’s financial situation at that time, and our ability to sustain filling those positions.”
This makes sense, assuming that we are not struggling with their vacancies.
“6. In order to ensure that we end the current year with a General Fund reserve level consistent with our 15% policy requirement, direct staff to return to the Council with specific recommendations on implementing some of the baseline and tier one budget-balancing measures in this fiscal year.”
I am not crazy about this approach. I would like see some of the more serious issues rather than the nickle and dime proposals dealt with.
It took a crisis for the city to start looking seriously as the way to do business. But I do not think the city is really looking at the way we do business. We simply are looking at a bunch of cuts and hoping it all adds up to enough savings to balance the books. To me that is the wrong approach. We need to look at what is broken and actually change the way we do business rather than simply doing less business on the surface.
We will look at some of the proposals in much greater depth later in the week. In the meantime, here is what the City Manager proposed.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I watched the whole painful process and came away more concerned than ever about city staff negotiating the contracts; why isn’t this the wolf guarding the hen house? Don’t they have something to gain either directly or indirectly? A conflict of interest I think. And you and Lemar are right, the presentations were in silos and very one dimensional rather than looking at process and HOW we might do things fundamentally different. I was surprised to hear that city council are considered part time employees and are eligible for full medical and some retirement after 4 yrs. If correct I strongly disagree with the practice and could you comment.
It was almost laughable that the Mayor was debating whether they need food when so many large ticket items were ignored. And lastly the idea that fewer comissions, fewer meetings for them or council would be a good savings is scary.
I’m a supporter of City Councilmembers getting salaries. I think we are better served by it. People like Lamar are working two full time jobs while people like Don Saylor are living off his public safety enhanced 3% at 50 pension. As Sue pointed out last night, god forbid a public servant like Julie Partansky would have spent her dying days without health insurance. I think that’s the least we can do. I would like to see working people not retired and independently wealthy people be able to run for council, but who can do that? Souza has had to take a financial hit from doing this, I’m not saying that to elicit sympathy, he’s better off than most, I say it because we are limiting who can serve.
I’ll get into some of this in the coming days, much more needs to be made of Ruth and Don’s statements.
I agree with your assessment of the City Manager’s lack of “getting it”. I think Rich Rifkin’s list of cuts and changes should be on the table.
I agree with your assessment of the City Manager’s lack of “getting it”. I think Rich Rifkin’s list of cuts and changes should be on the table.
As someone who has negotiated contracts I have absolutely no faith in the city negotiating contracts. Furthermore, how is having less commissions going to equal less money going out?
Does the average citizen in Davis know that they have some managers and/or supervisors who are liaisons to commissions and they are being paid overtime for being a liaison and attending commission meetings. This is their job.
Immediate changes or actions that need to take place:
1) Managers and supervisors should NOT receive overtime pay. This does not happen in the real world outside of Davis.
This includes the Captains for the Davis Fire Department. They should not be paid overtime. This is costing the city of Davis A LOT OF $$$
2) David – How many lawsuits has the city of Davis had in the last 5 years? Can you find this out for us? If people go to the Ombudsman instead of filing a lawsuit against this sometimes incompetent city then that is worth its value in gold.
3) Cut the overtime pay, other than for people who get paid hourly, and the city will save a lot of money.
4) I have NO faith that Paul Navazio, Melissa Cheny, or Bill Emlen can negotiate their way out of a box let alone a contract between the city and the various labor groups. This is why we are in the big mess we are in now. The city needs to do the responsible thing and hire an INDEPENDENT, TOUGH LABOR NEGOTIATOR.
5) David – Did you notice that when Saylor asked how managers are compensated with time off he responded to his own question by confirming that they get comp time for when they work overtime? In other words, they are being given FREE TIME for the time they are doing their job!!! They are managers and they should manage. Why is the council, city manager, and Navazio (finance director) giving away the bank???
We have a council member (Don Saylor) who is bilking the system by getting a public safety enhancement for his retirement (as Sue pointed out last night at the council meeting) and we expect him to make a decision about getting an independent negotiator to negotiate the contract. He is allowing employees to milk the system just like he did as an employee for the CYA. Shame on him!
The taxpayers, voters, citizens of this town need to wake up!! I have voted for tax increases, but I am no longer going to vote in favor until they change a lot of things at city hall. They are not spending the tax payer dollars wisely and we are paying for it.
City council listen up: DO YOUR JOB AND HIRE A NEGOTIATOR!
Saylor got 3% at 50 and is giving away our city finances 3% at 50 to the firefighters. What to go Saylor. Our city is in trouble when he steps into the position of mayor.
I have no problem with city council having a modest stipend however I do have issues with benefits such as ongoing health and retirement after 4 yes of service. That just does NOT happen in the private sector and shouldn’t in the public. Any way you can tell us how much total these benefits are costing US for all currerntly living CC?
Not the same but I was president of a nat’l professional assn in the early 90’s and estimated my business took an 80&#xhi;t that yr not to mention yes prior and since with volunteer time spent on the asan’s behalf. Health, retirement or stipend? Are you kidding? It was my choice as it should be for CC.
“Even for those vacant positions not on the reduction lists, hold off on filling the vacant positions upon adopting this budget until at least mid-year 09/10 to further assess the City’s financial situation at that time, and our ability to sustain filling those positions.”
This says it all. Hold off making any tough decisions to “further assess the City’s financial situation” and hope things get better instead of worse. I told you Bill Emlen was a shill for the Council majority, and the Council majority has been bought and paid for by the firefighters union. There is no way Bill Emlen should be doing the labor negotiations. Paul Navazio is Bill Emlen and the Council majority’s shill. I say fire them both and save lots of money!
“And lastly the idea that fewer comissions, fewer meetings for them or council would be a good savings is scary.”
This is nothing but a veiled attempt to cut down on public comment/ participation on the part of the Council majority – particularly Mayor Admundson, who can’t stand the public. Make the City Council/Staff prove how much in $$$ would be saved by cutting a commission. If they try that route, I think they are going to find a huge amount of community resistance…
[i]”To me there is no more proof needed that Bill Emlen does not get it. Moreover, he along with Paul Navazio and the HR Director Melissa Chaney presumably are the ones carrying out the negotiations on behalf of the taxpayers. I am sorry, I was skeptical before, this is the last straw.”[/i]
I could be recalling this conversation incorrectly, but I remember once speaking with Melissa Chaney about using a professional negotiator to bargain on behalf of the City and she told me that is what she favors. She said that we used a pro many years ago and he (or she, I’m not sure) did a very good job. Of the various labor groups, I think only two of them — one is the DPOA — uses a hired negotiator. The others, I think, use employee reps.
” Make the City Council/Staff prove how much in $$$ would be saved by cutting a commission.”
This plays into their game. We need to make them make the tough choices rather than pick a nickle and dime scheme.
Rich: Why do you trust the same people who got us into this mess to get us out of it?
Incredible! The city should pay council members because salaries are too high. You smokin something?
“The city should pay council members because salaries are too high. You smokin something?”
Huh?
I didn’t see much of last night’s meeting. However, during the part I heard (from about 10:45p-Midnight) there seemed to be a concensus that the general fund reserve ought not be touched to fix the problem. Obviously, if you understand the structural nature of the problem, you would know that we can’t solve (or even dent) the problem using that money. However, I disagree with those who say we shouldn’t tap into it somewhat. I don’t see a problem with making the transition easier by using $1-$2 million of the General Fund reserve. The key, though, is that it should only be used if its used in the context of reform.
Most of the solution to our structural problem is to be found in the labor contracts. (Through attrition, we could also help ourselves by reducing the number of top-management positions, even consolidating two departments into one.) I agree with David (and Lamar and Sue, etc.) that the nickle and dime Tier approach is the wrong one. It doesn’t get at what’s wrong with the whole system. Yet when we are making radical structural changes — for example, requiring all non-safety employees to begin paying their required pension payment share — we could smooth that transition (that is, make it less painful for some) by temporarily using the General Fund reserve.
Perhaps my take is naive. But it seems to me, as long as the City has about a $1.5 million in the GF reserve, we can whether a natural disaster, which is one of the main reasons to have this reserve.
I knew there was a real & substantive reason why I knew Saylor was so distasteful–ex CYA(probably some policy wonk or computer driver of sorts)–his personality matches nicely with his former employer; all show, empty chatter and do nothing, waste of money.
I sincerely look forward to this city joining the “Vallejo club” so we can really start over w/ new contracts because the old ones have been voided. Emlen, Navazio and Chaney should contribute nicely to our ultimate fiscal demise.
[i]Rich: Why do you trust the same people who got us into this mess to get us out of it?[/i]
I’m really for results, not process, in this case. If a pro negotiator could achieve superior results, then I’m for that. If the city manager and his folks can do the job, that’s fine with me. Ultimately, the power is in the hands of the city council. They don’t have to approve any contracts they don’t think we can afford. And if they don’t have confidence in the city manager doing the negotiating, they can change that, too.
As far as trust goes, there really are not too many folks in positions of power I trust to do just what I think is right. They will do what they think is right. And, unlike me, they got elected and (in theory) have the support of the community. I will, though, speak up if the council does not insist on making structural reforms THIS YEAR. Do I have confidence they will? Not really.
Pursue COPS funding under the Federal Stimulus package to retain the Police Officer positions that are on the cut list.*****************
*************Don’t waste your time and ultimately OUR money because WE will be left holding the bag and the bill when this grant money evaporates after some 2 or 3 years. Just send them packing, we’ll be fine without them.
Rich: Fair enough. I don’t expect an Emlen led process to bear fruit, he’s in denial. So apparently is Navazio–either that or he says what Emlen wants him to.
“I will, though, speak up if the council does not insist on making structural reforms THIS YEAR. Do I have confidence they will? Not really.”
You need to speak up BEFORE the fact, not after!!! Loudly!!! But so do the rest of us!!!
“Rich: Fair enough. I don’t expect an Emlen led process to bear fruit, he’s in denial. So apparently is Navazio–either that or he says what Emlen wants him to.”
They are not in denial, the are in bed with the firefighters union and other city employees. Both need to be fired!
[i]You need to speak up BEFORE the fact, not after!!! Loudly!!! But so do the rest of us!!! [/i]
This is a good point. I’m just one person, of course, and have made my views on reform known. However, I don’t plan to stop there. Once the new contracts are negotiated, my expectation is that Johannes Troost and the Finance & Budget Commission will hold hearings on them, before the city council puts the contracts on the council agenda. During that sunshine period, I will read the details of the documents and consider the fiscal analysis of the FBC, which I expect will be thorough. Thus, before the city council can possibly sidestep needed structural reforms, I (and I’m sure folks like David Greenwald) will speak out. They won’t continue to do business as usual without hearing from me (and from many others, I’m sure).
On something unrelated:
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/SdzhGeR_DvI/AAAAAAAAAI8/fSz80-7c038/s1600-h/brothers.JPG[/img]
If you care to read my views on lifting the Cuba embargo, you can do so here ([url]http:lexicondaily.blgospot.com[/url]).
My link failed.
If you care to read my views on lifting the Cuba embargo, you can do so here ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/[/url]).