Councilmember Heystek Calls It Business As Usual –
Councilmember Heystek Calls It Business As Usual – Councilmember Heystek told the Vanguard that he was reiterating that given the budget adopted by the Council, it doesn’t appear he will support an extension of the sales tax and therefore is likely to actively campaign against it.
Comments by Councilmember Heystek:
Thank you Madam Mayor, I know that it’s taken us a long time to reach this point and I know we don’t want to spend another few hours tonight, but I did want to take just a few minutes to explain to you my thoughts and the thoughts that have led me to the decision that I’m poised to make tonight on the budget.
When we started this process, I asked that we undertake and consider changes that fundamentally change the way the city does business. I did this so that when we make the case to the voters that we need to continue revenue enhancement measures that the voters can see that their money has been spent wisely. I said that I would be withholding my vote pending our consideration of those measures which I deemed to consider ways that we fundamentally do things different in the city. I outlined ways of doing that; I won’t belabor those points tonight.
There are reasons why I cannot support the motion tonight. I’ll give you a few reasons.
The first and foremost is that some of the money that we propose to spend as part of this budget, is money that I do not believe we will have. I believe, as I stated before, that our property tax and sales tax revenue projections, not withstanding the other perspectives on the dais, are far too rosy given what we know now. I believe that we cannot responsibly say that we will be spending money that we cannot accurately foreseeably predict that we will earn.
I don’t believe that this budget goes far enough to save funds systematically. When I look at the budget, division by division, department by department, our department heads have put their heads together to come up with those recommendations that they feel best serve the city—and I think they’ve done their level best. But I don’t believe that we as a council, we haven’t given enough direction to say what we need to do to save funds systematically. We have de-funded positions. I think we have tinkered around the edges. But I don’t feel that we have done enough to be fundamental and systematic in the way we save our money.
Thirdly, I believe that the service cuts as part of the tiered reductions and the personnel cost-savings are out of balance. If you look at the tiered cuts as they appear in our staff packet now and you look at what we’ve stated that we seek to save in personnel costs—it’s out of balance. I believe that the preponderance of the costs fall unjustly on the tiered service reductions. It has always been a priority of mine to reduce the impact on the tiered-service proposed cuts.
Fourthly, I want to point out to the council that we are not only not funding two police officers, we are not funding a police sergeant when there are according to the recent Citygate report, in their opinion, there are $360,000 in net savings on the table from the fire department. We can talk about that as a council, but I’m afraid that conversation is happening on the wrong side of June 30.
When I said I hoped we’d do business differently, I had hoped we would have that conversation before the adoption of the budget ordinance. I had expressed that in private to the city manager. I had expressed that in private to the finance director. I had expressed it here on the dais and unfortunately we are not going to be able to capture the savings that I believe are there that are provided to us and outlined in that report. We have not discussed that report. I don’t know if necessarily appears on our long-range calendar. Councilmembers have said they want to talk about that report as soon as possible. I believe we will—but unfortunately that’s happening just a little too late by my estimation.
Another reason why I don’t support the budget is that not withstanding the proposed reduction in overtime—I believe that reduction is $150,000 in overtime cuts. The information that I have gotten from staff is that the fire department is on track to spend—minus the strike team expenditures–$240,000 in overtime. Yet we’re proposing that they spend more in overtime next year–$319,000, little over $300,000. Now, you can say that you’re cutting overtime but to me that’s an increase in overtime—not withstanding strike team or other emergencies like that where we’re called upon by other jurisdictions. (And I’m not necessarily saying we don’t respond to those because the state and those other jurisdictions reimburse us for those costs.)
But what I see and what I’ve gotten from the finance director is that we’re proposing that we spend more in overtime in one department from the previous year. I simply cannot vote for that. I think it needs to be across all departments. I don’t think that we need to increase overtime from year to year. We need to do something different to reduce that burden.
Another reason that I want to explain is that the cuts within the tiered service reduction are misplaced. I explain again the cut to the police sergeant for professional standards. I believe that’s a misplaced cut. I believe some of the money that we brought back on the table from last week’s discussion can be used to fund that position. I believe that we need those kinds of positions when we’re not funding other positions in that department that are on the ground.
We are not guaranteed to get the federal grant to fund those officers. Davis isn’t looked so highly upon in those grant applications because we’re considered a well-off community that can do without. I just don’t want to think that we’re going to get a grant. And we’ve written in here that we’re going to get the grant—I’m not convinced that we are as much as I would like for us to.
So for those reasons I cannot support the motion. Thank you Madam Mayor.
Councilmember Stephen Souza while he disagreed with many of the points Councilmember Heystek made did make it a point to praise the Councilmember for his diligent work on the budget which made the council re-look at the proposals and caused the council to change and alter some of their assumptions and some of the budget line items.
However, while the Councilmember thanked and acknowledged Mr. Souza’s praise, he felt in the end that this proposal does not go far enough.
The council has put a placeholder number of $1.25 million in compensation cuts which reflects less than a 4% cut to employee compensation. That number is premised on the ability of employee budget talks to yield those cuts. We are increasingly pessimistic that the council will even be able to meet those very modest goals for re-structuring contracts to say nothing for changes to pensions and the unfunded liability of retirement health benefits.
And so the work continues for another month and then council will take a vacation that many in this community cannot afford and will not get this year—their work undone and left to future councils to attempt to repair. Last night was the end of the process, but certainly not the struggle to fix the fiscal problems of this community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Lamar, count me in. The sales tax increase money was not supposed to be used for what they are doing with it.
It was interesting (and informative?) that Mr. Heystek voted against a motion to pay the City’s bills, including employee paychecks, from July 1, 2009, until the budget ordinance goes into effect… the resolution he opposed, even after the budget passed on a 3-2 vote, follows:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TEMPORARY APPROPRIATION FOR PAYROLL AND OTHER EXPENSES FROM JULY 1, 2009 UNTIL THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Davis approve the annual budget via adoption of an Annual Appropriations Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, said Appropriations Ordinance authorizes expenditure for each fund within the City budget, as necessary, to pay for the expenses of conducting the business of City government for the next ensuing fiscal year, and
WHEREAS, the Annual Appropriations Ordinance to be passed on June 30, 2009 will not be effective until August 6th, 2009.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Davis that
$20,000,000 be appropriated from available funds for payroll and other expenses from July 1, 2009 until the effective date of the FY 2009/10 Annual Appropriations Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the purpose and intent of this Resolution to make available funds, as provided, pending final adoption of the Annual Appropriations Ordinance for FY 2009/10.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum hereby appropriated shall, when expended, be charged to appropriations of said fiscal year, when said Ordinance has been finally passed and adopted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that temporary inter-fund transfers be authorized, as necessary, to make funds available to carry out said purposes and intent of this resolution pending final adoption of said Ordinance.[/img]
Not sure how many of us could go over a month not being paid for work performed.
Maybe there should have been a shutdown until the City passed a more responsible budget. Not a dime should flow until the City does the right thing.
Agreed… a shutdown would be more just than having business as usual for everyone except vendors and employees.
Good for Lamar! It is about time he joined Sue Greenwald, and spoke out against the profligate waste/spending that occurs in our city budget. We have a serious unfunded liability/structural problem w regard to city employee salaries/benefits/overtime, that is not getting fixed. Next, the state is going to pass along its budget disaster to local gov’t, including city gov’t, by pulling back its funding to the counties and cities. Lamar will be proven to be right about Navazio’s/Souza’s too rosy budget assumptions. Souza is going to look like a fool, as will Davis City Mgr Bill Emlen and Davis Asst Mgr/Budget Director Paul Navazio.
I hope Lamar and all citizens will stick to their guns about not extending the parcel taxes. It sends an important message to local gov’t – enough is enough of irresponsible gov’t spending. But I suspect when push comes to shove, and the city uses the proper scare tactics, as DJUSD has successfully done, citizens will end up approving the extension of parcel taxes anyway. If that is the case, expect nothing but more of the same irresponsible spending, w no end in sight.
By declaring advance opposition to sales tax renewal, Lamar has managed to jump from looking like one of the only responsible adults to the most irresponsible position on the council. I fear this will generally discredit the progressive opposition. There’s a big difference between tough criticism and encouraging the free-lunch crew. I hope he’ll calm down and reconsider.
Tough criticism only gets you so far. We need to be prepared to vote with our pocketbooks to send a clear message that the taxpayers will not finance business as usual.
I bet you city staff expects a unanimous Council to place the sales tax renewal on the ballot. I suspect that with this in mind, Lamar has been using the only leverage he has as a council member in the minority to promote systematic change. Let’s hope staff sees the writing on the wall and does something drastic to reverse course.
I have a question. Is Lamar’s vote needed to renew the parcel taxes? Can it be done with a simple majority vote?