On Tuesday, August 30, and again on Wednesday, September 7, the City of Davis will be hosting two community open houses to receive input and suggestions about budget priorities, as the City Council considers additional cuts to the 2011-2012 fiscal year budget in late September.
Participants are asked to consider which programs and services they feel are the most critical to the community, as well as those they feel are less important.
There will also be an opportunity to provide general comments or suggestions.
This stems, at least partly, from Councilmember Stephen Souza’s suggestion that the city seek input from the community on what should be cut.
When the council passed the Tier 1 reductions, Mr. Souza declared that this just “wasn’t as judicious” as he would have liked.
He would ultimately oppose the budget, arguing “I am not interested in this path, I think there’s a better path.”
He laid out a vision where members of the community would come forward and give feedback to the council as to their own priorities.
Councilmember Souza argued “We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that we are going to achieve $2.5 million without people losing their jobs.” Unless there are concessions, negotiated people will lose their jobs. He argued you “don’t say you are going to talk to you [sic] at the same time you are targeting them.”
He said he wanted true constructive dialogue and believes the prior path was the right path. “This one is not the right path.”
While no one can argue that the public should have input into the budget process, I question how constructive these meetings will actually be.
Already we have seen some organized resistance to the closure of Community Pool.
As I wrote on Monday, closing the community pool is a tough issue for me because, first of all, it probably is underutilized and I am increasingly favoring having pools and other recreational activities run by community organizations and non-profits rather than by the city itself, which has scant resources.
We can always find a group of people who will back a particular service or expenditure. Most services did not simply arise without community support.
At the same time, the public has largely been asleep on the pending city budget crisis. I do not think the average person in Davis has any idea how bad the situation is that the city is facing fiscally.
That is the problem I have in this discussion. It is likely that we will not have a true or even good sense for what the “public” wants. What we are more likely to see is what a few groups who come forward want.
We may see the city employees mobilize to put pressure on the council.
However, there are a few things that the public really does not understand, at least at this point.
First of all, they need to understand the series of decisions and mistakes that were made in the last decade. The increasing of retirement packages, including pensions and health care during the last decade, has created huge amount of money that we owe in the future, that we have not budgeted for or set aside in the present.
Second, there are the huge increases to compensation that occurred in the last decade.
Third is the fact that the city paid for these increases twofold, first through a half-cent sales tax that the public renewed last year. That money essentially went to the firefighters in the form of a 38% pay increase, when the council had sold the public on the idea of maintaining service levels and having adequate money for basic needs.
Fourth is the fact that the real estate boom created a ten percent annual rate of growth to the city revenues and that has now been cut off and reduced to a flat line of growth.
The result of past promises means that during a time when revenue is flat or even slightly declining, we will still owe $7 million more for employee compensation – pensions, retirement health, etc. – than we do now. With flat revenue projections into the future, we need to cut what amounts to 20% of our general fund budget to pay our obligations.
The $2.5 million is a good start. Critics have suggested that we will never get the kind of concessions that the council majority was seeking. We shall see.
However, the public has little to no idea exactly where money can be cut and how. The council will have to make those tough decisions.
Where the public can weigh in is where the council to this point has not, and that is in establishing in general what the budget priorities ought to be.
The council identified some of those priorities in the last budget. The city was on pace to have about $20 million in deferred maintenance for road repair. Those are basic level services that have traditionally been funded through non-general fund sources that have dried up.
But at the crucial level, the city has a basic array of services, like police, fire, public works, parks and recreation.
As we argued on Monday, we have to face reality. We may be able to save on fire. For instance, the city has merged services with UC Davis, that will save some money. The city may be able to save another $1.5 million on going from a four-person fire engine to a three-person fire engine.
The city will likely be able to save money on labor concessions, either now or with the next round of MOUs.
But in the end, there is only so much the city can cut on vital services like police and fire. Public works is largely a requirement, although a restructuring of the services may save some, at least on the all-funds side.
That leaves parks. The city will ask the public to re-up with a parks tax. But the reality is that the place the city most likely will be able to save money is where the public will least want it to do so, closing down pools and parks, and browning green belts, possibly returning them to native vegetation to alleviate maintenance costs.
In the end, such may be the luxuries that we can most afford to lose, but that is a decision for the public. The public could decide to tax itself more for those services, or on the other hand, perhaps they will choose to privatize the running of the pools and turn over the maintenance of green belts to the neighborhood groups and homeowner associations.
There are no easy answers at this point, and so it is important to get a sense from the public as to what their priorities are. However, I suspect attendance at the tail end of summer at community meetings is not going to provide us with the data we need.
In the end, the council has to make the tough decisions, and the community can only weigh in from time to time.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I hope the sessions include discussion on RDA decisions like garage so public can weigh in. And parks could do much to decrease maintenance by changing them (the majority on NW side of freeway) from lawn greenbelts to more natural like many of S Davis.
[quote]At the same time, the public has largely been asleep on the pending city budget crisis. I do not think the average person in Davis has any idea how bad the situation is that the city is facing fiscally.
That is the problem I have in this discussion. It is likely that we will not have a true or even good sense for what the “public” wants. What we are more likely to see is what a few groups who come forward want.[/quote]
I agree. The public is not necessarily privy to or has followed all the ins and outs of the city’s complicated budget. We vote in City Council members to do just that – keep track of where the city spends its funding and how the mechanism works, and to make the difficult calls on where tax revenues should be spent. Frankly, asking for the public to make such decisions is essentially a move to 1) give the appearance of concern about sufficient public input in a process that has included public comment all along; 2) create political cover for City Council members in making the tough choices.
I do not see that this situation as very different than that which occurs whenever there are major decisions to be made that affect the public well being. There are a very small number or people such as David and Elaine and Rich who through profession or passion or just life circumstances have the time and energy to devote to keeping up on public issues all the time. There will be a larger group, such as myself who are devoting most of our time to other pursuits such as profession/ solo parenting or the like and so come to follow issues in a more cursory fashion, but then play catch up at the end. It is this group of “the public” that I feel may benefit the most, and possibly be able to present fresh ideas on what might work precisely because they have not had the time to become entrenched in their own position or worn down or cynical about the process. As you said previously Elaine, give it time and see what creative ideas the city employees can come up with. I see this as an opportunity to extend that invitation to the entire citizenry. Of course, there is probably a still larger group of people who do not follow public events on any level. That is their choice and the consequences will be the same for them as whatever the council decides without benefit of their input. I don’t see that this process is much different than what you were proposing in multiple previous posts and I certainly don’t consider requesting input as the same thing as “asking for the public to make such decisions”. One clear example of this distinction was the way the CC handled the appointment of Councilmember Wolk. While it was clear that public opinion was solicited, it was also clear through the process that it was the council that made the decision. I personally felt that the council followed a transparent and wise course then, and have confidence that they will be able to do so again.
Is there any way in heck, is there any precedent anywhere, to use redevelopment money to fix or maintain our roads? I know those funds are in a special, separate pot of money, but is there any way, anyhow to use them this way?
In the meantime, I am still very frustrated with past decisions made by past and current councils that ignored Sue Greenwald’s clear and well-supported warnings about unsustainable fiscal decisions they were bound and determined to make because many other cities had done so.
BK
I personally would be very supportive of this idea. In my understanding, redevelopment funds are meant to address blight. What could be more representative of blight than obviously deteriorating infrastructure ?
To medwoman: If you haven’t followed budgetary issues, then as a member of the public, your view is very narrow. That’s fine, and the City Council is free to listen, as they have already listened over time to plenty of public comment on the various issues. I just don’t see that this sort of last minute process is apt to result in any magical solutions, but rather gives special interest groups an additional opportunity to press for their pet project; and gives City Council members political cover when I don’t want them to have any. City Council members should be willing to take a principled stand, and let the chips fall where they may…
ERM
And that is kind of what I meant by “having a cynical point of view”. Granted it’s based on a lot of knowledge and experience, but I think it paints an unnecessarily dark view of the motives of city council members. I don’t believe in magical solutions, but i do believe in collaborative processes. Did you see the council as being any less “principled” in the selection of Dan Wolk ? Maybe I am being naive, but I think we have already seen positive changes and approaches from this council and I am hoping for more.
[i]Is there any way in heck, is there any precedent anywhere, to use redevelopment money to fix or maintain our roads?[/i]
Only if the projects are within the redevelopment area, which is downtown and South Davis.
As a South Davis (SODA) resident it would be wonderful to clean up some if the fast food, car list, empty lots in SE Davis and the blight in the restaurant so ling abandoned which may one day be Caffe Italia. What RDA monies have been SPENT (rather than collected) in S Davis?
[i]”The increasing of retirement packages, including pensions [b]and health care[/b] during the last decade, has created huge amount of money that we owe in the future, that we have not budgeted for or set aside in the present.”[/i]
One thing which is new from the last round of labor contracts is the introduction of some burden sharing by the City of Davis employee groups for the increasing cost of their medical benefits. Here, for example, is a new clause in the PASEA contract:
“Effective December 2010, CITY will contribute the first 3% of any increases in health premiums (set to Kaiser-Bay Area Employee +2 plan); EMPLOYEE will contribute the next additional 3% of health premium increases for the benefit year. Any increase in the premium above 6% will be shared equally (50/50 cost sharing) between CITY and EMPLOYEE.
“Effective December 2011, CITY will contribute the first 3% of any increases in health premiums (set to Kaiser-Bay Area Employee +2 plan); EMPLOYEE will contribute the next additional 3% of health premium increases for the benefit year. Any increase in the premium above 6% will be shared equally (50/50 cost sharing) between CITY and EMPLOYEE.”
This is an important change. However, a problem that has never really been addressed is that the basic plan–the Kaiser Family Plan plus full dental plus life insurance and long-term disability–is just too expensive. For one employee and two covered dependents, it costs the taxpayers $19,768.80 this year. For our firefighters, the same benefit costs the taxpayers $20,337.12 this year.
If the City had capped the benefit at say $10,000 per year and allowed the employees to choose less expensive plans — say those with a modest annual deductible or ones with a more costly co-pay* for doctor visits or drugs — I doubt most of the employees who are now costing taxpayers roughly $20,000 per year (a good part of which is a cash-out paid for unused cafeteria benefits) would choose such expensive plans as they are now choosing. I am not exactly sure how much it costs most large private employers to cover their employees’ healthcare costs (assuming they do offer that benefit), but I am pretty sure they are not paying as much as $20,000 an employee per year on average.
*Davis offers six different plans:
Blue Shield HMO; PERS Care; Kaiser; PERS Choice; Blue Shied Net Value; and PERS Select.
I don’t know the details, but I am pretty sure none of these plans includes a high deductible or a high co-pay. Perhaps HPierce or Avatar or some other city employee can fill us in on those facts.
[i]”… the Kaiser Family Plan plus full dental plus life insurance and long-term disability is just too expensive. For one employee and two covered dependents, it costs the taxpayers $19,768.80 this year. For our firefighters, the same benefit costs the taxpayers $20,337.12 this year.”[/i]
Contrast that with a plan called Copayment 50 from Kaiser. That costs $320 per month or $3,840 per year. As its name implies, each covered person must pay $50 for every doctor visit. This sort of plan is NOT available to City of Davis employees. Perhaps it should be.
Rich ,
So under this Copayment 50 from Kaiser , your partner David if he would have taken his child to the doctor 8 times in one month would have paid out $ 400 bucks .
If David took his child 8 times to the Emergency Hospital as he has done in a single month , I would imagine the copay would be $ 100 per visit , or $ 800 dollars .
Pretty crushing to a monthly budget !
I tend to agree with David and Elaine here–while it may be necessary to have some sort of hearing, I don’t see anything good coming out of the process and it gives special interests (e.g., firefighters) another chance to show up and whine some more.
As far as the Kaiser copayment plan–is there a cap on total out of pocket expenses? many health insurance plans with high copays also place a maximum on total expenditures.
WE need to get health care under control–at the local, State and national level.
Dr. Wu
Do you plan to attend ? I’m sure that Elaine and David will. We are all part of “special interests” . We only tend to label it when it is someone other than our group. How often have you heard David rant against the “special interests of journalists” or Elaine against the “special interests of lawyers” or me “against the special interests of doctors”?
Oops, I guess you have heard that last one since I am a firm believer that doctors are comparatively overcompensated and that I prefer single party payer as the way to get health care under control.
[i]”If David took his child 8 times to the Emergency Hospital as he has done in a single month , I would imagine the copay would be $ 100 per visit , or $ 800 dollars.”[/i]
Avatar, paying $800 for a $20,000 benefit is quite cheap, no?
In the private sector, it is quite common to have a standard annual deductible. Blue Cross plans often have them. The amounts vary. But if your deductible is $800, then you pay the first $800 for your medical care and Blue Cross picks up the rest. The reason companies offer plans with deductibles or higher co-pays is obvious: they are cheaper to buy.
They are also not as good for the workers. No doubt.
If you have an $800 deductible and say you go to three doctors appointments each year ($375), you have three prescriptions filled ($200), and you cut your finger and need stitches ($180), your total medical bill would be $755. All of it would be out of your pocket.
But then in an unusual year, say the year you and your wife have a baby, your expenses balloon to $5,600. You would pay $800 and the insurer would pay $4,800.
When a worker has no co-pay or a very low co-pay and no deductible and the worker pays nothing for his insurance and gets the benefit as un-taxed income, it’s a great deal for him. But the problem remains: it’s too expensive for the taxpayers, especially when this benefit keeps getting more and more expensive every year.