Despite the lack of turnout at Tuesday’s public outreach for the city on the budget, several things were learned that evening which relate to the September 30th deadline to cut roughly 2.5 million in personnel costs.
Yes, we understand that this was not just about September 30, but it seems, despite its poor execution, that the meeting suffered from the additional problem of being too little and too late to really help guide the process. Perhaps this was a showcase, perhaps a ploy.
Furthermore, the city is really not in a hurry to find way to avoid layoffs. It seemed in June that the city was going to release the findings of a CityGate report on fire staffing. It was believed that this would serve as the impetus to reduce fire crews from four people on a fire engine down to three – the standard in approximately 90 percent of all other communities in California.
But a June or July release is now looking like a September 20th release at the earliest, and acting city manager Paul Navazio was not in a hurry to do anything to change that.
The Vanguard spoke to Paul Navazio Tuesday night, and he said that the fire staffing report was “pretty close.” He was thinking it is possible it will come forward in September, but not as a stand-alone item, and not before September 20.
He believes, more realistically, this will be addressed by the end of September or early October. He said, though, it might come sooner. “There’s a chance,” he said, “I don’t want to promise.”
By our calculations a reduction from 4 people on an engine down to 3 would mean somewhere around a $1 million to a $1.5 million savings to the city. That would constitute half of the $2.5 million needed by September 30. But it is not going to happen.
Today Steve Pinkerton becomes the new city manager, so do things change?
That will be a huge question that we will begin trying to answer on Tuesday.
I simply do not understand the seeming lack of urgency.
As we argued previously, the slim chance that there would possibly be concessions by city employees probably evaporated in the snafu over the hiring cost of Mr. Pinkerton.
Some have argued however, that that was never a real possibility. Councilmember Sue Greenwald stated that as a reason for her opposition to the budget.
We always believed that actual concessions were a long shot. However, we supported the budget for three primary reasons.
First and foremost it sent the clear message that the era of business as usual is over and that we need to change the way we run this city, especially the finances of the city. Unfortunately, that message was blurred somewhat by the hiring of Mr. Pinkerton at the publicized cost.
Second, we believed it would put pressure on the city employees to start thinking about concessions – if not by September 30, at the very least in their next MOUs.
Third, the MOUs are not the only structural changes we need in this city. We need to go through and prioritize city services. We need to figure out which services we cut and which ones we can find better ways to supply, including having community groups and non-profits run them.
We will eventually need to cut $7 million from the budget over the next three budgets, if not more. By changing fire staffing, we would go a long way toward making some of the structural changes needed to change the way this city does business.
Unfortunately, the lack of urgency is discouraging. There is an agenda for next Tuesday already out. We deal with the critical water issue on that date, but there is no budget discussion.
If it is true that the soonest that we will have such a discussion is really September 20, that is too late.
This leads us to believe that we are looking at 20 to 30 layoffs come September 30. The city will say we simply ran out of time. The employees will cry foul. And everyone involved will be to blame.
The council gave us some leadership with the passage of the budget. Now we must hope that the new city manager can come in and infuse much-needed energy and changes in culture to get this city on track.
And so, at the beginning of the Steve Pinkerton era in Davis, that is where we stand.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Has anyone heard of the new babysitter law that the CA Democrats are currently ramming through the state? If you go out on the town and hire a sitter you have to supply a 10 minute break every 2 hours, lunch every 5 hours, overtime, pay worker’s comp, pay minimum wages and fill out pay stubs and W-2’s.
David, you might want to write a column about this.
What does that have to do with the city council and the city budget, the topic of this article?
Who’s to say the Sept 30 date will just come and go without action?
As you said the CityGate issue seems a clear indication business is AT USUAL at the city.
“What does that have to do with the city council and the city budget, the topic of this article?”
Well David, since you asked, if parents want to go out on the town to dinner and a movie in Davis they might say to heck with it because of all the regulations with hiring a sitter and just stay home. This in turn hurts local businesses and creates less revenue for the city thereby hurting the city budget.
[edit — off topic comments removed.]
As for the City of Davis, I think we need to give the new City manager a chance.
[edit, off topic. If you have ideas for Vanguard topics, email them directly to David please.]
I’m not going to try and second guess what is going on behind the scenes. The first order of business is to grapple with the water rate increase issue. Then come Sept. 30 the city will grapple with the budget issue. I would suggest taking each thing as it comes…
[i]”By our calculations a reduction from 4 people on an engine down to 3 would mean somewhere around a $1 million to a $1.5 million savings to the city. That would constitute half of the $2.5 million [b]needed by September 30[/b].”[/i]
Needed by September 30?!!! Nothing is needed by September 30. The Vanguard majority on the council seems to have invented this deadline.
Most of the crucial reforms have to be incorporated in the new labor contracts, which begin July 1, 2012. Trying to speed things up to September 30 comes across as something of a panic move to me.
After having spoken with the mayor (and with DG) about this particular deadline, I am hopeful Joe will get something done that does not harm city services. However, if the fake September 30 deadline does not work out, it’s not that big of a deal in my mind. It will help the City Council focus on the 13 reforms I have suggested they make in 2012, including returning the fire staffing back to our normal historical level of 3 men on a truck.
[edit, off topic. If you have ideas for Vanguard topics, email them directly to David please.]
[i]”We will eventually need to cut $7 million from the budget over the next three budgets, if not more.”[/i]
The Pinkerton contract example, where he agreed to the Rifkin Reform beginning July 1, 2012, goes a long way toward this. The Rifkin Reform is to have all miscellaneous employees pay their full “employee share” of their pension funding. The employee share is 8 percent. Most miscellaneous employees have thus far paid nothing. Management personnel are an exception. They pay nothing toward the “employee share” and a maximum of 3% of their salaries toward the “employer share.” (I should note that I don’t know if there is any difference at all whether the amount they pay is called employer or employee share.)
The maximum employee share for those on 2.5% at 55 contracts is 8% of salary. On $100 million in salaries, paying 8% (as opposed to 0%) is a savings of $8 million per year! That is why putting the Rifkin Reform in the Pinkerton contract is such a big deal. Now the new pardigm is to have all employees–cops and fire already pay their employee shares–pay the full employee share toward pension funding.