In an Op-Ed this weekend, Mayor Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson looked back on their first two years on the council. As we noted in our commentary on Saturday, the council does have reason to celebrate.
But this piece overall is a puff piece, meant to highlight the positive. There are worthy accomplishments that the council deserves credit for. But overall we see this as a lost opportunity to prepare the public for the tough times and challenges ahead.
In fact, to be quite frank, a city employee who reads this is going to be quite angry and rightfully so. Nevertheless, the council has had some notable achievements and deserves credit for them. As a whole, the last two years has been a vast improvement over the previous four, both in terms of tone and tackling tough issues.
Like many, they saw a turning point for the council as six months into their term when Don Saylor resigned from the city council to take a seat on the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. The replacement process would end up with Dan Wolk as their nominee. Mr. Wolk would then win a seat of his own this June, finishing a commanding first and becoming the Mayor Pro Tem in Davis.
In September of 2010, City Manager Bill Emlen resigned to take a job in Solano, leaving the Davis City Council last year to finally fill that vacancy.
Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson write: “By July, we had selected Steve Pinkerton, a seasoned city leader who promised a serious re-look at our budget and organizational structure, and pursuit of the most cost-effective ways to maintain our core services of police, fire, roads, recreation, parks and utilities.”
They argue that once they had Mr. Pinkerton, they finally had a full council and a new city manager, which they called “both essential to tackling the issues ahead.”
But this is really about an examination of the issues.
They write, “On budget, long-term fiscal sustainability was our goal and guiding principle.”
They note, “In June 2011 we targeted $2.5 million in savings. Although unable to implement this goal in one budget cycle, we showed our resolve by sponsoring public forums to identify community priorities.”
Here the Vanguard disagrees. The council showed their resolve, in our view, by standing firm on a critical 3-2 vote last fall in the face of a packed room of 150 city employees. In our view, the public forums were less than useful – a remnant of the old way of doing business with largely unattended meetings in late August while people were still on their summer vacation.
The key to the new budget was not the public forums, but rather the principles put forth by the council and the ability of Steve Pinkerton as city manager to implement them.
“We held City Council budget workshops, enabling us to clarify our objectives and direct staff seven months before the 2012-13 budget would be adopted,” they write. “With this lead time, staff crafted a budget that achieved deep savings while maintaining service levels – ensuring that mounting long-term costs for roads, employee health care and pensions would not be put off to future councils.”
“Last month, we implemented the budget we sought – including a $40 million General Fund and a $145 million all-funds (includes utilities and major capital projects) budget. The budget is honest and sound,” they continue. “We are now saving 20 percent of our payroll to fully cover our long-term health care obligations. Staffing has been reduced from a 2008 high of 464 full-time employees to 376 today.”
They conclude their budget discussion by arguing, “It is a true testament to the dedication and creativity of our employees that we have largely maintained service levels. Davis won’t become the next Vallejo, Stockton or San Bernardino.”
The council deserves a lot of credit for much of what they write. They are finally dealing with long-term costs for roads, employee health care and pensions. They are correct these are not being put off on future councils, though they are far too kind in failing to point out that past councils put them off on them.
All that being said, the council and city staff have made serious errors along the way in this process. The failure to implement the $2.5 million in cuts is glossed over. That occurred on their watch.
Moreover, the handling of the PERB (Public Employment Relations Board) decision, the layoffs, the cutting of the tree trimming position – all were handled rather poorly.
The time for the expiration of city contracts has come and gone. There is nary a mention of that in this summary – though they do note, “In the current labor negotiations, we are striving to address the needs of our employees within the constraints of our revenues.” Those contracts will be critical to realizing the goals of the council. The budget is premised on those cuts and as such is honest, sound, but tenuous.
While I lean toward their conclusion that the city will not go bankrupt, it is alarming the percentage of the budget that goes toward retirement benefits. That still seems unsustainable and the city has a long way to go to shore up its unfunded liability. In our view, the city on this issue is still outside of the full control of the council and staff, and therefore remains at the whim of forces beyond their control.
That moves us to water. They are somewhat honest and introspective as they write, “Quite simply, our planning and actions got too far ahead of the public’s understanding and support. When the water rates referendum qualified for a vote, we got the message.”
Probably expecting a full mea culpa is too much, particularly since both Mayor Krovoza and Councilmember Swanson have offered them up in the past. That said, I would have preferred them to acknowledge that the project that they put forward was unnecessarily expensive, the rate structure uninformed and flawed, and public process lacking.
They did get the message and the process is back on track and in the right direction, perhaps for the first time in the six years of Vanguard coverage.
“In December, we tapped community talent to form the Water Advisory Committee to guarantee that we will get the right project at the right size and cost, and with the right rate structure,” they write. “The WAC will complete its work soon, and in March we will keep our promise from January to put the project to a citywide vote. The WAC is guiding us toward an exceptionally smart future for waterworks. Our WAC members are doing the community an amazing service.”
It should also be noted that the process is still a work in progress, incredibly complex, and fraught with real danger. The best case scenario is the one they lay out. We will see if they get there.
Frankly I am surprised they are trumpeting the Crown Caste/New Path cell project. It is true, as they said, there is “a legal deck of cards stacked against us, we used every angle we could think of to locate the Crown Castle/New Path cell phone antenna network as sensitively as possible.”
On the other hand, it was a long and painful public process over multiple agonizing meetings and some experts believe that the city acquiesced too easily.
They clearly overplay their hand when they write: “Economic development has been and will be top-of-mind. Downtown has never been more vibrant and a new arts and entertainment district will only add to that.”
“We are hosting Davis Roots upstairs in the Hunt-Boyer Mansion to incubate start-up companies, and encourage them to plant their roots here,” they write. “Between Mori Seiki’s manufacturing expansion and Expression Systems, both on Second Street, we are adding almost 200 high-tech jobs to our workforce. We anticipate more jobs and companies as the city continues to leverage our innovative partnerships here locally and in the greater region.”
All of which sounds like a promising scenario but I just cannot agree that the downtown has never been more vibrant. A large number of businesses have left the downtown and vacancies are still too high.
The economic development plan is ambitious but it remains a work in progress.
“Our greatest challenge immediately ahead is ensuring that today’s compensation structure doesn’t borrow from the future, creating an impossible situation for Davis – both employees and taxpayers – in the decades before us.”
“We are hopeful that our nine recent layoffs will be an end, not a beginning,” they write, while failing to note that the budget they passed actually produces layoffs of at least 20 more positions and probably more if the city does not get agreements soon on the MOUs.
As we noted on Saturday, this council has come a long way. They have learned tremendously from the mistakes that they made on water and also past mistakes.
However, I think this piece misses the mark on a lot of levels and glosses over some real problems that this community is facing.
The biggest problem it glosses over is that the current budget is going to be a very painful one. It cuts $8 million. The MOU process is going to be very difficult. The mayor and councilmember had the opportunity to prepare the community, who has largely not been paying attention, for what is to come, but instead glossed over the coming hardship and focused on an overly-idyllic picture of the accomplishments.
There is a time for everything, and now is not the time for chest thumping. Not yet.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What about that extra 4th fire fighter on each crew?
About 95% of California cities use 3 per crew, not 4.
Show some resolve and courage, CC. Go for the big savings, with no decrease in public safety.
David’s headline is:
> Op-Ed by Mayor and Councilmember Trumpets Triumphs But
> Glosses Over Tough Times and Challenges To Come
Anyone that “Trumpets Tough Times and Challenges To Come and Glosses over Triumphs” will never get to be a Mayor or Councilmember in America…
> While I lean toward their conclusion that the city will
> not go bankrupt, it is alarming the percentage of the budget
> that goes toward retirement benefits. That still seems
> unsustainable
Anyone with a grade school understanding of the exponential function knows that expenses can only grow faster than income for so long. Politicians can hide the problem for a while (say by assuming that “going forward” income will increase faster than expenses) but after some time (like the last 30 years where health care cost and energy cost has been increasing by 7%+ a year) you will run out of money and like everything that is unsustainable (like $100K a year pensions starting at 50 that include health care with vision and dental for the entire family) will end…
[quote]pensions… that include health care with vision and dental for the entire family)…[/quote]Just to keep some basic facts straight… the City of Davis does not pay for dental nor vision care insurance for employees, nor their families after retirement. As to health care, depending on when the employee was hired, the City pays either 50% or 100% of the Kaiser premium for an employee and 2 or more dependents fro retirement to age 60. The City pays the same premium rate at 100% from age 60 to eligibility for Medicare. After that, the City pays for 100% of the supplement to Medicare.
As to dental insurance, the retiree can elect to pay for insurance at the same rate that was in place when they were employed. There is no City contribution for that coverage.
[quote]pensions… that include health care with vision and dental for the entire family)…[/quote]Just to keep some basic facts straight… the City of Davis does not pay for dental nor vision care insurance for employees, nor their families after retirement. As to health care, depending on when the employee was hired, the City pays either 50% or 100% of the Kaiser premium for an employee and 2 or more dependents fro retirement to age 60. The City pays the same premium rate at 100% from age 60 to eligibility for Medicare. After that, the City pays for 100% of the supplement to Medicare.
As to dental insurance, the retiree can elect to pay for insurance at the same rate that was in place when they were employed. There is no City contribution for that coverage.
Some like to look at the glass half full, some like to look at the glass half empty. It is all a matter of perspective…
I also heard a song the other day, that decried the “nattering nabobs of negativism”…
My dad used to say to me, “If you don’t have hope, you don’t have anything.” I’ve always taken that philosophy to heart…
[quote]”nattering nabobs of negativism”[/quote]Wow! Hadn’t thought of Spiro Agnew for at least 30 years!One of three Vice Presidents to lead to “his accidency”, Gerald Ford…
“Some like to look at the glass half full, some like to look at the glass half empty. It is all a matter of perspective…”
I thought (I attempted to make) the account was fairly balanced but am concerned that there was another missed opportunity to prepare people for what is coming.
Glasses are rarely half full or half empty. We all have areas for improvement. This piece strikes me as a “look we have done our jobs,” piece. I think DMG is pointing out that hey we have to cut millions from the budget, get concessions for employees, and lay people off, maybe we should hold off on popping the champagne… I tend to agree.
[quote]I thought (I attempted to make) the account was fairly balanced but am concerned that there was another missed opportunity to prepare people for what is coming.[/quote]
What, we can’t applaud our accomplishments along the way?
Prepare people for what is coming how? You’ve been hammering away at it for years, and yet you seem to think the public just doesn’t “get it” even now. So I have to assume you don’t think what you are doing is working. So what should be done to prepare citizens for the doom and gloom that you feel is coming? And do you really feel a message of doom and gloom is going to make them sit up and listen?
This account was fairly balanced? Read your own words:
[quote]a city employee who reads this is going to be quite angry and rightfully so
the public forums were less than useful
they are far too kind in failing to point out that past councils put them off on them
the council and city staff have made serious errors along the way in this process. The failure to implement the $2.5 million in cuts is glossed over. That occurred on their watch.
the handling of the PERB (Public Employment Relations Board) decision, the layoffs, the cutting of the tree trimming position – all were handled rather poorly
The time for the expiration of city contracts has come and gone. There is nary a mention of that in this summary
it is alarming the percentage of the budget that goes toward retirement benefits. That still seems unsustainable and the city has a long way to go to shore up its unfunded liability. In our view, the city on this issue is still outside of the full control of the council and staff, and therefore remains at the whim of forces beyond their control
I would have preferred them to acknowledge that the project that they put forward was unnecessarily expensive, the rate structure uninformed and flawed, and public process lacking
It should also be noted that the process is still a work in progress, incredibly complex, and fraught with real danger.
I am surprised they are trumpeting the Crown Caste/New Path cell project
it was a long and painful public process over multiple agonizing meetings and some experts believe that the city acquiesced too easily.
They clearly overplay their hand when they write: “Economic development has been and will be top-of-mind. Downtown has never been more vibrant and a new arts and entertainment district will only add to that.”
I just cannot agree that the downtown has never been more vibrant. A large number of businesses have left the downtown and vacancies are still too high.
but it remains a work in progress
However, I think this piece misses the mark on a lot of levels and glosses over some real problems that this community is facing.
The biggest problem it glosses over is that the current budget is going to be a very painful one. It cuts $8 million. The MOU process is going to be very difficult. The mayor and councilmember had the opportunity to prepare the community, who has largely not been paying attention, for what is to come, but instead glossed over the coming hardship and focused on an overly-idyllic picture of the accomplishments.
There is a time for everything, and now is not the time for chest thumping. Not yet.[/quote]
What you want me to go back and reprint all of the positive statements and we can weigh them out?
“Prepare people for what is coming how? You’ve been hammering away at it for years, and yet you seem to think the public just doesn’t “get it” even now.”
You think the public is prepared for $ 8 million in cuts? Please they were up in arms over the layoff of a tree trimmer and the closure of a single swimming pool.
“So I have to assume you don’t think what you are doing is working.”
I assume most people aren’t paying attention to what I’m doing.
ERM: the lowest of the low hanging fruit, as staff like to say, is the 4th FF on those crews that should be 3 member, like 95% of California cities.
So long as I see 4 member crews, I do not take seriously anything the CC says on or off the dais in terms of money.
Heck, as you know, they were a hair away from throwing another $1.0 million at the Woodland JPA last week, including over $150,000 at United Water Company for bids that benefit only Woodland, not Davis.
They are doing nothing to resolve DACHA, and the City Attorney and colleagues are continuing to “cut the fat hog” as Ms. Eastin called it, all of it our General Fund money.
They are doing nothing to stop the $100,000 monthly payments on the bonds for the Parking Garage to Nowhere.
They have not fired the City Attorney for the list of issues that have been discussed over and over and over.
They staff the WAC with the same staff that were involved in the debacle on Sept 6, where the CC were made fools when they voted for those water rate increases.
They have not fired or disciplined the affordable housing staff that have botched the program for over 10 years, with impunity, for all the reasons that David Thompson has listed over and over.
They have not significantly reduced comp and benefits paid to top staff.
Did I miss anything?
When I see the CC whittle down the list above, I will say that I think a nice article about their accomplishments is warranted. Not before.
“ERM: the lowest of the low hanging fruit, as staff like to say, is the 4th FF on those crews that should be 3 member, like 95% of California cities. “
It’s not hanging as low as you think. it would either require a major concession from the firefighters or impasse.
So ask, and if the FFs don’t concede it, then deal with it. Our fearless leaders got rid of the overhead from a couple of tree trimmers at far less salary and costs to the city, right? The CC and CM know how to do it, as they just demonstrated.
I’ve been raising cost issues about that 4th crew member since about 2001.
Let’s see if the new CC that the DV gushes over has the political guts to pull the trigger, and staff our fire trucks with 3 members, like about 95% of other California cities.
I thought the Op-Ed was a well written piece that points out many of the highlights of the past two years. I think Joe and Rochelle have a great deal to be proud of, and they should not be put off by the comments of a few whiners. In fact I think their greatest accomplishment is one that they didn’t even mention; the dramatic improvement in the respectful approach that the members of the Council showed both between themselves, and with the public.
Now to address some of Davids comments:
[i]The failure to implement the $2.5 million in cuts is glossed over. That occurred on their watch.
[/i]
I think in the end, putting off these cuts was a good decision. We had a brand new City Manager who had not yet had time to put his own team in place, let alone learn anything about specific members of the staff. Cutting $2.5 Million last summer would have required layoffs, and would have required the City Manager to make staff cuts without first learning who the good employees are. I would much rather see him make informed choices rather than just cutting blind. Voting to make the cut put everyone on notice that the world was changing, but delaying implementation was probably a necessity, and therefore in the long run, a good decision.
[i]The time for the expiration of city contracts has come and gone. There is nary a mention of that in this summary
[/i]
Talking about the contract negotiations in anyway at this point would be a bad decision. These are obviously ongoing discussions and it is completely appropriate for the City Council to keep their collective mouths shut. We may well be headed for impasse in order to make the necessary changes, but that action is only available if proper procedures are followed (something that some of us learned the last time). Talking now would just muddy the waters. I commend them for so far not repeating the mistakes of the past Council in this regard.
[i]While I lean toward their conclusion that the city will not go bankrupt, it is alarming the percentage of the budget that goes toward retirement benefits. That still seems unsustainable and the city has a long way to go to shore up its unfunded liability.[/i]
This is not a new story, and cannot be changed overnight. If we still have this problem after the new contracts are approved, then you have something to carp about. At this point you are just whining without reason.
Re: Water. [i]That said, I would have preferred them to acknowledge that the project that they put forward was unnecessarily expensive, the rate structure uninformed and flawed, and public process lacking.
[/i]
Why should they say this? Has the WAC made a decision on the best approach for our water future? Do you know in fact that the WAC won’t decide in the end that the original plan (or something very similar) was the best available option? From what I have seen the original plan is still on the table, so for any Council Member to announce today that it is a bad plan would be inappropriate. Just because you and Michael H. don’t like it doesn’t necessarily make it a bad plan. Why don’t we all just wait and see what the WAC decides?
To Mark West: Nicely said!
[quote]erm: So what should be done to prepare citizens for the doom and gloom that you feel is coming? [/quote]
You haven’t answered my question. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at various political leaders. It is much more difficult to come up with solutions. Public outreach is something the WAC is going to have to wrestle with. So make some suggestions on how best to get the public to understand the doom and gloom you see coming…
Personally, I prefer to see us on the road to recovery, no matter how difficult that recovery might be. At least we don’t seem to be burying our collective heads in the sand. It doesn’t mean I won’t keep an eye on things; it doesn’t mean everything is hunky dory. But I do believe Joe and Rochelle have a lot of accomplishments to be proud of…
You refers to dmg…
Once again I find myself in full agreement with Mark West. And if they want to write another op-ed that focuses on the coming challenges, I’m sure the Enterprise will publish it.
[quote]Mike H: staff our fire trucks with 3 members, like about 95% of other California cities.[/quote]
What is the source of your statistical information? I tried googling it and 4 FF/truck seems to be the recommended staffing. Some cities in more urban areas staff 5 FF/truck.
Ryan: It is from a 2009 DV article. David G took a sample of cities, and wrote it up. I just checked with him, and the figure is actually about 85% from his non-scientific sample. In either case, the vast majority allows three. I sugest that you find the article for more info.
I dont know all of the rules for larger urban cities; maybe the presence of huge, tall buildings requires more FF (5) to arrive on scene and set up before the crews attack the fire on the inside? I just dont know.
Also, I read somewhere that specially trained police officers can be the outside backup for the two in, two out OSHA rule. Again, do not have a cite, but remember reading about it.
Ryan: here it is: https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2703:vanguard-analysis-four-person-engine-teams-not-the-rule-&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79
I believe that you contributed a post to the article.
Obviously, the 4th crew member is not required to be on those trucks.
The CC and SM know how to pluck those trimmers out of city trees; now, if they just would keep the ball rolling and only require three to ride around in the trucks and save the City a huge sum of money.
[quote]maybe the presence of huge, tall buildings requires more FF (5) to arrive on scene and set up before the crews attack the fire on the inside? I just dont know. [/quote]
Careful, Mike. This is close to the words that got you in trouble with the Fire Fighters before – the idea that the first ones on the scene do nothing but set up until more help arrives, which they interpreted to mean that they lack sufficient courage to do the job.
The idea of two in two out would imply that the first people on the scene would need to enter the burning building to rescue people they don’t know before others arrive. Just because this happens infrequently, doesn’t mean that the department shouldn’t plan for it.
[quote]Personally, I prefer to see us on the road to recovery [b]- ERM[/b][/quote]I would [i]prefer[/i] for that to be true, but it does not correspond to my understanding of the current state of affairs. Maybe it depends on how you define being “on the road to recovery.”
My understanding is that the City is still in an unsustainable financial situation. That being the case, I believe a more apt metaphor would be [quote]”We have come to realize that we made some wrong turns. We are still on the road to ruin, but are looking for a path to recovery. We know in what general direction it lies, but there is some very difficult terrain between here and there.”[/quote]Acknowledging our problem and looking for a solution are necessary first steps. However, they are [i]not[/i] the same as having found one and having committed to it.
Ryan: I never said or implied any such thing. I publically commented that the 4th FF was fiscally unsustainable for the City, and I was right. I publically commented that we did not need the 4th Fire Station. I also publically commented that just before I was elected in 2000, the Fire Dept had gotten the CC to change the calculation method of the five minute response goal, automatically taking a large part of the northern half of the City out of the five minute coverage area. In other words, the Fire Dept was attempting to create a need for that 4th fire station up on Covell Village, and they did it with the change to the calculation.
For these reasons, the union was upset with me, and they looked for things to say against me. Your comment above is just parroting them, again, after how many years? Keep beating that horse, and I will keep reminding the readers that the 4th crew member is not fiscally sustainable.
If this CC cuts that 4th crew member, you will see all of that love and attention directed at the current CC.
Can they take the heat? Time will tell, but so far, they have done little to actually pull the trigger on meaningful cuts and cleaning up the huge fiscal mess left behind by Saylor and Souza. Yep, cut those two tree trimmers. Very brave.
David: good post. This CC knows exactly what needs to be done, and why the voters put them into office. But it takes courage to make the program and fiscal and staffing changes that we need, and I am still waiting to see some courageous action by this CC.
Michael H.: would you be willing to disclose the history of the site your office now occupies? Think circa 1986… was it the site of a tragic fire?
Oh…. should have asked Mr Harrington… did you pay “pennies for the dollar” for that property? There are public records, so I suggest you answer truthfully…
I personally liken the Op-Ed to a football player doing an end zone dance when his team is losing by 20 points. “Hey look everybody! I’m actually doing my job! Forget that I have a fumble and two dropped passes. I just did what I got hired to do!”
While I don’t fault them in their overall performance (yet), I feel the article was [b]completely[/b] unnecessary.
Just a note on another Enterprise article. Did anyone read the graffiti piece today. The Police are responsible for graffiti clean up!?! Ya right! I live next to an area the gets hit quite frequently, and I have never seen a cop out their cleaning up the graffiti. I have seen Parks and Public Works employees, I have seen volunteers, heck I’ve even helped, but never have I seen anyone from PD actually participating in the cleanup. Low hanging fruit never gets the credit either I guess.
hpierce: off-topic posts removed.
preston- part of budget cuts. Graffiti abatement was under Parks with a awesome employee (Lisa Buckman) in charge but from what I heard, with all the cuts is Parks, that position was transfered over to PD. I hope Lisa is still there on the job. She has for many years done a great job with graffiti problems throughout the city. Surprised I din’t see her name mentioned in that article. Like Corey, you don’t want good solid public employee’s like her gone.
[quote]Acknowledging our problem and looking for a solution are necessary first steps. However, they are not the same as having found one and having committed to it.[/quote]
I like to look at it as on the road to recovery/the glass half full. We now have a CC and CM who “get it”, and are truly looking for real solutions to the city’s budget problems. In my book that is putting the city on the road to recovery rather than using smoke and mirrors to pretend we have a balanced budget when we clearly don’t… 😉
I look at the glass as three quarters full. The tricky part is that at the same time we try to fill it up to the top, a little is leaking out the bottom.
[quote]Mike H: Ryan: I never said or implied any such thing. I publically commented that the 4th FF was fiscally unsustainable for the City, and I was right. I publically commented that we did not need the 4th Fire Station. I also publically commented that just before I was elected in 2000, the Fire Dept had gotten the CC to change the calculation method of the five minute response goal, automatically taking a large part of the northern half of the City out of the five minute coverage area. In other words, the Fire Dept was attempting to create a need for that 4th fire station up on Covell Village, and they did it with the change to the calculation. [/quote]
Nice deflection, Mike.
It was during a discussion specifically about the need to have 4 Fire Fighters on each truck. You stated something about the first truck responding would set up and maybe pour water on the exterior, until more help arrived, which negated the need for the staffing of 4 people on each truck. The Fire Fighters interpreted this as questioning their bravery on the job. At least, this is how it was reported in The Davis Enterprise and in conversations around town at the time.
You may spin it anyway you want, say that the Fire Fighters Union was only looking for a way to attack you for blocking the 4th station, but that’s not how it was reported.
” The Fire Fighters interpreted this as questioning their bravery on the job.”
That sounds like silly machismo to me.
Maybe so.
Today… I just counted the 7th Fifth Street fire station dispatch. That many and the day isn’t even over yet.
I don’t see any smoke from fires outside.
How many of those calls were for people having health issues?
How many cats stuck up in a tree?
Why not separate the fire department into medical and other? Why do we need to roll both sets of teams and vehicles for every call?
Why don’t we separate the medical emergency services, and create a volunteer force for the non medical side?
Why don’t we consider merging the fire and police department under one administrative department called the “Public Safety Department”?
Why don’t we go to 3-man fire fighter teams?
All of these ideas are completely feasible and would save us money to help prevent teacher layoffs.
The PR story here is fire fighters and their supporters against the welfare of our teachers and kids. That is not a good position to be in when the teachers union takes it and runs with it. If I were one of those big strong fire fighter types, I would be very afraid of getting the teachers union against me. It might be time for the fire fighters union to come to the table to consider all of these ideas and more.
[quote]We now have a CC and CM who “get it”, and are truly looking for real solutions to the city’s budget problems. In my book that is putting the city on the road to recovery rather than using smoke and mirrors to pretend we have a balanced budget when we clearly don’t… 😉 [b]- ERM[/b]
I look at the glass as three quarters full. The tricky part is that at the same time we try to fill it up to the top, a little is leaking out the bottom. [b]- DG[/b][/quote]
The concern I have with these metaphors is that they can be construed as meaning that the city’s finances are improving. In reality, we are still in a deficit situation – the city is spending more money than it is taking in – an unsustainable situation.
I know that both of you understand this, but I’m not sure that most Davis residents do…just as I believe that most US citizens do not understand the difference between the federal deficit and the national debt.
I applaud the CC and CM for what they’ve done so far, but their work is FAR from done.
Since we’re going all metaphorical here, how about this one?
[quote]The Davis ship has had a hole in the bottom for a long time. Captains Asmundson and Saylor, and First Mate Emlen denied the existence of the hole (as water level in the cabin rose to their knees) and then jumped ship. Seeing the ship sinking, Captain RoJo and new First Mate Pinkie came aboard to save it. They’ve located the hole and started bailing the water out. Unfortunately, water is still rushing in faster than they are bailing. Until the hole is repaired or they get a much bigger pump, the ship is still sinking.[/quote]
[quote]The Davis ship has had a hole in the bottom for a long time. Captains Asmundson and Saylor, and First Mate Emlen denied the existence of the hole (as water level in the cabin rose to their knees) and then jumped ship. Seeing the ship sinking, Captain RoJo and new First Mate Pinkie came aboard to save it. They’ve located the hole and started bailing the water out. Unfortunately, water is still rushing in faster than they are bailing. Until the hole is repaired or they get a much bigger pump, the ship is still sinking.[/quote]
This is precious! LOL