While I don’t want to diminish the work of the present council, who has in the past month fixed two rather vexing problems – fire staffing and road pavement – the vote on road pavement left me a little down. Why, you might rightly ask.
Road maintenance has been a long and vexing problem. When I pointed out that the alarm has been sounded since 2009, I was rightly corrected that it goes back much further than that. Some see this as the legacy of the recession, but I continue to see it as a choice that we made probably going back to 1999 – when we started ramping up salaries and compensation for employees, while spending virtually no money on roads or other infrastructure.
This is now damage control more than policy innovation. And the council and staff deserve credit for finding a way to keep our roads from crumbling beneath our feet while not killing our budget.
So why am I sad? Because we are now solving our problems by lowering our standards, and no matter how logical the move is, it never feels good.
As Rochelle Swanson put it on Tuesday, it was not that long ago when we used to bond up for “cool” projects, now “we’re talking about bonding up for something that is the very core piece of our fiscal responsibility. It’s basic basic basic infrastructure.”
We are at a time when we want to starting thinking big – about the future that could be, and yet we can’t pave our roads. Think about that for a day and get back to me.
The sobering reality hit home this week as our new Chief Innovation Officer Rob White laid out the barrier to Davis becoming a central cog in the regional economy and the high-tech world.
There are little things, too. In August, the city will start billing for water on a monthly rather than bimonthly basis. It is a move I have favored, especially with rising rates, but that move comes with a cost of nearly $200,000 a year.
Herb Niederberger, who is the city’s general manager of utilities, development and operations explained, “While a current consolidated bill might be in the neighborhood of $200 per every two months now, with the increase to the water rates, it might become so large that it would be easier for folks to budget … on a monthly basis.”
The logic of this move is vexing. Mr. Niederberger explains to council the transition to automatic meter reading: “The idea is that over the next couple of years we would change out the registers on all of the water meters so that we could radio read them which would then automatically interface with the building system.”
If you are having trouble figuring this out, he’s saying we will be able to know the meter reading without sending some poor schlepp to look at it.
“So we would eliminate this recurring meter reading cost and contract,” he said.
Given that, over the next three years, the water rates really are not going up that much, it seems like we should implement the remote system first and then institute the monthly bills – that might save us half a million.
Obviously, the impact is not huge on people’s water bills, but a half a million here and there and some day and we might be talking about real money.
Speaking of millions, you have the Request for Proposal for the wastewater project that is going out, which will cost us $95 million.
However, imagine if the project only costs about $65 million, which is what staff estimated the city could save going to a regional approach that the council voted down in late March.
Woodland City Manager Paul Navazio, in his letter to Davis, argued, “The City of Woodland has presented a conceptual proposal to Davis staff that we believe could conservatively yield upwards of $47 million in net-present value savings to Davis over a 30-year period.”
Let us assume the more modest $30 million in savings that the city of Davis projected – we did not even want to look at it, other than it appeared that Mayor Joe Krovoza recognized the value of saving tens of millions.
There were concerns listed by the council, but none of them seemed insurmountable. And yet, council did not even study the issue.
So, while I give the council high marks for dealing with both the fire staffing issue and the road crisis, I’m left at least a little puzzled by their insistence on eschewing savings.
In terms of the water bills, it seems that they could have moved to the single-month bills later, at a reasonable savings, while still achieving their desired goal.
I do not know to what extent enterprise funds can go to road repairs, but it seems to me that the council was lowering the grade of our roadways for the wont of $30 million dollars (the difference between $25 million in Plan B-modified that we went with, and the $55 million in plan A that would have been ideal), while on the other hand they are eschewing $30 million in savings on wastewater due to a number of very reasonable concerns, but ones that could be worked out.
I’m no expert, but to use a word from earlier – the optics are bad here.
At the same time they are about to impose impasse on the firefighters and DCEA. Staff report notes, “Negotiations have reached the fact finding stage with two of the bargaining groups.”
In about a month, perhaps a bit longer, we will see impasse imposed on DCEA and fire.
Speaking of bad optics, we understand that the city of Davis had an employee luncheon this week – all of the employees showed up except for one group, fire, who were notable for their absence. Even DCEA, who have a longer period of labor strife with the city than fire, managed to show up.
The firefighters somehow expected to be able to hold out on their labor contract and argue for the status on staffing, despite the fact that everyone else in the city has managed to make their sacrifices.
These are tough times that are not getting better very fast. And this was a tough week of reality.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
it would be nice to get an explanation for why it seems our money is being wasted on several occasions.
The Vanguard needs to take stock if itself, along with all media, and get introspective on the causes and effects from amping up emotions over proposed changes to our public-sector workforce. Just go back and read what was been written about the 10 Davis tree trimmers let go. We simply cannot expect our politicians to do the right thing when we make freaky super heroes out of all government employees, and emote every single decision to cut back to sustainable and reasonable levels.
This is just business folks. A business has to hire more people when expanding. It has to pay market rates for labor to stay competitive. It has to downsize its workforce to stay solvent when economic circumstance warrant. Why the hell are government-workers treated so differently?
Want to have enough money to maintain infrastructure and protect valued government services? Then start demanding that politicians cut the pay and benefits of government employees to market rates for labor, and then also demand that government implement private-sector best-practice processes and work performance incentives to constantly ensure we are getting optimum service value.
Politicians that might be predisposed to do the right things are drawn and quartered with their parts drug through the mud of a liberal-Democrat-loving media. The Vanguard is suffering from resistance to accepting the fact that the politics it promotes is responsible for the collapse of the worldview it prefers.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”The Vanguard needs to take stock if itself, along with all media, and get introspective on the causes and effects from amping up emotions over proposed changes to our public-sector workforce. Just go back and read what was been written about the 10 Davis tree trimmers let go.”[/i]
Frankly, I don’t understand your comment at all. I have reread this article several times now and I do not see any mention of tree trimmers, Further, I don’t see any reference to overaggressiveness with respect to employee cuts. The article is clearly supportive of the recent cuts to the firefighters and aggressive. It also says, [i]”… it seems like we should implement the remote system first and then institute the monthly bills – that might save us half a million”[/i] which is an advocacy for cutting the meter reading staffing sooner not later.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”We simply cannot expect our politicians to do the right thing when we make freaky super heroes out of all government employees, and emote every single decision to cut back to sustainable and reasonable levels.”[/i]
Here too I think you have the article exactly backwards. The Regionalization plan for wastewater would have resulted in a significant reduction in staffing between the two cities. The article says, [i]”Let us assume the more modest $30 million in savings that the city of Davis projected – we did not even want to look at it, other than it appeared that Mayor Joe Krovoza recognized the value of saving tens of millions. There were concerns listed by the council, but none of them seemed insurmountable. And yet, council did not even study the issue.”[/i] That is amping up emotions over the failure to explore reducing staff by as many as nine positions. You indeed have read the article and gotten its meaning 100% backwards.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”This is just business folks. A business has to hire more people when expanding. It has to pay market rates for labor to stay competitive. It has to downsize its workforce to stay solvent when economic circumstance warrant. Why the hell are government-workers treated so differently?”[/i]
I completely agree
Matt, I meant go back to previous articles. The Vanguard has lamented the loss of these jobs. I’m just making the point of inconsistency.
With that said Frankly do you see any of that prior tone creeping into this article?
One could argue that David turned a corner when he wrote the article [url]=”https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7256:my-view-pinkerton-deserves-a-lot-of-credit&catid=57:city-council&Itemid=80″]My View: Pinkerton Deserves a Lot of Credit[/url] back on May 4th. In that article he said:
[i]”As it turns out, even with a new council, none of whom took money from the firefighters, it would be a close vote. Without the work by Steve Pinkerton to put the right interim chief on board, and without the quality work of Mr. Kenley, this proposal would never have gotten off the ground.
Steve Pinkerton’s strategic thinking was instrumental, along with a three-member council majority, in making this kind of critical change.
The job of the Vanguard is to watch local government.
As Robb Davis, one of the Vanguard’s Editorial Board members, noted in a comment yesterday, “May be far too early to say this but I think his coming represents an absolute sea change for this city. Not all of what he is doing is easy to watch and I am not sure that we are fully cognizant that what Pinkerton is really doing is taking Davis from a small town in which personal relationships dominate to a ‘grown up’ city in which hard decisions mean minimizing the personal and focusing on ends.”
“It can feel harsh and it angers people but… well… he is getting things done. His easygoing demeanor can make one forget that this guy plays hardball–and he plays it with abandon.”
I agree with this assessment. To get the fire staffing changes took resolve, toughness, strategic thinking and, most of all, patience.
In the end, Davis would never have gotten these critical staffing changes without Mr. Pinkerton, and for that reason alone, we commend his work.”[/i]
The other point is the context of the lament.
“The Vanguard has lamented the loss of these jobs.”
The Vanguard lamented the loss of those jobs largely because of the failure of the employees to take concessions like the rest of their colleagues. That’s a critical point that you completely missed.
No, but that is what inspired my point. This article laments the difficulty funding necessary services. But previous articles lament cutting public-sector employes and their pay and benefits. The latter contributes greatly to the former.
Here is what I actually wrote last year, “The workers across this city are going to have to take concessions or face far more than the nine layoffs that were handed down on Wednesday.”
In another column I closed:
[quote]Mr. Dunning never acknowledges that DCEA in fact had a choice, and chose to take the layoffs rather than make concessions – concessions that everyone else in the city has made. My biggest criticism of Bob Dunning these days is that, despite the critical educational role he has played on many critical issues, he has never covered the true crisis of the city – the threat of insolvency.
We have $3 million in reorganizational cuts, 30 positions eliminated, and perhaps more if the bargaining units do not accept up to $4 million in concessions. If we are going to second guess every cut, we are never going to get where we need to go.
In the end, we agree that dismissing a tree trimmer is probably not the best of policy decisions, but this decision needs to be placed into a much broader context that neither Mr. Dunning nor Mr. Cooper are willing to make.
For the last five years, we have been literally pleading with the city to be more proactive, because we knew the day would come when they had to make tough decisions. The first of these decisions are upon us, but these are by no means the last.[/quote]
That really doesn’t sound like the viewpoint you attributed to me.
There were other articles lamenting the loss of those jobs as lower paying jobs. Again, it is a point of consistency. Either you support these tough decisions to reduces expenses, or you contribute to the muscle of the employees to prevent it. You are also very supportive of unions… Another thing that enhances the power of these employees to block cuts.
I do applaud the points in this post. My larger point is that we have to be completely consistent or else public sentiment will bolster the case for those that block change.
[quote]You are also very supportive of unions… [/quote]
Hm. I think there’s another regular participant here who thinks David has a vendetta against unions.
Don, I think that point is telling and supports my point. Why would “being against unions” be a problem for the Vanguard?
If the inference is that David cannot win as he gets it from both sides, then it supports the Vanguard taking a consistent position on one side or the other. Either we are paying too much for city labor and need to completely support cuts, or else we give power to labor to block cuts.
I think we are far beyond any usefulness in the practice of political nuance. It is the same reason I am not happy with the two CC members voting against 3 member fire crews.
I think Don’s inference was that my position is probably more in the middle as both sides disagree.
” Either we are paying too much for city labor and need to completely support cuts, or else we give power to labor to block cuts. “
I don’t think there is anything inconsistent with my position which is that we need to make cuts in order to survive fiscally but they need to happen within the collective bargaining process and the employees deserve representation at the bargaining table.
The problem that occurs is when one side has too much power. When the union’s are unopposed by management or when management is unopposed by unions.
Frankly
[quote]This is just business folks[/quote]
I do not agree with this statement. Frankly, as a business man it seems to me that you interpret all actions through a business model. Yet there are differences between the role of a government and a private business.
1) A private business has the freedom to pick up and move if it is not generating a profit in its current site, not so government.
2) A private business has a duty to its owners, investors and employees and must obviously provide a service or product desired by enough people to keep it in business. It has no broader obligation to the entire community as a government does.
3) A private business has the freedom to pick and choose what services or products it will provide. It has no obligation to provide infrastructure, education, public safety and health measures. Governments do not have the ability to opt out on the provision of these services.
I am sure that you, and others here who have been engaged in public affairs longer than I could point out many more differences between private business and public governance. But even I, in my infancy as far as public affairs are concerned, can discern that this is not “just business, folks”.
Frankly, when you get a chance check your e-mail inbox. One of the problems that any publisher/editor faces is that they don’t get to pick the news that rolls into our consciousness each day. That reality is magnified on a blog filled with reader comments like this one. While David clearly does have his personal biases, events like the STEAC mobile home kerfuffle are good examples where simply repeating the words of the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association was considered to be an example of David’s bias . . . where no bias existed.
The principles of business – namely fiscal discipline – transcend any comparison of private versus public organizations. For example GAAP and FASB rules apply.
Frankly
[quote]The principles of business – namely fiscal discipline – transcend any comparison of private versus public organizations. For example GAAP and FASB rules apply.[/quote]
I agree with your second sentence. I fundamentally disagree with your first. There are, in my opinion, obligations that public organizations have that transcend “fiscal discipline”. Governments may face numerous circumstances that transcend immediate “fiscal discipline”. Emergency circumstances whether natural disasters or man made such as wars transcend “fiscal discipline” as one example. Governments have a duty to their citizens that goes far, far beyond what a private business ever has. Where we differ in my opinion, is that you hold financial affairs as transcendent above all else. I hold human well being transcendent above all else. I see the first obligation of a government is to provide for the safety and well being of its citizens using the money that they have provided through their taxes to achieve these goals. I do not see its first obligation as the generation of a certain amount of money which is then distributed to a preferred few which is largely what private business is designed to do.
Madwoman, Greece is the result when fiscal discipline is not applied. The inability to provide for the safety and well-being of the population is the long-term consequence of failing to demand that the books be balanced.
Sorry. iPhone keyboard problem. I meant “medwoman”
Frankly,
I would agree that Greece is an example of fiscal discipline not applied; with their crippling debt problems due not only to machinations of leaders of banks and finance institutions but also to unsustainable government policies of short work weeks (around 32 hrs/wk if I remember correctly), lax work standards, and retirement at around age 50 for most government employees. At the other extreme are Latin American uber-capitalist countries; where there is a small number of very wealthy people (the worlds wealthiest person is a Mexican named Carlos Slim, if I recall); and most of the population is poor. At the economics departments of the universities in these Latin American countries are professors who can tell you the necessity of and the virtues of their economic systems, and how much worse off the peasants would be without their wealthy and wise & benificent patrons (where do you suppose much of the university foundation funding comes from; or who sits on their steering boards?)
So is it possible that there may be a moderate middle ground between these two extremes; that is really best for most of the people?
jimt
[quote]So is it possible that there may be a moderate middle ground between these two extremes; that is really best for most of the people?[/quote]
Thank you for making this point much more concisely than I have ever been able to. I suspect that Frankly and I would both agree with this statement and that we would disagree on where that “moderate middle ground” lies.