At last night’s Davis City Council meeting, the City Council went through the budget section by section. While the efforts of Councilmember Lamar Heystek to introduce an alternative budget two weeks ago gained some concessions from the Council majority, Councilmember Heystek and Councilmember Sue Greenwald found themselves on the short of end of 3-2 votes on the key issues.
The bottom line was the failure of the Davis City Council to adequately address the looming structural issues of employee compensation at this meeting. The short-term budget remains to be balanced through cutbacks to programs rather than changes to way the city funds employee compensation.
The bottom line here is that employees are not being disrespectful or denigrating. The issue has not to do with work performance or quality. And while we may criticize some of the top level staff people, the overriding issue of compensation has nothing to do with performance or quality and everything to do with affordability and sustainability. When Councilmember Souza plays the card of respect, he does not help the process, in fact he further polarizes the process.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald is correct, the city has given away too much in past bargaining contracts. We cannot afford to continue down this road. In a lot of ways, the city of Davis is more fortunate that we have been more immune to this recession than other cities, but it has also hit us harder than past recessions. When the full impact of state cuts, county cuts, school district cuts, and university cuts hits this city, we will see what happens next year. I think we have not even seen the worst portions of the economic downturn in Davis.
The irony with Councilmember Souza’s grandstanding is that he agreed to increase the placeholding savings number from $850,000 for employee bargaining to $1.25 million. Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald held out for the 5% number of $1.575 million but were out-voted 3-2. And while Mayor Pro Tem Saylor argued Davis was in better shape than UC Davis, Woodland, and the County, the bottom line is that we have to plan for future contingencies, things will get worse, and this is the time to bargain with employees, not next year. All we will be able to do next year is layoffs and furloughs. This is the time to deal with structural issues.
The downside of the 3-2 is that Council failed for the most part to address Councilmember Heystek’s point. The upside is that because of Mr. Heystek’s efforts, the council put another $400,000 on the table.
During the issue of overtime, Councilmember Heystek asked about the following slide from the Citygate presentation:
The slides shows that by shifting from 3 relief staffers to 2, thus from 15 on duty at any one time to 14, the city would be able to shed itself of 3 fulltime positions. They could then use overtime as a means to temporarily fill that last position. But instead of having fulltime people on the payroll, the city could pay as they go through overtime.
The Fire Chief Rose Conroy argued that the projected $360,000 savings as gross savings and did not include the offsetting overtime. However, the Vanguard confirmed with Finance Director Paul Navazio that that $360,000 figure represented a net savings.
The City Manager argued that these changes not be included in the current budget projections. Councilmember Heystek argued that any potential savings should be included. A point that even Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor agreed with, although Mayor Pro Tem Saylor went further suggesting that the city not try to cherry pick from the Citygate report. The problem with that as Councilmember Greenwald pointed out is that much of the report was simply inadequate. However, if the city can gain savings by changing the way it does its relief staffing, it ought to consider it for this budget.
Councilmember Heystek continued to press the city as to how it arrived at its $150,000 savings for OT and pushed for more savings. He failed to gain traction on the issue, but the overall point still needs to be addressed–why are we paying overtime at all for some of these positions, particularly positions like Fire Captain.
The council then went through the tier cuts–this is not going to be an exhaustive discussion of the tier cuts. The city and the council are intrigued with the notion of Business License fees for rental units, but not ready to put them into the current budget. The city also is not going to look into at-fault parties for cost-recovery fees. Moreover, the general thought on the parking enforcement officer is that they yield declining marginal returns and the city has seen revenue drop as parking regulations have received a higher level of adherence by the public.
Councilmember Heystek was able to get a compromised level of cuts to the City Attorney position of 15% rather than the 20% he was seeking. That was the level that Councilmember Souza suggested. He was also able to restore the park maintenance money.
Davis Media Access won the biggest victory of the night when Mayor Ruth Asmundson moved for full funding. That restored the proposed $27,000 cut and even the $10,000 compromise cut that looked like might pass last week.
On the other hand, Councilmember Heystek was unable to re-fund the Police Sgt. position that is in charge of professional standards. That means that the police department is not operating without an internal affairs officer. This is extremely problematic should a major complaint or incident arise. Along the same lines, by a 3-2 vote, the Council voted to cut the ombudsman position by $10,000. In a way, the Ombudsman Bob Aaronson paved the way for this when he apparently offered to continue his current levels of service for a reduced rate. That caused Councilmember Souza to flip from supporting restoration of full funding to accepting his generous sacrifice.
Police Chief Landy Black was strongly opposed to the cut in the Professional Standards Sgt. position. The council pulled an additional $400,000 in savings gained through employee salary cuts but only put about $120,000 back in terms of programmatic cuts. The biggest loss in that is the Professional Standards Sgt. which is an extremely important position especially from the standpoint of community relations. The department has worked hard over the last few years to restore relations with key segments of the population. All of the council acknowledged the improvement, and yet they have put some of that at risk by making cutbacks that may be pennywise, but could prove to be pound foolish.
From the Vanguard’s standpoint there are five key provisions in the budget that needed to be altered from the city’s proposal. First, employee compensation. Second, overtime. Third, Davis Media Access. Fourth, the Police Sgt. position, and fifth, the Ombudsman position.
The city increased the employee compensation savings by $400,000 but failed to get to Councilmember Heystek’s $400,000. They failed thus far to address benefits or unfunded liabilities. From this standpoint alone, this budget is a failure.
Second, they failed to further address overtime either in terms of dollar amounts or policy. That is probably the second most important issue.
Third, the only clear win was Davis Media Access. We simply as a community need to retain the ability to communicate with the rest of the community.
Fourth, the Police Sgt. position was a huge loss.
Fifth, while I appreciate that the citizens are not losing service with Mr. Aaronson’s generous offer on top current discounts, this is still a loss.
The bottom line is that Mr. Heystek made clear that the city needed to address its structural issues or he would not support a renewal of the sales tax and in fact would actively campaign against it. He reiterated that point last night. At this point in time, the city has failed to address the key issues. The Vanguard expects to join Councilmember Heystek in opposing any renewal of the sales next year.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You keep insisting that ’employee compensation’ is top of the list of items to be adjusted, but the only group you consistently hammer is the fire department. If you mean fire fighters, *write* fire fighters.
I mean employee compensation, not firefighters.
How high in management other than fire does OT go? Dept heads?
Anyone with salary should not get, that’s always been my experience in the work environment but have a feeling not true here?
Please clarify.
“The irony with Councilmember Souza’s grandstanding is that he agreed to increase the placeholding savings number from $850,000 for employee bargaining to $1.25 million. Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald held out for the 5% number of $1.575 million but were out-voted 3-2. And while Mayor Pro Tem Saylor argued Davis was in better shape than UC Davis, Woodland, and the County, the bottom line is that we have to plan for future contingencies, things will get worse, and this is the time to bargain with employees, not next year. All we will be able to do next year is layoffs and furloughs. This is the time to deal with structural issues.”
This seems to be a gov’t pattern – “Let’s not deal with structural problems that are causing the deficit. Let’s just lay off people on an as needed basis.” The problem with this thinking is that one round of layoffs will beget another round of layoffs. Souza is clueless – he just offers counterarguments to anything sensible Heystek and Greenwald suggest, bc he doesn’t want them to get credit for anything. In doing so, he is making himself look like a fool. Honestly, his antics make him look like a court jester.
Fourth, the Police Sgt. position was a huge loss.
No, it was a loss..it remains to be seen if it was HUGE as you suggest. Redirect the complaints to PYTEL as he is the lord of PS. Plus since he’s now a Captain it should cut down on the multi-layer review of complaints. Put it on him to make the tough(s) call all by himself or with the advice/consent of his fellow wizard, Oscar.
tough call(s)….reading is a challenge at times
[quote]The bottom line here is that employees are not being disrespected or denigrated. The issue has not to do with work performance or quality. And while we may criticize some of the top level staff people, the overriding issue of compensation has nothing to do with performance or quality and everything to do with affordability and sustainability.[/quote]The idea that responsible government budget decisions, including aligning labor contracts within the constraints of long-term revenues, is anti-labor is laughable. I have heard this line from people whose sympathies are very stongly with some highly compensated public employees. Some of those comments have reached me through the Vanguard. However, many of you might be surprised that City of Davis employees regularly approach me and tell me how much they appreciate my analysis of the city budget. Those who are on the low-end of the pay scale fret that they will be laid off so that the highest paid can keep getting rich salaries and richer pensions. I’ve even been approached by a handful of very high-paid firefighters and a few cops in Davis who told me they think “3% at 50” is unreasonable and unaffordable. They aren’t giving the money back. But they don’t favor contracts which threaten the jobs of younger employees. A current fire captain told me his union “made a mistake” pushing for a 36% wage increase 4 years ago.
I don’t blame the unions for trying to get all they could for their employees. That is their jobs. What is unfortunate is that we have elected people to the council who did not understood that it was their job to look out for the taxpayers in those contract negotiations.
… we have elected people to the council who did not [s]understood[/s] [i]understand[/i] that it was their job to look out for the taxpayers in those contract negotiations.
Rich: As usual, several outstanding points….our CC trio(A.S.S.) need to put down/away the crack pipe they apparently share just before all council meetings.
By the way, who is going to pay for the salary increases and seemingly unlimited overtime costs? Where will the CC find that money, when faced with a projected $3.25 million deficit? If the A.S.S. majority believes voters will approve more taxes to support their “efforts” to resolve the deficit, they are sadly mistaken.
And, where are the School Board members during this city-wide dilemma? Hello… Do any of you realize that Davis residents can only pay so much? And, UNLESS the CC deals with the City’s structural deficit problem NOW, voters will not vote for renewal of school tax assessments next year.
As I learned the hard way (during my idealistic years of youth), just follow the money. The CC must “bite the bullet” and face reality: the only way to resolve the impending deficit is to insist on wage & benefit concessions from employee groups.
If those workers cannot share the burden of these tough times with the rest of our community, then I say, “farewell,” plain & simple. (And good luck finding a better city and a cushier job than working in Davis.)
In summary, I believe ALL city employees should take a 5% (or whatever is needed) salary decrease to balance the budget.
I’ve got an idea that is far more noble, fair, and just than gouging the poor city employees who are unlucky enough to have us as their patrons right now. (And we wonder why the service we sometimes receive isn’t so great.) But first let’s look at the direction given by Council regarding employee compensation so that you can compare it to and see the wisdom of my idea. Under the 4% ($1.25M) compensation reduction plan Council called for and what many ignorant Davis citizens cheer for (but really want 5-10% cuts), a few hundred of our neighbors who are city employees would, on average, be forced to endure approximately a $260 per month loss of compensation. ($1.25M ÷ 400 employees) That is serious income loss. That is the sort of money that causes families to make serious changes to their plans and futures.
Now, here’s my promised idea: If the 25,000+ households paid a mere $10 a month or so (or less than $5 per month, per adult citizen) then the city’s budget deficit would be almost entirely covered. The difference could be easily covered by merely freezing all employee compensation and there would be no need to reduce or eliminate even one of our favorite and coveted city services. And $10 a month per household is not going to even begin to change the spending or saving habits of more than a handful of households. Grant that a full third of the households might have a financial hardship that would exempt them from paying $10 per month. (A very liberal allowance.) For $15 per month per household ($7.50 per person) from the remainder of the financially fortunate majority and the budget deficit is erased. And just so as to be fair, you could even deduct that same $7.50 from the paychecks of the few city employees who live outside Davis and make a few bucks for the city in the balance.
However, what I’ve been hearing is people making the sort demands that would cause city employees and their families to really suffer before our fiscally blessed citizens give up two lattes a month. Shameful, heartless, and selfish.
“gouging the poor city employees”
Poor is not the word I would use for people making $150,000 in total comp.
Have any of you noticed that the Community Pool is shuttered on weekends? Why is the “neighborhood” pool for central and old Davis shuttered to all those kids and families? Lack of budget?
While the city’s coffers are being drained by huge pay and benefit packages that are simply unsustainable in today’s market? Meanwhile, our friendly CC majority is afraid to take on those politically powerful employees?
When does the City have to run the next parcel tax that needs a 2/3rds majority to pass?
Hey CC majority and staff: you are balancing the city budget on the backs of those little kids?
Maybe a lot of us are going to remember precious city funds sucked out of taxpayer pockets, while our neighborhood pool is shuttered during summer weekends. I know that I will.
[quote]I’ve got an idea that is far more noble, fair, and just than gouging the poor city employees[/quote]Ben, I don’t favor “gouging” anyone. However, your commentary lacks context. It ignores, for example, the 36% increase in base salary the city council just gave to the firefighters. It ignores the retirement benefits that are worth as much in Net Present Value as $4 million per employee.
You talk as if the people who would be paying more in taxes (under your anti-gouging plan) are not sacrificing already. You forget the context in which city services bills have gone up by about 50%, in part to pay for the extravagant retirement plans. You forget the public safety tax we all pay every month (on our city services bill) which was put on at the time we increased the pension plans for cops and fire. You need to include in your “gouging” argument the reality that many city of Davis residents are taking furloughs costing them thousands of dollars a year in income, many others are being laid off, others are getting less business and all of us who own property (or stocks) have seen our net worth decline by a third or more.
Ben, once you account for all of that, then we can talk about not gouging people making 2-3 times as much as most folks with similar educations or responsibilites in the private sector.
Mr. Rifkin,
I am going to be forced to cry foul on some of your earlier remarks. I feel you are simply pulling rabbits out of your hat, and are capable of making up statements to fit your argument. “A current fire captain told me his union “made a mistake” pushing for a 36% wage increase 4 years ago.” Did your said firefighter vote on that contract? Did you do any research into what the vote tallies were ayes v. noes? Why did he vote yes if it was such a mistake?
I too have some outstanding and remarkable quotes I can attribute to people as well. As we can all agree, this does not make them valid or truthful. Your remarks reek of fabrication. I’m sure you can crow about your righteousness and the protection of sources, but it certainly is a thin veil to hide behind.
“Why did he vote yes if it was such a mistake? “
Couldn’t it be in retrospect he thinks it was a mistake?
The root of my allegation is that Mr. Rifkin is fabricating these remarks.