“The check book is tapped out,” Chamber leaders Gregg Herrington and Michael Bisch write in an op-ed today. “Therefore, Davis business leaders are adamant that our City Council continue to rein in the unsustainable growth of city employee compensation. The Davis Chamber PAC supports the council’s hard-earned gains and trusts that the council will remain resolute during Tuesday evening’s closed-session meeting with negotiators who are bargaining with the Davis City Employees Association and Firefighters Local 3494, the only groups that have not accepted the city’s reasonable position.”
Tonight’s Davis City Council meeting is quickly becoming extremely important in terms of the future of the city’s economic sustainability. While the city must grapple with the critical issue of shared fire services, as well as moving toward a permanent full-time chief, the city faces the continued unpleasant reality that two of its bargaining units continue to hold out on accepting the concessions that the remainder of the city’s employee groups have taken.
For the past several weeks, one of those groups – the firefighters – have demonstrated in front of City Hall and have had their members fill chambers complaining about personnel changes and the lack of a permanent fire chief.
This week, the Davis Chamber of Commerce has firmly and unequivocally proclaimed that it has the city’s back on these critical changes. In their op-ed, Davis Chamber Chair Gregg Herrington and Chamber PAC Chair Michael Bisch write that “we are still not out of the woods” of the economic downturn and that “the city of Davis remains confronted with significant structural budget deficits.”
“In addition to the reduction in staffing levels and service cuts, parcel tax measures and fee increases have been necessary to salvage many of the great services and amenities Davis residents enjoy,” Mr. Bisch and Mr. Herrington write. “More proposals, such as a local sales tax increase, are being discussed to fund existing services. Water and wastewater projects, along with long overdue catch-up on deferred street maintenance, are finally being implemented, yet they come with hefty price tags and associated debt.”
For weeks now, as stated, the firefighters’ union has been picketing in front of City Hall. In July, firefighters’ union President Bobby Weist issued an email to his membership indicating a vote of no confidence. “The firefighters in the City of Davis have no confidence in the ability of Chiefs Black and/or Pierce to carry out the Fire Department’s primary duties to the community.”
Mr. Weist in September told the council, “We just went on a strike team, people were forced to work overtime prior to leaving on a strike team. They went on a strike team, they were there for ten days, working 16 hours and when they came back, they had to come back to work.”
The chief complaints of the firefighters’ union remain the lack of a permanent fire chief, the fire staffing cuts, and the overtime situation. On their face, none of these are unreasonable concerns. However, the firefighters have maintained an adversarial stance with the city, making public demands while refusing to work with the city on the reforms that the city has attempted to implement.
In essence, the firefighters are refusing to take the same cuts as all other bargaining units, while at the same time they are complaining about staffing cuts implemented by the city – as the city attempts both to save money and restructure fire staffing.
Mr. Herrington and Mr. Bisch respond to claims from the firefighters and DCEA leaders, arguing, “We ask that the rank-and-file members of DCEA and Local 3494 tell their leaders that it is time to join with the rest of the community and accept their fair share of the burden created by the global economic meltdown.”
They argue, “Our community can no longer support unsustainable employee contracts that would be reliant on yet more taxes and fewer services. A failure by the council to hold the line on employee compensation Tuesday evening will create an irresponsible and increasingly untenable fiscal situation.”
Mr. Herrington and Mr. Bisch continue: “Any following effort to increase local sales or parcel taxes to fill the gaping budget hole thus created will justifiably be met with stakeholder and voter opposition. Sustainable budgets surely will continue to be a key issue for at least the next few election cycles.”
“If the city is able to realize its goal of trimming the deficit with across-the-board reductions in employee benefits, the community can then focus its energy on increasing revenues to the city,” they write. “Creating and fostering a socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable community is a challenging endeavor. The Davis Chamber PAC and the entire business community are ready, willing and able to work collaboratively with all stakeholder groups to effectively and efficiently solve today’s challenges while planning for a bright future for our unique community.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What is the next step in the impasse process? What can the CC do Tues?
glad to see the business community step up here. it seemed like the chamber came on strong last year but their focus has been on the economic development rather than the fiscal sustainability side. i get why that is the case, but i always saw economic development as helping the budget down the road.
The firefighters are fighting a losing battle that will only result in a greater tarnished image. When posters like Davis Progressive are not on their side, it is clear those unsustainable good times are over and it is time to put on those big boy sustainability pants and accept rational concessions.
[i]but i always saw economic development as helping the budget down the road[/i]
Sure, why plan for the future? Isn’t that mindset the primary reason we are in this predicament?
I think most people having this mindset have never worked in the private sector for a long-running successful business. If they had they would understand the need for strategic thinking… with plans and activities constantly targeting a future state that defines sustainability and success.
These one-time fixes like temporary cuts and tax increases are actually detrimental because they create a false sense of “problem solved”.
Our fiscal problems are not solved unless we have a strategy in place that projects a trend-line where revenue is sufficient to cover expenses. We have structural budget problems. Those problems are clearly too-high city employee compensation, and too little revenue derived from economic activities. Those are the two problems we should be focused on.
Any city council member not focused primarily on those two things is doing the city a great disservice and is kicking the can down the road for our kids to have to deal with.
“Sure, why plan for the future? Isn’t that mindset the primary reason we are in this predicament? “
either you took my comment in a direction that was not intended or i failed to explain myself well. i think i have been reasonably on board with the economic development discussion, so i’m surprise you have misrepresented comment.
there are two parts to this. the first is the immediate budget deficit, i think i saw $15 million in the next few years. we are not going to fix most of that with economic development.
the second part is longer term fiscal stability – a more diverse and robust retail base and point of sale taxes from economic development. i see that as longer term.
you took my comment to mean ignore that second component, my comment was simply acknowledging that the chamber is doubling down on the first phase and good for them.
I would like to see the Fire Fighters contract to be changed so that they earn overtime only for actual work hours and not allowed to credit vacation or union bank hours, etc. in the calculation for determining when they start receiving overtime. This seems only fair that they receive overtime pay only when they actually work overtime.
[i]”In essence, the firefighters are refusing to take the same cuts as all other bargaining units . . . “
“We ask that the rank-and-file members of DCEA and Local 3494 tell their leaders that it is time to join with the rest of the community and accept their fair share of the burden created by the global economic meltdown.”[/i]
In the two statements above, we see both the problem and a fair and reasonable solution. Not much more needs to be said.
Matt, I agree with you, once again you’re being so practical.
I aim to please GI.
8>)
Of course what is practical in the eye of one beholder is not practical in the eye of another.
Go figure.
Chamber leaders Gregg Herrington and Michael Bisch write in an op-ed today:
> The check book is tapped out
What I would like to see is the chamber find a non-partisan math professor at UCD and explain that if pay and benefits grow faster than income for the city it won’t end well (there won’t be any money to pay the pensions).
Then Ryan Kelly wrote:
> I would like to see the Fire Fighters contract to be changed
> so that they earn overtime only for actual work hours and not
> allowed to credit vacation or union bank hours, etc.
I just went to the database below and looked to see what a firefighter friend makes:
Base: $144K, OT $96K, Other $30K, MDV $25K, ER $105K, Misc. $4K Total cost to the city he works for per year $406K
Not bad for a guy with a two year fire science degree. His take home pay is more than the Governor of the state who went to Cal and has a Law degree from Yale.
Back when I graduated from college a typical entry level CA firefighter made about the same as a typical Sac State or SF State grad (less than a typical UCD grad). Today the typical firefighter starting pay (including overtime that almost everyone gets) is more than a typical UCD or Santa Clara LAW SCHOOL Grad (and about double what most UCD grads make)…
After a few years most firefighters learn to work the system getting maximum OT “credit for vacation or union bank hours” time so they are making more than even the guys I know that have graduated from Boalt Hall, Stanford Law, UCSF and UC Davis Med School.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/salaries/
City Council has to stay firm in their demands with these two unions. My understanding is that if they give in to these two unions, all the progress that has been made with the other contracts will be lost b/c each of them has a “favored nations” clause that protects them if the City caves to some other union.
Well said Adam . . . Well said.
[quote]Of course what is practical in the eye of one beholder is not practical in the eye of another.
[/quote]
Well you know Matt, sometimes you’re practical and sometimes you’re not.
Actually GI, my wife tells me regularly that I am rarely practical . . . always tilting at windmills.
[i]you took my comment to mean ignore that second component, my comment was simply acknowledging that the chamber is doubling down on the first phase and good for them.[/i]
DP, okay. I jumped on your point without acknowledging your positive comments about economic development being the primary long-term solution. My bad.
I was looking at the City’s five year budget forecast, and I think it makes some risky assumptions. I also think it does not include our road maintenance deficit. Bottom line is that we really cannot get to short-term fiscal stability by cutting unless we turn back the clock on pension and healthcare benefits for retirees and employees. And we are not going to do that. So then there is that favorite solution from the very same people who supported the politicians that gave away the store to the public employee unions… RAISE TAXES!
My point was/is, that this is not an idea we should be even considering.
For one, it has an adverse impact on sales because it lowers the discretionary income for families on the margins and causes other to shop elsewhere for larger purchases like autos.
For two, it gives a false sense of relief to the general population that all things are better now and we can go back to business as usual.
For three, with both federal and state tax increases and crappy job outlooks, a lot of families are hurting and a sales tax increase just rubs salt into their financial wounds.
The ONLY way for us to get to fiscal stability is to cut what we can, and develop a more robust economy that serves the city more tax dollars.
I don’t see a short-term vs. long-term solution comparison. We didn’t get ourselves into this mess overnight, and so we need to start doing the right things to get us back to where we should be.
[quote]My point was/is, that this is not an idea we should be even considering. [/quote]
A balanced approach to short- and long-term economic health will include cutting costs, economic development, and increased taxes. A 0.25% sales tax increase dedicated to road repair and maintenance would help us reduce what has been deferred. It can have a sunset provision if necessary so voters can review it for renewal in a few years. Woodland voters decided to raise their sales tax to help balance their budget, as have dozens of other communities.
No tax increase intended to solve a budget deficit is a balanced approach. It is an emergency measure for a lack of prior fiscal discipline. It actually contributes to more lack of fiscal discipline.
Have you ever really added up all the recent tax increases the average middle class person has to pay?
Obamacare tax increases
Brown tax increases
As I wrote, Davis’s budget problems were not caused by short-term overspending, and they are not solved by short-term tax increases.
Tax increases are a brain-dead idea from those that are unable to govern and those that get their bread buttered by those unable to govern.
Davis has already increase its sales tax.
California already has the highest sales tax in the country.
[quote]Tax increases are a brain-dead idea from those that are unable to govern [/quote]
This kind of thing doesn’t lead to a productive discussion.
My questions for city officials would be:
— what is our deficit now and in the next few years;
— what revenue increases can we expect from sales tax as the economy recovers, and from recent additions to our sales tax base;
— what revenue increases can we expect from development on Nishi if it is approved, built out, and occupied;
— what revenues would be gained from a peripheral annexation and business park development.
If we are continuing to get behind on our road maintenance, would a .25% sales tax increase cover that deferred maintenance, is there a way to segregate out the funds specially for that purpose, and at what future point could it expire as other revenues help to balance the city’s budget.
Finally, how do the employee contracts need to be managed to make all of that possible.
With actual numbers and an economic recovery/development plan in place, the voters could be asked to do two things:
— approve Measure R votes on a specific parcel for business/tech park development;
— approve a time-limited tax increase.
[i]This kind of thing doesn’t lead to a productive discussion. [/i]
Yeah, your are probably correct. I hate tax increase ideas to solve budget problems. I really do think they are an indication of a failure to lead.
the chamber’s decision to put this out i think sealed the deal last night.
“The Davis Chamber PAC supports the council’s hard-earned gains and trusts that the council will remain resolute during Tuesday evening’s closed-session meeting with negotiators who are bargaining with the Davis City Employees Association and Firefighters Local 3494, the only groups that have not accepted the city’s reasonable position.”
Wasn’t the Chamber Pac involved in the last City Election? It does seem odd that the participation of the Firefighters in elections is panned and no candidate wants money from the FF union for fear of being demonized but its somehow okay for the Chamber Pac to throw their weight around both before and after the election. Oh yes, I know what will be said, the public unions have too much power against the poor underfunded Chamber of Commerce.
Please, can we just have an honest public debate without all the accusations of fairness and who is beholden to whom.
“
Wasn’t the Chamber Pac involved in the last City Election? It does seem odd that the participation of the Firefighters in elections is panned and no candidate wants money from the FF union for fear of being demonized but its somehow okay for the Chamber Pac to throw their weight around both before and after the election.”
seems like an odd comment. first, the chamber pac was heavily scrutinized and criticized last spring. you certainly are aware of that.
second, they are not exactly parallels. one is an employee group trying to pressure employees to gain monetarily the other is a business interest group.
This is the exact problem with all you union bashers, its okay for business interests to spend money in their interest but not workers.
i’ve been a union member most of my life. i’m hardly a basher. try another line here.