 |
 |
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Last fall, Santa Rosa voters passed Measure P, the quarter-percent sales tax increase aimed at raising $6 million for general city services over the next eight years.
Now, city leaders must decide how to spend that money, a debate that looks to dominate the upcoming budget process.
Do they spend it on public safety or parks? Filling potholes or preserving pensions?
City Manager Kathy Millison has proposed a $116 million general fund budget, a 6 percent increase over the current year. It includes closing a fire station, slashing police positions and implementing parking fees at Howarth Park.
But at its first public airing during a City Council study session Tuesday, council members openly worried about whether the cuts to public safety — specifically police — would violate the promise made to voters in 2004 with the passage of Measure O, the quarter-percent sales tax measure to fund police and fire services.
“What I see are two agreed upon sales tax measures voted on by the people to maintain, if not enhance, public safety, and here we are cutting it,” councilman John Sawyer said.
Mayor Ernesto Olivares, a retired police lieutenant, agreed he was uncomfortable with a budget that allowed police funding to drop below 2004 levels, something Measure O said could only be done with a vote of six members of the council.
“I for one am going to have a very hard time going below the baseline when we’ve made a strong commitment to the community,” Olivares said. To do so, he said, seemed like “meddling” with the will of the voters.
Olivares said it seemed that Millison had prepared a budget based on the assumption that the council would go below those 2004 baseline levels, adjusted for inflation. Her draft 2011-2012 budget calls for the elimination of 22 positions citywide, including layoffs of four full-time and one part-time worker.
Eight of those positions are slated for the police department, pushing its $41 million budget about $2 million below adjusted 2004 levels. Sawyer told Millison he had hoped to see some other options before cutting so deeply into public safety.
There are other options, but they are not pretty, Millison said.
“I will tell you that you’re talking about very drastic reductions in service in the other budgets,” she said.
In addition, there would need to be some significant “revenue enhancements” to make up the difference, such as an “emergency response fee,” Millison said.
That’s a reference to a plan rejected by previous councils to charge people hundreds of dollars whenever firefighters or paramedics help them, unless they pay a monthly fee, in which case the services are free.
Councilwoman Susan Gorin, who spearheaded the drive to get Measure P passed last year, said backers always made it clear the measure was not going to be an “economic salvation to the city” and that more cuts would be needed.
If the council plans to keep public safety levels above those suggested in the draft budget, Gorin urged colleagues to be clear with the public what other services would be cut to pay for them.
That sentiment was backed by Councilman Gary Wysocky, who said he didn’t think those who voted for Measure P expected it would be used to prop up public safety at the expense of other city services.
“They voted, in my humble opinion, so that we would have city services such as senior centers, swim centers, neighborhood revitalization programs,” Wysocky said. “I don’t think it was passed so we continue gutting these services that make the city a whole city, and I think we’re losing sight of that.”
Sawyer and Olivares said they just wanted to see more options. Sawyer said he’d even be willing to entertain a reorganization of city services, including outsourcing city departments, if it meant preserving public safety levels expected by voters.
“Those are the kind of options that I’m hoping come out of the city manager’s office before we get deeper into cuts into public safety and our gang prevention programs,” Sawyer said.
Millison said she will have those options more clearly outlined when the council has in-depth budget sessions on May 3 and 5.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Yes, I would agree that being forced to accept a contract with no input is not bargaining in good faith. Public Safety can’t strike (for obvious reasons) so we have no options for coming to any kind of MUTUAL agreements.
I’m not sure I follow your “total comp” thinking. We gave up cash money out of our weekly paychecks to get a better benefit. It was absolutely “Paid For”.
Please remember that we do not control the city spending. We are Not “against” ANY other city employee. We are against anti-business agendas and wasteful spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars when the city is in a “budget crisis”. Spending money on traffic circles, bike bridges, duplicate studies, art, etc… instead of protecting ‘Core’ services. For the record I would take a clean park, maintained roads, swimming pools, senior centers, free parking,… over a bike statue or experimental traffic circle 100% of the time.
-21 line fire positions so far…
@John – Binding arbitration has led to the agreement to pay you guys the average of the comparable cities. If the City did not agree to this, then you would claim that they were not bargaining in good faith. But if you’re right about binding arbitration going the City’s way for once, that means you believe that SR Fire is paid higher than the average at the moment – all the more reason to voluntarily give up 5% pay. You would get to be the heroes again.
@John, yes the 3% @ 50 was paid for, since it was part of your total compensation, which is what gets compared to the other survey cities. When did you do your last contract? It is my understanding that it was a number of years ago, before the crash, and it was determined at that time that you folks were under paid in comparison. to make up for this, you were given pretty good raises for each year of your contract. Because of this, you’ve only had to give up a portion of year raises, and noone in Fire (unit 2) has actually had to take any pay cuts, or face any layoffs or even bumping. Because of your long contract, you’ve been getting raises while the rest of us are being hurt. And right now, you can’t deny that it is yours and Police’s retirements that are causing the current increases in the City’s expenses. You are creating an us and them atmosphere in the City, and it would go a long way if you were to accept at least a temporary 5% pay CUT, like the rest of us. Also, like the rest of us, you will need to agree to some kind of change in your retirement.
Unit 2 (Fire) also had to pay for the enhanced benefit of 3% @ 50. It was purchased, not Given. The city determined it would be cheaper for them to administer it themselves through what is called EPMC. Unit 2 did not want it but EPMC was forced upon us.
Binding Arbitration doesn’t force the city to do anything except negotiate in good faith. Contrary to popular belief, we don’t just ‘Get what we want’. In fact in this economic climate any call for Binding Arbitration would probably favor the city. One city’s compensation goes down they all go down.
As far as health care costs, Unit 2 currently is paying up to 27% depending on the individual’s health care plan. I have Kaiser so mine is closer to the 27% number.
To respond to the ’10 days a month’ comment – It works out to a 56 hour work week. How many hours a week do you work? (normal time)
About doing our part – we have been (and continue to be) voluntarily negotiating concessions with the city since this crisis began. That can’t be said by some of the other units in the city.
@Reality – you think…!? I actually do blame the unions more than City management. During the dot.com stock bubble, our retirement agency told everyone that they were superfunded, and the City could provide much better retirement plans, and it wouldn’t cost the City anything. I’m not clear how it came down with units 2 and 5, but for the miscelaneous units, the City said no. If they wanted it, they would need to pay for it themselves. It would cost the employees 10% of salary, and they would need to up their contribution from 7 to 8%. Police and Fire have binding arbitration, and the City has been forced to give them whatever other cities give to their public safety employees. Their plan allows them to retire at an early age, so benefits are paid out for a longer period. With the last stock crash, suddenly the retirement accounts have gone from superfunded to underfunded, and the City is having to pay millions. Police and Fire is paid out of the General Fund, as are most other employees in the City. The public safety unions have refused to take any real cuts, and since they now account for 55-60% of the GF, the cuts have to come from the remaining employees at a dissproportionate amount. If everyone had taken a 5% cut, our problems would be gone. Instead, non public safety employees are being layed off, bumped to lower level positions, and have taken temporary pay cuts. Because of binding arbitration, the only way to reduce public safety is through layoffs, which is politically difficult for the council to do, aas you may’ve noticed… Now, it is the job of unions to get the best deal they can, but currently, they are doing it on the backs of the other employees and the tax payers. It is their retirements that are causing most of the increased costs at the moment.
@SR Watcher – you need to be careful when you say management – most management employees are 1st line supervisors who make only 10-15% above those they supervise, and in addition to supervising, they are doing pretty much the same job they did before they got promoted. These working managers often put in 50-60 hours per week without overtime, so their real hourly wage is often less than those they supervise. None of these folks are able to control their raises in order to spike their retirements like you sometimes hear about.
@Lets be, I gather you are a city employee. You must be feeling a little besieged these days.
While I think public employee unions became more than a bit greedy, I don’t really blame them. Our elected officials should have recognized what was and was not affordable. But that would have required a stiffer spin than most seem to have.
My father, a cop, retired after 30 years with a CalPers pension of 50%, for which 9% was deducted from each of his paychecks. Times have changed.
Now, the day of reckoning has arrived.
This isn’t about whether or not you are “for” Police or Fire! This is a decision made by public safety (particularly fire union)to flex their public relations advantage. So much time and money goes toward publicizing the “hero” status that they found themselves in after 9/11. California firefighters have enjoyed the side effects big time and lots of money is still being spent (via union contributions)to retain the status. I can remember when the public safety unions (especially SR firefighters)using the trucks and engines would park and shoppping centers and along the street and they would ask people to vote for saving them… So manipulative but they have to say that it worked…Remember that they only work 10 days a month and most all have second jobs or businesses. You can’t miss them in those huge trucks and I have seen many a woman swoon….crazy but it works!
When “binding arbitration” was being negotiated years ago, city representatives did not consider the side effects or that it would forever link the public safety wages to other larger cities who are a part of the same process of that continued manipulation. One city goes up and the all say, “We are behind in our wages based on the other city raising their wages”…There is no shame because they feel entitled.
It is going to take someone who is not worried about being the “one” to stop this “gravy train” problem of out of control public safety costs. The gig is up people! Admit your mistake and come clean once and for all. I am a tax paying citizen and I am tired of being punished with higher and higher taxes with no end in sight as to higher salaries for public safety and all of the city’s management! City management, including the Mayor and the City Attorneys, need to share the pain of this economic fiasco you promoted and benefited from, and continue to enjoy while giving up nothing. Live within our City’s means…. it will be a change that will make a difference in the quality of life we all want to enjoy.
@Reality – I believe most units are up this year, Unit 2 (Fire) I think maybe next year. Most new contracts are actually for only 1-2 years. That doesn’t mean that Police and Fire couldn’t volunteer at least temporary cuts to help out. It has already been painful for miscelaneous employees, and will likely get worse this time around.
I support Police and Fire. I also remember recently there was a group of people who wanted to be “In-Your-Face” about the 2nd Amendment by openly carry guns. The said it was a silent protest. Well I guess they got more attention than they wanted. There is now a law proposed to out law the open carry of unloaded guns. They couldn’t leave well enough alone, they pushed, and society got scared and pushed back. Oops…..
.
Now we have public safety pension and benefits in the spotlight. With recent victories, like getting paid for the time to get dressed, pension spiking and other lifetime benefits, the spotlight is intensified. Was the retroactive $2000 each for getting dressed worth the bad press? You should come out out swingingwith your own solution. Make it deep and make it count. You either come up with your own solution now, or people with have their legislators solve it for you. There is still time. Man up or stand by to get a dose of reality. Laws are being considered to slam your retirement. Time is not on your side.
@Lets be,
I’m familiar with where the cost pressures are coming from. Question: When do current labor contracts expire? I ask because most labor contracts are for 3 years and this has been a 3 year problem.
Yet, I hear nothing coming out of city hall that makes clear the next contract will contain significant cost-saving reforms for health and retirement benefits, period.
So far, it’s been nothing more than nibble and defer stuff, and endless “in-depth” discussions. Yes, this will be painful, but what needs to be done is not a mystery.
Council member Wysocky obviously has studies this issue in depth. His questions and statements at the April 19th meeting showed depth of understand. After Wysocky explained Measure O other council members walked back their previous statements. You don’t have to take my word for it, it should be available on the city’s website soon.
Yes, citizens voted for Measure P to make Santa Rosa a whole city. Just as the feds have an issue with the military-industrial complex; cities have an issue with the public-safety complex; if interested read BREAKING RANK by Norm Stamper. Wysocky made it clear to a room full of city employees that personnel cost need be reduced. He did not pander to the gallery!
Ask not what your city can do for you, ask what you can do for your city.- after JKF
I’m sick of all the treats about cutting police and fire, cutting teachers. CUT the adminsitration!! The City Manager makes WAY too much money. So do all the other “managers” in the city. School administration is NEVER cut, just teachers. This is because bleeding heart taxpayers don’t want to cut teachers so they agree to the racketeering by the City.
Santa Rosa PD are WAY overpaid. Their benefit packages are ridiculous. It is about time government workers stop living on over promised benefits. We all fund 100% of our retirement but those cry babies revolt when they have to pay for a small percentage. We pay co-pays at the doctor, premiums out of our paycheck. Santa Rosa PD pays NOTHING. They get up too 25% extra for various things (a degree, working at night, OT, etc). Hmmm, my degree allows me to KEEP my job, not earn extra pay. I work OT because I have to, but it is UNPAID. I don’t get hundreds of hours of vacation, “comp time”, sick days, etc, etc. I’m sick and tired of union backed cry babies who don’t live in reality.
The City Manager RAISED the budget?? WHY ARE VOTERS NOT UP IN ARMS ABOUT THIS?? The vast majority of the Sheeple who pay for this corrupt city government had to cut back, yet they INCREASE the budget? Unbelievable!
The fix is in! Interesting that after vociferously denying that Bartley and Ours had made a backroom deal with Police Union during their endorsement not to touch public safety pensions or ask them to take furlough they now seem to be saying…that the voters wouldn’t want them to cut public safety…coincidence that this was exactly the ‘backroom deal” they kept denying that they had made. I guess they think Santa Rosa voters are pretty stupid and we’d fall for their little “pension reform” dog and pony show.
@Reality – The cost factors driving the increase are increased health costs and increased retirement costs. The City Manager is negotiating to make the health care plans to be less expensive, and to have employees pay a larger share (from 12.5% up to 20% for some of the plans). For retirement costs, the biggest driving factor is the increase in Police and Fire retirement costs, but the City is somewhat constrained because they have a binding arbitration clause, voted in place by the public a number of years ago.
@Mike Sherrell
You have asked the question that begs an answer. Why isn’t 6% more money this year sufficient to pay for existing services?
Obviously, SR has cost escalators rising at more than 6% each year. Most economies are lucky to grow at 3-4% each year, yet SR govt has locked itself into needing growth of tax revenue about twice that rate.
A good city manager and council would immediately recognize this as unsustainable and make appropriate changes. And do so quickly.
I am tired of hearing about cuts to public safety. I am tired of threats to charge for parking at Howarth Park.
How about cutting at the top for a change?
The new City Manager makes one heck of a lot of money. Why isn’t her salary being cut? I don’t hear about the City cutting back on buying new vehicles for its fleet. I don’t hear about the City Council giving up its pay in order to keep police officers on the job.
What about the $10 Million dollars in the parking department account that is just sitting there? We were told that a new parking lot would be built with that money. The meter rates ad ticket fines were raised to pay for it. The City has that money now but there is no parking lot under construction.
Put that money toward public safety.
@Mike – because health care is going up, along with retirement costs – ESPECIALLY for Police and Fire.
Units 2 and 5 – the rest of us supported you when you wanted binding arbitration and for measure O. The rest of us have had to endure pay cuts and layoffs. It’s time for you to do your part!
City Manager Millison or as she likes to known as, shared sacrifice, apparently has cloth ears when it come to her proposed budget cuts.
The voters of Santa Rosa made a clear statement. No police or fire cuts! That’s what they voted for. They did not vote to fund th senior center, swimming pools or other social services with their approved tax increase. The other programs and services need to stand on their own.
Elections are funny things. People express what they want and the elected officials are expected to follow their directions.
In the socialist state, however, the government knows best and dictates where money is to be spent. That is what some members of the city council want to do. The others seem to be struggling with the voter approved concept. The City Manager never understood it as it is a foreign concept to her way of thinking.
Is anyone optmistic they will get this right?
How is it that the budget increases by 6% and yet services are cut?
Do you members of Police and Fire feel no shame!? You need to come forth with some real savings to the City. You are driving the City broke, and all you’re willing to do is give up some non-sworn police employees. Unit 2 and 5, you need to agree to a 5% pay cut, even if only temporary. Your salary and benefits are strangling the City, and you seem perfectly willing to let others do the sacrificing for you… So far, all I’ve seen you folks do is protect and serve yourselves. I’m frankly ashamed to be associated with you.