 |
 |
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
The Santa Rosa City Council moved to protect public safety departments from the budget ax Thursday, advising the city manager not to move forward with a $700,000 cut to the Police Department and to find the savings from city departments other than the Fire Department.
The guidance sent a strong message to City Manager Kathy Millison that the council, led by former police lieutenant Mayor Ernesto Olivares, believes voters see public safety as a top priority they twice voted to preserve.
“We have an obligation to try as much as we can to maintain and to enhance those services that I believe they felt they voted for when they voted for Measure O and Measure P,” Councilman John Sawyer said.
In 2004, voters passed Measure O, a 20-year sales tax to support public safety and gang prevention services. Last fall, they passed Measure P, an eight-year sales tax to support an array of city services, including public safety, parks and roads.
But Councilman Gary Wysocky questioned the shift, saying Measure O was passed during different economic times and voters have other priorities, too.
“I don’t see how this is sustainable,” Wysocky said. “It’s a continued cannibalization of other departments, especially parks and recreation.”
Millison originally proposed a 2011-12 budget that increased the city’s general fund — the pot of money over which the council has the most control — from $109 million to $116 million.
Despite the increase, made possible largely by the $6 million expected to be raised by Measure P, her budget called for the elimination of 22 general-fund positions, including 4.5 layoffs. Rising retirement, health care and energy costs all made cuts necessary despite the 6 percent budget increase, she said.
Eight of those positions — five officers and three evidence technicians — were from the Police Department. The budget also called for the closure of Fire Station 10 in the city’s southwest area, and the elimination of nine fire positions.
But Millison’s proposal immediately came under fire from Olivares and Sawyer, both of whom said they were uncomfortable allowing police service levels to drop below the baseline established in 2004 by Measure O. The measure required six members of the council to sign off on any budget that let the public safety and gang prevention budgets fall below 2004 levels, adjusted for inflation.
So Millison presented the council with revisions Thursday; instead of eliminating $700,000 from the Police Department’s $40.1 million budget, she restored $750,000 next year.
The additional funds would preserve a total of five vacant positions, two downtown officer positions, two school resource officer positions and one administrative analyst. In addition, Millison said she would look for ways to restore another $1 million to the department the following year to support the creation of a new community policing team and reinstatement of a crime analyst.
The additions mirrored what Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm told the council earlier in the week he would do if given a $1.9 million budget boost.
After the meeting, Schwedhelm said he felt the move was “consistent with the intent of the voters” when they passed Measure O.
In addition to the police funding, Millison said she believes she had found a way to avoid closing Station 10. She also believes the city’s senior center and the Ridgway Swim Center could stay open, and a street maintenance worker position could be saved, noting the city’s pothole problem.
She said she hopes to preserve those services by cutting other city departments and by winning employee concessions.
She cautioned, however, that her proposal had been put together in just two days, that details of how the city would pay for the changes were “not yet perfected.”
Her budget continues to include a plan to charge drivers up to $5 per day to park at Howarth Park, expected to raise about $520,000.
She is proposing to trim an additional $700,000 from other city budgets, including $300,000 from recreation, parks and community services.
“It was a very tough challenge,” said Marc Richardson, director of parks and recreation, noting that it will cost people their jobs.
Other proposed cuts include $180,000 from administration, $144,000 from public works and $52,000 from community development.
It might be possible to put on a $50,000 fundraiser for the parks department to make up the difference, she said.
She proposed restoring $100,000 in gang prevention services, but acknowledged she didn’t yet know how to accomplish it.
Councilwoman Susan Gorin said the community deserved details about exactly how other city services would be reduced to boost public safety.
“Before I sign off on this, I want to know what we’re giving up precisely in return,” Gorin said.
Freshman council members Jake Ours and Scott Bartley, who campaigned last fall on their ability to have “good faith dialogue” with public safety unions over rising pension costs, also expressed support for the changes.
Toward the end of the discussion, a frustrated Wysocky asked, “Is crime up or down in the city? Are we all that scared?”
“I think that’s one of the things we’ve learned is we don’t want to get to the point where we’re scared,” Olivares responded.
Millison said she would firm up the numbers and return to the council May 24, followed by a formal budget presentation June 14.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Give them shovels and asphalt and brooms, etc., since they are taking all of the money from the G/F, let them really earn it while they are sitting waiting for a call or while they are driving around town, they can fill potholes and do maintenance at all of the parks and other facilities. They are already getting Measure O money and that is not enough? And they expect ALL of the other city workers to take all of the cuts so they can have theirs and not share in any of the pain!
@ Brad – Has ANYONE actually SEEN this alleged AGREEMENT that Gorin claims exists? The “backroom deal”. I’d like to read it if you could forward it to us. Thank you.
@Mr McCallum The sentence you cite in your defense in no way calls into question or even suggests the very obvious impropriety and connection between Ours and Bartley’s private meeting with police union in Septemeber and the self described “agreement” they reached in order to get the cops endorsement and their current hard line stance in not cutting any thing from police and instead canabalizing other departments and city services. It also omits the amount of money that the associations in question donated to Bartley and Ours campaign (a figure which is almost ALWAYS cited by any story in your paper about SEIU or any other union.) Thanks to Mr Cannini for posting the article you wrote in September which appears to discuss much more than the usual “campaign to have a Good Faith dialogue” with public safety.
There is a difference between the average general campaign statements and a private agreement that is now appearing to come to fruition. As an unbiased reporter it’s your job to give us all the information and facts and follow up on a story. Here you left out the very salient details that might allow readers to draw some conclusions.
FROM THE RECORD: http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/
“Santa Rosa mayor and police union spar By KEVIN McCALLUM THE PRESS DEMOCRAT Posted by Ted Appel in Cities on September 15th, 2010
In explaining its decision to back Jake Ours, Scott Bartley and Juan Hernandez for City Council, the police union questioned Gorin’s leadership and Councilwoman Veronica Jacobi’s grasp of economic development issues.
She [Gorin] also sharply criticized the revelation by Ours earlier in the day that the slate of three candidates had met privately with leaders of the city’s police and fire unions and struck an agreement with them to discuss reducing rising pension costs.
Gorin said the agreement, which she has not seen and first heard about at the event, raises numerous questions about government transparency and the independence of elected officials. She said it appears the unions are “making a deal with three council candidates” about the direction of future negotiations before they’re even in office.
@Rick concerning your May 7 post. Your research was incomplete. I voted against the extension of the police contract when the council considered this last year. I am the only currently sitting councilman that did so. My reasons then, and now, are principally that this union is not sharing in the scarifice that others in city employment have made and that their compensation costs continue to rise. The principle argument brought forth by the supporters of this contract extension, that the city would not be required to fill certain positions within the police department, was false. Part of the city/police labor agreement then in force contained a clause that allowed the city not to fill these positions due to economic circumstances. No one argued, then or now, that the current economic circumstance was inapplicable to this clause.
As for pension reform, I will continue to insist upon it. I have consistenly proposed that employee benefits be subject to averaging, have a retirement date similar to the rest of us, a la Social Security, and be limited to base pay. I am hopeful my council colleagues will support my position here.
The following was sent to the City of Santa Rosa:
School crossing guards were eliminated from Santa Rosa Police Department’s budget last year.
Will School Crossing Guards’ budget now be restored? Aren’t those guards great!
Protecting children upon the public ways ought be a high priority for the city counsel, in my opinion.
Yours for keeping kids clear from car crashes
Richard M Canini PE
To contact the Santa Rosa City Council use: ccoffice@srcity.org
“San Francisco’s newly installed top cop, Greg Suhr, is giving up the big sport utility vehicle that past chiefs used and the driver as well.
Suhr is opting to drive a Ford Focus hybrid..
In another downsizing move, Suhr has eliminated the department’s three assistant chief posts and returned the former occupants to the position of deputy chief, at $20,000 apiece less a year.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/07/BAQK1JD2MS.DTL#ixzz1LmGyeY2p .” – Matier & Ross
Jake and Ours would gain credibility if they publicly acknowledged the need to rein in the cost escalators that are causing this problem. They know what the problem is, however politically unpleasant it may for them be to confront it.
The city’s general fund budget will enjoy a 6.4% increase for 2011-12. Yet even with that kind of revenue increase the city is unable to sustain current services. Budget cuts are still needed. Egads folks, the city can’t expect its revenue to jump 6% each year.
What will they do for 2012-13? Pray for a miracle, or another round of money printing by the Fed?
I did some research and learned that the cops are in contract until next year. Like it or not, that’s the truth. They would be foolish in business if they agreed to open their contract early just because it might be the nice thing to do.
I also learned that it was actually Susan Gorin as mayor and her council majority that agreed to all of the recent police contracts. If this retirement stuff was such a big issue, why didn’t she and Wysocky insist on it then? They could’ve taken the coos to binding arbitration while they had the Measure O fiscal crisis in place and they probably would’ve won!
I would hope that Ours, Bartley, Olivares, and Sawyer make good on their promises regarging the cops and firefighters contracts at the first opportunity, which appears to be next year. Until then, I still think it’s more important to have a safe house than one with a pool and a rec center.
While I’m troubled by that Jake and Ours may be in the tank for the public safety unions, that doesn’t mean their decision is wrong.
They are right that the public ranks police and fire as the most important of city services. Protecting them is the first argument made to justify tax increases and the last thing the public wants cut.
Wysocky and others who favor across the board cuts (under the rubric of fairness) are simply pushing their own particular desire that government not be limited to its core functions.
I’m for a recall. Time for someone who will make the tough decisions.
FROM THE RECORD: http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/
“Santa Rosa mayor and police union spar By KEVIN McCALLUM THE PRESS DEMOCRAT Posted by Ted Appel in Cities on September 15th, 2010
In explaining its decision to back Jake Ours, Scott Bartley and Juan Hernandez for City Council, the police union questioned Gorin’s leadership and Councilwoman Veronica Jacobi’s grasp of economic development issues.
She [Gorin] also sharply criticized the revelation by Ours earlier in the day that the slate of three candidates had met privately with leaders of the city’s police and fire unions and struck an agreement with them to discuss reducing rising pension costs.
Gorin said the agreement, which she has not seen and first heard about at the event, raises numerous questions about government transparency and the independence of elected officials. She said it appears the unions are “making a deal with three council candidates” about the direction of future negotiations before they’re even in office.
There’s nothing inappropriate about it, said Brad Conners, vice president of the Santa Rosa Police Officers’ Association.
Jacobi said she’s not surprised she didn’t get the police endorsement, noting that she and Wysocky voted against the one-year extension of the police contract.”
Mr McCallum is doing a good job of informing us, in my opinion.
This is clearly a favor to the fire and police dept for their support of the “business” candidates in the last election, we now know what back room deal was struck.
What I find so disturbing is that these funds are for unfilled positions. That is, someone who is currently employed is going to be laid off, in order to make a position available that may not even be filled.
The amount of time I see the officer’s socializing at the starbucks, I wonder if they are not over staffed as it is.
Mr. Atkins,
I thought this paragraph covered it sufficiently.
“Freshman council members Jake Ours and Scott Bartley, who campaigned last fall on their ability to have “good faith dialogue” with public safety unions over rising pension costs, also expressed support for the changes.”
Kevin McCallum
Press Democrat Staff Writer
Headline should read:
“Santa Rosa continues doing what it has always done.”
So much for the council having the guts to stand up to Police and Fire. Olivares has a conflict of interest and should have bowed out of this debate. Police and Fire employees should feel ashamed. Instead of sharing in the pain, they think they deserve to continue to receive their bloated salaries and let other General Fund employees be laid off instead. Disgusting. Are they going to do their own payroll? Accounting? Road repair? Computer support? I hope so, since at this rate, there won’t be any folks left to do it for them.
Very interesting that the PD doesn’t report on the connection between the last election’s “sweetheart deal” when the police officers met with Jake Ours and Scott Bartley secretly before endorsing (and presumably funding them) and the the current board majority’s adamant stance in favor of the police not sacrificing at all.
Could this be because these “pro business” candidates are friends of the PD editors and advertisers? I know they have no trouble attacking democrat and progressive politicians when they are allegedly “too close to the unions” but why are they giving Ours and Bartley a free pass on this obviously crooked deal?
The Fix is in! The City Council “business” candidates are showing their true colors. Jake Ours and Scott Bartley promised the police associations favors for their endorsement in the city council race last year and they are now making good on their deal. It’s reprehensible and disgusting and I for one am calling the city council 543-3010 and emailing the City Council at:
eolivares@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us
jours@srcity.org
sbartley@srcity.org
to let them know how angry I am that they are willing to close public services and charge for parking at Howarth Park rather than have all departments share the sacrifice of bad economic times. Their backroom deal smelled back then and it smels even more now.
By the way, while Ours and Bartley are cozying up to the Police where are all those JOBS they promised to create? I suggest a new slogan for their re-election campaign:
“Got Dirty Politicians?”
If I need help from the SRPD or the SRFD I would hope that they would be around to help me or my family. If taking $$$ away from them means that it will take an hour to get me the help that I need I say give them the $$$.
To protect and serve…their pay and pensions.
Nice.
This quote has it right:
“I don’t see how this is sustainable,” Wysocky said. “It’s a continued cannibalization of other departments, especially parks and recreation.”