If the opinions expressed by San Carlos residents on Monday night at the City Council meeting were in any way indicative of the feelings of all San Carlans, the city may face a Braveheart-like rebellion by its residents if the fire department and police departments are replaced by less attractive options such as Cal-Fire and the Sheriff’s Department. I was present for the parade of public speakers and I did not hear more than one that was in favor of replacing our police and fire departments with less expensive options.
Residents emphatically rejected the San Carlos city staff proposals which examined the possibilities of closing the budget shortfall of 3.5 million dollars by farming out our fire department to Cal Fire and have our police department be absorbed by the Sheriff’s Department. Here are just a few of the comments and reasons residents gave to the City Council during the public comment session:
* “When your house is on fire, who do you want to come rescue you…….our fire department or a cheaper alternative?”
* “It takes our council 10 years to decide on synthetic turf, and only weeks to consider dumping our fire and police departments.”
* “If you take away these departments now, they will never be coming back.”
* “Our police department took 85 years to build and possibly only a few weeks to dismantle.”
* “Out of all of the city’s recommendations, I never once heard about cutting salaries at city hall.”
A more distant proposal floating around centers around keeping our police and fire departments with minimal changes, and instead making massive cuts to other city departments. If the council decides to go in this direction, San Carlans will experience some “tough love” with regard to city cutbacks, as other city services and parks and recreation take massive budgetary hits.
One thing that everyone can agree on is the fact that the cuts need to happen and they will be severe. The only question remaining centers on the source of the cuts. Clearly, many San Carlans are on edge over those cuts coming in the form of losing their fire and police departments.
An underlying theme which seems to be prevailing in the budget talks centers around the defeat of Measure U. Several speakers made mention of the fact that they voted against Measure U, but had they known of the true ramifications of its defeat, would have changed their vote in a heartbeat. This underlying theme begs the question of whether or not a similar tax measure would now be passed by San Carlos if given a second opportunity. If the “tough love” option is ultimately put into action by the council, look for a successful tax measure in the not too distant future.
I was at Stanford Shopping Center recently making an exchange. I opted to have the replacement shipped to me instead of to the store. As a result, I got some money back, because apparently Palo Alto has a one percent higher sales tax than San Carlos. It doesn’t seem that people are fleeing from shopping in Palo Alto, as Measure U opponents would have people believe. Instead, Palo Alto residents will continue to enjoy far more robust city services than we will.
Bob,
I read your blog often and never comment. I think this article is completely misleading. Just as many people spoke to keep the Youth Center open. Why has that been left out? Is it because you were in favor of closing it for “tough love”?
Hi Steve,
First, thanks for reading the blog. Also, I appreciate the feedback.
I would never disagree that many people spoke about the youth center and the need to keep it open. However, none of those people made the assertion that the Youth Center should be kept open while outsourcing police and fire. My point was that you had an extremely high number of people speak specifically against the outsourcing, and very few, if any speak in favor of it.
Finally, yes, I am in favor of “tough love” and spoke about that at the meeting, not on the blog. When I spoke at the meeting, I spoke on behalf of myself, not the San Carlos Blog. I have always tried to be extremely careful to give an accurate account of the issues in San Carlos and let those from the community comment as they see fit.
Thanks for the post.
Bob Bredel
I watched the council meeting on TV last night and was relieved to see the Council is considering options other than Cal Fire. Looking at combining resources with other cities seems to be a more reasonable option. I believe consolidation will eventually be the future for public safety departments on the peninsula anyway as each city realizes it can no longer support the costs of these departments.
Regarding Measure U, I don’t see myself supporting a sales tax in the future which would go into the black hole of the city coffer. I would be inclined however, to support individual specific taxes when needed. For example, I voted to support the parcel tax for the SCSD because I knew my money wouldn’t be wasted and would go directly to the schools. I would support a property tax for the parks, fire department, police department etc. I believe with these more specific types of taxes, residents could then decide what level of service they wish to have for each and vote accordingly.
I changed my mind about the Youth Center after hearing the comments last night. Originally I was in favor of not cutting the budget for it. Now I believe a change needs to be made there too. The overwhelming majority of the comments seemed to come from children who were concerned they would have no where else to go after school and would roam the streets and not get their homework done. WHAT? My impression is that the Youth Center is also being used as a free after school baby sitting service by middle school parents which is being subsidized by our tax dollars. I like the concept of the Youth Center and do think it is a valuable part of our community’s assets. I have used it upon occasion myself – paid for through the fees charged by the rec dept. However, going forward I think if you use it you pay the real cost for it. The bulk of the budget for the youth center should be from those who use it with only a small percentage coming from the community tax dollars. Same with the Senior Center of course.
I didn’t hear the “opinions expressed by San Carlos residents” as much as I heard an almost obscene number of Police Officer Association (POA) representatives, or similar, opinions expressed. It sure got me thinking about what the real problem is here.
Why didn’t anyone from the fire department show up? Maybe because that union contract is governed by the JPA Board rather than the City Council?
It doesn’t make me wonder so much how we can maintain or increase our level of fire and police service while also saving lots of money if we outsource. I just hope we can start saving this money soon.
I was glad to see the kids out in support of our Youth Center. It gives me hope that there are some smart folks that care about our community – even if they’re not even of voting age. I believe my tax dollars are well spent there because I believe this asset is reflected in my property value.
I think Bob’s posts are fair and informative. I find myself having little knowledge of the city’s budget and could use Bob’s explaining if he’s willing.
In 2000 how much was being spent on our Police Department, how many employees?
In 2000 how much was being spent of the fire departments, how many employees?
Then let’s compare to 2009?
I can tell you we have less employees and more cost. We had 5 fire companies in our JPA in 2000, we now have 4.
State of NeW Jerse) adopted a slew of measures to scale back government worker benifits as politicians from BOTH parties allied to tackle the state’s ballooning public pension costs. See page A8 todays WSJ.
A State public employee union official predictably responded “we will show our anger at the voting booth”.
Of course last time I checked there are still more people working outside government in the private sector than inside the government. Of course the way things are going that may change.
Americans are a generous people but when we feel taken advantage of we will respond. I believe New Jersey’s actions are one of many soon to follow.
What does this have to do with San Carlos?
I submit we are facing the same issues in San Carlos as they do in New Jersey.
How so we pay for government services in a way that is fair to both City employees and City residents.
As we address San Carlos financial issues, adjustments to employee compensation has to be part of the solution. Without addressing city employee compensation, there is no solution to the problem.
For those of you that supported Prop U, do you really believe even if Prop U passed our financial issues would be cured? My sense is looking at the numbers I seems to me Prop U might have closed the budget gap for a year or two at most.
12 months from now when City employees are scheduled for another increase I bet we will be short of money again and be dealing with this issue in 2012.
Any long term solution to City budget issues requires that City employee compensation be adjusted.
While I have grave doubts about much of what the City Manager says, I do agree that whatever solution the community decides on it needs to be more than a band-aid.
Or do people really believe these financial issues are just going to disappear with just one more tax increase?
I’m not so concerned about city employee salaries, but I’m VERY concerned about pensions and other benefits. Pensions have been long gone for the vast majority of private sector employees for as long as I’ve been working, and I truly don’t understand why they remain in tact for public sector employees, especially as the city faces these financial problems.
Bob, do you (or another blog reader) have the facts on just how much of this problem is due to pensions and related benefits, and why these are not on the table in the same way that cutting staff and services are? Maybe I’m just missing it.
Why can’t we pay police and fire and other city officials a fair salary and let them contribute to an IRA or 401K? Is it true that some public sector employees are eligible to retire at full (or almost full) salaries in their 50′s? What about this issue of people working extreme overtime hours in the year(s) just before retirement, in order to increase the base on which their benefits are calculated? It’s shameful.
I’m not anti-police, anti-fire, or anti-government worker. I would just like to have a compensation system that is rational.
Hi Missing Something,
I have the same concerns regarding pension and how much that might be costing the city. I haven’t seen any figures on the actual numbers but I’ve done a little hunting around. There is a budget posted on the Belmont San Carlos fire dept page (http://www.bscfd.org/), but it keeps crashing when I try to get past page one. I’m not even sure if it shows any of this information in detail, but I thought I’d let you know in case you were interested (and it doesn’t crash for you!). I was not able to find anything on the Police dept’s page.
Missing Something, I agree.
Some folks do not understand that asking about compensation packages for City employees is NOT anti-police, anti-fire, or anti-government worker.
I agree. Let’s have a compensation system that’s rational.
I would submit a compensation system that appears to put every city and state on the ropes financially might not just might not be considered rational.
Doug’s comments and questions above are certainly reasonable.
When Doug asks about salaries, I think he really meant to ask about total compensation including salary and benefits.
The actions taken in New Jersey were not salary reductions but benefit reductions.
Note San Carlos is not alone. Click on the link below about our very wealthy neighbor to the south, Palo Alto, and their fire department costs.
Per the article, the PA fire department has already used up all the budgeted overtime for their current fiscal year. The article attributes these OT costs to mandated minimum staffing requirements (that’s cool, I can support that, we need enough firemen to protect our City) and the higher than usual number of fireman on disability – 4 who were hurt in the line of duty, 1 who was hurt skiing, and 1 who was hurt playing basketball.
Now I totally understand and support that any City should maintain the income of any public safety employee hurt in performance of his and her duties. That is a no brainer. Public safety employees put themselves in harm’s way providing a valued service and if they get hurt providing that service, it is only right that the communities they protect take care of them, if and when they are hurt. No doubt!
But should cities pay when these employees are hurt on private time not performing their job related functions? Is that really fair to the community?
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=16218&e=y
Talking about pensions and retirement benefits:
The only retirement funds I have are the ones I paid for myself.
NO ONE ELSE, no company has ever put ANY money into my retirement account.
Not complaining, I am self-employed and I choose to be self-employed.
And like most career paths, there are pros and cons to each path.
If your retirement account is like mine, it is probably down 20% to 25% from the top.
This is money I lost. MY money.
I do not expect anyone else to make up for my loss.
It’s the breaks of the game – win some lose some.
We read everyday how the PERS has lost money and that taxpayers will utlimately have to make up that loss.
Let’s assume 90% work in the private sector, 10% in the government sector. Not sure what the numbers are. Maybe it’s 95/5, don’t know.
So please explain why the following is rational, just or fair?
90% of the population not employed by the government will just have to live with the reduction in their retirement accounts while the other 10% will have their retirement benefits/accounts restored to full health by taking money in the form of additional taxes from the 90% who work in private sector?
I understand this may be a simplication but I believe the gist of my question is appropriate. As a society are we going to have two sets of rules?
Hi Missing Something,
I do have some information for you regarding how much of the budget shortfall is due to pensions/benefits. Basically, if the city were to break the contracts or renegotiate the contracts concerning the pensions/benefits, the savings would be anywhere from 200K-400K. In any event, the city would still need to find a way to cut in excess of $3,000,000 from the budget.
Thanks for the post.
Bob Bredel
200K~400K isn’t a bad start at all …
GG,
All savings would be lost in the major lawsuit that would be filed. Once pensions are given they are considered vested rights. The major impacts come from 2004-2005 when employees were given enhanced benefits retoractively. You could have worked 25 yrs for one set of pension benefits, and with 5 yrs to go before you retired you were given a bump, not for the last 5 but for every year you worked. Only one of our current city councilman was on the council when these were granted, ironically he is the one who rants and raves about benefits and salaries. The Mayor spoke about this at his state of the city address which I wathced on the city website. Those enhanced benefits (which apply mainly to employees who are retired now) cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Bob,
From reading the posts above, it looks like your readers have come up with a potential proposal for moving toward closing the shortfall and restoring longer-term financial stability for the city. A combo of:
* Renegotiating pension & benefit contracts with city employees;
* Fee-based model for the Youth and Senior centers;
* A sales-tax increase (or some other revenue-generator such as a bond) that is targeted at priority programs;
* and a few other innovative ideas.
I will throw out a few more ideas:
* Some sort of fee related to police calls. I read in the police department report that the vast majority of calls are related to evenings at local bars. I get fined every time my home alarm goes off AND I have to pay an annual permit fee to the city for HAVING an alarm — I actually pay this twice, once for my home and once for my home-based business — even though it’s the same alarm. Seems like imposing something similar on other establishments that end up using more police services makes some sense.
* Something related to the airport? This is really an uneducated stab in the dark, but given that the airport creates noise and pollution, and takes up a HUGE amount of valuable San Carlos property, I hope that it and its users are paying their fair share.
* Longer term, success in some of the revenue-building ideas, such as a hotel or two, would go a long way in bringing in new revenue.
That’s all I’ve got for now. I feel for those on the City Council; these challenges are not easily solved!
Lots of good comments.
Despite our differences which often can get heated, it is clear to me that the residents of San Carlos care about their community.
We love San Carlos. It has been home to my family for 24 years.
And I keep thinking that if we work together and we all give a little, we can make this work.
I often write of events around the country because San Carlos is not the only City facing these very tough issues. And I think understanding what is happening in other areas, in other communities, helps me put our local issues in perspective.
Here is a link to a blog post by a Phoenix Real Estate agent who lives in Gilbert.
http://www.phoenixrealestateguy.com/gilberts-prop-406-its-getting-a-little-testy/
Glibert too is having a heated discussion about police and fire services and there is a ballot issue in their city in May increasing the sales tax from 1.5% to 1.75% to pay for police and fire services.
As an aside, I can almost guarrantee you if Prop U increased the sales tax rate from 1.5% to 2% it would pass hands down. Why do we pay 9%? Or is it 9.5%? That’s a rhetorical question, everyone.
Jay who wrote the post commented about how Gilbert formed a Citizen Committee to discuss these budget issues but wonders did the City Council even listen?
DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?
I think Allison has some good ideas.
Having residents and property owners pay for certain police and fire calls is an issue worth exploring. One time several years ago, a situation developed at my house where I dialed 911. The San Carlos Police arrived promptly, handled a potentially explosive situation professionally, and no one was hurt. I feel it would have been reasonable for me to pay for the cost of that 911 call. And so, yes maybe certain property or business owners where police presence is required far too often maybe should be charged some of these costs. Seems fair to me.
I think Allison is also right, we need to create longer term higher revenue streams for the City. Clearly existing revenue streams are not keeping up with the increasing costs so either we cut costs or the current residents pay more in taxes. Car dealerships bring in lots of sales tax. Hotels bring in occupancy taxes. But of course this comes with a cost. Our city becomes more highly developed.
Bob – I do have a question about the $200K to $400K cost for employee pension and benefit costs you mentioned.
Is that the annual cost to provide retirement and other benefits like health insurance for current City employees?
Or is it the cost to provide retirement and other benefits to FORMER City employees only?
Or it it the annual cost to provide retirement and other benefits to current and FORMER city employees?
Knowing the cost of health insurance, I don’t see how $200,000 would cover even health insurance for current employees.
I pay over $4,000 a year to Blue Shield just for myself and that’s for a policy with a high deductible.
Assuming San Carlos has just 20 retired employees collecting pension benefits currently, $200,000 is only $10,000 a year for each retired employee.
So I am confused. And I know many would say I am way more than confused.
So what does that number actually represent more precisely?
Garbage Collection Bi-weekly? ..
I think we all can come up with a lot of cost saving measures, as some of us not so lucky to have these nice pensions negotiated some time back have had to make hard choices over the last few years… if each time a suggestion is made, the response is “It only save so much” then we won’t make much progress.
Little increases over the years are what got us into this mess… Little cuts are the one that will get us back to normal…
Here’s a letter I’ve sent to the city:
I really believe having our own police department allows us to set the norms for what we consider to be acceptable in our town. As soon as we become an adjunct to, say, Redwood City, we lose the ability to set those norms. It seems obvious too that regardless of assurances the new police service provider that imbalances in caseloads will infect the quality of care we’d receive. That is, it seems obvious that keeping our allocated manpower focused in San Carlos would be in practice unlikely with more severe crimes in other areas our police serve.
If sharing with RC is a possibility, I also have troubled thoughts about the RC police after the ‘Fair Oaks DUI checkpoint debacle’.
If you weren’t aware of this, a quick summary is here:
http://blog.orangecountycriminalattorney.net/2009/09/dui-checkpoint-shutdown-irks-rank-and-file-officers.html
My take: Mrs. Pierce’s politics led her to interfere with the police protecting the town – and worse, that the police complied immediately. I do not want city council people – especially from other cities – to control what police acting in San Carlos do, particularly when it seems to be so effortless for them to do so. I want crime to be stopped, not just when stopping it is politically advantageous or comfortable. I want criminals to think – as they do now IMO – that San Carlos is a place they want to avoid. I don’t think they think that about Redwood City.
Some interesting new items today in SF Chron and WSJ.
SF Chron reports 2.5% in CA personal income. Biggest drop since Depression. Note his statistic includes unemployemnt benefits as income. With 10% unemployment rate ione can believe total paid in unempl benefits this year to be huge. Taking out that money personal income drop is probably closer to 3% or 4%.
So clearly people in CA are hurting.
Has ANY city employee taken an actual salary reduction in the past two years?
Does anyone else see a problem here?
WSJ states “America’s most privildged class are public union workers”.
Article goes in to state that poublic employees total compensation on average 45% greater than private employees.
One can argue the jobs are different but at least this data should give one pause to consider the mantra of underpaid civil servants is no more than a MYTH.
WSJ estimates that if public employees were paid the same as private employees, local communities and states would save $339 Billion per year MORE THAN enough to eliminate ALL defefits for EVERY state in the Nation.
Does everybody get that?
Pay gap between public and private workers is HIGHEST in states that have the biggest budget defecit.
Anybody see a connection?
3000 teachers in CA who retired as early as age 55 collect over a $100000 a year in pensions for the rest of their lives.
Some in San Carlos will argue that our City employees are underpaid.
I don’t believe that. I believe San Carlos employees are well paid with excellent benefits. I don’t believe any SC employess have take pay cuts like Millions of other Califorians.
If in fact SC employees were underpaid why has so few left for better higher poaying jobs. This whole notion that City employees are working on the cheap is in my opinion just a manipulative attempt to lay a guilt trip on SC residents.
Since 4 straight tax increases have been voted down in San Carlos I suspect the majority of San Carlos residents intuitively understand this. Maybe they have been paid off. Maybe they have had to take pay cuts of 10% to 20% to keep their jobs.
I believe Pres Obama said something like a recession is a terrible opportunity to miss. I agree.
When things were booming no one looked at the true cost.
Americans can see that the economic pain has not been shared equally. They clearly see most poublic employees have fared far better than private employees the past 3 or 4 years.
The City Council and City mananger seem hell bent on outsourcing. I think this will be a disaster. Maybe all City empployees should take a good hard look at reality. Is City employees lose their jobs to outsourcing do they really think t
hey can find better paying jobs elsewhere? I DOUBT IT
.
Even with 5% salary reductions I submit City employees would be better off staying with the City. Do you think every unemployeed person would be estaic about getting their jobs back at 95% of previous pay? I KNOW They would. What do you think the NUMMI plant workers would say to that offer?
I think we all know the answer.
In my opinion San Carlos residents pay plenty in taxes.
And I believe the majority are done with letting taxes take more and more of their money while their incomes go down.
I think the solution is obvious.
If City employees don’t come up with a way to balance the budget without new or additional taxes, many jobs will be lost to outsourcing.
I want City employees to act in their best interests. Sometimes taking less to preserve one’s self financially is a good decision.
I believe the majority understand things are out of balance.
And the gig is up.
Matt Walsh,
I hope you sent your letter to the City Council. Sending it to the City Manager does not mean the Council will ever hear about it.
Allison,
Thank you for your post. I would have more sympathy for the Council if more of the members would take time to really consider all the possible solutions instead of acting like they work for the City Manager instead of the other way around. The City Manager comes up with two very unattractive plans and three of the five Councilmen act like they have to pick one or the other. On top of that, they choose the one that the citizens have just spent hours opposing.
In addition to looking at ways of solving the immediate crisis, we need to look at the longer term impacts. When most private companies move away from a fixed pension to a 401k type of retirement fund, workers at a pre-determined level of service are grandfathered into the older system. Accordingly, the immediate savings is less significant when compared to the longer term. So even if the immediate problem can be resolved without changing the existing pension system, if the city doesn’t take steps to change the existing pension system now, we’ve just bought a few more years before the problem resurfaces, as opposed to addressing the longer term budgetary issue.
Alan
Good point.
We need to move from defined BENEFIT to defined CONTRIBUTION plans.
That way taxpayers are not on the hook for decisions made by CalPERS execitives for example.
Hi,
Everyone had great comments above and also great suggestions. It seems as though residents in San Carlos are brainstorming to save Fire, Police, Parks, and the Youth Center much more than the city council members. I feel like if we outsource everything that the city will lose a sense of community and it’s more of a short-term solution. I grew up in San Carlos and moved to Belmont just a few years ago, but hope to return someday soon. About 4 years ago the Belmont residents passed an annual tax measure of $71 to support Fire. Although I think this could potentially be a good idea for San Carlos, I don’t think it would pass based on how difficult it was to pass the last school tax measure. I asked a friend of mine who worked at city hall for years if it was conceivable to put Measure U back on the ballot and she said that special ballots are incredibly expensive. She also said that she has known about the budget crisis in San Carlos for some time now…way before Measure U was voted on. I wonder why Measure U wasn’t put on the ballot sooner so then if it didn’t pass (which inevitably ended up happening) city council would have more time to review other options. Are they even listening to other options other than outsourcing at this point? They seem pretty headstrong on the idea.
I’m definitely no politician, but want what’s best for SC. I hope city council has read the great letter that Matt sent and tries to come up with other ideas. Or, maybe outsourcing is just a quick and easy fix for now and they will leave the pieces to be picked up by the next-term council members.
BTW, Bob I love your blog. It’s a great resource for people who want to know what’s going on in San Carlos.
Hi JM,
Thanks for your post, and thanks for your comments regarding the blog.
Bob
JM,
Unfortunately, it looks like outsourcing is our fate. Randy Royce told the Chamber of Commerce this morning that consolidation with another city isn’t an option because it doesn’t save enough money, we have to outsource. Andy Klein has said the same thing publicly. They only need one more vote to pass this any time they see fit. Omar won’t say what he thinks, but I’ll be amazed if he doesn’t vote for outsourcing ASAP. That three votes and it doesn’t matter what the citizens of SC think about it.
Four years ago when both SC and Belmont tried to pass revenue measures specifically for fire, both measures failed. That’s when Belmont requested a renegotiation of the funding formula that Andy’s so incensed about.
It is too late to put anything on the June ballot. SC could put a general revenue measure, which only requires a majority to pass, on the Nov ballot, but only with a unanimous vote of the City Council. They tried that the year before Measue “U,” but Matt voted against it. That’s why they had to wait until ’09 when there was a municipal election on the same ballot.
A tax specifically for public safety could go on the Nov ballot without a unanimous vote of the Council but would require a 2/3 vote to pass. So, unless Matt changes his mind, we’re really in a jam. More and more people who voted against “U” are saying they would consider voting yes if given another chance. We just need several thousand of them to commit to a yes vote to convince the Council to try again. It’s a mess, and I’m afraid the Council will act before we can do anything about it. At least two of them are in a real hurry.
Does anyone know what is going on behind the scenes at City Hall?
Is the City Council discussing employee compensation with any City employees and/or their respective unions?
I know people often attack the messenger when confronted with facts and data they do not like.
Since Jan 1 2008
The total number of public government sector jobs has INCREASED 119,000.
The total number of private sector jobs has DECREASED 8.32 MILLION.
Do ANYONE see a connection to the budget issues every level of government is facing?
Let’s see we have far fewer private sector workers and we have basically the same number of government workers
I know my opinion that City employees need to reduce their compensation packages is not a popular one.
But I believe a significant number of San Carlos residents feel the same way I do. Now whether you agree with me or not, the truth is unless the “let’s raise taxes” supporters who believe City compensation packages are off the table in any attempt to balance the City budget address the concerns many San Carlos residents have, I do not believe there will be majority support for additional tax increases.
There are many who are done with ever increasing taxes and continued escalation of City employee compensation packages. Federal tax rates are going up. State taxes too now that the new health care shifts additional burdens onto every state.
I believe to the degree City employees indicate their willingness to work on the expense side of the budget issue, City council members will be more willing to look at other options. City residents are paying attention. Many will continue to vote NO on any tax increases until they see ACTUAL reductions in expenses and personnel costs.
Now others can attack my position but attacking my position will not change the minds of the MANY San Carlos residents who feel as I do.
Addressing these concerns in a CONCRETE manner will do much more to move people in the direction of supporting tax increases.
Just my opinion.
The truth is what happens is more important to City employees is more important to them than to me and others who are tired of being asked continuously to pay more and more in taxes. I believe we will be fine either way – out-source or no out-source.
Oh Arn, not again.
We don’t have 119,000 city employees. The number of city employees has decreased every year for at least 5 years. We do not have nearly the number of City employees we had in 2008, and we’re cutting more July 1. We are also cutting services July 1.
I wish you knew what’s going on at City Hall and what has been going on for the past 5 years. Let’s look at the pay cuts taken by staff last year before we cut their pay again this year.
You correctly talk about how you and others feel about these issues. I wish you would think about the issues instead of making decisions based on feelings. Your “facts” are not based on the reality here in San Carlos, so you have not credibility in my book.
I guess whether you’ll be “fine” not matter what happens depends on your definition of “fine.” As the town deteriorates and becomes less attractive and your property values drop, as well as the value of the properties you sell in San Carlos, you may not feel “fine.”
Mayor Royce is in the Chronicle this morning, on the back page of the “Insight” section, dressed up as the Easter Bunny.
Here’s the link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/04/EDMEYER.DTL
Pat B
I will provide factual data specifically related to San Carlos supporting my position when I have the time.
Despite “all the cuts” you suggest have been made by the City, San Carlos has had a budget defecit for the past 12 years. Yes, the number of City employees has been reduced over the years but that has not solved the defecit issue.
Please understand City revenue has NOT been FLAT over these past 12 years.
In fact, City revenue has grown at a very healthy rate over the past 15 years.
Again, I will dig out the data and post for your review in another comment.
In reviewing City documents posted on the City web site, I did see mention of salary FREEZES but not actual salary cuts. If you know of a City employee who has had their salary reduced, please let me know. I will review budget document again.
In terms of being “fine”, let me say the following:
Yes, outsourcing will result in a lower level of service to San Carlos.
But many in San Carlos may “feel” that saving $3Million a year is worth a drop in service.
As with most things, people tend to overstate their position.
So I believe that the drop in City services from out-sourcing will not be as “great” as indicated by current City employees and organzations. Clearly, it is in their interest to overstate the problem. And to be fair, I believe the beneficiaries of out-sourcing say the County Sheriff and say Cal Fire overstate the level of service they will provide.
Does this make sense?
So I believe the “drop” in services from out-source will not be as LARGE as indicated by current City employees NOR as SMALL as indicated by the County Sheriff and Cal Fire. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Does this make sense?
And in my mind, it is certain a reasonable question to consider:
Are the financial benefits of out-source worth the drop in service?
I can see reasonable people coming down on both sides of this issue.
As a real estate broker since 1978, I think I can speak with some expertise on the real estate market.
Yes, the level of City services and the quality of each community’s school district effect property values.
But there are many other factors which also effect property values.
Interest rates have a BIG BIG impact on property values.
The economy has a BIG BIG impact on property values.
As you may recall, I am very concerned about the recent massive increase in government spending which has resulted in a large increase in both national and state debt. All of this will lead to an increase in taxes which will SLOW any economic recovery. The massive increase in government borrowing will also lead to higher interest rates.
So if interest rates increase and/or the economy fails to recover, property values will go down. A healthy booming Silicon Valley economy is what drove property values on the Peninsula up. Low interest rates have helped support our local market. Both of these factors are threatened massive government borrowing resulting from a large increase in spending.
To be honest, I am more concerned about the economic health of our nation long-term than I am the value of my home. I understand that long-term the value of my home is tied to the overall economic health of our region and nation.
Many think tying property values to tax increases is a winning strategy to move folks towards supporting tax increases. I think many folks see this for what it is.
I will provide City budget data in another comment.
Pat B, is there anything you would do to solve San Carlos budget issues LONG TERM other than increasing taxes? Any OTHER ideas?
In my mind, we need to have a fundamental shift in thinking – a paradigm shift if you will – about government finance – clearly the path we have been on is not working and it won’t get better in the future, it will get worse.
Arn,
Fortunately, many prominent economists disagree with your prognosis for the U.S. economy. I’ll stick with them while you wring your hands.
Interest rates, etc. certainly affect the real estate market, but they are not specific to San Carlo. If San Carlos is run down and less safe won’t people be more likely to buy elsewhere?
Some of us are actively trying to help solve the problem, not just ranting about how everyone else is wrong. We’re not surprised by this problem, we’ve been involved and paying attention all along. A group of us sent a letter to the Council last week asking them to consider a combination of solutions and urging them to take time to carefully weigh all alternatives before making an irrevocable move. We have requested an independent assessment of the entire operation of our City and how best to organize it efficiently. We also asked for less finger-pointing and more cooperation. What have you done to help?
If the Mayor has his way, none of that will matter. He says outsourcing is the only solution.
Wow,
Things are getting heated.
Where is our hero Matt Grocott? He was instrumental in getting us into this mess. What is his solution?
Matt Grocott – what ideas do you have to offer?
Matt Grocott how are we going to balance the budget?
Come on Matt, what ideas do you have to offer?
You opposed raising revenues Matt Grocott; how should this budget be balanced?
You’ve been awfully quite Matt Grocott – are you waiting for us to go the route of Vallejo so you can buy in?
Where is Matt Grocott? What are his ideas? Does he have any?
Scott
Pat B
My only comment about the economy was that higher taxes typically IMPEDE economic growth. Do “your” prominent economists really believe that higher taxes PROMOTE economic growth? I doubt it.
I am in FULL support of your letter to the City Council requesting “them to consider a combination of solutions and urging them to take time to carefully weigh all alternatives before making an irrevocable move.”
I assume you agree that “ALL alternatives and a combination of solutions” would include consideration of a reduction in salary and total compensation packages to existing City employees?
Do you agree?
Or is a reduction in salary and total compensation to existing City employees OFF LIMITS and not one of the OPTIONS to consider?
Based ony your comments to date, I doubt this is an option you want the City Council to consider, though I may be wrong.
My contribution to the budget issue is to keep bringing attention to the FACT the despite healthy increases to City revenues over the past 10 or 15 years, the City keeps spending more than available revenues. The large majority of City expense is for personnel. It appears that many City employees have continued to receive salary increases over the past few years despite unprecendented economic and financial upheaval.
I would be happy to contribute and participate in any community group looking to solve this budget issue long-term provided reductions in spending are given eqaul weight to increasing taxes.
Pat B – Nothing you have ever wrote indicates to me you have any interest in reducing City expenses.
Your position is:
We must maintain and/or increase salary and total compensation packages for City employees regardless of what additional or higher taxes are needed. If you support any reduction in City expenses, it is only in departments that make up only 40% of the total City expense.
My position is that to maintain our current City structure, spending cuts must be made across ALL departments.
Can you please clarify your position specifically?
Where do you suggest City cut costs – specifically?
Or do you only support tax increases to balance the City budget?
Pat B
Did you see front page of SF Chron today?
“National debt on course for crisis”
“Obama budget piles on $10 TRILLION in next decade”
“Congressional Budget office indicates national debt is 63% of GDP right now and can reach 90%”.
Do YOUR prominent economists indicate that this is NOT a problem for our future economic growth?
What do your so-called experts say?
Please note that professors from Harvard and Maryland prepared the report the story is based on.
I guess from your perspective as long as we keep raising taxes it doesn’t matter how much money we spend. Is that right?
Good for you Arn. Just finished the article in today’s Chronicle. I believe what these economists have to say is extremely relevent to our future way of life, which will impact every City directly.
I will never vote for a tax increase unless there are cuts made across the board including a revision of the pension structure.
I mentioned in an earlier blog that my husband’s Company cut salaries 20% across the board last year. The employees were all thank-ful for their jobs, and realize in better times salaries can be adjusted because their salaries were just adjusted again with an 8% increase, due to increased sales. Whatever is taken away can be given back in better times.
Anyone that wants tax increases without revising compensation packages and salaries, can go ahead and give money voluntarily to our wonderful City.
Remember, we pay for our own broken sidewalks and tree maintenance in front of our own homes, which is very costly.
My guess is we are so divided about this that outsourcing will eventually happen.
Arn,
I was going to respond but decided against it. You’re cranking up your nasty, ad hominem attacks again, so I’ll pass.
Hey Arn,
Remind me why your vote for Matt Grocott was a good vote. What, in your mind, has he done that has been positive for our city?
Have you heard him formulate a cogent, complete plan that balances our city’s budget?
And Arn, have you done the math – have you added up revenues, expenditures, and proposed cuts to see where that gets us; leaves us? City expenses won’t go just up the fume hood like your concoctions at U of M.
Debbie, what do you think are worthwhile expenditures of tax dollars? What are you willing to live without – after we cut the benefits that you feel are not due the city employees. What other cuts do you propose? What are you willing to pay for? (And have you forgiven your husband for coming home with 20% less?)
I’m sincerely interested in knowing what people are willing to give up – and I’m sincerely interested in knowing what it is that people know, that I don’t know, that make it so easy for them to so easily propose solutions.
Help me, please!
Scott
Scott,
I have the same questions. I keep asking what departments are overstaffed. I can’t find it, unless we drastically cut services. The City is a service business serving 30,000+ customers with about 100 employees. They are not selling a product, and service is labor intensive.
Even if some residents don’t care about reduced public safety, such a reduction will affect property values. Many people would rather live in a city with top-notch public safety, well maintained parks, recreation programs, great schools, etc. than one that doesn’t have those things.
The article in the Chron yesterday says the public hysteria is part of the problem. I agree. Wringing one’s hands doesn’t accomplish anything. We have to be willing to negotiate a compromise.
Par B
Yesterday you wrote any and all options should be considered.
Today you say we need to compromise.
I ask you again.
Is a reduction to City employee compensation packages one of the options to be considered?
Can reductions be part of the compromise?
Because if in fact compensation reductions is not on the table then it appears only the taxpayers are the ones you expect to compromise.
Under your scenario how will City employees join the compromise?
It is NOT a one way street.
I have been following the SC City Budget meeting/process closely. I agree that we really need a paradigm shift and that another small tax increase here and a small (many times temporary) city employee wage/salary concession will not fix the longterm structural budget issues (and likely not even the short term).
So I am in favor of:
1) outsourcing or regionalizing the police, fire, and Park/Rec Services. The council/staff should study up to three proposals and pick whichever one seems best (service & cost). This is the way of the future I believe and I don’t think it takes anything away from our San Carlos city feeling. Fire is already regionalized with Belmont (just not efficiently cost wise). Clearly, the total cost of our current systems is too high (since it was reported that comparable police services were significantly less ~50% less than what we are paying now for police). Typically economies of scale might save 5-10% on established systems. 50% less cost for the same level of service, likely using the same personnel, means our current cost system/compensation is way too costly and inefficient.
2) AND I think we also should review and likely reduce the overall city employee total compensation (salary, benefits, pensions,…) across the board (management, police,…)
– Specifically, we should strongly consider freezing out the current pension systems with whatever benefits are earned and go to a defined contribution or 401K type system for the future for all employees (even current ones). We cannot afford to have someone to be able to retire @ 52-55yrs old with a 100% salary pension (using their highest year compensation including overtime pay, vacation/sick leave cashouts, inflation adjusted over time and pay their retirement medical expenses for the rest of their lives which could be another 25+ years on average. I don’t know the exact details of our SC pension system, but these are the types of info I have heard in various public sector jobs lately). Pension systems in the private sector have almost all gone away because they are not sustainable especially with increases in lifespans.
I have asked the city council and staff for the exact details on the total compensation (salary, overtime, benefits,… pension details) of all city employees (staff, police,…) and then we can all compare them to our own salary/benefits and decide how we feel about whether we believe they should be reduced. Does anyone have that information? I have seen it for some of the SC city staff (except police or JPA fire) and have not been able to get the exact details on their pension systems. If you think the city employees compensation/benefits should be examined, then you should also ask the city for that information also. If enough of us ask for it, maybe we can actually get it and then each of us can make our decisions based upon the compensations facts and not just speculations and emotions.
KS
I think you present a very reasoned balanced perspective on current San Carlos budget issues.
And you may very well be right, that given the cost of City services, it may no longer be practical for small cities like San Carlos to maintain independent public safety departments.
We can go round and round debating what is fair compensation for our City employees.
But let’s take a moment and consider the following FACTS:
Median HOUSEHOLD INCOME in San Carlos as of the latest data 2006 is $88,460.
Now Median HOUSEHOLD income may have increased since 2006 but given a 12% umemployment rate in CA, countless layoffs by Silicon Valley companies, and reduced compensation for many San Carlos residents that work in private industry, I doubt that number has increased significantly.
So for the sake of discussion, let’s say Median San Carlos Household income is now $90,000. (If it is $95,000 or even a $100,000, it does not change the argument I am going to make).
City webite data indicates that approx. 40% of ALL San Carlos City employees make over $100,000 PLUS benefits.
Now the two numbers (Median Household Income and Individual Compensation Amounts) are not apples to apples.
Median household income includes senior San Carlos residents who have retired and are not at their peak earning years.
BUT, most San Carlos families I know are 2 income families.
So the median HOUSEHOLD income amount reflects TOTAL household income typically produced by 2 adults. Following me?
The San Carlos salary figure is the income for ONE INDIVIDUAL.
So, let’s stop and think about it. Really think about it.
So 40% of San Carlos City employees earn MORE individually than the median HOUSEHOLD income in San Carlos.
I don’t have the data but I bet it would be fairly accurate to say 50% of San Carlos City employees make at least the San Carlos median HOUSEHOLD income of $90,000. (Again, if the actual number is 45%, it does not change my argument)
Let’s also remember in general the retirement and benefit packages for City employees are better than those available to other San Carlos residents who work in the private sector.
If a City employee has a spouse that works outside the home, I believe it would be safe to assume maybe 75% of these City employee families make more than the San Carlos median income. 50% already do so by themselves.
So I think it is safe to say that City employees AT THE WORST have incomes that are CONSISTENT and in the same ballpark as the incomes of other San Carlos residents – meaning San Carlos City employees have AT LEAST the same income levels and lifestyles as do non-City San Carlos residents and BETTER retirement and benefit packages.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with this.
But it certainly does call into question, assertions made by representatives of City employees that they are underpaid and that it would be unfair to City employees for City residents to refuse to pay additional taxes.
Now if the average San Carlos household had an income of $250,000 and we paid City employees $50,000 per year on average, then City employees could rightfully assert they are underpaid.
BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
Income levels for City employees are VERY SIMILAR to income levels of all other San Carlos residents.
San Carlos is a great place to live and WORK.
In general, I would say San Carlos City employees have fared better financially than many San Carlos residents over the past few years.
So it should come as NO suprise that many San Carlos residents are not in the mood to pay additional or increased taxes to maintain and/or increase City employee compensation when City employees are already making as much if not more than many San Carlos residents.
KS,
I applaud your desire to base your decision on the facts in San Carlos. It may take awhile to assemble the information you have requested; it’s complicated. The compensation package is negotiated with each union, and people who have been hired since the benefits packages were reduced get less than the people who were here when the packages were increased during the boom times.
I believe it is illegal to reduce the benefit package for current employees, and I think San Carlos has already rolled back rates for all new employees. I know that with the reorganization of the fire department 4 years ago their retirement was rolled back for new employees. I think if it were legal/feasible to just get out of CALPERS, some cities and/or the State, would have done so by now.
The proposal from the Sheriff does not provide the same level of service we have now, so we don’t yet know what, if any, savings would be realized by outsourcing for the total package. That is even more true of the proposal from CalFire.
This whole problem is a moving target. The City has not yet negotiated with all the unions to see if they are willing to take reductions (last I heard they hadn’t even sat down with the police), the Sheriff is preparing an updated proposal with more services included, Redwood City is supposedly preparing a proposal for consolidation, and San Mateo is considering doing the same.
At the same time, the Mayor and Andy Klein have said publicly that outsourcing is the only answer, which may affect any offers from other cities. Redwood City has made it clear that they do not want to put a lot of time into a proposal only to find that they wasted their time. San Mateo has indicated the same is true for them.
Perhaps they are watching what’s going on here as well and don’t believe that all possibilities will actually be considered.
Pat B,
The city council will have to review and seriously consider any reasonable police and fire proposal responses they receive from outside agencies whether it is an outsourcing option or a regionalization proposal from a neighboring city. The reason is because it all becomes public information, so the public can weigh in if they are not considered. So if any of these other organizations (RC,…) are serious, then they should get their proposals in. Hopefully the are, because just like hiring anyone (like a contractor for your house), it is better to get ~ 3 bids to compare against each other. BTW, top level pros and cons about these (RC, Belmont, Foster City,…) regionalization options were briefly discussed at the last CC meeting, but the bottom line is that they cannot be considered until there is a proposal response.
To me, the city council is being systematic in their approach to the budget deficit in that they are looking at the biggest expenditures first (public safety is ~ 60% of budget), since those are the places that can have the potential to save the biggest amount of money. City employee wages and benefits negotiations have started, but we don’t hear much about that.
Regarding the city employee compensation and benefits data. It should not take someone with access to the information very long to get this. Here is the total compensation of the PA city employees (http://www.paloaltoonline.com/media/reports/1269449374.pdf). We should have this data for SC city employees and then be able to compare the total compensation earned to the salary of a comparable job function in the private sector (but we also need the benefit info also).
Anyone familiar with the pension system can summarize the main points of the defined benefit structure (formula usually based upon # of years, top year compensation or avg of last 5 years (does this include overtime or cashout pay), is it reduced for early retirement before 65 yrs old, is it increased with inflation,…) fairly easily. But so far I don’t think the city wants the public to know this information for fear that the public would be shocked. I understand that you cannot change the benefits already earned, but I cannot see how it would be against the law in the negotiations with the unions to request or require that the pension system be frozen and either modified going forward or eliminated in favor of a defined contribution/401K type. (and I don’t mean just for new employees, but current employees benefits going forward). This has happened across the board in the private sector. I used to have a pension (Aerospace industry and not nearly as great as the public sector — maxed out around 35 % of total salary after 35 yrs employment and reduced significantly if you starting collecting benefit before 65 yrs old), and the company closed it out for current employees for a 401k self managed program. These defined contribution systems are also the way of the future, in that people can be responsible for their own retirement planning and companies or government agencies do not have this potential huge payment obligation that future generations of workers have to pay for (and have to feed a big monster of a pension account whenever the stock market goes down).
PS BTW Look at the some of the top PA city employees (in the lin) in compensation (many are paid quite a bit), but also some of them are earning 100-200% in addition to their salaries for overtime, vacation/sick leave cash out,… These are the type of things that are driving taxpayers in the private sector crazy. And then on top of that if their pensions are based upon their top earning year (which is now 300% of their regular ~ market rate salary) they get that much inflated pension money every year for the next 25 years in retirement. CRAZY and not sustainable.
Here’s a rule of thumb. Governments will spend every penny you give them. And overspend every penny they can find a way to overspend. They don’t spend what they *should* spend, they spend what they *can* spend. You should never trust them to be fiscally responsible, because they never are. This is one of the few cases when ‘never say never’ doesn’t apply. It is your responsibility to fight them for every penny they want to take. The US, CA and SC governments are all perfect examples. It seems clear that SC was overly lavish in its pay and pension packages when it had money. Did it look ahead and plan for a rainy day? Of course not. Governments never do that. Now that there is no money to spend, is the answer to spend less? Or to fight CA for the taxes it seizes? Or renegotiate contracts? Or cut pay packages? No, those things are complicated and hard and painful. It somehow is more noble and correct to instead preserve the political status quo and squeeze the townfolk with higher taxes and/or reduced services.
Matt,
Thank you for a very simplistic, knee-jerk assessment of the situation.
Matt
Your comments are spot on.
To support your statement, readers can go to the following link to the City website.
http://www.cityofsancarlos.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5324
The last 4 or 5 pages have some cool charts and graphs that show how City general fund revenues have increased over the years.
To summarize the data:
San Carlos general fund revenues were approx. $11M in 1993.
San Carlos general funds revenues were approx. $25M in 2008.
That’s a 127% increase in 15 years.
That’s a 5.63% per annum increase over the past 15 years.
San Carlos general fund revenues were approx. $18M in 2004.
San Carlos general fund revenues were approx. $25M in 2008.
That’s 39% increase in 4 years.
That’s an 8.60% per annum increase over the past 4 years.
Revenues are projected to be $24.4M in 2008/2009.
Revenues have been adopted at $23.9M for 2009/2010.
(Projected and adopted are the words used in the report)
Now I am not a prominent economist and I do not know any prominent economists but I would say that is a pretty healthy revenue growth.
What does everyone else think?
So projected revenues for this year are about $1M less than the MAXIMUM REVENUE EVER COLLECTED by the City of San Carlos and we have a $3M defecit.
Let me ask everyone, if your income increased 127% over the past 15 years and you still spent more money than you made, would you say you need to make more money or you need to spend less?
It is true that the City has reduced expenses in some departments over the past 5 years.
This data can be found at:
http://www.cityofsancarlos.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6017
Over the past 5 years, City spending on various departments is as follows:
Administration reduced 27.2%
Park and Rec reduced 12.6%
Public Works reduced 8.8%
Fire increased 30.0%.
Police increased 21.2%
In 2006, police and fire was 51% of the total City general fund budget and $1M LESS than property and sales tax revenue which was approx. $14M.
Currently, police and fire is 60% of the total City general fund budget and $3M MORE than property and sales tax revenue which is approx. $13.9M.
So property tax and sales tax revenue has remained constant but expenses have increased by approx. $4M.
In round numbers, let’s say overall public safety costs have increased 5% per year. (that’s about the average increase for the past 5 years).
Let’s assume this 5% increase is needed every year to maintain high quality public safety like we have currently have and to maintain existing public safety salary and compensation packages with scheduled increases.
Let’s assume as a community we decide that it is in our best interests to maintain the status quo, let’s look at how that will effect the City budget moving forward.
Public safety currently takes 60% of the San Carlos City spending.
To maintain a 5% annual increase in our public safety departments, total City revenue will need to increase at least 3% per year.
So if City revenue increases 3% every year, we will be able to increase spending on public safety at a rate of 5% per year.
But there will be no money left over to do anything else.
All the increased revenue will go to public safety.
No money to increased compensation for non-public safety employees.
No money to provide other services.
No money to catch up on some deferred maintenance that may have occured as the City cut spending in other areas.
So the reality is, given the status quo and current compensation packages, City revenue will need to increase 6% to 7% per year to “stay even”.
After all, it has increased 5.63% over the past 15 years and the City is still short money.
And as Matt suggests no matter how much revenue increases, I believe the City will still find a way to spend every penny.
So now the question is: how likely is it that City revenue will increase 6% or 7% per year “naturally” – by “naturally” I mean where revenues grow because the private sector grows – unemployment rates drops, personal incomes rise, consumer spending increases, property values increase, etc. so that revenues will rise without any additional taxes.
How likely is it that we can maintain economic growth of 6% to 7% per year? Every year? For the next 15 or 20 years?
The answer is not likely.
So if economic growth does not increase tax revenues 6% or 7% per year, the City will be faced with budget shortages AGAIN. So at that point, we will be faced with the same issue – do we increase taxes? or reduce service?
So if the community wants to commit to service and spending levels that require 6% to 7% per year revenue growth, then we all need to understand that if economic growth does not generate that 6% or 7% revenue increases, then we will have to take money out of our pockets in the form of increased taxes to make up the difference.
Do we really want to do that?
If the majority of residents want to, then so be it – but understand given the system and the status quo, ONE MORE tax increase will not do it. Tax increases will be needed just about every time the economy fails to grow 6% or 7%.
It’s OK to say: no spending cuts, maintain existing contracts, no salary reductions but then one needs to understand that such an approach will require continual tax increases (which of course is what the Feds and the State have been doing the past 10 years) because economic growth as we are well aware is not a straight line moving ever upward.
We can’t continue to budget in San Carlos where RECORD HIGH REVENUES are needed every year, year after year, to balance the budget.
This is not hand-wringing. These are the facts and it is just math.
(and i understand someone may crunch the numbers and come up with 5% to 6% per year – doesn’t matter, the concept is sound).
KS:
Using your analogy of getting several bids before hiring a contractor, we are the customer whose job no one wants to bid on because they’ve heard about us. That’s my point.
I believe the San Carlos data similar to your data from PA was published in the Post several weeks ago, just before the first Council budget study session. It’s the benefit data that may be difficult to produce. Many City employees worked under one formula then were upgraded at some point. Other employees were hired after the benefits were reduced. Even CalPERS has trouble telling us what the future costs will be.
I’m not sure it’s fair to compare city employees’ compensation to that of private sector jobs. With whom do you compare a City Manager? An Administrative Services Director? A City Clerk?
I don’t know whether it is possible to switch present employees from CalPERS to a 401k-type plan; maybe it is. I know when the US Post Office changed pension plans, employees had a choice whether to go to the new plan or stay with the old-fashioned pension. I think if they could have just forced everyone into the new plan they would have done so. Many business people, Omar Ahmad included, get into public office thinking they can fix things right up then discover that government is very different than a private sector business. I have to smile at Meg Whitman’s ads when she talks about her business experience and fixing California’s problems.
Remember, overtime is always a balancing act. If you don’t have overtime, you have to hire more regular employees, who are more expensive because you have to pay all their benefits. This comes up every year at budget time and Police and Fire try to thread that needle so that the overall cost is as low as possible while keeping the service we want.
Believe it or not, San Carlos has cut, cut, cut. There are no more easy or painless cuts left.
I have not heard or seen anyone suggest that a tax increase alone would solve the City’s deficit. The only single-path suggestion I have seen is “no-more-taxes-cut-cut-cut.” Had Measure “U” passed, cuts would still have been needed.
The City Manager has said over and over that San Carlos needs economic development in order to increase revenue. San Carlos said it didn’t want a Target store, which would bring in $500,000/year. San Carlos refused to allow a mixed use development on the east side that would have brought in a similar amount of money. Andy Klein, who now says outsourcing is the only solution, opposed both developments.
San Carlos insists on being the genteel small town it’s always been, with excellent schools, parks, and recreation programs, but it doesn’t want to allow the kind of development that would support those things and it doesn’t want to pay more taxes. Well folks, there’s no free lunch. If you want that genteel little town with no big-box stores, increased traffic, poor people, or anything else that would tarnish the image, someone has to pay for it.
I’d like to know how much of the increase in the City’s revenue over the years has been spent on unfunded mandates, expenditures over which San Carlos has no control. This is one of those pesky details that differentiates government operations from private-sector businesses. If the State says the City has to do something or pay a $10,000/day fine, the City pretty much has to do it, whether we can afford it or not. This is something Omar discovered after he was elected, along with the fact that the City cannot make a profit in one area in order to subsidize another area. Those of you who want to compare the government to the private sector should talk to Omar about the differences.
I’m glad Arn noted that administration, an area that has taken a lot of abuse in the blogs, has been cut 27%. I pointed that out some time ago and got nowhere.
The 30% increase in fire was necessary to try to make up for 20 years of mismanagement and neglect. Both Belmont and San Carlos spent their money on other things and did not put any money aside to replace equipment, meet unfunded mandates, update to more modern safety equipment, or anything else. The City Councils were not involved in running the fire department. San Carlos was represented by the Asst. City Manager, Brian Moura, until Belmont insisted that the structure of the organization be changed. When the department was reorganized 4 years ago, a budget was set up so that the department would not have to request an emergency infusion of money from each city during the year and would remain solvent for years to come. The firefighters’ union gave up pay raises for 3 years in order to keep the department together and allow it to get on its feet. Does it cost more every year to maintain the same level of service? Of course it does, just like our home budgets increase every year unless we cut back on something. I believe the fire dept. increase is anticipated to be about 5% this year, less than the standard 6-7% it costs to keep services at the same level. The department has been very successful in qualifying for grants, something the City says it doesn’t have the staff to do.
I don’t think you can expect employees to take a 6-7% pay cut each year, especially if they are paid less than other public employees in the same categories, no matter what the private sector is paying.
Pat,
How was Andy Klein oppossed to a mixed-used development (that could have destroyed our industiral section) and a Target? He took his seat in December and these things came up way in the past, when he was on an advisory committee that had no decision making ability. Shouldn’t you give him atleast a little credit for backing Measure U? I know he knocked on my door and tried to get me to vote for it, I voted No, but he did say if Measure U lost there would be some major changes in our city.
Rob,
He was the Chair of that Advisory Committee (because he nominated himself and nobody else wanted it, kind of like the way he got elected)and was very cozy with staff and consultants. The recommendations of that committee were pretty much rubber-stamped by the Council, which was told by staff what a great job the committee did. I have heard others who followed the work of the GPAC say that it was “a joke,” and “a waste of time.” Unfortunately, very few citizens did follow the work of GPAC and the rest just believed the hype from the powers that be.
Andy did work hard on Measure “U.” That does not excuse his unprofessional behavior before and since.