LIVE City Council: Money Talks

Hello, Davis! Welcome to another edition of the Davis Voice LIVE City Council Coverage! I am your host once again, Will Arnold.

Tonight’s meeting will begin at 6:30pm with a ceremonial presentation of the 2011 Thong Hy Huynh Memorial Awards, followed by an agenda devoted entirely to the city budget.

Prior to the meeting, please check out tonight’s agenda and associated staff reports for each item:

Agenda Tuesday May 31, 2011

• 02B Long Range Calendar.pdf 
• 04A Staib 72 Yolo County ROW Purchase AGR.pdf 
• 04B Resolution of Support for Yolo Adult Day Health Center.pdf 
• 04C Second Reading ORD-Temporary Reduction of Sewer Connection Fees.pdf 
• 04D Quarterly Treasurer’s Report 3rd Qtr 2011.pdf 
• 04E-1 FBC Minutes 04-11-11.pdf 
• 04E-2 HRMC Minutes 4-18-11.pdf 
• 04E-3 Tree Minutes 04-21-11.pdf 
• 05 Fees and Charges FY2011-12.pdf 
• 06 Budget Workshop FY2011-12.pdf 

6:37pm- The gavel pounds and we have a meeting, and agenda approved unanimously. Mayor Krovoza is out of the country, so Mayor Pro Tem Swanson will be leading tonight’s meeting in his absence.

We begin with Council/Staff brief communications. Mayor Pro Tem Swanson announces that she attended yesterday’s Memorial Day Service at the Davis Cemetery.

The Council then moves on to the Long Range Calendar (02B Long Range Calendar.pdf ). Councilwoman Greenwald asks for clarification regarding the relative timing of discussions about the City’s housing needs (generally) and the ConAgra development at Cannery Park (specifically). Staff indicates that the former will occur before the latter.

6:45pm- It is now time for the ceremonial presentation of the 2011 Thong Hy Huynh Memorial Awards. The awards are presented in memory of a Davis High School student who was murdered on campus in 1983.

Community Chambers is packed with friends and family of those to be honored.

This year’s recipients are:

Humanitarian: Lea Rosenberg
Young Humanitarian: Desiré Campusano
Lifetime Achievement: Jack Forbes (awarded posthumously)
Civil Rights Advocacy: Amagda Pérez
Community Education and Awareness: Davis High School Race & Social Justice Class
Excellence in Community Involvement: Davis Bridge Educational Foundation
Peace Officer of the Year: John Neves and Pete Faeth

Lea Rosenberg is unable to attend tonight and will be honored at a future meeting.

The first awardee presented is Amagda Pérez for Civil Rights Advocacy. She is a professor at the UCD School of Law and is being honored for her service in bringing civil rights awareness and advocacy to individuals in rural communities.

Desiré Campusano is awarded next as the Young Humanitarian. She is a student at UCD and is active in many campus and community programs, including peer counseling, LGBT awareness and La Raza.

The Davis High School Race & Social Justice Class is awarded next with the Community Education and Awareness Award. The class was started four years ago by DHS social science teacher Kevin Williams (though he mentions many others who were instrumental in its development).

The Peace Officers of the Year are awarded next to John Neves and Pete Faeth. The two are bicycle officers who work closely with Davis’ homeless population.

Davis Bridge Educational Foundation is awarded next with the Excellence in Community Involvement. Davis Bridge is a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the academic achievement of low-income Davis students, particularly Latinos from Spanish-speaking households in grades K-12.

The Lifetime Achievement Award is awarded next to Jack Forbes. He is one of the individuals credited with starting the Native American Studies Program at UCD and was instrumental in founding D-Q University. Mr. Forbes passed away in February of this year at the age of 77. His wife, son and grandson accept the award in his honor.

7:07pm- The Council is on a brief recess for the awardee reception.

7:29pm- The Council is back and we move to Public Comment.

Jennifer Segar speaks first. She is speaking on behalf of the Davis Climate Action Team. She points out the opportunities for individuals to make energy upgrades to their homes. More information is available at www.energyupgradeca.org.

Mark Graham speaks next. He is speaking about the story that came to light over the weekend regarding a Homeland Security Raid on a Davis home. The Davis Enterprise article is available here. He suggests that the Davis Police “would never do something like this” and hopes Homeland Security can work more closely with local law enforcement.

Billy (las name not heard) speaks next. He is endorsing that the City build a new 50 meter pool at the site of the current Community Pool, which is slated for closure. He is speaking in behalf of Davis Aquadarts.

Richard Livingston speaks next. He is a past recipient of the Thong Huynh Award and active member of the Yolo ACLU. He echoes the concerns of Mark Graham regarding the Homeland Security raid and urges the Council to take up this issue in the near future.

Public Comment is now closed.

7:42pm- We move on to the Consent Calendar. It is approved unanimously.

7:44pm- On to the regular calendar. We begin with a public hearing regarding proposed changes to fees and charges for the upcoming fiscal year (05 Fees and Charges FY2011-12.pdf ). The fee recommendations contained in the report help generate almost $7 million in departmental revenues (an increase of 13% above the revenues estimated for the previous year).

Public Comment is open…and closed.

Councilmember Wolk begins Council questions/comments. He indicates his chief desire in regard to this issue is “cost recovery”, and sees an increase in fees, while regrettable, as much better than closing a facility or ending a program.

Mayor Pro Tem Swanson asks whether the savings anticipated by the proposed fee increases is reflected in the next item (budget workshop and revenue estimates). Staff indicates that the projected savings are indeed included in the budget estimates.

The resolution to approve the new fees is moved by Councilmember Souza, seconded by Councilmember Wolk, and approved unanimously.

7:58pm- On to the final item of the night, the Budget Workshop (06 Budget Workshop FY2011-12.pdf ). Staff indicates that this item is for informational purposes and that the Council will be providing “feedback” rather than specific direction.

According to the City Manager, the proposed budget “includes a total of $1.4 million in General Fund expenditure reductions with approximately $919,000 in savings needed to balance the General Fundoperating budget, maintain a 15% operating reserve”.

The City Manager begins with an overview of what is in the packet. The information is linked above. He indicates that budget adoption is scheduled for the June 28 City Council Meeting.

8:23pm- Public Comment is now open.

Nikhil Joshi speaks first. He is on the Civic Arts Commission. He expresses concerns with cuts being made in civic arts, specifically a $17,000 proposed cut to the civic arts fund.

Doby Fleeman speaks next. He speaks on the issue of transparency, and urges the Council to include deferred maintenance as a budget line-item. He also indicates the same concern regarding the water that our parks consume.

David Greenwald speaks next. He is concerned with deferred maintenance with our roadways and how improvements are not included in the budget. “Sooner or later we have to decide what our budget priorities are.”

8:32pm- On to Councilmember comments/questions.

Councilmember Souza begins. He asks, in light of proposed cuts that bring the city back to 1997 staff levels, what is the relative staff-per-citizen ratio. The City Manager indicates that, while specific demographic information is not included, he promises to look into that question. He also asks about the retiree medical benefits and asks whether those liabilities are fully-funded in the out years. The City Manager indicates that is the case.

Councilmember Greenwald speaks next. She emphasizes that the “dire” budget projections include zero salary increases, including cost-of-living adjustments. The City Manager indicates that is the case. She also indicates that a common point of misunderstanding about the budget is the difference between one-time costs and recurring costs, and that the latter requires structural budget adjustments.

Councilmember Wolk speaks next. He asks about the 15% reserve and whether it is the right number. The City Manager indicates that the policy is “overdue” for a review, though he expresses his belief that it is a “pretty sound” level and “not and arbitrary number”. He also asks about the assumptions regarding property tax and sales tax, and whether the projections are “conservative”. The City Manager indicates that, while they do project (modest) growth, those projections are downgraded from previous assumptions. “I think we’re pretty comfortable that 1% [projected growth] is pretty close.”

Councilmember Greenwald interjects on this point, and hilights challenges we have to our tax revenue. These include the inability to collect sales tax from internet sales, our reliance on auto sales, and our lack of “revenue-based planning”.

The Mayor Pro Tem speaks last. She indicates her belief that transportation funding should be included in the budget and her desire that “pessimism rule the day”. She reiterates the desire of her colleagues that structural changes be included in the budget adjustments.

9:01pm- Council is on a 10 minute recess for staff to assemble for specific department budget discussion.

9:15pm- Council is back in session. They will now be taking departmental budget presentations individually.

We start with the City Manager’s department. Proposed Tier 1 reductions for this department total $65,453. These cuts include redirecting two positions (an Accounting Assistant and Human Resource Assistant), eliminating funding support for the Police Advisory Committee, and reducing the Police Ombudsman Contract ($50,000 – $40,000). Proposed Tier 2 reductions for this department total $63,350. These cuts include eliminating General Fund support for International House, reducing the City promotions budget, additional reduction in the Police Ombudsman contract ($40,000 – $30,000), and eliminate of courier service.

Councilmember Greenwald asks whether the Police Ombudsman is necessary with the better department she argues we currently enjoy. Staff indicates that they can look into the continued necessity of that position. The Councilmember also reemphasizes her desire that the budget not “nickel and dime” smaller programs that offer minimal savings, but that proportion be considered.

Mayor Pro Tem Swanson asks about the progress of paper-reduction measures taken by City staff. The City Manager indicates that, while specific data is unavailable, such measures are part of the City’s Climate Action Plan. The Mayor Pro Tem also asks whether saving from printing and paper are reflected in the budget. Staff indicates that they are not anywhere specific in the budget. The Mayor Pro Tem also asks whether the Police Ombudsman can be replaced by a City Commission. Staff indicates a desire to keep such things separate.

9:48pm- We move to the Police Department. Police Chief Black begins by addressing the Ombudsman issue. He emphasizes the value of the public “having confidence” in public safety. “The Ombudsman fits into this model very well”. He argues that it is an important “communication mechanism” between the Department and the community.

Proposed Tier 1 reductions for the Police Department total $263,232. These cuts include 2.5 positions (one Police Officer, a Community Services Officer, and a 50% reduction in the Police Records Specialist). Service impacts would include reduced community patrol and response to in-progress emergencies, a reduced K-9 program by one Officer/K9 team, and public counter closure one day per week.

Councilmember Greenwald asks the Police Chief to speculate where cost savings might exist that would make room to retain the Police Ombudsman at its current level. He indicates that it is not part of his prioritization equation because it is part of the City Manager’s budget (not the Police Department). The Councilmember asks whether it would be prudent to move that Ombudsman program to the Police budget. Staff indicates the possibility of moving this and other programs to different departments.

Councilmember Souza asks whether the Police Department anticipates cuts from the State. The Police Chief says he does not make such predictions.

Councilmember Wolk asks “as a practical matter” what will the reduction of one Officer position look like. The Police Chief answers that it is a “science” of how best to deploy officers. “One of the ways you do this is by not taking any officers away from fulfilling their primary mission”. He indicates that “in-progress” calls will still always be responded to, but that other types of calls “not necessarily of a criminal nature” might not make the list.

10:13pm- We move to the Fire Department. Chief Weisgerber begins by commending his departments response time and emphasizing that “minutes count in an emergency”. “When someone calls 9-1-1 because he’s having a bad day, he’s having the worst day of his life.”

Proposed Tier 1 reductions for the Fire Department total $151,227. These cuts consist of the elimination of one Firefighter position. Additional savings will be realized as a result of the proposed merging of the City and UCD Fire Departments. Savings are estimated to be $100,000 by merging the City and UCD Fire Chief positions.

Councilmember Souza asks whether savings are realized in the merging of City and UCD dispatch operations. The Fire Chief indicates that no savings will be achieved toward that end. The Councilmember also asks whether the Firefighter position proposed for elimination is currently filled. The Chief indicates that it is currently vacant.

Councilmember Greenwald speaks next. She begins by indicating her desire for shorter presentations by staff, specifically that they stick to proposed cuts rather than “justifying every expense” or else “we’ll be here all night”.

Councilmember Wolk asks about the elimination of the Firefighter position and how it will affect the Department. Staff indicates that savings will accrue from the number of vacancies.

Councilwoman Greenwald interjects her belief that the current compensation model needs to be looked at and that we are looking to save money, not just remain stagnant. She goes on to mention the “potential” for having an all-volunteer Department.

Councilmember Wolk asks the Chief to respond to the potentiality mentioned by Councilmember Greenwald of having a volunteer force. The Fire Chief indicates that such a force would be “inappropriate for Davis”.

10:39pm- Public Works is next. Director Bob Clarke indicates that he is in the “enviable position” of being in a department that has no proposed cuts. The cuts were made in previous years and, in fact, the Council has expressed interest in bolstering some public works expenditures (i.e., deferred road maintenance).

Councilmember Greenwald expresses her concern regarding the Richards/Olive Drive improvements. She believes the costs will exceed the $1 million estimate. Staff indicates that she is leaping ahead of this portion of the budget meeting.

Councilmember Souza asks about what money we have for “patchwork” repairs to our roadways. “We need to look at how to extend the infrastructure we have now.” Staff indicates that they do not recommend doing any repairs “in-house” and that the City is limited to “patch-paving”.

10:55pm- On to the Public Services Department. Proposed Tier 1 reductions for the Public Services Department total $207,991. Also included in the Tier 1 recommendation is $75,000 in projected revenue enhancements. The cuts include reduction in 1.25 staff positions, which include a reduced Community Services Program Coordinator (by 25%) and elimination of a Park Maintenance Worker, reduced City subsidy to selected groups for facility and pool use, reduced support for Tree Davis, reduced recreation programs consistent with declining enrollment, reduce General Fund support for Integrated Pest Management activities, and reduced General Fund support for Art in Public Places.

Proposed Tier 2 reductions for the Public Services Department total $297,000. Also included in the Tier 2 recommendation are a Facility Replacement Augmentation of $100,000 and a Parks/Irrigation Replacement Augmentation of $200,000. The cuts include elimination of .75 of a staff position (Social Services Coordinator), closure of Community Pool, reduced Tree Maintenance contract and Tree Crew hours, elimination of non-mandated Medication Services, and elimination of General Fund support for individual arts grants.

Councilmember Wolk asks whether the Social Services Coordinator is dedicated solely to mediation services, and whether that is where the impact of the position’s elimination will be felt. Staff indicates that, in addition to that service, the ADA compliance fuction of that position will need to be reassigned.

Councilmember Greenwald asks about the savings gained by elimination of the “Breakfast with the Bunny” event, in particular, and small, one-time events in general. “I don’t think it’s going to make a dent in our budget to include.”

Councilmember Souza asks whether, in light of similar events being sponsored by local nonprofits and private entities, should the City pursue such entities for supporting these programs. “To what degree have we looked at many of these programs and services being provided by us now being provided by private entities in the future?”

Mayor Pro Tem Swanson asks whether the Community Pool closure was discussed with the Aquatic Council. Staff indicates that they have been part of the discussion and will continue to include them in the process. The Mayor Pro Tem also asks about moving some of the smaller events off-budget, that taken as a whole it constitutes a structural change. She urges an “adopt-a-program” system being utilized in our community by having service clubs and private entities take over such programs or events. She asks staff to reach out to these groups to save the programs while defunding them on a City level.

Councilmember Souza asks whether there is any way of knowing how much water is used by our parks. Staff indicates that, while most of the water is not metered, and is therefore hard to account for, the city pays roughly $650,000 to $700,000 just on water use.

11.33pm- Next is the Department of Community Development and Sustainability. Proposed Tier 1 reductions for the Department total $136,815. Also included in the Tier 1 recommendation is $19,082 in projected revenue enhancements. The cuts include reduction in 1 Planner position and contracting additional Building/Planning Tech services to Regional Water JPA.

Proposed Tier 2 reductions for the Department total $25,000. The cuts include reduced General Fund support for Economic Development and reduced funding in support of Historical Resource Preservation.

Councilmember Greenwald expresses a concern that two positions that have historically been within the City are being moved to the JPA. Her concern are that JPAs are supported by fees (as opposed to taxes, which have to be voted on) and also that she has never seen a JPA that runs as efficiently as a City.

Councilmember Wolk asks whether he is correct that the one Planner position proposed to be eliminated has, in fact, been changed to only a reduction to 60%. Staff indicates that this is the case and other savings will be found elsewhere.

Councilmember Greenwald follows up by clarifying how many employee positions will be picked up by the JPA. Staff indicates that one will be transferred along with only a portion of a second staff position.

Mayor Pro Tem Swanson asks whether any of the proposed cuts by this Department (like the previous one) can be taken over by nonprofit or private entities. Staff indicates that this is indeed a possibility.

11:56pm- On to general questions by Council members. Councilmember Souza asks a question regarding the City Attorney and City Council budgets. He sees an increase in the City Council line-item. Staff indicates that this is accounted for by changes in benefits that result in changing situation of City Council members.

Councilwoman Greenwald argues that a small salary is appropriate for City Council members because of the many hours they work.

All Councilmembers indicate a sincere desire to achieve more community involvement as they move forward with the budget process.

12:12am- We are adjourned! Goodnight!!!