Budget Director Cheryl Taylor Addresses Make Oakland Better Now! Emergency Meeting
as Group Considers Budget Proposals;
Cast Your Vote Now On What The City Should Do.
Make Oakland Better Now! held its emergency budget meeting last Monday night at City Hall. If attendance was a little lighter than we’d hoped, it soon became clear why: the discussion of how the city can solve its short-term budget crisis is incredibly depressing. As one member put it, the discussion was "like figuring out which of your pets to shoot."
Nonetheless, with a guest appearance by City Budget Director Cheryl Taylor -- who knows this subject better than anyone -- we had a great opportunity to learn more about the very difficult decisions facing the city council. The short version: the city can only balance its budget for this fiscal year by cutting almost $9 million in expenses between now and June 30. It has less than $23 million from which to make those cuts. It's looking at eliminating programs, huge across-the-board reductions, or both. Council will be meeting in special session - the original date was February 2 but we believe it has moved to February 16 - at (tentatively) 5:00 p.m. to address all of this. And the situation only gets worse next year.
Oaklanders who attended Monday night's meetings cast their votes on two questions: where should cuts be made and, if there is a ballot measure for more revenue – parcel tax or otherwise -- how should that money be spent. (We're saving the discussion of how to respond to a tax measure for another meeting, after the city decides whether to put a tax measure on either the June or November ballot). If you weren't able to be there, we urge you to cast an on-line ballot on these issues, which you'll see in the column to the right. But before you do, please take a few minutes to read the rest of the report below.
In the area of cuts, the board itemized program choices, which most people agreed were pretty horrible, and none of which generated close to the amount of savings the city needs to realize. So there is no misunderstanding, neither the board nor anybody else advocated these reductions. Rather, we tried to show where there was discretionary program money and how drastic the cuts would have to be before they had significant deficit-reduction impact. And people added their own ideas and expressed their views. (See video excerpts in the column to the right). Although we didn't have official city figures on the savings, we made estimates from the city's budget.
Here are the program cuts we looked at:
- Eliminate 179 police officers: we estimated net savings for the remainder of this year of $593,000 after the city returned the Measure Y parcel tax for this year, returned the federal COPS grant funding of 41 officers, and figured out some way to refund the Measure Y parking tax;
- Eliminate Neighborhood safety coordinators: we estimated savings of $500,000;
- Eliminate human services for seniors and disabled: estimate savings of $700,000;
- Eliminate City Attorney programs for misdemeanor prosecutions and neighborhood law clinics: estimate savings of $297,000;
- Eliminate general purposes funding for personnel for Oakland museum: estimated savings of $1,742,000;
- Reduce General Purpose Fund Library funding to Measure Q minimum: estimated savings of $454,033;
- Eliminate Oaklanders Assistance Center, Cultural and Marketing Funds: estimated savings of $324,587
All of those cuts resulted in a savings of about $4.6 million, just over half the deficit that has to be eliminated.
We then considered more broad approaches to cuts -- across-the-board staff reductions, furloughs, etc. There are clearly some severe limitations to what the city can do in the limited time remaining in this fiscal year. While it can eliminate positions, it can't impose more furlough / shut
down days as to unionized employees without negotiations. (And see a very good discussion of the furlough issue from this past week at Future Oakland.) Similarly, the city can't reduce salaries or benefits without negotiation.
Furthermore, cuts of revenue-producing employees (for instance, parking enforcement) may well cost rather than save money. The Memorandum of Understanding with the Firefighters union precludes reducing sworn firefighting staff, while Measure Y makes it not impossible but very expensive to reduce sworn police personnel; reducing civilian police personnel either involves clear public safety risks (think: dispatchers and dispatch time) or will result in those civilian functions being filled by officers who many of us would rather have on the streets fighting crime. These are just some of the issues the city is going to be facing.
Next, we looked at this question: if the city goes seeking more taxpayer money, how would be want it spent, and what conditions / restrictions would we want to put on it. Between the ideas posed by the board and thoughts that came up during discussion, here’s what we considered:
- Police
- Fire
- Civilianization of police functions (complaint intake, investigation of property crimes, others) to maximize use of sworn personnel for law enforcement
- Human Services for seniors & disabled
- City Attorney programs
- Libraries
- Museum
- Increased performance & financial audits of city departments
- Attract major retail
- Civilianization independent of tax increase
- Parks and recreation
And while they weren’t directly responsive to the question, we had discussion on, and received votes on, a limited duration (perhaps two or three years) general fund property tax increase to help weather the current storm, and complete privatization of the museum.
(One more issue on possible cuts: The day after our meeting, council’s Finance and Management Committee met to discuss free parking places for elected officials, department heads, staffers, etc. which, it turns out, are costing the city close to $400,000 in lost revenue per year. See the discussion at A Better Oakland. Possible savings for this fiscal year: $167,000, although there seems to be a question about whether this would have to be negotiated.)
Now, whether you were there on Monday or not, here's your chance to make a difference. First, mark your calendar for February 2, 2010 (probably at 5:00 p.m.), the most important city meeting of 2010. That’s when the council will have to make its decisions on how to make it through the rest of this fiscal year. Make Only Better Now! will be there to express our positions and we need you to be there in support.
If you weren't at our meeting on Monday, here's something else you can do: Vote now. Help Make Oakland Better Now! frame its policies on both of these critical issues. Right here you can find a survey, with just about the same questions we asked on Monday. Using the honor system (don't vote if you voted Monday night), please fill out the ballot you find here between now and Wednesday, January 20.
We'll total up and publish the votes from our meeting on Monday and the results of our on-line survey, and we'll formulate MOBN!'s position to advocate your views to the City Council before
Budget Director Cheryl Taylor Addresses Make Oakland Better Now! Emergency Meeting
as Group Considers Budget Proposals;
Cast Your Vote Now On What The City Should Do.
Make Oakland Better Now! held its emergency budget meeting last Monday night at City Hall. If attendance was a little lighter than we’d hoped, it soon became clear why: the discussion of how the city can solve its short-term budget crisis is incredibly depressing. As one member put it, the discussion was "like figuring out which of your pets to shoot."
Nonetheless, with a guest appearance by City Budget Director Cheryl Taylor -- who knows this subject better than anyone -- we had a great opportunity to learn more about the very difficult decisions facing the city council. The short version: the city can only balance its budget for this fiscal year by cutting almost $9 million in expenses between now and June 30. It has less than $23 million from which to make those cuts. It's looking at eliminating programs, huge across-the-board reductions, or both. Council will be meeting in special session - the original date was February 2 but we believe it has moved to February 16 - at (tentatively) 5:00 p.m. to address all of this. And the situation only gets worse next year.
Oaklanders who attended Monday night's meetings cast their votes on two questions: where should cuts be made and, if there is a ballot measure for more revenue – parcel tax or otherwise -- how should that money be spent. (We're saving the discussion of how to respond to a tax measure for another meeting, after the city decides whether to put a tax measure on either the June or November ballot). If you weren't able to be there, we urge you to cast an on-line ballot on these issues, which you'll see in the column to the right. But before you do, please take a few minutes to read the rest of the report below.
In the area of cuts, the board itemized program choices, which most people agreed were pretty horrible, and none of which generated close to the amount of savings the city needs to realize. So there is no misunderstanding, neither the board nor anybody else advocated these reductions. Rather, we tried to show where there was discretionary program money and how drastic the cuts would have to be before they had significant deficit-reduction impact. And people added their own ideas and expressed their views. (See video excerpts in the column to the right). Although we didn't have official city figures on the savings, we made estimates from the city's budget.
Here are the program cuts we looked at:
- Eliminate 179 police officers: we estimated net savings for the remainder of this year of $593,000 after the city returned the Measure Y parcel tax for this year, returned the federal COPS grant funding of 41 officers, and figured out some way to refund the Measure Y parking tax;
- Eliminate Neighborhood safety coordinators: we estimated savings of $500,000;
- Eliminate human services for seniors and disabled: estimate savings of $700,000;
- Eliminate City Attorney programs for misdemeanor prosecutions and neighborhood law clinics: estimate savings of $297,000;
- Eliminate general purposes funding for personnel for Oakland museum: estimated savings of $1,742,000;
- Reduce General Purpose Fund Library funding to Measure Q minimum: estimated savings of $454,033;
- Eliminate Oaklanders Assistance Center, Cultural and Marketing Funds: estimated savings of $324,587
All of those cuts resulted in a savings of about $4.6 million, just over half the deficit that has to be eliminated.
We then considered more broad approaches to cuts -- across-the-board staff reductions, furloughs, etc. There are clearly some severe limitations to what the city can do in the limited time remaining in this fiscal year. While it can eliminate positions, it can't impose more furlough / shut
down days as to unionized employees without negotiations. (And see a very good discussion of the furlough issue from this past week at Future Oakland.) Similarly, the city can't reduce salaries or benefits without negotiation.
Furthermore, cuts of revenue-producing employees (for instance, parking enforcement) may well cost rather than save money. The Memorandum of Understanding with the Firefighters union precludes reducing sworn firefighting staff, while Measure Y makes it not impossible but very expensive to reduce sworn police personnel; reducing civilian police personnel either involves clear public safety risks (think: dispatchers and dispatch time) or will result in those civilian functions being filled by officers who many of us would rather have on the streets fighting crime. These are just some of the issues the city is going to be facing.
Next, we looked at this question: if the city goes seeking more taxpayer money, how would be want it spent, and what conditions / restrictions would we want to put on it. Between the ideas posed by the board and thoughts that came up during discussion, here’s what we considered:
- Police
- Fire
- Civilianization of police functions (complaint intake, investigation of property crimes, others) to maximize use of sworn personnel for law enforcement
- Human Services for seniors & disabled
- City Attorney programs
- Libraries
- Museum
- Increased performance & financial audits of city departments
- Attract major retail
- Civilianization independent of tax increase
- Parks and recreation
And while they weren’t directly responsive to the question, we had discussion on, and received votes on, a limited duration (perhaps two or three years) general fund property tax increase to help weather the current storm, and complete privatization of the museum.
(One more issue on possible cuts: The day after our meeting, council’s Finance and Management Committee met to discuss free parking places for elected officials, department heads, staffers, etc. which, it turns out, are costing the city close to $400,000 in lost revenue per year. See the discussion at A Better Oakland. Possible savings for this fiscal year: $167,000, although there seems to be a question about whether this would have to be negotiated.)
Now, whether you were there on Monday or not, here's your chance to make a difference. First, mark your calendar for February 2, 2010 (probably at 5:00 p.m.), the most important city meeting of 2010. That’s when the council will have to make its decisions on how to make it through the rest of this fiscal year. Make Only Better Now! will be there to express our positions and we need you to be there in support.
If you weren't at our meeting on Monday, here's something else you can do: Vote now. Help Make Oakland Better Now! frame its policies on both of these critical issues. Right here you can find a survey, with just about the same questions we asked on Monday. Using the honor system (don't vote if you voted Monday night), please fill out the ballot you find here between now and Wednesday, January 20.
We'll total up and publish the votes from our meeting on Monday and the results of our on-line survey, and we'll formulate MOBN!'s position to advocate your views to the City Council before