Home › News › Local News
City defers decision on spending cuts
Ventura approves guidelines to deal with projected $4 million deficit
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsFaced with a looming $4 million shortfall that's likely to grow, the Ventura City Council chose to punt Tuesday on addressing specific service cuts, instead approving a set of guiding principles to help city staff fine-tune an appropriate spending plan.
The council was given a detailed list of about $4.2 million in potential spending cuts and cost-saving actions but agreed with City Manager Rick Cole that a public outreach effort would be beneficial before slicing city expenses.
The city doesn't begin its new fiscal year until July 1, but Cole has voiced a desire to trim costs earlier because of sagging city revenues.
Councilman Bill Fulton wanted a better rationale for the proposed cuts, which could return to the full council for consideration as early as Monday and again closer to the end of the month.
"That chain of logic is not quite clear enough to me," Fulton told Cole.
Instead, the council unanimously agreed to four guiding principles: Remain focused on the city's long-term vision; eliminate or reduce lower-priority programs and expenses; prioritize initiatives that generate money or save money; and pay competitive salaries.
"It's important that we do not overreact," Councilman Ed Summers said of the city's budget gap.
The council also reinstated an ad hoc budget committee of members Summers, Neal Andrews and Jim Monahan to convene in coming weeks in publicly noticed meetings. Andrews was not present but was open to the role, said Mayor Christy Weir, who nominated the candidates.
"If there are no principles, then there is no basis for making these decisions," Weir said.
In an untraditional move, the council agreed to a request by Cole to create a second, alternative budget plan, in case the city's fiscal condition worsens significantly.
"We think it's essential to have a backup plan," said Cole, who warned a projected $4 million deficit could grow by July and city revenues were not likely to recover in coming months.
The city spends $72 million a year on salaries, overtime, benefits and workers' compensation — more than three-quarters of its $92.5 million operating budget.
There are 14 unfilled vacancies out of 673 budgeted full- and part-time positions, Cole said.
The council embraced an idea to shut City Hall every other Friday and during the Dec. 25-Jan. 5 holiday season, but wanted feedback on how closures would affect the city staff and residents before making a final decision.
Many employees would have to shift their work schedules and would not be paid during the holiday shutdown but could use accrued vacation time, officials said.
The council did decide to hold three City Council meetings a month instead of four starting in July.
The city will save some $1.1 million in one-time savings, the council agreed, by deferring improvements to Cemetery Memorial Park, canceling a parks plan and stopping work on an unfinished project to build a fiber-optic network between city and school district facilities, among others.
Those savings would go back to the general fund to offer staff more flexibility and prevent using reserves.
The mayor, however, rescued a $280,000 proposal to add new lighting in the city's downtown core from the recommended deferment list.
The project would be paid with city redevelopment dollars, not operating expenses, and would help lure more visitors and additional spending, she said.
"This is still a high-priority project to me," she said.
Posted by jayrdub on April 2, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
$72 million/(673-14) = $109,00
Either the numbers cited in this article are wrong or the average cost of a city employee is way too high (even more so when considering the 659 includes part time employees).
Posted by jayrdub on April 2, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
oops, $109,000
Posted by shaver_one on April 2, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It looks like the comments from yesterday's story had, at least, some effect.
But, shouldn't the City Council choose members of their new ad hoc committee from the public at large...a Citizens Review Board...as opposed to placing members of the Council on it? That's like leaving the management of the hen house to the wolf.
Posted by we3polarbears on April 2, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While it can be fun to try to do the salary math, you need to remember that the "average" number you come up with is all inclusive of the cost of benefits, insurance and salary paid. Very few of the folks below the Department Head level pull in 6 figure salaries. The "fringe" added in pushes that number higher.
Posted by MakingWaves on April 2, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The city's Budgeting for Outcomes team had 12 members of the Chamber of Commerce on it. These experienced business folks, along with city staff, made the proposed budget cut recommendations. Now it is up to the City Council to accept or reject them.
Yes, we3polarbears, this is the second day in a row someone in cyberspace has had fun with "salary math" on the Star's site without knowing all the particulars. The $72,000 figure encompasses salaries, health benefits, workers' comp insurance, etc. etc. This is out of the city's $95 million General Fund, which is a portion of the city's $280 million total budget.
Posted by jayrdub on April 2, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't say salary. I said "average cost of a city employee". Looks like this is the millionth day in a row someone in cyberspace didn't read carefully before commenting.
Benefits, tax and insurance should not add that much. Lets just say for a second that all 673 positions were filled (which they aren't) with full-time employees (which they aren't) and each position paid on average 80k/yr (which they don't). You're saying that 30k is a reasonable per employee expense on top of salary. I'm saying it isn't. There was either something overlooked in reporting the numbers as they were, or if they are accurate, then there has got to be a way to trim down the per employee cost.
Posted by we3polarbears on April 2, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point on salary v. cost. I did miss that distinction in the original comment.
However 30K is likely a real number. Whether it is reasonable to anyone is a matter of personal experience and opinion.
Assuming the $80K base, tack on payroll taxes paid by the employer (1-2%).
Add on retirement costs. Since CA government agencies (and their employees) don't pay in to social security (or collect it unless they have other employment credit), this is offset by contributions to State retirement (PERS). Last I checked in Ventura, this was about 7% of salary.
While some will argue that the health benefits offered by government agencies is too generous, they still exist and those costs must be added in as well. Ventura's benefits are not as rich as other agencies in the County (the City caps their contribution and the employee pays for the selection under a cafeteria-type plan) but health insurance that involves reasonable deductables or co-pays will run north of 10% of salary in this fictional example.
Workers Comp is unknown to me, but that is one reason employers invest in wellness programs and ergonomics so that claims can be minimized and costs reduced.
No one is saying the situation is untouchable or shouldn't be examined for higher efficiency where possible. But in doing any arm-chair accounting, we need to know what the numbers include, beyond salary.
MOST public agencies in CA, by requirement of their collective bargaining contracts, provide a statement of benefits to all of their employees once a year. This gives a rundown of their salary v. their total expense. I have seen some in the past where the expense easily exceeds salary by 30-40%, depending on the agency.
The elephant in the room is the organized labor component and how they will react to negotiations that ask for (at least) freezes in salary if not trims to salary in order to avoid elimination of positions.
Posted by MakingWaves on April 2, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Your "average" serves no useful purpose, other than fanning the flames, when comparing different sets of employees (administrative, regular, full time, part time, contracted) and different sets of benefits. As I wrote yesterday on another thread, workers' comp costs are killing private business. Can you imagine what it is for firefighters and police officers?
This city has consistently been behind other cities in the area in pay.
We shouldn't be making all our judgments solely from newspaper articles which don't always have room to list all factors involved. Watch a council meeting (Mondays 7 p.m. Channel 15) Get on the city's web site and do more research. If you don't get all your answers, go down to City Hall and ask.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on April 2, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it was Mark Twain, or maybe Disraeli who is reputed to have said that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics". So much for averaging wages.
Again the issue of closing offices to reduce payroll costs comes up. uhm...yah, employees can use their vacation time...time that is PAID time off (assuming they have it on the books). But isn't this a sort of shell game with money and accounts? I doubt very much that the City, or any other public or private entity carries on their financial books the full cost of an employee vacation/sick time buyout.
The money that would have paid salaries for work done, pays vacation instead. I don't see the cost savings yet.
A lot of this is about shifting monies from account to account. The budget crunch in government is real, but some of the numbers are statistically..."damn lies", or budget juggling that amounts to that.
Posted by Wendy_Halderman on April 2, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Average cost per employee may or may not be useful, depending on what one is attempting to evaluate.
If facts fan flames, we have a dilemma, I think.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on April 2, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Wendy....this isn't about fact fanning flames, it's about bad math...bad statistics...and quite frankly dumb people who can, its true, become inflamed about dumb logic because they don't know any better.
I see dumb people. They are everywhere. They don't even know that they are dumb"
Posted by MakingWaves on April 2, 2008 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you are trying to make the inference by "averaging" that city employees are overpaid, then that is a false assumption, not a fact. Costs vary per position. Police officers, for instance, must have police cars, expensive workers' comp, health benefits and other things necessary for the very difficult work they do, otherwise nobody would do it. Would you volunteer to be a member of the city's Gang Task Force on wages you could make at Macy's?
I would not advocate for a lower tier of benefits or pay for our public safety employees.
A friend of mine looked at an IT position awhile back with the city. It was way less than he could make in private industry and the benefits were not to his liking, either. So he passed on it. It's expensive to live here. If you want competent people to stay here, you have to pay them at least a semi-comparable wage.
The problem is not that the average city worker is overpaid. The problem is a sinking economy nationwide.
Posted by Wendy_Halderman on April 3, 2008 at 12:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom (lol) and MW...I agree.
Total employee costs are indeed high, but not necessarily individual salaries. If the non-salary portion of total costs can be reduced, that's the ideal scenario.
Posted by jayrdub on April 3, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't remember ever saying people were overpaid, in fact I was insinuating the opposite when I was exaggerating in my first example. Wendy is probably saying what I'm saying more succinctly - is there anything unnecessary to clean up in $72m. No one would think city employees should have salaries cut or benefits reduced.
Where in "The city spends $72 million a year on salaries, overtime, benefits and workers' compensation" does it imply that it goes towards police cars or anything like that?
(Tom - dumb people hear things as they want, not as they are really said)
Posted by jake425 on April 3, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The average cost of a city employee is way too high" was your first example. That's what you really said and that's what we all really heard. Don't backpeddle now. If you don't want to cut salaries or benefits (that includes cars, which is necessary for some) what is left?
What IS your point?
Posted by jayrdub on April 4, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know what's left, I'm not a city accountant. That's my point - there must be something else being spent on besides salaries and benefits in this overall cost - the number just seemed too high for the amount of employees. My point is simply that "salaries, overtime, benefits and workers' compensation" for 673 costing $72m seems like more than it should cost. That's all I ever said.
Posted by venturapagan on April 4, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about the city not paying for ugly overpriced artwork, like, hmmm, the bus-stop thingy at the mall?! Or the noise making piece of "art" that used to be at the end of the pier until the storms several years back tore it out with the pier, and now sits in storage at City Hall. If the city's at a financial deficit, why does it still spend money on this stuff? I don't get it.... Less "beautification", more necessities, City Hall please.
Posted by MakingWaves on April 4, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
For an explanation and community dialogue on the city's Public Art program, including Bus Home, please go here:
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/vc...
I believe it will answer all your questions.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.