Mountain View Voice

News - February 26, 2010

City Council sets the stage for major budget cuts

by Daniel DeBolt

Mountain View residents and city employees responded en masse to the prospect of city budget cuts, packing the City Council chambers Tuesday night until there was nowhere left to stand.

Council members said they had received more than 100 e-mails that afternoon alone from people concerned about a list, released by the city manager last Thursday, which outlined potential cuts to various city services. The list includes potential cuts to police and library services, cutting off funds to local nonprofits, possibly closing Deer Hollow Farm and a possible 2 percent increase in water rates.

City manager Kevin Duggan said the potential cuts might appear to be severe because the city exhausted its options for less painful cuts last year.

By June, the City Council must sift through the potential cuts, which total somewhere between $3.3 million and $4.3 million, to find about $2 million in savings. The city hopes to find other ways — including $1 million in new revenue and $1 million in employee compensation cuts — to fill the rest of an estimated $5 million deficit in the 2010-11 fiscal year.

The cuts could mean the elimination of 37 employee positions, about 24 of which are currently filled. Duggan said 80 percent of the city budget is employee compensation costs.

The list of potential cuts includes eliminating or partially cutting funds to 13 local nonprofits and services, such as the Day Worker Center and the Community Services Agency, to save up to $272,000. Council members Jac Siegel and Laura Macias defended the city's funding of local nonprofits, with Macias saying that those services are needed more than ever during a recession.

One resident expressed frustration that some of the wealthiest companies in the world, which are based in Mountain View, could not provide the city more tax revenue.

"The amount of money we are talking about here is a rounding error for Google," he said. "Just because (Google) is not selling physical things, we don't get the same revenue of an Ikea or Walmart. That's insane."

One item on the list is the city's $110,000 share of funding to Deer Hollow Farm at Rancho San Antonio, which is actually on county land in the hills above Los Altos and Cupertino. If the city cuts that funding, staffers said, it could lead to the full closure of the demonstration farm enjoyed by hundreds of schoolchildren every year.

The meeting was attended by many button-wearing Deer Hollow supporters, including Sue Gale, president of Friends of Deer Hollow Farm, who said the city's funding is matched by 80 volunteers working for free to give tours of the farm every year at a value of at least $100,000. Most council members agreed it was time to ask neighboring cities to help Mountain View and the county fund Deer Hollow Farm, and Gale agreed.

After residents, city employees and nonprofit representatives spoke in defense of their many programs and services, council member Tom Means said, "Everyone thinks their program is essential, but tell me what isn't."

On the block

The list of potential city cuts includes:

•About $1.4 million in cuts to the Police Department, including the loss of an unspecified number of low-level police officers, or "community service officers," to save $785,300. Several other administrative assistant positions would be cut as well. Among the impacts if those cuts are made, the department says, is that about 100 crime victims a year would not have their cases investigated. Interaction with the public may be handled increasingly by automated phone services and reports taken on the Internet.

• Eliminating city funding of $272,000 for 13 local nonprofits and services, including the Community School of Music and Arts, the Community Services Agency, the Day Worker Center, Health Trust, Junior Achievement, Mayview Community Center, Project Sentinel, Catholic Charities long term care ombudsman, Santa Clara Family Health Foundation, Support Network for Battered Women, a youth sports fee waiver and Parents Helping Parents.

• Reducing library hours by six to eight hours a week could save $150,000, while library staff, services and program cuts could save another $93,000. Parking the bookmobile and reducing the budget for new materials could save another $147,000.

• Reducing code enforcement services by 50 percent to save $110,000, which means code enforcement would focus solely on life safety and zoning issues. "Neighborhood preservation" complaints, such as front yard storage, weeds, signs and private property parking complaints, would go largely unanswered.

• Elimination of the city's dedicated shopping cart/graffiti abatement program would save $54,700 a year.

• Cutting park ranger hours to pre-2007 levels would save $111,700 and result in less enforcement of park rules at Cuesta and Rengstorff parks and an increased need for police patrols there.

• The Police Activities League could lose all of its $25,000 in funds for a dedicated Police Department staffer.

• Chinese and Russian language interpreters at city meetings would lose their $12,800 budget, which could eliminate those services or make them volunteer-only.

• Eliminating the city's dedicated weed abatement program, saving $105,200, would result in more weeds in city parks and medians.

• A combined restructuring of the city manager's office and the Employee Services Department would save up to $150,000.

• Reducing tree trimming of the city's 28,000 trees, or transferring maintenance of 12,800 street trees to property owners, would save up to $325,000. The report says the city could lose its "Tree City USA" status.

In addition to these proposed cuts, the city is considering raising water rates on residents by 2 percent, saving the city government $300,000 on its own water bills.

The council has until June to pass a final city budget.

Reasons for deficit

The city's costs are increasing by about $4 million every year, officials say, mainly due to rising employee compensation costs — increasingly expensive pensions, retirement health benefits and contractual cost-of-living adjustments.

For now, however, the city is unable to significantly contain those costs, council members say, as only the Police Department's union contract is up for renegotiation this year.

The remaining city employees are largely represented by three other unions, which have contracts up for renegotiation in June 2011. Duggan said the city could save $1 million a year by reducing the Fire Department's minimum staffing requirement of firefighters on duty from 21 to 19. The current staffing requirement is set in a union contract with firefighters.

In his report released last week, Duggan announced that city staffers have found $1 million in other budget savings over the last year, reducing the projected deficit from $5 million to $4 million. The $1 million in savings was found mostly in a reorganization of the Police Department for a savings of $512,000. There is also $25,000 in reduced fuel costs, $70,000 saved from contracting out an emergency medical services coordinator in the Fire Department, $170,000 in savings from paying its pension rate to the state at the beginning of the year, and $100,000 saved from renegotiating the city's purchasing contracts.

The 26-page report can be found at www.mountainview.gov under City Council agendas and public records. Look for the Feb. 23, 2010 council meeting packet.

E-mail Daniel DeBolt at ddebolt@mv-voice.com

Comments

Posted by William Joseph, a resident of Shoreline West
on Feb 25, 2010 at 10:49 pm

How much of the budget is for pencil-pushing bureaucrats who spend a lot of time sitting on their hands?

As for interpreters, people who want services in other languages should move to countries where they are spoken.


Posted by C. Lanam, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2010 at 12:06 am

To William Joseph:

I agree as far as the bureaucrats go.

As for those who speak other languages? I think the English speakers should set the example and go back to so-called Old World first. The Native Americans were here before them, and it's a hypocrite who speaks English like he owns the place.


Posted by C. Lanam, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2010 at 12:15 am

Perhaps I should say "here before us," but I'm only really interested in the complainers leaving! :D

I suppose I must admit to being bigoted against bigots...


Posted by Big Al, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2010 at 8:02 am

C. Lanam:

The Native Americans had no concept of tax and spend until you're bankrupt. You're logic is flawed besides. This is the system we inherited from our former English masters, so it's only appropriate that English is used when disputing it. If you still think not, then provide me the translation for bureaucrat, bloated retirement packages, police and firefighters unions, and city manager who earns more then $250,000!


Posted by C. Lanam, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2010 at 11:59 am

Thanks, Big Al! I was hoping someone would continue a more practically minded-bent to this!

I am sure any Native American language currently surviving has evolved over the years the same way American English does, but it hardly matters since I was hardly advocating it as a rational choice. I only meant to point out the flaw in saying "all people unlike me should be rounded up sent elsewhere" without considering either the social merits or the nitty-gritty logistics of actually accomplishing the matter.

I like that you return to the heart of the budget matter at the end of your comment; I can't disagree with your sentiments there!


Posted by Ben, a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 27, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Choices – cut in services, cut in personnel, cut in salaries, cut the 20 year General Plan for growth.

Remember the big fight over utility taxes a few years ago. It was to support the growth of MV.

The Mayfield Mall sales taxes (125,000/ year – big money back then) was to support growth. Taxes on high-rise in-fill housing projects are suppose to pay for growth.

Growth does not look like it is paying off.

Ben


Posted by Ben, a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 27, 2010 at 1:09 pm

Choices – cut in services, cut in personnel, cut in salaries, cut the 20 year General Plan for growth.

Remember the big fight over utility taxes a few year ago. It was to support the growth of MV and pay for services.

The Mayfield Mall sales taxes (125,000/ year – big money back then) was to support growth. Taxes on HP sales when they move into the Mall were to pay for growth. Taxes on high-rise in-fill housing projects are suppose to pay for growth.

Growth does not look like it is paying off.

Ben


Posted by curious, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 28, 2010 at 10:35 am

"The city's costs are increasing by about $4 million every year, officials say, mainly due to rising employee compensation costs — increasingly expensive pensions, retirement health benefits and contractual cost-of-living adjustments."

This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that the City Council will not address. We cannot fix this by cutting services. The only way is to fundamentally re-organize the way public employees are paid. No one in private industry nowadays has a fixed payout retirement plan with a fully paid for cadillac insurance policy. Public employees have to change to a 401K style defined contribution plan and Medicare when they are older just like everybody else.

If we do not stop the current insanity the City will be be bankrupted. Just like GM managements in the past made agreements with their unions that eventually bankrupted the company, past City Councils agreed to unsustainable compensation with the politically powerful public employees' unions. This has to end right now but I bet the current City council just tries to kick this down the road for someone else to solve.


Posted by Robert, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 3, 2010 at 12:56 pm

If things are so dire why did the city spend close to 20 MILLION DOLLARS on land at Moffett and 101 for "future development"? Why did the city purchase the church across from the senior center for a couple million dollars? Ten million dollars for a fire station?

I cannot believe we are talking about cutting city services and blaming the city employees/labor groups for the financial woes. Don't be fooled by this "sky is falling" rhetoric. Granted times are not as good as they have been and we should be tightening things up but what we should be questioning is how our city "leaders" are choosing to spend money.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields