1. What do you consider the most pressing issue for the City of La Mesa?

The most pressing issue for the City of La Mesa is a budget shortfall of $4 million. Reserve funds have been spent down from 15 percent to approximately 1 percent. On Nov.13, 2007, the estimated on-going budget deficit was between $1.5 million and $2.5 million.

2. How do you as a council member plan to address that issue?

The city council was notified early in 2007, actually before that; that we were heading for a shortfall.

On April 24, 2007, staff brought two reports to the council, "Implementation of an Updated and Standardized City Image System" and "Summary follow up steps to implement the Citywide Signage and Wayfinding Program.” How can the city's economic development and marketing strategy be coordinated with the Signage and Wayfinding program process? What costs are being committed to by proceeding with approval of the concept for the city's updated logo?

City staff requested that the council approve the proposed phased implementation of the updated image and logo system throughout the city's facilities, equipment, personnel and communications. Exact direct costs to fully implement the proposed image and logo system for La Mesa would be difficult to precisely quantify.

I previously questioned Assistant City Manager David Witt about the cost of the program, and he said maybe around $400,000. I have the entire staff report, which is available to enhance your understanding as to why I felt compelled to share this information. It was a 4-1 vote with me voting in the negative. I stated the reasons as to why I voted “no” for the record: "The amount of funding to accomplish these many changes was estimated at $400,000. This staff report said that the overall cost was difficult to quantify and that the changes would be phased in. Nevertheless, that is like giving a blank check, even though the staff said they would bring direct costs to the council to determine the merits and affordability.

The initial figure stays with me. The city has been looking at the worst-case scenarios in our financial planning for the next year or two. I don't think you can have it both ways, where one becomes a worst-case scenario issue and another is not in the equation. I think we must look at priorities. I can be very specific if need be, but I think it is enough to say, "timing is everything." This program is a huge financial commitment, and certainly not a top priority with on-going negotiations and crime statistics at their current level.

First, let me say that we have over 25 projects in the pipeline that will yield new property and sales tax revenue. The Fletcher Parkway Trolley Fairfield Project of 527 apartments is projected to add $1 million annually to the city’s general fund. That is 25 percent of the annual shortfall right there. A fee cost-recovery policy has been updated and is in place.

I have proposed the following solutions to our budget issues: Implement a hiring freeze except for police, defer general fund capital improvements where feasible, suspend equipment purchases over $5,000, reduce staff through early retirement, continue constant staffing of our fire department, defer consulting contracts and set travel limits outside of the county. I would also suspend city council travel expenses, which amount to $35,000 annually. All other departments travel expenses have already been suspended. That is not leadership, it is an example of “do as I say, not as I do.” I believe in leading by example.

A City Organizational Chart that I requested on October 16, 2007 should be prepared that indicates how positions are funded, whether it be with the general fund, community development block grant funds, development fees, or other sources. The council denied my request, stating it is in the front of each department in the Budget Book. This is not so. We should also have a Grant Program in place. Another way to cut spending would be to analyze the saving value of a four-days-a-week, 10-hours-a-day work week, especially if fuel costs continue to escalate. This will help the employees that live a further distance from La Mesa and it may help the city with their energy bills. If some of my suggestions are utilized, give them a chance to show you the money. Cut spending, wish lists, and non-essentials that are not priorities at this time. I cannot emphasize this enough. These are tough economic times for the private sector as well as local government. We all need to tighten our belts, make do with what we have, and if that proves futile, then as a last resort we may need to downsize the organization.

3. What approach to this issue do others offer?

Others have advocated the ¾-cent general sales tax increase, which has been placed on the Nov. 4 ballot by a 4-1 vote. I voted in opposition.

This measure, Proposition L, is being labeled for Vital City Services. It leads you to believe it is for police and fire. It will only take a 50-percent-plus-one vote to pass because it is not designated for a specific purpose. I am told that passage may bring to the general fund $7 million annually. Everyone I have talked to says they will shop elsewhere, and that a 8½ percent sales tax is too high. We don't want a ghost village; the huge increase in parking fees is already a deterrent for some. We may realize less sales tax if Proposition L passes.

On Nov. 13, 2007 staff brought to the city council 36 revenue enhancement alternatives. At that time, the projected shortfall or gap between revenues and expenditures was between $1.5 to $2.5 million per year. The million dollar spread troubled me. At that meeting, it was decided that we should have a workshop and discuss these alternatives. The workshop was set for Jan. 15, 2008.

On Jan. 15, the workshop started at 8:01 a.m. City Manager Sandra Kerl talked until about 9:15. Without discussion, Councilman Dave Allan made a motion almost immediately to go with an increase in sales tax (one of the 36 enhancements to be studied). His motion was seconded by Councilman Ernest Ewin. The vote was 4-1.

I stated in my negative vote that the city could resolve its budget deficit by being patient and waiting for the cost-saving measures and other revenue enhancements that had been implemented to take effect. I said there were several projects in the city, such as Fairfield and Briecrest, which would be generating revenue in the next 18 months. I also expressed support for constant staffing, the continuation of securing grant funding and employee attrition as ways to cut costs. The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 a.m.

That's it. This outrageous motion took off with long, running legs to the polls. In a 4-1 vote which I opposed, it was decided to hire a consultant firm, Catherine Lew and Associates to see if La Mesa voters would accept an increase in sales tax, if they thought vital services would be cut. Catherine Lew stated that she wanted a full council on this. Her overall fee, last I heard, was $200,000. The city also paid over $110,000 to send out three flyers from the fire and police departments requesting citizens to protect and maintain vital services, another two flyers citing an increase in gangs and a 73 percent increase in robberies since 2004, and one flyer on the state’s grab of the city’s money. I asked the city manager, since she stated that the police were at the bottom of the pay scale in comparison to all the other cities, that if this passed would she guarantee that police would be brought to the top or at least near the top and stay there. She would not. So, the funds would be for the bottomless pit of the general fund.

4. What are the consequences to the city of failing to address this issue?

Downsizing the organization would be the last resort or final consequence. Goals must be re-prioritized and a reserve fund of 15 percent of the general fund needs to be reestablished with an on-going goal that emphasizes savings. Of course, if one did nothing and just watched, one would have to summon legal counsel and advertise for new conservative management...quickly.

                                            

Set as favorite

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Write comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.