L.1. 20-0950 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2020-2025 CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND BUDGET RESPONSE REPORTS
PROCEDURES:
a. Reconvene Public Hearing, take testimony; and
b. Continue Public Hearing to June 16, 2020; and
c. Receive and file Budget Response Reports.
I oppose the cut to Harbor patrol. It’s a safety issue. As a stand up paddler and boater, I rely on the harbor patrol to respond to our emergencies. If they can’t, who will?
I OPPOSE the 33% cut to the Harbor Patrol. Baywatch's priority is outside the harbor assisting with beach rescues and patrolling the open water - not covering the area inside the harbor. To have no Harbor Patrol on any given weekend is unacceptable. RBFD Harbor Patrol needs to be on 24x7 just like the fire departments in all the other harbors. Fire stations have the possibility, if needed, of calling for backup from other area cities, or the County. There is no backup for the Harbor Patrol. You would not leave a land-based fire station without staff two days a week; neither should you leave King Harbor without coverage for two days a week.
In regards to Decision Package #29 regarding reduction of Harbor Patrol Staffing by 1/3. The Harbor Patrol is the only safety agency located in King Harbor currently staffed 24x7. Reducing staffing by 1/3 will mean 1/3 of the time there will be no-one present in the harbor to respond to emergency calls. Chief Metzger has said as much.
Good evening Mayor Brand, City Council members and staff,
The first question I think should be discussed and agreed upon during this public hearing is: What amount of budget shortfall next year in FY 21-22 does this council assume to exist? Without that number and based underlying assumption discussing what to cut and how to cut, either one time or permanent, and even how much savings if any to use cannot be answered. Please discuss that and other assumptions in the budget not only this year but next year and the year after.
First, I oppose Decision Package #25 which ends the 3rd party internal audit conducted by Moss Adams. This is a short sighted reaction with only the immediate costs in mind. The Moss Adams report which I have read through in great detail includes efficiency improvements, loss prevention methods and improvements to policies and procedures within the City. The city should get a lot of credit for starting the process and taking an internal look but stopping now is not in the best interest of the city. Also in that report the City staffing was already bare bones with 1 person doing 2 roles leading to highlighted gaps in processes.
Second, I still oppose Decision Package #16 which I previously voice my opposition and heard the subsequent discussion at the previous meeting. One compromise might be to shift the Main library hours later to have a safe place for Junior High and High School students after school but shift the North Branch library hours to close earlier to still maintain the Story Hours and children's activities loved by all residents with young families including my own family.
In support of the other comments that appears to come from your own staff members I support looking at making most cuts one time and using more one time money like drawing down on the savings to cover shortfalls in next year's budget. If at mid-year more cuts are needed it can be taken up at that time.
The City Manager and Department Heads have worked diligently to present a balanced budget without unilateral cuts to all employees, as they recognize the overall negative impact to employee morale such cuts would create. It was a pained and deliberate task for management. Asking management to set aside this effort in-lieu of a one size fits all approach shows lack of creativity on the Council’s part. There are other options Council should consider, such as incentives for retirement and utilizing the General Fund Reserve. Budgeting for the extreme worst-case scenario seems drastic at this point. To permanently deauthorize filled positions in response to a likely temporary situation is extreme. We would recommend utilizing the General Fund Reserve to preserve the filled positions until revenues recover. We would also ask Council to consider the remainder of vacant positions be deauthorized only as long as the fiscal forecast is in the negative and that those positions be prioritized for reinstatement as soon as revenues improve to prior expected levels. Lastly, please bear in mind that economic recovery post COVID-19 is fully dependent on consumer spending, which is directly tied to expendable income. All employers, including the City itself, must keep employee salaries at pre-COVID-19 levels in order to stimulate spending and bring the economy back. Our employees spend money in Redondo and some also live in the City, and cutting salaries would be a direct hinderance to helping our local businesses recover.
The miscellaneous employee bargaining units, RBCEA, RBPSA, and Teamsters are submitting this statement in two parts for Ecomment. During the City Council's budget discussion on May 26, Mayor Brand requested information on potential savings resulting from various levels of employee salary reductions. The miscellaneous bargaining units urge the City Council consider other options which do not involve compensation reductions and deauthorization of filled positions to address the projected budget shortfall resulting from the Covid-19 emergency. Salary increases for miscellaneous employees have not been prioritized, thus leaving us with nothing left to contribute. Our salaries, net of corresponding CalPERS contributions, have increased less than 4% in total during the last 11 years, in other words less than half of 1% per year for over a decade, as CPI has increased annually since 2010 an average of 2% each year, for a total of 20%, which has further eroded our wages. Recently, the safety departments have been made a priority by receiving salary increases, which have an exponentially direct increase to the City’s PERS costs. Please remember that miscellaneous employees also contribute greatly to the services provided to residents and businesses within the City. In fact, miscellaneous employees ensure CIP projects move forward, approved developments move forward, City streets, parks, and other City infrastructure are maintained, and public safety is properly supported, to name a few of the key contributions. The fact that miscellaneous employees’ salaries have remained stagnant likely is the reason the current budget forecast isn’t worse. Asking employees to take a larger share of the burden is once again unfair.
I oppose the cut to Harbor patrol. It’s a safety issue. As a stand up paddler and boater, I rely on the harbor patrol to respond to our emergencies. If they can’t, who will?
I OPPOSE the 33% cut to the Harbor Patrol. Baywatch's priority is outside the harbor assisting with beach rescues and patrolling the open water - not covering the area inside the harbor. To have no Harbor Patrol on any given weekend is unacceptable. RBFD Harbor Patrol needs to be on 24x7 just like the fire departments in all the other harbors. Fire stations have the possibility, if needed, of calling for backup from other area cities, or the County. There is no backup for the Harbor Patrol. You would not leave a land-based fire station without staff two days a week; neither should you leave King Harbor without coverage for two days a week.
In regards to Decision Package #29 regarding reduction of Harbor Patrol Staffing by 1/3. The Harbor Patrol is the only safety agency located in King Harbor currently staffed 24x7. Reducing staffing by 1/3 will mean 1/3 of the time there will be no-one present in the harbor to respond to emergency calls. Chief Metzger has said as much.
Lee Coller - Redondo Beach resident and boater.
Good evening Mayor Brand, City Council members and staff,
The first question I think should be discussed and agreed upon during this public hearing is: What amount of budget shortfall next year in FY 21-22 does this council assume to exist? Without that number and based underlying assumption discussing what to cut and how to cut, either one time or permanent, and even how much savings if any to use cannot be answered. Please discuss that and other assumptions in the budget not only this year but next year and the year after.
First, I oppose Decision Package #25 which ends the 3rd party internal audit conducted by Moss Adams. This is a short sighted reaction with only the immediate costs in mind. The Moss Adams report which I have read through in great detail includes efficiency improvements, loss prevention methods and improvements to policies and procedures within the City. The city should get a lot of credit for starting the process and taking an internal look but stopping now is not in the best interest of the city. Also in that report the City staffing was already bare bones with 1 person doing 2 roles leading to highlighted gaps in processes.
Second, I still oppose Decision Package #16 which I previously voice my opposition and heard the subsequent discussion at the previous meeting. One compromise might be to shift the Main library hours later to have a safe place for Junior High and High School students after school but shift the North Branch library hours to close earlier to still maintain the Story Hours and children's activities loved by all residents with young families including my own family.
In support of the other comments that appears to come from your own staff members I support looking at making most cuts one time and using more one time money like drawing down on the savings to cover shortfalls in next year's budget. If at mid-year more cuts are needed it can be taken up at that time.
Thank you,
Matthew Hinsley
The City Manager and Department Heads have worked diligently to present a balanced budget without unilateral cuts to all employees, as they recognize the overall negative impact to employee morale such cuts would create. It was a pained and deliberate task for management. Asking management to set aside this effort in-lieu of a one size fits all approach shows lack of creativity on the Council’s part. There are other options Council should consider, such as incentives for retirement and utilizing the General Fund Reserve. Budgeting for the extreme worst-case scenario seems drastic at this point. To permanently deauthorize filled positions in response to a likely temporary situation is extreme. We would recommend utilizing the General Fund Reserve to preserve the filled positions until revenues recover. We would also ask Council to consider the remainder of vacant positions be deauthorized only as long as the fiscal forecast is in the negative and that those positions be prioritized for reinstatement as soon as revenues improve to prior expected levels. Lastly, please bear in mind that economic recovery post COVID-19 is fully dependent on consumer spending, which is directly tied to expendable income. All employers, including the City itself, must keep employee salaries at pre-COVID-19 levels in order to stimulate spending and bring the economy back. Our employees spend money in Redondo and some also live in the City, and cutting salaries would be a direct hinderance to helping our local businesses recover.
The miscellaneous employee bargaining units, RBCEA, RBPSA, and Teamsters are submitting this statement in two parts for Ecomment. During the City Council's budget discussion on May 26, Mayor Brand requested information on potential savings resulting from various levels of employee salary reductions. The miscellaneous bargaining units urge the City Council consider other options which do not involve compensation reductions and deauthorization of filled positions to address the projected budget shortfall resulting from the Covid-19 emergency. Salary increases for miscellaneous employees have not been prioritized, thus leaving us with nothing left to contribute. Our salaries, net of corresponding CalPERS contributions, have increased less than 4% in total during the last 11 years, in other words less than half of 1% per year for over a decade, as CPI has increased annually since 2010 an average of 2% each year, for a total of 20%, which has further eroded our wages. Recently, the safety departments have been made a priority by receiving salary increases, which have an exponentially direct increase to the City’s PERS costs. Please remember that miscellaneous employees also contribute greatly to the services provided to residents and businesses within the City. In fact, miscellaneous employees ensure CIP projects move forward, approved developments move forward, City streets, parks, and other City infrastructure are maintained, and public safety is properly supported, to name a few of the key contributions. The fact that miscellaneous employees’ salaries have remained stagnant likely is the reason the current budget forecast isn’t worse. Asking employees to take a larger share of the burden is once again unfair.