 |
| A comment in my last post suggested research into the
historic percentage of the General Fund used for police and fire might
be enlightening. I responded
that I probably wouldn't do that because it was hard. And I didn't. But
in the
recent presentation
from
the Finance
Office on the budget deficit there is a slide that discusses growth in
emergency services. It actually has a number that provides this information. The subtitle of the slide is What has caused the General Fund structural deficit. There are some non-public safety costs, but most of the numbers relate to police and fire spending. Here are some of the figures it outlines. 1. There has been a 44% increase in safety staff since 1990 (47 police, 23 fire). 2. There was a 308% increase in safety expenditures since 1990 (286% police, 347% fire). 3. PERS increased from 2%@50 in 1990 to 3%@50 in 2001. Negative investment earnings at PERS created higher rates*. 4. In 1990, 59% of General Fund was dedicated to public safety, today that is 74%. In 1990 revenues to the General Fund were around $15 million, the population of Chico was 41,774 and the number of sworn officers was 62. That's one sworn officer per 673 people and $8,850,000 spent on police and fire. It's also $211 per citizen spent on emergency services. In 2006 revenues to the General Fund were around $49 million, the population was 84,396, and the number of sworn officers was 102. That's one sworn officer per 827 people and $36 million spent on police and fire. It's also $426 per citizen spent on emergency service.** I did a quick review of of the CPI-U (consumer price index) and it shows an inflation rate of 75% from 1990 (CPI-U 1990 = 127, 2007 = 202: 1982 is baseline 100). *I'm not sure where the bad investments came from. Recently the market has been moving upward, perhaps it was around 2000. With PERS increasing 445% since 2000 and costing an extra $6.6 million, this public employee retirement system seems to be at the heart of our budget problem. **A mix of numbers from different sources where some might reference 2006 and others 2007. Spending includes fire costs simply because it was easier for me to get numbers. Population figures do not include County areas which may be served in an emergency. UPDATE: In re-reading this post I think it implies that the Finance Office presentation blames the structural deficit on public safety spending. I should clarify. There are 25 slides, each with red subtitles. For example, one is subtitled Why is General Fund Revenue Per Capita so low? Two slides carry the subtitle What has caused the General Fund structural deficit? The first of those is where I found much of the information for this post. The second slide includes increased cost in non-safety departments but provides almost no numbers (it says a 25% increase in city employees has occurred since 1990). It also states that "State Takes" have drawn $17 million from the city. And it lists the declining sales tax per capita as a reason for the structural deficit. |
| Summary: Any discussion of statistics and dollar amounts
can be skewed one way or another. You can omit data or tell an incomplete
story. For this post I feel like the story is somewhat incomplete. The
numbers are probably accurate as they mostly come from city documents. I showed that the rate of inflation has been exceeded by the inflating cost of public safety. But public safety personnel and training are not consumer goods. It would be fair to ask what changes have occurred in the professional police and fire services in relation to mandated training and equipment improvements over the years. These agencies may be more efficient in delivery of services, or they may be focusing more on dealing with a more aggressive society. I'm not qualified to answer those questions. But so far city staff seem to be presenting a price based argument in relation to public safety spending. It would be good to see a performance based argument presented by the police and fire. |
 |
CI Challenge: Can you guess what it is? Winner: Anthony Watts, see comments below for the answer. |
Inflation And The Station
19 Comments
Lon
About Me: Fasten your seatbelts for an exhilarating trip through Chico's public policy; I guarantee it's marginally better than public access TV.
|
Thanks Lon, that was exactly what I was getting at yesterday.
From a financial standpoint, I think the two factors that are most important are:
- 15% more of the total City budget is spent on public safety now than 17 years ago. So, although total revenues icreased to reflect a larger city (and inflation), the amount dedicated to public safety grew faster. Essentially public safety now has a bigger piece of the pie than they used to. Inflation does not really matter in this comparison, as the total size of the pie (city revenue) essentially accounts for this. So by this measure puplic safety is eating 15% more than they used to. Where did the 15% come from? Mostly general services budgets (roads and parks) as the city has robbed Peter to pay Paul.
- If I read the two "dollars/per citizen" paragraphs correctly and I apply the inflation factors correctly, in 1990 the city spent $166 1982 dollars on each citizen ($211/1.27) and in 2007 they spent $211 1982 dollars on each citizen ($426/2.02). This is a 27% increase in spending per citizen in inflation-adjusted dollars. So by a strict monetary measure, each citizen of Chico has more public safety protection than before.
So from a financial standpoint, we are paying more in absolute AND reletive terms than ever before. You bring up training and effectiveness as possible "performance" reasons that the price may have increased. I have no way to measure if public safety is 27% better for each individual in Chico, OR if Chico as a whole is 15% better off in a public safety manner than 17 years ago. However, the fact remains, that the city and individuals are spending significantly more on public safety and getting less (as the one officer per 673 figure in 1990 and the one officer per 827 figure shows). That is a recipe for financial and performance failure.
Dave
Don't we have any fiscal conservatives on the council? How can our council unanimously approve an increase in pay and benefits to our firefighters when we already face a multi-million dollar deficit? I don't know if any of our council members are following current events, but most Americans are shouldering an increasing share of their medical and pension benefits.
I am bad with math, and other things that involve math. for my bank accounts, I just make sure i keep a certain $$ amount in it at all times so I don't go over.
I think that's Thomas Jefferson.
Dave,
I can't quantify performance versus cost either. Crime statistics from 1999 to 2003 show increases in most crimes. The largest increases come from automobile theft and burglary. Larceny was the only crime that showed a drop.
See the Police Facility Needs Assessment for the statistics.
http://www.longlazner.com/longlazner/pd_needs_063006.pdf
But you'd have to ask yourself what those numbers would have been if the police force were prevented from growing during that time frame.
More importantly, I think the funding of PERS is preventing our ability to grow the force adequately. Not sure how you get around that one.
BTW: From 1990 to 2007 violent crimes statewide were down roughly 30%. That occurred while the state population increased by 20%.
Lon
Sean,
That's a good question. Both conservatives are up for re-election. I'm not sure there would be a political upside to opposing the IAFF MOU (International Association of Fire Fighters Memorandum of Understanding).
The negotiation was not covered in the local press. It was never mentioned at Finance Committee meetings I attended (few citizens seem to be interested in taking part in these meetings). I don't believe the details of public funding are being covered in detail anywhere but this blog. In fact I may be one of 20 or so people that have actually read the MOU's for city employee unions. So councilors are not hearing a public outcry to limit spending.
Here's what voting against the IAFF MOU would get a conservative.
1. You'd be on the losing side of a 5-2 or 6-1 vote, and could then be culled from the herd
2. You'd be branded as an opponent of public safety
3. You'd have ~70 fire fighters walking precincts against your campaign
In my opinion it would take an outsider with significant popularity to hold the line on this kind of public spending.
Another point worth mentioning is that the MOU's are negotiated by city staff, and presented to the Council as an adequate compromise. Whether or not that's the case is debatable.
Lon
Trevor,
It's not Thomas J.
At the heart of this discussion is the legal requirement for the city to balance the General Fund. So eventually the city must adhere to your reasonable financial methodology.
I think a good analogy for the problem we face is that the city has been augmenting its checking account by transferring money from its savings account. Now that the savings account is running low some other changes need to occur.
Lon
oh, I hate it when I have to do that. Unavoidable car repairs, bills... ugh. I try so hard to save money.
Trevor,
That's what the credit card is for. And the analogy for the credit card is the Redevelopment Agency.
Lon
i has no credit cards. can never seem to get approved for any. oh well.
Is PERS that pot of gold that allows public safety officer to retire at 50? I'm in the wrong bidness.
CI - That would be our nations first Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton... Cha-Ching!!
Kent,
PERS, or CalPERS, is the retirement system used by fire fighters, police officers, city staff, social workers, teachers, etc, etc.
I mentioned earlier I'm not completely informed on PERS, that's still the case. But I'm under the impression that the city can negotiate different benefits with each union. At the last Finance Committee a tiered retirement was discussed. This could place new employees on the 1990 2%@50 program. A problem with this is it creates a "haves" vs. "have nots" in the departments. We could live with that. The other problem is that the savings don't occur until those new employees retire (20 years).
There may be much more to it but right now police and fire can retire at 50 with 3% of their pay per year in service. That is a pretty good deal.
Lon
D.
It's not Alexander Hamilton, although that might have been a better choice. It's a french guy, associated with the title of the post.
Lon
His name is Jacque Inflacion.... *got me*
Jean Pierre Blanchard, French balloonist, the originator of "inflation".
Anthony,
Ohhhh, so very, very, close. Right idea, wrong Frenchman.
Lon
Oh then it must be the Montgolfiers, the other French balloonists. This one looks like Joseph, rather than Jacques.
Anthony,
Yeah! It is Joseph, the brains behind the balloon. The first of a type of inflation.
Lon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgolfier_brothers
From wikipedia...
Of the two brothers, it was Joseph who first contemplated building "machines". Gillispie puts it as early as 1777 when Joseph observed laundry drying over a fire incidentally form pockets that billowed upwards.[1] Joseph made his first definitive experiments in November of 1782 while living in Avignon. He reported, some years later, that he was watching a fire one evening while contemplating one of the great military issues of the day -- an assault on the fortress of Gibraltar, which had proved impregnable by both sea and land.[2] Joseph mused on the possibility of an air assault using troops lifted by the same force that was lifting the embers from the fire. He believed that contained within the smoke was a special gas, called 'Montgolfier Gas', with a special property he called 'levity'.
As a result of these musings, Joseph set about building a box-like chamber 1x1x1,3m (3 ft by 3 ft by 4 ft) out of very thin wood and covering the sides and top with lightweight taffeta cloth. Under the bottom of the box he crumpled and lit some paper. The contraption quickly lifted off its stand and collided with the ceiling. Joseph then recruited his brother to balloon building by writing the prophetic words: "Get in a supply of taffeta and of cordage, quickly, and you will see one of the most astonishing sights in the world."[3]
The two brothers then set about building a contraption 3 times larger in scale (27 times larger in volume). The lifting force was so great that they lost control of their craft on its very first test flight on 14 December 1782. The device floated nearly 2 kilometres (about 1.2 mi). It was destroyed after landing by the "indiscretion" of passersby.[4]
I thought Anthony had it right the first time. I was thinking of the Brazilian guy that tied his balloon up to the Eiffel Tower, but wrong skin color. Those were some hairdos that those guys were sportin'!