« Ode To The Urban Beaver | Main | Open Letter To Tommy Gascoyne »
November 15, 2007
To Their Credit, And Unfortunately More
![]() |
| Image: Finance Department's Community Survey link
was removed from the city web site yesterday. I added a few questions
that the discerning survey taker might have asked. I mentioned this survey in a previous blog after reading about it in an E-R editorial. To their credit, the City has removed the survey link from their web site (although as of this morning the file is still on the server, [oops they removed it, here it is on my url] see survey here). I've asked the city why the link was removed from the web site and information on who produced the survey. If I get a response I'll post it here. Although without that response there are some facts that can be derived. The document was probably removed because it is an obvious piece of propaganda that seems designed to promote job security. It was probably put together by a committee. The document itself was authored by "jhenness" on 10/22/07 at 12:40PM. This simply means that the survey was created on an Adobe piece of software licensed to the Finance Director, Jennifer Hennessy. And whoever last produced it was working during their lunch hour. Now that's dedication! So I would like more information about how this survey was produced. If it came from the top down (councilors) that tells me one thing. If it came from upper levels of city staff that tells me something different. Today, I think the city staff deserve credit for removing the survey. I hope they are willing to share the reason they decided to do that. |
| And More... Over the last year I've come to question virtually everything coming from the city regarding finances. I could go through a long list of things that caused me to feel this way. I think the survey questions above and the magnitude of Fire Captain overtime pay are the two most recent examples. The survey being obviously biased, and overtime pay being obviously hushed up during Finance Committee meetings. Today in the E-R Jenn Klein interviews Finance Director Jennifer Hennessy regarding a comparison of public safety employee pay in our region (see story here). Hennessy states that our public safety employee pay is "on target". Hennessy is paraphrased as saying two things that concern me. First... Hennessy said while the amount public safety workers earn seems high to someone who works in the private sector, it's not an "apples to apples" comparison between the public and private sectors. I would agree that it is not an apples to apples comparison. It is a dollars to dollars comparison. The entire purpose of a currency system is to provide an equal and reproducible method of comparing unlike things. The world of public employee finances may be complicated and politicized, but the cost in dollars is easily determined and easily compared to our revenue. Second... Hennessy said the survey conducted in the last month showed the base salaries for police officers are on average with other north state cities and the base salaries for firefighters are within 5 percent. All but one of the cities surveyed had the same retirement plan, she said. The city looked at the base salaries and relative benefits. It did not compare overtime earnings. Hennessy said a comparison of overtime earnings is difficult to make because of the number of different policies in place in different cities on overtime. So here is a clear example of NOT comparing apples to apples. Hennessy mentions a comparison of "base pay" for police officers and firefighters. "Police officer" and "firefighter" are job positions, and here in Chico they don't appear to make money out of line with what I would expect. The average regular pay for a police officer is $56K, and a firefighter is $49K. With overtime, both positions are in the low $60K's. Which leads me to ask "what about Fire Captains"?. This job position earns on average $84K in regular pay and $37K in OT. Hennessy states in the article that the pay for firefighter positions are within 5% of communities like Oroville and Redding. The base pay for a Fire Captain in Redding in 2006 was $71K (see data here). Chico Fire Captains earn 15-20% more than Redding Fire Captains, not including overtime. What about Oroville? Fire Captains in Oroville earn a base pay of $49K-$62K (see salary table here). Chico Fire Captains earn roughly 35% more "base pay" than the highest level Oroville describes in their document. Again, overtime is not included. For Yuba City the salary range for a Fire Captain is $73K-$89K (see data here), which is in line with ours. At which point we need to take a look at overtime, which constitutes on average about 30% of a Fire Captain's total pay in Chico. I assume none of this includes the 5% raise the Fire Department negotiated for next year. Or the 25% raise negotiated over the next 6 years. A true comparison might also include whether or not other communities have restrained growth in employee costs in the coming years. So I'm concerned about the way the city salary comparison survey was presented in the Klein story. If the comparison did not look at each position in the fire department, but only firefighter, then it misses the most expensive job titles. If it did look at all of the positions, but came back with the "within 5%" stated by Hennessy then I'd like to know how the numbers were generated. If it came back with "off target" salaries for Fire Captain like I found, but only data for the position of firefighter was presented to the press, then we've got a problem. And of course all of this means I need to ask for the survey data to see if my concerns are valid. They may not be. I don't want to imply nefarious intent here, but the statements in the E-R story don't seem to stand up well to cursory fact checking. I would also like to point out one final thing. Saying we are, or need to be, competitive with other communities is not a reason for spending more money than we have. |
| Blog Review: My wife thought the Urban Beaver post was very bad, and very stupid. She felt that my poetry was awful. So I just wanted to take the time to tell her how wonderful, beautiful, and supportive she is. I might even write a poem about her. |
![]() |
CI Challenge: Can you guess what it is? Winner: Anthony Watts, see comments below for the answer. |
Posted by Lon at November 15, 2007 07:29 AM
Comments
Your wife is right about you,
But that, we already knew.
The Challenge is clip art decals of the International Hazardous Poetry Symbol.
Posted by: Gregg Payne at November 15, 2007 09:23 AM
CI challenge: Looks like part of an optical test pattern. One example would be a printed test pattern to check the optical resolution of a camera, scanner or copier.
On that city survey, I’ll admit to having a small bruise on my forehead from hitting my head against the wall after reading it… “Ug” is about all I care to say about it.
"...…, it's not an "apples to apples comparison….”
It never is.
A typical response from (and serious error) from any management team is to stomp your foot down and say “We’re different” while refusing to go through the always painful exercise of paradigm change.
As for the comparisons to other Cities…. Those comparisons are interesting anecdotal information, but, just because those other cities are doing something does not make it right.
I believe that to some degree we have a problem whereby these different public agencies compare themselves to each other, and then fight to be “Above Average”.
Of course this causes a never ending spiral upward.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-20-pensions-cover_x.htm
http://www.californiapensionreform.com/initiative_press_release.htm
Or worse, in our own city we have examples of upward movement in salaries based solely upon an increase in General Fund revenues!
http://www.marksorensen.net/IAFF_MOU-2002-2007.pdf
Read exhibits C & D beginning on page 57 of the PDF.
“…Once the percentage General and Park Fund increase has been determined in accordance
with Subsection B.1 above, such amount will be used to establish a general salary increase
percentage from the “Revenue and Pay Adjustment Table” in Section D below….”
It would take a bit of work to do the calculations to see the exact impact of increasing General Fund revenues, but it is fair to say that the employees were likely to get a big chunk of it – regardless of any other factors. Regardless of any changes in CPI, city population, work load, productivity, etc….
No wonder we’re behind the Eight Ball in road maintenance, and other deferred maintenance… The more money that would in – by formula it would flow out directly to the employees.
Then, move on to Section D…
“…..The Comparison Cities Pay Maximum is equal to 115% of the Average Comparison Cities Top
Step Pay Total….”
The designated Comparison Cities were: Merced, Modesto, Sacramento and West Sacramento….
As long as we’re comparing ourselves to other cities, and per capita staffing levels, let’s compare our per capita REVENUE to other cities… See Page 5:
http://www.chico.ca.us/Finance/Chico_Financial_Challenges.pdf
In my opinion, this is the result of decades of failure in the area of Economic Development. 6 out of 10 of our largest in town employers are public agencies. In fact, the 2nd largest source of employment growth in our area is: government jobs.
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/article.asp?articleId=642
http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/indhist/chic$haw.xls
Meanwhile the average household income in our County is around $39,000 per year.
http://www.muninetguide.com/states/california/Butte.php
For those who may have missed Richard Ek’s articles in the CNR on the Chico City Budget issues and payroll/benefit costs, here are the links to the stories:
03-29-2007
http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=302991
05-03-2007
http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=318856
09-20-2007
http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=540092
10-18-2007
http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=589115
Posted by: Mark Sorensen at November 15, 2007 09:43 AM
I agree with your wife, the Urban Beaver Blog was not nearly as interesting as today’s topic. However, since it doesn't sound like you are getting much support at home, I have written a poem to show my overwhelming support of your unwavering dedication to the truth. Thank you so much for all that you do to keep your enormous amount of fans in "the know".
Ode to the Blogger Man
Oh Blogger, Dear Lon
Giving us insight,
Starting at dawn
Oh Blogger, Dear Me
Such dedication,
Opining for free
Oh Blogger, Dear Flame
Let’s focus on the budget,
Beavers are lame
Oh Blogger, Dear Man,
Please keep up the posts,
Cuz I am a fan.
Posted by: withanee at November 15, 2007 10:05 AM
Withanee,
That's some "dam" good poetry. Sure could have used you yesterday.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at November 15, 2007 10:44 AM
Lon, I think the CIC "nobody" answer is on the wrong post.
The test chart is one I'm familiar with, working with digital and optics. It is the USAF 1951 resolution test chart.
See this:
http://www.sinepatterns.com/images/USAF---XL-target.gif
The USAF Test Target was developed in and for use within the U.S. Government specification Mil-Std-150. It is one of the most commonly used optical resolution targets.
it has a feature of smaller and smaller repeating patterns, ad infinitum, much like an M. C. Escher drawing or a fractal.
Posted by: Anthony at November 15, 2007 11:48 AM
Mark pretty much covered it all, but I seem to remember that traditionally generous benefits were paid govt employees because salaries were normally below private sector wages. Obviously that is not the case in Chico. The comparison cities are a joke. I'm sure Folsom, Vacaville and San Rafael are nowhere near the same league as Chico when it comes to revenue.
Posted by: Sean at November 15, 2007 11:55 AM
Anthony,
You are correct, thanks. I left the "winner" there, because I think we've got one. Can you guess who it is?
Lon
Posted by: Lon at November 15, 2007 12:02 PM
Sean,
Here is the per-capita general fund revenue Mark spoke of (town, general funds per person, sales tax rate).
Santa Cruz 1,129 8.50%
Roseville 981 7.25%
San Luis Obispo 976 7.75%
Folsom 759 7.75%
Eureka 732 7.25%
Gridley 705 7.25%
Lodi 700 7.75%
Woodland 677 7.75%
Redding 639 7.25%
Napa 633 7.75%
Oroville 609 7.25%
Vacaville 588 7.38%
Red Bluff 556 7.25%
Davis 534 7.25%
Yuba City 494 7.25%
Merced 473 7.25%
Chico 408 7.25%
Paradise 341 7.25%
Posted by: Lon at November 15, 2007 12:24 PM
Everyone,
The Finance Department has a document (new to me, might have been for the last public forum, which I missed) that includes case studies on how other communities tried to balance their budgets.
These include cities that implemented major cuts and those that increased taxes. There are also some bullets describing the benefit of the RDA and why assets can't be used to address the budget problem. It's worht a look.
http://www.chico.ca.us/Understanding_Chico_Finances_-_QA.pdf
It was created on 11/6/07. But the case studies are interesting.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at November 15, 2007 12:30 PM
At the last finance meeting, didn't they say that several of the cities that they are using for comparison are close to bankruptcy themselves? Vacaville, Folsom. I don't recall exactly which cities, but I definitely remember the comment being made.
Do you think they are blogging about the same thing as us?
I guess that is one way of comparing apples to apples but if they are all rotten, is that very smart?
Posted by: tj glenn at November 15, 2007 01:41 PM
I keep hearing that everyone wants to move to Chico because of the "quality of life" and the economic benefit. If that is true, then how come we have to pay public service employees so much just to keep them here?
What does that say about the people that represent the city?
I need an explanation because all the talk is starting to feel disingenuous and making me feel like a loser.
Posted by: tj glenn at November 15, 2007 01:51 PM
Lon,
Why would I waste time guessing who won this CIC when I know it's me? Your premise sounds like something from a public agency. At least you didn't suggest I perform a study, then out the results at a charrete to have the community vote on a winner.
Posted by: Anthony at November 15, 2007 01:56 PM
TJ,
Unfortunately I missed the last public forum, and spent the time with my son's teacher. I'm not sure what was discussed, but the link I added in a previous comment shows some case studies that were probably discussed.
You make a good point on the quality of life issue.
There is also a common theme that we hire only the best people, and so we pay top notch for them. I don't want to tarnish the reputations of our hard working city staff, but how did we get into a huge budget hole if those super smart people are running the show? Is it true that hiring super state-of-the-art employees caused the budget problem? Wouldn't that mean that if we hire "lessor" people we'll get rid of our budget problem? So what is the benefit of hiring really good employees? Less money for parks and roads? That argument is beginning to lose steam with me.
Here are a couple of points regarding attracting employees:
Chico Police cannot find enough people to join up (and not wash out). That's because the job is pretty much thankless even with good pay etc. I've heard the Fire Department has a long list of applicants. That's because the job comes with great community status and pay. But the two jobs are very different and we don't need high pay to attract firefighters, in my opinion (I could be wrong).
Second, why don't we attract and hire really smart people from Butte County and Chico. The median income is much lower than what's being paid at the Hall. Do we really need to compete with Vacaville, Merced, Folsom, etc? How many people do we actually hire that aren't from this area? I'm going to go out on a limb and say we're competing with those towns on paper only. Police may be the exception.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at November 15, 2007 02:26 PM
Lon, I just wanted to say I really appreciate the blogging you do...
Just to let you know, I needed an idea for a contest for our open house and live radio broadcast. Kalf 95.7 is coming.... and Coyote of the moo crew...
I love your CI challenge, and kind of borrowed the idea to make contest to win a prize during the event! Hope it's OK, your CI challenge is the bomb-diggity-dang!
If any of you bloggers are free, please drop by! We will be here from 3pm-7pm at the corner of East and Esplanade right above Hulas BBQ.. Free food and a challenge....
Posted by: Mark at November 15, 2007 02:26 PM
the CI Challenge looks like an alien language of sorts, with futile attempts by humans to decipher it into a numeric system for easier understanding. It could possibly be Cylon.
(I know anthony won) =P
I'll run for city council. Then I will make a law that allows the beavers to have lease-to-own options on parcels of land around the creeks in the area. Water and Garbage paid. Pets considered after deposit.
Posted by: TrevHastings at November 15, 2007 02:32 PM
Mark,
I love you to.
The CI Challenge is free to all.
It is a gift bestowed upon mankind by Steve Bertagna, who first challenged us by recognizing what car I drove by the air cleaner I held in an image. And also to Gregg Payne who sent me clips of car parts for a further "challenge" to post. And then I played a small part by broadening it to include the wide world we live in.
Go forth Mark, and spread the challenge to all who will guess.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at November 15, 2007 02:37 PM
The more times I read that survey, the more uncomfortable I get.
This almost looks like a no-win scenario. If the city is innocently giving out a survey like this, it shows how "innocent" they are in a naive way, which is probably not a good reflection of the salaries we pay. Or, perhaps they were just too busy to give it a thorough re-reading or proofing. Still, not a good sign.
If it is intentional, then that is obviously bad.
I am embarrassed for my friends at the city. and the fire department. I hate where this is going, but I hope it makes us stronger as community. In my mind, I think it would be worse if we didn't talk about it.
Don't you think someone like Gascoyne would spin this right into next year and it would be his advertising revenue savior?
Posted by: tj at November 15, 2007 02:38 PM
Tom's not going to be at the Beat next year. He's going to be my campaign manager. Bet on it!
Lon
Posted by: Lon at November 15, 2007 02:49 PM
For those of you that are still enjoying the thrill of Urban Beaver rhyming I wanted to point out that Tina Hoover posted a very good rhyme.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/commission/archives/2007/11/ode_to_the_urba.html#comments
Lon
Posted by: Lon at November 15, 2007 02:53 PM
Tina,
Nice job!
Twas the night before dam-it....
Posted by: Mark at November 15, 2007 03:05 PM
Lon,
Your in depth coverage of the the police department during your ride-along was auxillerating and kept me on the edge fo my seat. I wonder if the same would happen if you spent a day at the fire station. Love to see suit up and go down the fire house pole. Give it a thought. Im sure they all love you down at the station!
Posted by: Jason Bougie at November 16, 2007 12:53 AM
Jason,
You make a very good point. I've treated the Fire Department somewhat unfairly by not seeking more information about their day-to-day job.
I've probably done a disservice to the FD by not seeking more information. They did have a representative call me and offer to answer any questions I have. I haven't taken them up on the offer, which is probably unfair.
So I'll give police, fire, and city staff an opportunity to address the readers of this blog in their own way, and they can decide to use that opportunity or ignore it.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at November 16, 2007 04:42 AM

