« A Wright Not A Privilege | Main | Run, Mark, Run »
April 30, 2008
Under The Gun
 |
| Image: Funding cuts that would be shouldered by
city department, if a 7.5% across the board cut occurred. At the 8/22/08 Finance Committee meeting the City Manager, Dave Burkland, provided information on how the city could balance the budget and fill the hole caused by the existing structural deficit. This budget fixing method would not solve the need for additional city employees as the area adds to its population. The police department proposed cutting 14.5 positions to meet their budget target. Being the largest department their cuts have the largest fiscal impact. All of the other cuts fall below them on the list. From their report most of the cut positions seem to be empty but budgeted, or officers can be transferred to other jobs, thus vacating the positions. The fire department cuts, whose plan I haven't read yet, have been described as cuts in overtime pay. It's still pretty amazing to me that cuts in overtime equaling $1,000,000 are possible this far into the budget problem. But I haven't read their plan, so maybe that's an oversimplification of the cuts. Notice from the agenda below that limiting the pay increase of all city employees to 1% for 2 years is equal to a 3.25% cut in every department. If they limited the growth to 0% for 4 years they could probably do away with the 7.5% department cuts. But looking at the broad view of the "plan" (reprinted below) it looks like the 2 pronged assault on the budget is a reasonable direction. The limit of employee pay raises to 1% for two years cuts the rate of the budget deficit's growth. When coupled with the departmental cuts, the General Fund's income can exceed the structural deficit over time. At least that's the expectation, but I've never seen the spreadsheet that shows how/when that happens. The thing to look for is whether or not the IAFF accepts a 6% pay cut by limiting their increases to 1% for two years. If they play ball the rest of the cuts will probably work. If they opt to take a different route, then Chico's budget solution will be occur over a much bumpier road. The budget issue is not static, even though it's being discussed as a static problem. it will change based on economic conditions and spending decisions. It has been getting worse lately. More than just the General Fund is in trouble. From the 8/22/08 Finance Committee agenda... The following expenditure reductions are recommended: (1) Limit cost of living adjustments (COLA) for all employees to 1% for January 1, 2009, and January 1,2010. This recommendation reguires negotiations with all employee groups and would result in a savings of $2.3 million per year. (2) Apply a 7.5% "across the board" reduction to Departmental Operating budgets to achieve a $4.6 million reduction of which $3.8 million would be from the General Fund. This target would be achieved through vacancies, attrition, and reductions in materials, supplies, and other nonsalary expenses. Based on the City's average six percent attrition rate over the past 11 years, I believe the necessary staff reductions can be achieved without forced personnel reductions. The workout plan for each department is unique and a variety of cost-savings actions have been proposed to meet the reduction targets. The financial impact of the 7.5 percent departmental operating budqet reductions over a two-year period is summarized in Table 1 below[shown above]. The detailed workout plans and service impacts for each department are included under the Exhibit A tab in the agenda binder. |
 |
CI Challenge: Can you guess what it is? Winner: Gregg "kaboom" Payne. See comments below for the answer. |
Posted by Lon at April 30, 2008 08:33 AM
Comments
CIC is the grip under the barrel of an M-16
Posted by: Anthony at April 30, 2008 08:55 AM
CIC is the grip under the barrel of an M-16
sorry I meant the recoil spring housing
Posted by: Anthony at April 30, 2008 08:56 AM
A grenade launcher. Or do you want the make and model?
Posted by: Gregg at April 30, 2008 08:57 AM
The M203 Rail Mounted Grenade Launcher.
Yours for only $1800.
Add to cart.
Posted by: Gregg at April 30, 2008 09:00 AM
CIC: M203
"The fire department cuts, whose plan I haven't read yet, have been described as cuts in overtime pay. It's still pretty amazing to me that cuts in overtime equaling $1,000,000 are possible this far into the budget problem."
This, to me, is the proverbial "elephant" (or giant Dalmation) in the room.
Posted by: rainman at April 30, 2008 10:11 AM
A quick topic segway (assuming they are allowed in the park), or non sequitur, Jim M. commented on my last post...
Take the poll. As of Wednesday 10:30 AM over 45% of the people had no problem with either the paragliders or the TJ farms horse carrages. Apparently this really doesn't piss off the populace that much. 22% said to hell with both activities, with the rest split.
I just voted supporting both activities. While I would prefer to see paragliding horse carriages I am willing to settle for them being separate park uses.
The E-R poll is on the E-R main page
Fly you glorious damned paragliders, fly...
Lon
Posted by: Lon at April 30, 2008 10:53 AM
Hell, I'd pay to see paragliding horse carriages. . . .
Have we just now solved the budget crisis????
JIM
Posted by: Jim Mellem at April 30, 2008 12:14 PM
I think Gregg is right about the grenade launcher. Here's a picture of Lon trying it out targeting some jumbo fairy shrimp on Bidwell Ranch:
http://ar15websites.com/images/system/norm.php?D4EG9-00-8-28-07-082.jpg
Posted by: Anthony at April 30, 2008 02:20 PM
Anthony,
That does kind of look like me... if I was going to shoot someone.
Here's an actual photo of me carrying an M203 in Germany when I was 19.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/commission/archives/2007/11/scary.html
Lon
Posted by: Lon at April 30, 2008 02:39 PM
The largest group that should also be considered with the survey math is the 99% of ER readers that didn't take the survey at all. This is because they don't give a flying rat's rear end whether there are paragliders and carriages in the park or not. No opinion is still an opinion that indicates a lack of opposition.
I think the few who are opposed have already expressed it, and it seems to be the same people who like to oppose a lot of things.
Since there is no law against backpacking in the park, and once someone's feet leave the ground, they are only subject to FAA rules, I don't see how the City can have a law against this in the first place.
Posted by: Gregg at April 30, 2008 02:44 PM