CORRESPONDENCE- 65A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

but likely not better. Now no one can be expected to know the real impact of this crisis ... that is unreasonable. However, we should have plans in place to where we know what will happen if/when revenue projections are worse than expected. If we do not take immediate and strong response, we will be in a worse situation in a few months. We need to do more than "receive and file". We need to fully understand these scenarios. This is especially true with seemingly that California may be slower to economically reopen as compared to other parts of the country. Someone needs to ask: 1. What is the city going to do if the revenue decrease is $50M instead of $27M by the end of 2020? 2. Is the $50M projection by the end of 2020 including the $15M of forecasted property tax revenue in 22/23? 3. What are the priorities for the residents of Santa Ana? 4. How do we related those priorities to budgetary spending? S. How do we measure the progress on achieving the desired results associated with those priorities? 6. What is the timing for making these decisions? would suggest that an item of this magnitude is much more than a traditional "receive and file". This item needs a strategic response. One that puts all things on the table. One that everyone needs to work together for the greater good of the entire city. I recommend that this start now. If it starts later, it may be too late to make as much change as could be effectuated now. If things turn out better than what they may be now, we have gone through an exercise that allows everyone to be more knowledgeable on our city's finances which will only make us stronger. I would also like to point out that the City will receive lower Gas Tax revenue which is used for traffic signals, light maintenance, median landscaping, pothole repairs, sidewalk repairs, etc ... I think we can agree that this is an area we need to improve upon. Unfortunately, the reduced revenue will hinder the City's ability to provide these services and our residents will suffer. Even if we have a fund balance in the Gas Tax Fund, that only means that we likely have repairs to do in arrears. Measure M funds for street improvements will also suffer with certain projects being placed on hold. This will have an impact today and going forward. This was also an area that Measure X was specifically mentioned as a use of funds, which unfortunately those funds went elsewhere. 65A(2): Affirm the hiring freeze for all City vacant positions as of March 23 2020 As noted, there are 82 General Fund vacancies, and total vacancies of 153, that will remain unfilled right now. These unfilled positions will "save" the city about $7M for the current year and another $8.6M for next fiscal year. First, we should be asking ourselves why do we have so many unfilled positions in certain parts of the city while other departments have had many people hired and filled all vacancies. For example, I believe that Code Enforcement had additional hires budgeted for in the current year ... just a few if I recall correctly from their presentation to the Measure X Oversight Committee. This department I believe is impacted by the hiring freeze. Contrast that with the Police Department which had many officers budgeted for and ultimately hired and as such, their vacancies would presumably be minimal. The city chose to focus hiring on the police department at what ultimately is the detriment of other departments. Now, I want police officers to be hired but it should not necessarily be at the expense of another department due to limited hiring resources. I would ask that the city look at not prioritizing one unit over another when it comes to devoting of Human Resources and other hiring assets. Regardless, under the circumstances it would only seem prudent to affirm the hiring freeze for right now. I would also urge the city to utilize this time of doing without to determine what positions are truly needed going forward once we get out of this fiscal crisis in a few years. 65A(3): Transfer $6.6M from the Refuse Enterprise Fund to the General Fund during FY 19/20