My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE- 65A
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2020
>
04/21/2020
>
CORRESPONDENCE- 65A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2020 2:51:19 PM
Creation date
4/21/2020 11:10:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
4/21/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
There is no short-term relief in sight and as such, the financial crisis we are seeing ahead of us needs to be tackled with <br />long term strategies and notjust one-time relief measures. I would urge the City Council to ask more about the one <br />item in the staff report without a potential annual amount next to it..."Seek concessions with the City's employee <br />bargaining groups." Utilizing the Unappropriated Fund Balance or the Economic Uncertainty Reserve are one-time hits <br />and ones that will not continue into the future with any impact. However, exploring concessions from the city's <br />employees should be explored. It is the one items that is not really discussed in the staff report. As such, it is the item <br />that I feel will likely not be explored much. <br />Now I understand, no one wants to make less money and virtually no councilmember wants to be the one to even <br />explore this option, but when you are in charge of an enterprise the size of our city, it has to be an option that is <br />explored. How much impact would it have? What are some dollar savings based on certain percentage <br />reductions? How does the City even go about renegotiating previous contracts? Which contracts have the biggest bang <br />for the buck? Would the City's employees rather have a pay and benefit reduction as opposed to the city reducing <br />services or headcount? These are options that business owners are certainly grappling with as we speak. These are <br />options that have to be explored and explored in an open and honest way. If we do not start exploring this now, it may <br />be too late and then the City will be forced to go down roads that are even worse. <br />I urge the council to direct staff to not only prepare a 20/21 budget utilizing the Reserve for Economic Uncertainty but <br />also bring back quantifiable options for concessions with the City's employee groups. <br />Secondly, I would urge the council to direct staff to bring back a 20/21 budget that is closer to the UCLA Anderson/Fitch <br />GDP forecast whereby revenue will drop by $50M+. The city council and the residents deserve to see what our city <br />services will look like under this scenario also. <br />65A(51: Direct staff return with a feasibility analysis for issuing Pension Obligation Bonds (POB) <br />The City's pension costs are increasing annually and as discussed in the Staff Report, the city has a sizeable CalPERS <br />Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL). This UAL costs the city 7% per year. It is expected that the future UAL will increase <br />due to the recent investment performance of CalPERS being far lower than its target rate of return. <br />I feel that council and residents should understand what issuing a POB is and is not. We should also understand the <br />magnitude of the City's UAL and what it means today and into the future. <br />However, I find it ironic that this is a recommendation to issue these POBs without also instructing staff to bring back <br />feasibility studies of other cost savings measures such as mentioned above with regards to options with the City's <br />bargaining groups. Or, what one-time expenditures will be cut in the FY 20/21 budget. The council and residents should <br />have all the information so that we can all make good quality choices for today and tomorrow. By singling out direction <br />to Staff on this one item without directing them on other items, it implies that POBs are a higher priority than other <br />options available. <br />For example, I believe that the everyday resident does not understand what one-time expenses that would be cut in the <br />FY 20/21 budget would "feel like" on an everyday basis. There may be one-time items that should be kept while there <br />may be recurring obligations that should be renegotiated. Again, maybe staff knows this but the residents do not. <br />I would urge you to not only direct staff to come back with feasibility analysis on POBs but also on all cost saving <br />measures including renegotiating with employee bargaining groups, pension obligation restructuring at the state level <br />for existing employees as well as future hires, and any other options that should be placed on the table including <br />outsourcing where savings may be obtained. <br />Overall <br />I am concerned for our city. This pandemic has already brought havoc on society and now we will feel the economic <br />impacts of such havoc. This is no time to tip toe around sensitive items. The time to act is now. I pray for wisdom for <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.