Saturday, January 24, 2009

A Glimpse at Tuesday's Agenda:

$700,000 Fee Giveaway to Northgate Developer
At the Council's last meeting, the Council majority (5-2, with Joanne and I dissenting) granted the developer's request to amend the Northgate specific plan and allow the senior housing project to be downgraded to generic multi-family housing. In addition to losing more senior housing, by agreeing to this request the City was prevented from being able to collect an additional $700,000 in additional fees. This will be the final reading of the ordinance.

Negotiated Settlement with Vallejo Police Officer's Association

I wish the VPOA would have agreed to this deal two years ago, even one year ago. As it stands now, though, it's simply not enough. I won't go into all of the details of the settlement now, that will come on Tuesday, but I will say that I have four key issues with this agreement:
  1. It does not require VPOA to pay a portion of their health care premiums. Every employee in the city, including the City Council, should pay 25 percent of their premiums. And by giving VPOA a free health care ride, that sets up the other employees to ask for the same benefit. Which the City simply can't afford. But it wouldn't be fair to ask IBEW, CAMP and IAFF to pay a portion of their health care, but not VPOA. We should not have different classes of employees.

  2. Guaranteed raises. This recession, optimistically, will last at least another two years. How can we guarantee raises when we don't know where we'll be at financially next year or the year after? The State will be taking more city funds back, giving IOUs, cutting programs. Our big development projects that we're counting on to bring in new revenues won't come on board for at least two to five years. It looks like we might get Stimulus monies from Congress, but that won't be enough. How can we promise raises when our revenues will at best remain flat, more likely go down further? That is simply irresponsible. We should agree to consider cost of living raises every year, but it would have to depend on our ability to pay.

  3. Agreeing to pay VPOA attorney fees if the City can't meet the promises in this agreement. That is simply unacceptable. As a member of this City Council, it is my job to look out for the best interests of this City and make sure we are protected. Agreeing to this would be an abdication of that responsibility. Who knows what is going to happen in the next two years? Giving VPOA insurance against future economic downturns is nice for VPOA, bad for Vallejo taxpayers.

  4. A piecemeal process. Again. Until we know what the other employee groups will agree to, we should not be signing any agreement. What happens if IAFF works the political system in Sacramento and legislatively prevents the City from cutting their wages or benefits (don't think they're not trying to do this). With the VPOA contract signed and IAFF wages and benefits untouchable, that would again lock up 75 percent of our general fund. With the economy getting worse and not better, where will our cuts come from? Not VPOA, unless we want to pay their legal fees when they challenge us. Not IAFF, if they get their backdoor way. We'll be in the same boat we were in before BK, but worse. Cuts will have to come from city services and non-PSU personnel. Agreeing to this now will tie our hands in the future. Business as usual.