Editorial
Tackling Palo Alto’s city-budget crisis Officials confront necessity of balancing millions of dollars worth of ‘structural’ cutbacks and new fees and assessments
P
alo Alto faces one of its biggest challenges in decades: Closing an $8.3 million budget gap with cutbacks and new revenues. The
magnitude of the proposed cuts is staggering, as delineated in a “preview budget” report presented to the City Council Monday night by City Manager James Keene and budget staff. If “structural” (meaning permanent or long-lasting) cuts are not made now, there will be far worse deficits in years to come, they warn. The report lists 32 specific items ranging from $27,000 saved by eliminating the summer Twilight and Brown Bag concert series to $894,000 saved by eliminating the Police Department’s five-member “Traffic Team.” The list is replete with items dear to some Palo Altan’s heart, including some seen as important to public safety or “quality of life.” The bottom line is that the $8.3 million gap must be closed before July 1, the beginning of fiscal year 2011. This is on top of $16.2 million cut in the current fiscal year’s budget. Gapclosing moves included one-time transfers from infrastructure reserves, suspending planning for a new public safety building, imposing benefit reductions on employees and eliminating 21 staff positions (20 of them vacant). Keene’s preliminary list to close next year’s $8.3 million gap actually totals $10.3 million, with another $1 million to come after more staff review. This will provide the City Council by June with $3 million worth of flexibility in making the hard choices that need to be made in the face of an unprecedented economic downturn. “These numbers reflect Palo Alto’s continuing fiscal difficulties in the worst downturn since the Great Depression,” the report correctly points out. “Cities across California are in a similar, or worse, condition,” it adds. While that may be true, the pain felt from the needed cutbacks and new fees will be felt by those whose positions are cut, those who must pick up the workload and by residents faced with new park-use fees or assessments for sidewalk repairs in front of their homes. Bringing back to voters a “business license tax” in an improved, streamlined form is still on the city’s long-term agenda, but no active work on that is happening after voters defeated such a tax last November. A significant difference this year is that earlier budgets were balanced mainly with one-time cuts, deferrals of projects or transfers from reserve accounts. Past balancing acts, dating back into the 1990s, rested heavily on deferred-maintenance — which invariably comes back in more-expensive ways. This year the city has run out of alternatives for short-term moves, and must at last address substantial “structural” cuts, meaning permanent cuts that are unlikely ever to be restored. The magnitude of the challenge for the city staff, council members and the community at large is beginning to be felt. Keene has embarked on a series of neighborhood-level meetings to outline the issues and scope of the dilemma. Tuesday night he noted at a meeting in Midtown Palo Alto that there are no perfect solutions or easy answers. Keene and his staff are to be commended for taking an aggressive approach to informing the public about the complex issues. At the same time, reaching 30 people at a time, such as at the Midtown meeting, is frustrating at best. (The Weekly will be putting video highlights of Keene’s presentation on its community website, www.PaloAltoOnline.com. The budget staff report is at www.CityofPaloAlto.org as CMR:208:10.) It is essential for residents to become informed about the realities of city revenues and expenditures before they launch or join a crusade to “save” a favorite program — or before they sign any petitions to give special treatment to specific services, such as the firefighters’ union initiative-petition drive now underway. A huge factor will be the fortitude of City Council members. Past councils have been unable or unwilling to take the heat for cutting popular programs or services in the face of lobbying or criticism from community advocates for one thing or another. The collective ability of the council members to agree upon hard choices, when the budget reaches them in June, and to select the least damaging of bad alternatives will be a test of the fortitude of this relatively new council. We hope the council is up to the task. It will be measured by its success or failure in doing what must be done — now, this fiscal year.
Page 14ÊUÊ «À Ê£È]ÊÓä£äÊUÊ*> Ê Ì Ê7ii Þ
Spectrum Editorials, letters and opinions
Gunn principal Editor, Gunn High School is at a turning point in its history. Still in mourning, still anxious, the school awaits the naming of its new leader — a new principal to fill the shoes of Noreen Likins. Kevin Skelly, our thoughtful district superintendent, is about to decide among candidates. What kind of person should he choose? We owe it to ourselves, and to Mr. Skelly, to think about this and let him know. Because, as an English teacher at Gunn, I see our young people Monday through Friday — say “hi” and “goodbye” to them, witness their moods, ask them how they’re doing, listen to what they say and read what they write, inquire after their (mostly superhuman) work- and stress-loads, see whether their eyes seek me or turn away, light up or are clouded — I have the advantage of knowing how they feel. I believe that it’s this kind of knowledge, and the willingness to acquire more of it, that we most need in our new principal. All wise decisions — about scheduling, staffing, school rules and requirements, safety, counseling, emotional support — will fall out of a feeling for the texture of our kids’ lives. Too many children I teach are sad. They are worried and scared. Night after night they struggle to get off Facebook, do tons of homework, wrestle with whether to cheat or not, get to bed at 1 or 2 a.m. They long for more time with friends; they have important dramas with friends; they are rejected by friends; they have their first, piercing joys and sorrows with boyfriends and girlfriends. So alert are they to every fluctuation in their (and their classmates’) GPAs that every exam they take feels as if their futures are being decided. Gunn’s bigger classes and bigger campus make them feel anonymous. The slow closing of doors at our state universities, and plunging acceptance rates at colleges nationwide, make them feel even more so. And yet their youthful ardor and idealism and intensity as teenagers allow them to accomplish Herculean feats in academics, athletics, extracurriculars, service to others, caring for each other. They write essays for me that reveal that the struggles of Jay Gatsby, Scout Finch, Hamlet and Ophelia have touched them deeply. They are our pride and joy. But if there is one thing that our dead have taught us — have cried out to us in their last acts — it is that they can wear the faces we want them to wear, they can put on a brave front when all inside them is collapsing, and that we can think that we know them when really we don’t. So our new principal must want, above all else, to know them. In my
view that is the central qualification. Whatever your view, I hope you’ll write to Mr. Skelly (25 Churchill Ave., Palo Alto 94306; kskelly@ pausd.org) and tell him. Marc Vincenti, teacher Gunn High School Palo Alto
Union petitions Editor, Firefighters are gathering signatures for their initiative petition to freeze staffing at stations and engines at current high levels. This would decimate Palo Alto’s budget and continue excessive labor expenses. Changes in staffing levels would require an election costing about $200,000. I urge you to refuse to sign the petition when approached. The letter sent out by the firefighters union gives many phony reasons why the initiative is essential. Here are some claims and facts. Claim: changing staffing levels will increase 911 response times, interfere with paramedics and could close a fire station near you. Fact: Management proposed cutting firefighters by one person/engine. There still will be adequate firefighters to respond to calls. Cutting firefighters on an engine, say from 4 to 3, won’t increase 911 response times. Medical staffing could be protected by hiring nonfirefighters for some paramedic tasks. There are NO proposals to
close any fire stations near residents. The letter compares emergency calls and staffing levels in 1976 with 2009 showing far more calls with slightly fewer staff in 2009. Why the comparison with 1976? Because 1976 was before Palo Alto established paramedic service so few calls then were medical. In 2007-08 there were 4,552 paramedic calls, 58.9 percent of 7,723 total calls. There were 192 fires. Typically paramedic calls are more than 60 percent of total calls. The 2009-10 Fire Departments’ budget is $25.532 million, 17.7 percent of the General Fund. It increased $1.087 million, the only department that increased. Firefighters were the only employee group that refused to make any pay concessions this year to help cover the budget deficit. An initiative asking citizens to vote on employee staffing levels or working conditions is a very bad idea. That task is not in our job descriptions. The city manager, department managers, and City Council should set staffing levels, working conditions and employee pay and benefits, not voters. Despite my opposition to this initiative I greatly value and appreciate the high quality, dedication service and capability of our firefighters and the excellent work they do. Bob Moss Orme Street Palo Alto
YOUR TURN The Palo Alto Weekly encourages comments on our coverage or on issues of local interest.
What do you think? What three Palo Alto city programs would you nominate for cutting or preserving? Submit letters to the editor of up to 250 words to letters@paweekly.com. Include your name, address and daytime phone number so we can reach you. We reserve the right to edit contributions for length, objectionable content, libel and factual errors known to us. Anonymous letters will generally not be accepted. For more information contact Editor Jay Thorwaldson or Online Editor Tyler Hanley at editor@paweekly.com or 650-326-8210.