Question 7: How would you minimize the negative impact on City of Oakland services posed by the upcoming budget crunch?

David Kakishiba

Frankly, by the time the new City Council member is sworn in, much of the city's 2005-2007 Budget will have been shaped and decided upon. The CIty Council will adopt a final budget at its last meeting in June, and that will give our new council member only four weeks to weigh-in. Recreation Centers and park maintenance must be spared the ax in this new 2005-2007 Budget. Programming and productivity are at an all-time low - reducing the number of front-line workers will not result in clean, safer, vibrant parks and playgrounds.

The City of Oakland needs to be more responsible and plan for tough economic times. As your City Council member, I will advocate - even it requires a citizen ballot initiative - for the passage of a "rainy day" policy similar to the one San Francisco voters recently passed. The "rainy day" policy will take all general purpose revenues that exceed a 5% growth factor from the previous year into a "rainy day reserve fund" that could be used only when the City collects less revenues than the prior year. In this scenario, the City will be able to use its rainy day fund to make up the shortfall. Moreover, this "rainy day fund" could be used for one-time only capital improvement expenses (i.e. 25% of the fund).

Shirley Gee

The negative impact on City services (as it affects citizens) can be minimized by controlling expenditures in house and focusing on providing more direct services to citizens outside of City Hall.

The City will need to focus on money spent on non-direct services and eliminate those first. This might be consultant services, non-essential hiring of managers or supervisors, defer stationary and office supply spending, delay office equipment and furnishing purchases, computer software, etc..

Simultaneous to this, Public Works, public safety, park and recreation programs and maintenance, libraries, sanitation abatement, etc. should be retained and even expanded if possible.

To name a few possible savings . . .

For example, one thing I have noticed is that there is a considerable amount of money spent on business cards. It appears that "everybody" in City Hall have business cards made; from the Administrative Assistant to the City Manager. This is a terrible waste of public funds. Most municipalities only permit the printing of cards for top managerial staff who do a lot of city business with other public/private organizations and who are in the business of public relations. While this may not seem like much, it does add up and it is a continuous, replacement expenditure. By implementing a stricter standard for who gets business cards, we can greatly reduced or eliminate this expenditure in some circles immediately.

Also, we can greatly reduce the City's fleet of cars and start having people carpool or coordinate their trips around town instead of having everybody check out a car and drive alone for one singular trip. We should purchase AC tickets and BART tickets for errands around town or in San Francisco to save on gas and parking.

I would like to see better controls of equipment and supplies and a longer user life before disposal or replacement. This would result in savings as well.

Savings can be explored in the salary management program. We can do a better job of researching and reviewing salary information and making sure that we are accurately applying market information and cost of living index to staff increases; especially if they are currently 20% over the average market range. I would like a more in-depth study done on how the City's salary program compares to comparable cities and see if we are above, mid- or below industrial standards. Depending on outcome, we should make appropriate recommendations to put our salaries in line with market information. This study can be done by Human Resources to review all occupational areas except those in the HR field (have a more neutral party conduct this review).

Another thing we need to consider and explore (while more controversial) is whether we really need an "at large seat" on the Council. We could save a considerable amount of money by eliminating the "at large" given staffing, office space, etc. that could be better deplored in direct services. At present, it appears we have a replication of the Mayor's Office which is redundant given the strong mayor format.

In summary, we need to look at all non-essential expenditures to look for reductions or eliminations. We can also do an across the board cut, but leave direct services to citizens alone and exempt them from the budgetary axe.

Todd Plate

The city is going to suffer in the short term.  Unfortunately, there is no quick fix for the budgetary fiasco.  The best thing we can do is prioritize where our resources go based on open and frank conversations with all of the residents of this District and of this city.  We are all in this together and we need to prioritize together.  However, we must also have a better eye on long term solutions.  What we can't fix in the short term, we most certainly better fix in the long term.

Paul Garrison

I would minimize the effect of the budget crunch by establishing a list of priorities.  Public safety would be first, for example.  That being said, prioritizing what should be cut is only a short term solution.  Rather, we need a long term solution.  That is what I am proposing in my vision for Oakland .  The city council must make decisions that will promote Oakland as a place to do business which will increase the revenue that the city takes in which in turn will allow us to fund state of the art libraries, parks and schools.  These businesses should enjoy a track record of good corporate citizenship and they should be incorporated into a sustainable economy.  Why should Oaklanders travel to nearby cities for the goods, services and attention that they deserve from their city government.  Why should other cities continue to reap the economic benefits from Oaklanders spending money there rather than at home in Oakland .  We need to become a full service city by being more business friendly and setting budgetary priorities.  For more information, please visit my website at www.peopleforpaulgarrison.org.

Pat Kernighan

With an anticipated $31 million budget deficit, it will take experience working with the City budget and department operations to ensure that District 2’s basic services are protected.  As Chief of Staff to Councilmember Danny Wan, I have that experience.

City government has traditionally been responsible for providing police and fire safety,  libraries, clean parks, and maintaining streets and functioning sewers.   I will insist that these direct services to the public remain the top priority for City funding.  

Given the size of the deficit, very difficult choices will have to be made.  Below are my strategies for balancing the budget:

• Cutting administrative costs at City Hall, notably outside consultancies, management salaries, perks/travel, and Council budgets as needed.
• Effectively managing overtime so other essential services and jobs are not negatively impacted.
• Opposing use of any public funds for non-essential projects, such as a baseball stadium.
• Avoiding duplication of services where other government agencies already do the service (e.g., the County)
• Maximizing grant opportunities.
• Negotiating with  unions to reduce pension costs by having employees contribute more to the cost of their pensions.  If this becomes necessary, then ALL employee groups should share the pain equally.

Peggy Moore

We need to give top priority to protecting those services that directly impact the quality of life of Oakland residents.  We need to eliminate expensive back-room deals that cost our city millions, and we also need to work together to increase our city revenues.  This includes lobbying Sacramento and working on ballot initiatives to change State law, to make the State taxation system more fair, and provide more funding for essential local services.  For our long-term needs, we are going to have to unite to work on changes that reach beyond Oakland , so that we don't keep finding ourselves with new budget cuts, because of bad State and Federal choices each year.

Justin Horner

Over the last four years, I have worked with others on the City Council to cut over $54 million from our budget.  In May, we will be facing an additional $20 million shortfall.  I will do the following to protect City services:

1. Prioritize direct services to residents.  Streetsweeping, libraries, rec centers and other services Oaklanders directly benefit from must receive priority over other specialized services that are utilized by few.  My budget strategy will include defending the budgets of direct services and even, when possible, increasing service levels in specific areas.
2. Consultation with employees.  The City Council relies on information and suggestions provided by the City Administrator and the Mayor.  There is no systematic process by which the City Council consults with actual employees to find out how their performance can be improved and their work made more efficient.  City employees have a wealth of good ideas about where waste can be cut, where efficiencies can be realized, and where strategic investments can make a real difference.  As City Councilmember, I pledge to bring the people who actually do the work in this City to the table to have meaningful input.
3. Reconsider our debt: For the five years I have been in City Hall, there has been no systematic analysis of the City's debt.  Our creditors continue to get paid and it's the people of Oakland who take the cuts.  I want to take a look at our debt portfolio to ensure that we are maximizing opportunities to refinance and renegotiate our debt.  Obviously, Oakland must live up to its debt responsibilities, but I am not convinced that we have taken full advantage of the available means to decrease the proportion of our revenues that go to debt service.  I want to free up funds to go into basic services. 

Aimee Allison

Oakland families and children should be at the top of our budget priorities.  I will not accept balancing the budget on the backs of those least able to advocate for themselves - our children.  Our schools, libraries, and parks programs should not be cut.  In order to make sure that all Oakland families receive the services they deserve, I would focus on both managing expenses and generating revenue for the city.  Through stepped-up oversight, I would ensure that department heads have real accountability for managing expenses within their budget.  This is particularly important as it relates to the police department that routinely has overtime expenses ranging from $5-10 Million.  These overages have come out of the city's general fund, taking money from parks, street cleaning and other city services. Any unapproved and unplanned overages would come directly out of that department's budget. 

Second, I will find additional sources of revenue to support services to Oakland 's families and neighborhoods.  First, I advocate closing down the downtown redevelopment district that sets aside tax revenues generated from downtown businesses and residents.  Successful in eliminating blight, these tax dollars should now be folded into the city's general fund for services for all Oakland 's families.  This move would be worth $3M annually in the short term and $30M over the next ten years.  Second, I strongly advocate the port pay their fair share to Oakland .  In Long Beach and San Diego , cities are paid 10% and 8% of Port revenues respectively.  Oakland is paid closer to 2%.  If Oakland were paid what Long Beach is paid for hosting and supporting the Port, the city could generate an additional $800M in revenues.  Talk about closing our deficit!

In addition, the Port's Commercial Real Estate Division is acting like a private business but not paying like a private business.  Sales of Oakland 's valuable assets - the shoreline - enrich the Port and do not bring community benefits for those of us who live here.  I have the political will to challenge the city's relationship with the Port to maintain and expand services to Oaklanders.

Pamela Drake

We have to look at everything that Oakland spends its money on and pare down from the top, bringing management salaries into line with other cities with similar needs. Car allowances are unnecessary where limited mileage allowances would suffice. Eliminating unnecessary mid level management positions (some of them are essential) in favor of workers who deliver services like gardening and litter patrol is another step. Controlling police overtime by rethinking the strategy on chasing sideshows is necessary plus instituting the risk management policy proposed last year which would cut into the police budget when they incur costly lawsuits because of civil rights breaches.

Next costly contract to outside consultants has got to be monitored and cut. The $180,000 for an outside police audit was unnecessary. Two years ago, the Council okayed a huge short term (3 to 4 months) contract on the dangers of earthquakes and other natural disasters for close to 4 million dollars. We already know the dangers and what needs to be fixed. We don’t need another shelved report; we need the money to do the work.

In the long term, we need to rethink the whole redevelopment scam. 50% of Oakland is covered by it and all tax increment received after the agency goes into debt (the only way to “do” redevelopment is by first incurring debt) goes only to the work of the agency. That means taxes are frozen at those levels and no longer flow into the general fund or to schools. It starves our police, fire, and other services (recreation, street repair) to provide public money to private contractors who we then lobby for “community benefits agreements”. Some of these areas like the Oak to 9th project would otherwise invest in the valuable waterfront property. The public never gets a vote on these projects nor redevelopment itself. Bond holders also make big bucks as we back them up with city property.

Visit: www.greatergrandlake.org