- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Santa Barbara’s Budget Peek Is a Bleak One
The Santa Barbara City Council got a look at the city’s most pressing issue Tuesday: the budget. It wasn’t a pretty picture.
Before the four-hour session got under way, each council member was presented with a briefing binder no less than three inches thick, detailing the city’s financial conundrum. Santa Barbara faces a $10.8 million budget deficit in the next fiscal year if no actions are taken, and city staff have been wrestling for months with how best to address the shortfall.
City Manager Jim Armstrong said it’s one of the most challenging budgets he’s worked on. Every department in the city is affected by the implications of the document. Measures the city will be exploring include reducing department budgets, increasing fees and charges, labor measures like mandatory furloughs, and delays to capital improvements.
“There’s a little pain everywhere,” Armstrong said. “But I don’t think the overall quality of services will suffer too much.”
Armstrong acknowledged a tendency to react to a small portion of the plan, and encouraged people to immerse themselves in the entire budget, considering the broader context. Click here to view Santa Barbara’s fiscal year 2010 budget.
At the center of Tuesday’s discussion was the city’s $104.6 million General Fund, and finance director Bob Peirson said the deficit was caused by unprecedented declines in General Fund revenue. Although the city has a fully funded $16.5 million disaster reserve, and a $1 million capital reserve, it’s budget reserve is nearly depleted.
Peirson said his staff estimates sales tax receipts being more than $2 million short by June 30, the end of the current fiscal year. The transient occupancy tax, which is paid largely by visitors who stay in hotel rooms within city limits, was also estimated to be down $1 million. Property taxes for this year should only be short a nominal amount, about $141,000 for 2009.
One of the most dramatic numbers in the report showed transient occupancy tax revenue of $759,867 last month, which was down 24 percent, or $240,706, from a year ago, due in large part to the global recession.
The report showed revenue projections that have the city’s sales tax declining 1.4 percent and TOT by 2.2 percent. The report projects a 3 percent increase in property taxes, based on consultations with the Santa Barbara County Assessor’s Office, which says it believes that figure to be accurate.
The budget’s projected 2010 numbers are based on a multiyear forecast, which relied on a 4 percent growth rate from a 20-30 year time frame.
“Of course, we’re not in those normal times anymore,” Peirson acknowledged.
Reducing labor costs is what staff is hoping will save the city $1.5 million, by instituting furloughs, eliminating vacation cashouts and freezing benefits. Managers and supervisors who are paid from the General Fund have already accepted these reductions, and Peirson said the city should see a savings of about $840,000 as a result. But the city still needs about $660,000 worth of labor concessions to come out of discussions with the other groups, which include police and fire departments and the Service Employees International Union Local 620. Formal discussions are under way with the SEIU and informal discussions have begun with police and fire personnel.
Capital programs reductions are slated to save the city about $800,000. An example of one of these reductions calls for a 15-month delay in replacing the city’s financial management system. An 8 percent reduction for funding to community organizations like the Convention & Visitors Bureau of Santa Barbara and the Downtown Organization has also been proposed.
Reducing budgets by department is also key. One of the hardest hit will be the Parks and Recreation Department, which can expect $1.3 million less in General Fund expenditures and could eliminate as many as 10 positions. Click here for detailed documents of how each city department will be affected.
Peirson said it was vital to keep public safety from being affected by the cuts, and that public safety departments would only see a 4.7 percent funding decline, while nonsafety departments would see nearly double that amount.
Increases in fees for building permits and land development will also be enforced, as well as with parking citations, vehicle release and dog licensing fees.
Peggy Langle of the Santa Barbara Humane Society was one of several public speakers who said she was concerned the cuts would have a further negative impact on already skeletal services, like animal control.
The council also acknowledged the magnitude of work involved with approval of the budget.
“I would say that this budget in particular, because of the challenges we’re facing in the city, is one of the most important things I’ve done in my life,” Councilman Das Williams said. “I think that we will have to delve deeply into it, because it will set a precedent as to where we go from here.”
Councilwoman Iya Falcone said it would be up to the community to express what its priorities are.
“I’ll do what you want, in terms of where your priorities lie,” she said. “But you have to show up at budget meetings.”
The public is invited to a budget work session from 2-5 p.m. Thursday, as well as a series of meetings on the impacts to the individual city departments. Adoption of the 2010 budget is expected in late June.
Thursday, 2-5 p.m.
(Special Work Session)
Administrative Services
City Administrator
Mayor & Council
City Attorney
Community Development Department
Monday, 6-9 p.m.
(Special Work Session)
Library
Parks & Recreation
Tuesday, 2 p.m.
(Regular Council Meeting)
Capital Program Budget
Wednesday, May 6, 9 a.m.-noon
(Special Work Session)
Public Works
May 26, 6-9 p.m.
(Special Work Session)
Fire
Police
June 1, 3-6 p.m.
(Special Work Session)
Airport
Waterfront
Finance
Non-Departmental
June 2, 2009
9:30 a.m. -11 a.m.
(Special Work Session)
Budget Deliberations (if needed)
June 9, 2009, 2 p.m.
(Regular Council Meeting)
Budget Deliberations (if needed)
June 16-Invoice, 2 p.m.
(Regular Council Meeting)
Budget Deliberations (if needed)
June 23
(Regular Council Meeting)
Budget Adoption
— Noozhawk staff writer Lara Cooper can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 04.22.09 @ 04:17 AM
Furloughs won’t reduce the quality of services? Come on Armstrong, get real. How’s about we cut wages, benefits and retirement? The big money in the budget is labor, so that’s where cuts have to come from. Further, unlike industry, the government has never been through a serious analysis of it’s functions and needs to do so. For instance, is our process of approving construction efficient or not? You know the answer, it’s not, it’s way too political, and harms property owner’s rights. We need to re-engineer city government, just like corporations have done. That’s the way to long term reductions. Here’s another suggestion, why does the city need to operate a golf course? There are plenty around. Maybe the land would yield more in taxes if it was turned into houses! And so on.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.22.09 @ 04:27 AM
Too bad about the Parks/Rec, but if ever there were a city-funded luxury, it’s the Recreation Dept in this coastal town where recreation is easy and cheap to find. Positions and salaries should be cut—- the management level there is bloated with way too high salaries.
It’s also wrong that money is to be taken from the Waterfront Department to help fund the Parks employees.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.22.09 @ 05:37 AM
It is somewhat naive to project a 3% increase in property taxes. Those who bought their home in the past 2 to 5 years and had them re-assessed under the change of ownership provisions of proposition 13 will undoubtedly seek a re-assessment downward because the value of their homes has decreased by as much as 30 to 40 % during that time. This re-assessment will likely reduce or eliminate any increase in proerty tax revenues.
Similarly, as business properties remain vacant the owners of those buildings can seek re-assessment of the value of their buildings downward.
It is likely that the City Manager is hoping that this group of home owners do not pursue a re-assessment and therefore property taxes will automaticaly increase. (which, for residential homes, is a maximum of 1 or 2 % a year, not 3%, because of proposition 13 limitations on annual increases.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.22.09 @ 06:04 AM
Lets just pretend for a moment that the city does not have the ability to tax us all a little bit more and has to survive solely on their own merits.. Just like all of the local companies that employ so many of our residents.
As such, they need to reduce their expenses. Lets start with repealing the past couple pay increases for all employees of the city. Lets also remove some of the rediculous perks that the employees get.
As non-government employees are losing their jobs, it is only fair to spread the pain around and make the city employees share in the reversal of wealth.
Maybe going forward, the city can also consider acting more responsibly and being a better steward of the tax payers resources.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.22.09 @ 08:10 AM
There is a perfectly legal way to reduce benefit expense. File bankruptcy under the Federal Bankruptcy Act and renegotiate all union contracts to bring them back in line with other employee groups’ compensation (e.g. private sector). E.g. the city pays a human resources analyst $90K plus the usual lavish benefits. I dare anyone to find a private company paying anywhere near that money for that job.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.22.09 @ 08:43 AM
Was this a serious line “Reducing labor costs is what staff is hoping will save the city $1.5 million”? Didnt they just approve raises a few months ago?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.22.09 @ 09:58 AM
I can’t believe that any of the city council would have to gall to run again for public office. This is like the drunk who’s just run your car off the road telling you not to worry and he’ll fix everything.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.22.09 @ 01:50 PM
It’s a city, but it’s run like it’s an employment agency—one that’s rapidly going out of business because its operating costs are so high.
Why does the city need a golf course, a tv station with its own programming, and a city administrator who makes more money than the Mayor of New York, a US Senator or the Speaker of the House????
Then there’s the ridiculous amount of overpaid people working in the Community Development Dept to serve the wishes of the developers. Why don’t they take a look at how much money the staff’s agenda is costing the city in legal fees? Could save a bundle right there.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.22.09 @ 02:18 PM
Seriously, and the City Council said YES to raises???
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.22.09 @ 03:43 PM
Balancing the budget is easy.
It is a fact that during the good times the staff became bloated in both number and in salary. In good times all department added a whole bunch of “middle managers”.
Remember in 1978 there were 500 city workers for a population of 70,000 and now there are over 1000 city workers for a population of 90,000. So the city workers doubled as the population only increased by 25%. Whats wrong with tghis picture?
We can easily cut full time city employees by 25% ( especially cut middle managers—-we got by without them years ago before they were added)) and then we can easily reduce the salary of those remaining by 25%. Their salary would still be higher than they could get in private industry.
Any who want to quit because they are unhappy with their new lower salary can easily be replaced by one of those laid off.
I predict less than 1% would quit as they know they can’t find a better paying job, even after their salary is decreased by 25%, anywhere.
Budget balanced and problem solved. Plus we would actually have a huge surplus reserve.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.22.09 @ 06:51 PM
Whoever said the salaries in the Park and Rec. department was right on.
All these middle managers do almost no work and do nothing but act as a middle man between upper management and the workers who do 99% of the real work and provide 99% of the service to the public.
And many make $90,000 for a job that private industry pays a salary of $50,000 or $60,000 max. for.
But remember the Unions trade political contribution and the vote of the city employees in exchange for the high salaries and raised agreed top by the city council ( with our money). A true symbiotic relationship.
And their retirement benefits under the public employees retirement program ( often at age 50) are exactly double what they would have been under the Federal social security system.
Where do we apply?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.23.09 @ 01:57 PM
The government wages staff and perks are out of control. I garantee not one civil servant will leave if wages are cut. The government worker is spoiled goods, they forgot how to work hard, and would be rejected in the real world. Who wants a lazy workers—not all of them—but most…
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.23.09 @ 02:02 PM
The government wages staff and perks are out of control. I garantee not one civil servant will leave if wages are cut. The government worker is spoiled goods, they forgot how to work hard, and would be rejected in the real world. Who wants a lazy workers—not all of them—but most…
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.25.09 @ 11:41 AM
The city council is completely in the pocket of the various labor unions representing city employees. Our police can retire at 52 with full pay and health insurance for life - sweet deal! At some time in the near future the city will have to decide which bills they are going to pay and which ones get ignored because there just will not be enough money. Beware if you own any municple bonds because America’s city councils are going to try to stiff you before battling with their employee’s labor unions.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.26.09 @ 05:12 AM
The City can’t file for bankruptsy because it is too rich - it has 176 million in cash and investments and can easily weather this financial storm.
Yes, reduce mid-level management positions - don’t need ‘em. AND there are many more non-safety positions which could be cut to save money and negate the need to increase taxes.
BUT there are a couple important things you should know. They actually CUT the police force by 10 officers starting in 2001 but actually increased other non-public safety positions in the City. The City is being over run by crime particularly gang violence and they reduced the force size - every one of these positions were officers that were doing the work and answering 911 calls.
The City needs to reprioritize - get rid of fluff positions which will save money and allow the police force to re-staff.
SBPD officer’s salaries are 4.9% below the AVERAGE salary of other comprable Cities. In 2005 20 officers left the Department, most to work at other Departments, because the officer’s average salary was 10 to 15% below what other Departments paid. SB has to keep officers salaries competitive with other agencies otherwise there will be another mass exidus draining expertise and more money for training of new officers from the City. Even during tough economic times there is still a lot of competition between Police Departments for a limited number of qualified candidates so the thought of cutting SBPD cops’ salaries 25% is absurd and would decimate the force.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Authorities Locate SBCC Student Reported Missing
His mother had asked for the public's help finding her 20-year-old 'special needs' son
Red Flag Warning Canceled; Wind Advisory Still in Effect
Sunny skies are expected to give way to some clouds over the weekend
Santa Barbara Breaks Record With High of 86 Degrees
Previous mark for May 23 was 82, set in 1949, according to the National Weather Service
Santa Maria Man Facing Child Molestation Charges
Victim reports being sexually abused over a period of time by the suspect
Police Seek Public’s Help Identifying Suspect in Retail Thefts
Surveillance photo shows person wanted in connection with thefts at two Santa Barbara stores
Weather: Partly Cloudy 52.0º
Search Noozhawk »
