37 replies to this topic

[folsom500]

Guess Folsom is not unique:

The city of Folsom, which has weathered several years of declining revenues and rising costs, is cutting again - this time eliminating 29 budgeted jobs and sending 19 workers out the door for the next fiscal year.

"We are in another difficult budget circumstance," City Manager Evert Palmer said this week. "We are approaching this budget with an eye toward meeting financial obligations and preserving that quality of life" in Folsom.

The factors that are driving the city's revenues lower are not unique to Folsom. Countywide, proceeds from property taxes are declining and the region struggles to extricate itself from a glut of foreclosures that has driven home values lower.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.co...l#storylink=cpy

[The Average Joe]

If you count eliminating vacant positions a "cut." So the city is cutting the Parks and rec dept cause it's an easy target. 19 total jobs out of 422. That is less than 5%. Perhaps if we reduced some of the upper admin costs to a reasonable level, we could save those jobs. Or maybe (GASP) renegotiate the benefits packages for city employees to save jobs.

It's always the minions who do the work that get cut while the admin only seems to grow fatter every year.

Do we really need 422 full time people to run Folsom? Just curious...

[Stop South of 50]

Maybe our PART-TIME city council can give up their FULL health care benefits. That'd save some money... but they wouldn't have the guts to cut their own benefits.

[giacomo]

If everyone making over 150k was given a 2% temporary pay reduction there would be no need to layoff anyone.

A great suggestion. Article in the Bee today re: the layoffs. Parks and Rec took the biggest hit,where 9 longtime employees will lose their jobs. The Bee said 29 positions were being eliminated, but I believe 10 of those positions were not filled by anyone, but vacant, so in essence one department is absorbing just about half of the layoffs.

If you attended the meeting Tuesday night, Ernie Sheldon read a prepared statement to the council and the public asking/pleading for the unions to meet with him and rest of council to see if they could find a way in reducing this budget defecit and save some jobs. Not likely. He also mentioned that approx. 135 City employees earn over $100K with many of those making $130K-$150K. Dude, your 2% formula would have saved all the jobs.

One more item to consider: The city forecasts another $2 million deficit for next year as they don't see any increase in sales and property tax revenue. Next year could see another huge round of layoffs. Brutal.

There's a City Council meeting on Tuesday April 17 6:30pm If you can make it and are concerned about the fee increases and layoffs and loss of services, attend this meeting.

[The Average Joe]

2%? Why not 10%? Or 15% That seems more in line with current fiscal realities...
135 making between 100 and 150k? Does that seem obscene to anyone else but me?

[4thgenFolsomite]

so there are about 440 city employees and 135 of them (or 25%) make over $100k? Dang!

[andy]

2%? Why not 10%? Or 15% That seems more in line with current fiscal realities...
135 making between 100 and 150k? Does that seem obscene to anyone else but me?

It depends on what their jobs are and the market rate for those jobs. While the overall unemployment rate is high, the rate for college educated professionals is under 5 percent. A lot of government positions have high demand and low supply right now; there are not a lot of folks available with the necessary experience and skill sets to navigate what is a very difficult moment in history.

And there's a huge difference between $100k and $150k. I don't really consider $100k particularly high compensation these days.

[supermom]

I specifically remember them saying last year; if they made the suggested cuts last against the parks, fire, and police departments as suggested -- that their budget would be in the clear for a 5 year projection.

I think we need some new city projector people.

[quietlythinking]

If you count eliminating vacant positions a "cut." So the city is cutting the Parks and rec dept cause it's an easy target. 19 total jobs out of 422. That is less than 5%. Perhaps if we reduced some of the upper admin costs to a reasonable level, we could save those jobs. Or maybe (GASP) renegotiate the benefits packages for city employees to save jobs.

It's always the minions who do the work that get cut while the admin only seems to grow fatter every year.

Do we really need 422 full time people to run Folsom? Just curious...

Just fyi, the city employees voluntarily renegotiated their benefit packages two years ago in order to save jobs then. I don't know why people don't know about this, but Folsom city employees now contribute their full amount to their retirement and the health insurance costs on the employees parts go up every year. We really can't negotiate much more on that end. I don't believe any cuts have been made on the "upper end" though and that is where the real savings would be.

[The Average Joe]

It depends on what their jobs are and the market rate for those jobs. While the overall unemployment rate is high, the rate for college educated professionals is under 5 percent. A lot of government positions have high demand and low supply right now; there are not a lot of folks available with the necessary experience and skill sets to navigate what is a very difficult moment in history.

And there's a huge difference between $100k and $150k. I don't really consider $100k particularly high compensation these days.

Low supply and high demand for government positions? Are you kidding me? I disagree with your whole premise.
Not a lot of folks available with the skills and talent? Puhleeease.

You must be a union lobbyist. 100k IS high compensation. FYI the average salary for CA is 49,550. The people PAYING for those government salaries don't think they are reasonable.
Even if you use Folsom data, the median income for males was only 60k. Household income was only 87k. Civil servants should not be making 2-3 times the average. And that doesn't even include the benefits. See, it's right there in the title...civil SERVANTS. They are there to work for those that pay them, not line their wallets with lucrative "negotiated" contracts.
And one quarter of the staff are making that kind of money? No defending that my friend...

[Robert Giacometti]

It depends on what their jobs are and the market rate for those jobs. While the overall unemployment rate is high, the rate for college educated professionals is under 5 percent. A lot of government positions have high demand and low supply right now; there are not a lot of folks available with the necessary experience and skill sets to navigate what is a very difficult moment in history.

And there's a huge difference between $100k and $150k. I don't really consider $100k particularly high compensation these days.

A few years ago, the City of Folsom hired a new City Manager, who had ZERO experience as a City Manager and made them the HIGHEST paid in the region, according to the SAC BEE.

I think we all saw what skills sets are needed to work at the GSA!

[The Average Joe]

Just wanted to add...there is no "market rate" when it comes to government jobs. There is only what lobbyists and politicians determine the rate to be.

Bottom line, we are not getting a good value for our dollars. While private sector is cutting fat and (mostly) working hard for our money, public sector has no such incentive.

[MikeinFolsom]

Then move. Easy. I am extremely happy for what we have in Folsom. I wouldn't trade it for anywhere. You seem to not like it so much. Move.

[The Average Joe]

I moved forward in my chair...now I'm moving backward...does that make you feel better?

Yours is a pretty lame position to take. I said nothing about Folsom nor about liking it here. The discussion was FINANCE and TAX REVENUE and SPENDING.

You also assume one thing equals another (less revenue must equate to less of "what we have here"). That is false logic, and that lack of creative thinking is one reason we are where we are.
Just because I prefer a value for my tax dollar and you prefer to overpay for services does not mean I want you to move... but then, I don't tend to want to run people out of town with viewpoints other than my own.