Katy Miessner on the Deal with Police

The last future years' analysis through 2011-2012 was prepared by the Finance Department on May 6, 2008.  Many things have changed between then and now (please read the article in Sunday's SF Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/MNV7155VSC.DTL&type=business&tsp=1) predicting the dire situation with property taxes.   When the bankruptcy was being considered, the financial meltdown for the State and US economy wasn't even fully realized.  Given that the amendment commits the City to future expenses and extends the contracts to 2012, it is imperative that a fiscal analysis through this date is prepared as well.  No one expects the economy to recover by then and the Council must be given this complete information so that they are able to make the most informed decision possible.

It is the prudent, and in our situation the only approach. 

• Have Vallejo's bankruptcy attorneys weighed in on this amendment? If so, what is their response?  If not, it seems to me that they should investigate this action before recommending approval of the amendment - has this been considered?
• How will other creditors react (or rather, what is their legal right)?  I.e., will approval of this amendment set Vallejo up for additional lawsuits from other creditors
• How does this impact City Council's liability discussed during consideration of bankruptcy?
• How is the City planning to protect Vallejo from the same fiscal crisis situation occurring again, especially considering the amendment guarantees the City will pick up any VPOA legal fees if the City has to breech this contract?  This agreement to pay future VPOA legal fees sets a terrible precedent, will burden future Councils and limit their discretion.
• The City hasn't yet been able to solve the current bankruptcy crisis; with VPOA off the table, how will Vallejo emerge from bankruptcy?  If this is approved, what other cuts is the City planning to make with such a large part of general fund expenses off the table? Why the piecemeal approach?
• With economic predictions so dire what are the city's plans for guaranteed increases in revenues when this amendment proposes guarantee future expenses for VPOA?
• What is the City planning to do in regards to the unfunded $29 million sick/vacation liability?
• How will the City pay VPOA for the $1,000,000 VPOA "lost" in raises due to the pendency plan? Item #12 on page 3 of the staff report indicates $1 million will be paid over three years, but the "issues" column says "provides claim structure that does not require City cash payment". What does this mean and if there is no cash payment, how will it be paid?
• The staff report indicates the VPOA minimum staffing requirement has been rescinded but it is my understanding that this clause never had a legally recognizable vote.  Roger Kemp, former City Manager, apparently agreed to this outside of his authority and it did not receive the required council majority vote.  How could the minimum staffing requirement be rescinded when it should not even exist?
• Given that health insurance will still be paid at 100% and so few employees opt for higher plans than the proposed Kaiser plan as a cap, how will the city ever see any savings?  The cap is a dollar amount, which will certainly be wiped out when the premiums increase next year.
• How will the city realize any savings from items #6, #8 & #9 when these only apply to new hires?  It is unlikely there will be many new hires and even if there are, they will be limited, and these types of savings will be realized over many years.
• How will the city realize savings on the longevity pay changes when it applies to so few employees (1 or 2) and new hires (see previous bullet)