His performance, while oscar worthy, was clearly the result of our applying a blowtorch and Castro fatigues to the backside of Mayor Osby Davis on this website. When you get that sort of a reaction you know you hit a nerve. The Mayor and council majority have had since February to schedule this. Shoving Soley out there to accept the blame at the last minute was just weak and transparent. Even if Soley did the actual scheduling, it was only because he was put in a corner by Osby plus four. Nobody believes Soley was responsible.

“I hope those words are not used against you for a personnel action in the future.” added councilmember Joanne Schivley.

Remember:

Khmer Rouge dictator Pol Pot had people who wore glasses shot because they were perceived as intellectuals and therefore a threat. Will we see a similar action in Vallejo City Hall? It has already begun.

If a City Manager gets fired in the woods and nobody hears him fall...was he fired or did he resign?

The next item in the category of spin and obfuscation is the discussion regarding whether Tanner resigned or was fired. If someone is forced to resign is that a voluntary departure? or something more akin to a firing? It's not that hard to figure out folks. We at VIB prefer to use the term "coup" because it really involves issues of control and dominance—Can you say “Dear Leader”? Tanner was simply too strong to cave in to the will of the council majority and their benefactors.

Mayor Osby Davis went into a diatribe of redirection stating, “The facts need to be very, very clear.” In an attempt to deflect he added, “Two councilmembers here were involved with the removal of another city manager.” This is a reference to the removal of City Manager Roger Kemp by a past council. The unconfirmed word is that Kemp overstepped his bounds in granting certain things to certain groups he should not have. A very different circumstance.

Councilmember Tom Bartee thanked Tanner for his service and went on to add, “To indicate that he didn't want to go is not a correct statement.” This is an outright lie.  Bartee has been under orders to nail Tanner for some time now. This was merely his way of twisting the knife. Tom Bartee gets the three star bullshit award for this statement.

Having spoken to Joe Tanner on many occasions during his time as City Manager, I can say that he clearly wished to stay and see Vallejo through the bankruptcy at the very least. All other claims by the mayor or the city council majority to the contrary are simply untrue. Perhaps some folks are happy to see Tanner go. That's their choice, but let's not cover up the truth.

Joe Tanner's high pay and payout are emblematic of a broad systemic problem in this state regarding public employees. By making an example of him, have we hurt ourselves in the long run though?

Thanks for giving it your best shot Joe.

Resolution approved 5-2 Gomes and Schivley opposed

A Special Session to appoint an interim City Manager is scheduled for June 1 at 4:30 PM.

Regular Meeting of The Vallejo City Council

Presentations and commendations

Architectural achievement awards were presented by Chris Naughton of the Vallejo Architectural Heritage Foundation. Congrats to all those recognized. We really do have some great vintage housing stock in Vallejo.

May is Phillippine Cultural Month. Nice to see folks wearing the traditional garb. (Sorry, I don't know the tagalog words and I don't want to slaughter it.)

First Community Forum

Fred Menard, owner of Indian Alley Antiques on Georgia Street raised his opposition to the planned relocation of the Wednesday Night Festival to Virginia Street. Menard has a petition with close to 1000 signatures urging the festival be kept on Georgia St.

Jana Besch spoke about her efforts in the areas of green renewal and jobs. She hopes to help the city foster “successful and green economic recovery”.

Bus Transfer Station

The downtown bus transfer station project moved forward with a 5-2 vote—Gomes and Schivley opposed.

“The one at York and Marin has caused nothing but problems”, said councilmember Joanne Schivley. “Memorializing it will not solve the problem.”

Charter Review Progress Report—Binding Arbitration Forges Ahead

Chairman Mark Fox and Co-chair Dennis Yen reported that the committee needs more time for all areas of focus except one: Section 809—binding interest arbitration. Recommendations regarding binding arbitration are expected to be ready by June 30. In time to be placed on the November ballot—should the city council decide to do so. Next week's Charter Review Committee meeting –May 27 at 7 PM is open to allow public input on the issue. Interested individuals are welcome to speak to the committee.

GROUND HOG DAY number 1,154,952,099

Or, Chia Pet Budget Deficit Grows Dreadlocks

By Katy Miessner

The goal of this budget presentation was to get the Council to—finally—approve the proposed staffing so the City could start lay-offs.

Not much had changed since the last budget meeting of 04/14/2009 report and thought I could just COPY/PASTE and save some time. But there were some significant differences tonight.

Let’s start with a recap of the various budget meetings to remind ourselves of our beloved Ozzy and the Funded Four actions and comments over the course of the months starting with their idiotic decision to approve the VPOA and CAMP contracts.

January, 2009: Deficit is $10 million

The Council majority (5-2) recklessly approved status quo VPOA and CAMP contracts even as Finance Director Rob Stout warned of a $10 million deficit next year that could even go higher. Stout said—as the 5 recklessly approved the VPOA contract—that he had “no idea how we will pay for the raises.”

March, 2009

In only a month, the deficit increases to $12 million

April, 2009

In only a month, the deficit swells to $14 million.

May 19, 2009 7:00 pm

The deficit had a slight haircut between April and May, with increased net revenues of $363,000.

This is not true revenue but the manner in which the cable companies pay franchise tax means $600,000 will be available earlier, in this year. That means we won’t have this $600,000 in 09/10 but after that it balances out. The State resumed paying vehicle license fees to cities so Vallejo was able to add back $167,000.

There were also reductions to revenue – property tax took another hit with a $250,000 reduction add sales tax with a $150,000 reduction.

There were expense adjustments, but mainly the $363,000 in additional net revenue had to be used for $1 million in increased bankruptcy costs. The IAFF and IBEW appeals are costing the city—of course, as the unions probably want it too. Debt service payments were also reduced to make up the remaining bankruptcy fees.

May 19, 2009 11:00 pm

The Budget deficit is now a swollen rushing river of $19 Million

The Council majority—finally showing some fiscal restraint after we are almost $20 million in the hole—decides to take the advice Joe Tanner gave back in April, and adds another $5 million to the deficit.

Their reasoning was because of the threat that the State, with the failure of the propositions, will take funds away from California cities, with Vallejo’s take back projected at $2.5 million. If the Utilities and Users Tax (UUT) doesn’t pass in November, the City will face another $5 million in lost revenues to the general fund, but not all $5 million will fall in fiscal year 09/10 so they added only another $2.5 million to the deficit to account for this, totaling $5 million.

The council actually didn’t add enough to the deficit because the $5 million doesn’t even account for the high likelihood that the City’s projection for lost property tax is not conservative enough. Declines are projected at 10% but the county is warning that it could be as high as 17%. Each additional 2 percent equals $1.6 million so if the decrease is actually 17%, the deficit will increase by an astounding 6.4 percent, leaving our budget deficit at almost:

( $27 million )

The picture has been crystal clear for months (nay, years) and what have the majority council’s comments been? Let’s see how contradictory their earlier comments—some only 1 month ago when we get to the May 19 comments.

• Osby Davis April 16: feeling picked upon complained—as his secretary is mentioned as a position to cut-—that “there’s another motive here.” (where’s the little violin?). He also said he didn’t want to issue lay off notices unless he “absolutely, absolutely, absolutely has to.”

• Tom Bartee April 16: didn’t want to issue layoffs until he got “a clear picture of where we’re at.” Earth to Bartee: we’re in bankruptcy, haven’t you heard? Remember what Stout said in January?

• Michael Wilson April 16: stated he was “against giving raises” even though he happily approved the VPOA contract that will give more than 100 employees—some of the highest paid in the Bay Area already—a 10% raise from the general fund next year. Where are we supposed to get the money for that?

• Erin Hannigan March 24: it was “refreshing” to have the presentation come from Tanner and not Stout (oh she does not like Stout, its soooo obvious). Asked why, when it was their top priority to not cut public safety—that 60% of the cuts are coming from them? And went on to suggest—to the dismay of everyone (even her dais mate Michael looked a little green)—that the entire Public Works budget be cut.

• Michael Wilson March 24: Suggested Police Officers go door to door to collect from those who owe money to the city. Wow, lots of revenue, right? And how will the PD manage when we hear there are not enough officers to even answer some 911 calls? Sorry you’re getting mugged but we’re at Pam Pitts’ house trying to collect delinquent property tax.

• Hermie Sunga March 24: repeated ad nauseam that he “really really really really” wants to see new revenue. Maybe his tax-free enterprise zone idea that won’t produce revenue?

Tonight’s speakers were Judy Schilling, J.D. Miller and Marc Garman. No one else even bothered, why bother?  *The majority will do what they want to; commenting is like spitting in the wind.

*exception – see asterisk below

Judy Schilling asked that the city consider funding Vallejo Main Street non-profit as they are losing many of their private funding sources as are all non-profits. The Council made no comment—long gone are the days where Tom Bartee will vote against a budget because it doesn’t have $90,000 for non-profits (as he votes for pay increases to the Vallejo PD which could cost us in excess of $1 million next year).

*J.D. Miller made an excellent point; he suggested the Council roll department expenses back to 1999 levels when they totaled $56 million, which would create a badly needed reserve of $5 million.  The council could tell the departments what goals and priorities they expected the departments meet when the departments budgeted with these new levels. Of course, he mentioned that the only challenge was VPOA and CAMP contracts were already signed and taken out of bankruptcy.

*Marc Garman compared the failing Tuesday ballot measures to the UUT the council will put on the ballot this fall and said Tuesday’s results were a good litmus test. That combined with the 17% potential decrease to property tax and state takeaways, we’ll have a budget deficit Chia-pet (very well watered and growing Rapunzel length hair – my comment).

Council Member Tom Bartee agreed with J.D. Miller and “the following speaker” (I guess he didn’t have the stomach to say Marc’s name) and said we’ve been through this many times projecting “maybe income” and said it’s time to stop. (The time to stop was when you first got on Council Bartee, but you carried the IAFF water instead – you had the ability and the knowledge to stop it then). He thought the revenue was too high by $5 million.

Tom Bartee April 14: didn’t want to issue layoffs until he got “a clear picture of where we’re at.” The deficit was projected at $14 million then, and Tanner even warned that if the UUT didn’t pass, Vallejo should consider dis-incorporating.

Council Member Michael Wilson said “we can’t feed all of the family” I say to him: some of the family is very FAT – VPOA, IAFF. He went on to offer some suggestions that might save the general fund about $300,000. Oh then we are only in the hole $18,700,000. Just as good as his suggestion on March 24 that Police go door to door and act as collection agents. But wait, he’s fine with approving the VPOA and CAMP contracts which will cost us millions of dollars. What’s that expression: penny-wise, dollar-foolish?

Council Member Erin Hannigan asked why Vallejo would pay educational incentives to the IAFF if the degrees are not required for the job? Oh, Erin, Erin. Where have you been? Another jaw-dropping comment, not as bad as her suggestion on April 14 to cut the entire Public Works budget. Staff reaction to her educational incentive question elicited a comment from Erin “I am getting some nasty looks.” Surprise, surprise as she wastes everyone’s time with inane suggestions and questions while the City staff has to create painful after painful budget revision.

Mayor Osby Davis spoke of frustration with the budget and agreed with Bartee that the deficit needed to grow by $5 million to cover the revenue uncertainties and said Vallejo needs to live within its means. Remember his comment in April? Davis “didn’t want to issue lay off notices unless he “absolutely, absolutely, absolutely has to.”

Council member Stephanie Gomes agreed that the Council should live within its means and pass budgets that are realistic and conservative. A consistent message throughout. She wanted the City to make across the board cuts to salaries, based on pay scale levels and that all City employees pay into their health care (none do currently) but knew that opportunity was lost when the five voted to approve the VPOA and IAFF contracts.  And how the city allocates its funds—especially 100% health care when it’s rare in the private sector –is unfair to the taxpayer.

Assistant City Manager Craig Whittom said City staff was attempting to get the VPOA and CAMP to agree to decreases…that is not very likely given what Police Chief Nichelini April 14 told the council what the VPOA response was to salary cuts: “NO: cut staff as much as you want, we want to be paid.”

There were other council comments – the City wants to close the Mare Island fire station next year which Gomes said is unacceptable – and it is given that they have to pay an exorbitant amount of property tax, much more than other parts of the city.

I don’t even think Council member Sunga said anything - if he did it was probably some vague comment about revenues, like a tax-free enterprise zone?

Finance Director Stout got a lot of grief for not budgeting more conservatively, but what does the council expect with such conflicting requests? They don’t want to cut Public Safety but they go ahead and approve contracts we can’t afford, and we know the VPOA will not take cuts. IAFF and IBEW are going to take the hit in next year’s budget, which, as much as I dislike the IAFF leadership, that’s not really fair, but its inevitable now. IAFF & IBEW do have their union leaders to blame however. And they can also blame their lawyer Alan Davis, who is now raking in the cash as he represents them in front of the charter committee review, at $700 an hour?

Now they want to have the additional $5 million added to the deficit, and they no longer want to micro-manage the budget (as they micro-manage: when will Osby put his money where his mouth is and get rid of his secretary or at least share the position with another department?). They suggested the departments go back and reduce their budgets.

Another $5 million (and we think more will be needed), what’s that going to do to our budget? Cutting so much more from our budget and thinking City Hall can even function is magical thinking.

My suggestion? Bite the bullet and go back into bankruptcy with the VPOA contracts even though the City is now obligated to pay VPOA legal fees if they do (how DUMB was that to agree to?) or, as Tanner suggested back in April, dis-incorporate if the UUT doesn’t pass.