Publication Date: Friday, June 25, 2004
CITY
Freeman weighs in on budget
Freeman weighs in on budget
(June 25, 2004) Councilwoman wants revamp of process
by Bill D'Agostino
Councilwoman Hillary Freeman thinks the city needs to trim the number of managers it hires.
Approximately 13.6 percent of the city's $116 million general fund budget is expected to be spent on administration next year. That's 3.6 percent more than what is spent on public works, Freeman pointed out.
"I would like to see a smaller government that could produce the same level of service," she said.
Other council members have been chilly to Freeman's ideas about city spending in the past, possibly setting up a political battle on Monday night, when the council is scheduled to review the proposed budget.
Because of reduced expenditures, due primarily to the dot-com bust, the budget has been among the more divisive city documents during the last few years. Last year, numerous groups stormed the City Council chambers hoping to minimize proposed cuts to their favorite programs.
When Freeman, who voted against the budget last year, looks at this year's plan, she sees a document in need of a major revamp.
"It's not micromanaging," she insisted, rebutting a charge that has been sometimes leveled against her before.
The problems she still sees primarily concern the process for writing the budget, but she believes they have real-world ramifications. She believes the city is minimizing the need for some infrastructure improvements, and that the city manager is writing the budget without enough council input. She also worries the budget will be discussed on Monday without enough time to make the needed changes.
Chief among her issues is the amount of money spent on managers. Freeman's argument is bolstered by a recent audit report that recommended the city flatten its government to save money.
The report showed that 261 supervisors oversee the 1,538 city employees (including temporary workers), translating to a ratio of 5.9 employees for each manager. By upping its own ratio from 5.9 to 6.1, the much larger city of Seattle saved $3.1 million, City Auditor Sharon Erickson wrote in April.
But Carl Yeats, Palo Alto's director of Administrative Services, said that each city department "is a little bit different," requiring a different number of managers. Yeats also said much of the administrative spending is reimbursed by both other cities that pay for Palo Alto services and the city's money making utilities department.
In the last two years, the city has in fact cut more than 35 positions through attrition, including many manager positions. For instance, Kathy Espinoza-Howard, who used to just oversee the city's human services department, also took on managing the Cubberley Community Center this year after the former manager retired. Likewise, Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson became police chief and the assistant position was cut.
Freeman is also concerned that a controversial project to build a recycling/environmentally sensitive waste center in the Baylands (to replace the current dump, which is closing in 2011) is in the budget, while needed repairs and upgrades to the city's ailing storm-drain system are left out.
Approving funds for the recycling center will put the project, which some open space advocates disdain but other environmentalists adore, on an inevitable path toward approval, Freeman argued.
Other council members point out that not placing the "environmental services center" in the budget would kill the project. Plus, finding ways to fund improvements to the storm-drain system is currently being worked on by the city, even though it's not mentioned in the budget. Doing so would suggest that city general fund dollars are planned to be used for maintaining and enhancing the system. Some in the city would prefer to raise the resident-paid storm-drain fee on residents, like many other California cities do. Freeman would like to use a combination of city funds and a storm-drain fee increase.
Freeman would also like to see more City Council direction in the budget's draft than she feels was in this year. City Manager Frank Benest writes the budget, and then the council modifies it to its wishes.
"Impact measures," statistics showing how successfully city departments are meeting their goals, were "painstakingly developed last year and omitted this year," Freeman said. Plus, the council never had a discussion about what its "top five priorities" were for 2004.
Yeats said the impact measures and discussion about priorities were skipped this year because it's the second year of a two-year budget. The city plans its budgets two years in advance, to allow for more advanced planning and to save money.
Other council members also point out that Benest drafts the budget knowing the direction the council prefers.
I'm quite comfortable with the proposal he has made," Councilwoman Dena Mossar said. "I think he has done a yeoman's job of facing significant service cuts. That's hard to do in these times."
Freeman is also disappointed that the council will discuss the budget on Monday night, June 28. A balanced city budget is required by law to be approved by July 1. That leaves precious little time to make any major changes, Freeman said.
The late date was necessitated because Benest, who recently announced he was undergoing cancer treatment, believed he would be undergoing surgery on June 14, when the budget was originally scheduled to be discussed.
"Unforeseen circumstances happen, but I'm still concerned about the timing," Freeman said.
Staff writer Bill D'Agostino can be e-mailed at bdagostino@paweekly.com
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
