Report of Parks Budget Study Group
Land Park Community Association
May 14, 2009
Prepared by Craig Powell
Study Group Members: Craig Powell, Paul Frame, Terry Grimes,
Katy Grimes, Michael Mock and Rick Stevenson
We have been asked to submit preliminary recommendations for how the Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR) can re-prioritize its spending so that the proposed deep cuts in park maintenance under the City Manager’s proposed City budget can be rescinded. In the very brief time that was available to us, we have examined the current DPR budget for the FYE June 30, 2009, as well as the proposed budget for FYE June 30, 2010. We have also consulted with DPR staff on the details of the current and proposed budget.
Two over-arching facts are apparent are us:
Local 39 Can Avert this Crisis in Park Funding by Acting Responsibly
First, the proposed cuts to parks maintenance could, and almost certainly would, be completely restored if the Stationary Engineers Local 39, the bargaining unit representing permanent park workers, act responsibly in the current fiscal crisis by promptly agreeing to a modification of the terms of their existing labor contract along the same lines as the Sacramento Police Officers Association recently settled its labor agreement with the City. Labor is such a huge component of park maintenance costs that, if Local 39 were to agree to forgo or defer its current cost of living increases (COLAs) and agree to reasonable furloughs, the current crisis in park funding could be entirely resolved.
To put it starkly, it is entirely within Local 39’s hands whether or not our city parks are rendered largely unusable by the public in the coming year. We recommend that, if Local 39 does not act responsibly and promptly take its fair share of the economic pain in this year of fiscal crisis, the City should promptly take the steps necessary to put out to public bid all basic park maintenance services to private contractors, which will generate an estimated 25 to 30% labor cost savings per hour of service over present labor rates and costs.
Other cities have successfully privatized park maintenance services as a successful solution to the conundrum of high cost public employee costs and limited tax resources. Indeed, the City of Sacramento itself has a history of contracting out some park maintenance services starting in the late 1990’s. The practice of privatizing park maintenance services was ended by the City Council a few years later, presumably at the behest of Local 39.
City Manager Shares the Blame for Proposing the Most Irrational Cuts Possible
The city’s parks receive 5.5 million visitors per year, according to the DPR. It serves as the de facto backyard for many of Sacramento’s families, particularly those of modest means who have few other venues available to them to hold picnics, BBQ’s, family get-togethers and socialize. To Sacramento’s families, the deep decay in the condition of our parks, as will certainly occur under the proposed cuts, will directly and significantly reduce the quality of their lives. Given the huge number of our residents who avidly use our parks and the importance such use plays in their lives, one would think that City budget makers would make sure that the top priority in parks and recreation spending would - particularly in a tough budget year - be given to its core mission of sustaining a decent level of park maintenance.
Under the City Manager’s proposed budget, precisely the opposite is true. The City’s park maintenance budget is singled out for the very heaviest of cuts compared to virtually all other expense categories and programs in the DPR budget. In addition, the budget compounds this major error by singling out for complete termination the lowest cost and most cost-effective workers of the entire DPR: the low wage “temporary” but full-time park maintenance workers, who receive no benefits and who perform the hard work that allows 5.5 million people per year to use and enjoy the parks.
This is borne out by the gross disparity in the huge number of workers proposed to be fired under the proposed budget as compared to the actual cost savings these firings are projected to save. The City Manager proposes that 43% of all full-time park maintenance workers should be fired, but that these firings would generate a total cost savings to the park maintenance budget of only 18%. This disparity shows that the median and higher income employees in the parks maintenance operation are being largely spared from layoff while the ranks of front-line park maintenance workers are being decimated.
Specific Budget Reform Recommendations
The following reforms, if adopted in substantial part by the City Council, will be sufficient to free up the resources needed to fully restore the $2 million in proposed cuts to the park maintenance budget - regardless of whether Local 39 and the City settle on a renegotiated labor contract that mirrors the settlement that SPOA reached with the City earlier.
1. Focus Lay-Offs on Mid and Upper-Pay DPR Employees. Layoffs should be skewed towards middle and higher paid employees of DPR, including management-level employees, rather than laying off all of the lowest tier workers while leaving mid and upper-level staff substantially less impacted by cuts. The layoff of a single middle manager in DPR will likely save enough, in salary and benefits, to pay for the salary of three “temporary” full-time park maintenance workers. The layoff of 12 mid or upper-pay grade DPR employees will be sufficient to pay for the retention of all 36 temporary full-time park workers slated for layoff. If another 10 mid and upper-pay staff are laid off, for a total of just 22 positions out of the 826 full-time employees of DPR, the savings will enough to fully restore all 62 park maintenance positions currently slated for layoff and avert any reduction in park maintenance services.
We note that, according to the organization chart we have reviewed, there are currently 3 layers of management between the current park supervisor of William Land Park and the Director of DPR. In an organization of the size of DPR, we do not believe three layers of intermediate management between a major park superintendent and the Department Director is warranted. We suggest that shrinking these management layers by at least one, on a department-wide basis, could unlock substantial cost savings.
2. Cancel/Defer All Capital and Discretionary Expenditures. The DPR’s budget includes a long list of “Objectives for FY2009/10” that include capital and discretionary expenditures at a time when the City is proposing devastating cuts in basic park maintenance. These expenditures include opening an expanded community center, developing “new parks, open space and recreation facilities,” as well as conducting a “survey of the general population to determine customer need, etc.” The 5.5 million people who visit our parks each year are already vividly demonstrating to the DPR what they need – usable parks. As with any public agency or private business facing very choppy financial waters, the DPR must forgo all capital and discretionary expenditures and focus on its core responsibilities until the current fiscal crisis passes.
3. Review of Recreation Programs. The DPR has two main functions: operate the park system and administer recreation programs. The number of programs on the recreation side of DPR’s budget has grown substantially in the past 10 to 15 years, to include children’s food programs, health programs, after-school care programs, a wide array of classes and the operation of the City’s community centers and pools. The DPR produces an annual 64-page magazine that lists all of the classes and other enrichment programs offered through the recreation division. The recreation division even operates a travel service called “Safari Tours” that books tours with private tour operators though out Northern California.
Approximately $13 million of the $30.5 million in recreation division’s current budget is state-funded, including programs like the 4th R and START, leaving approximately $16.5 million of the current recreation programs budget funded from the City’s general fund and, therefore, subject to review (since there is no sense in cutting programs funded almost entirely by the state). By comparison, the entire current parks budget is $11.8 million, substantially less than half of the budget for general fund-financed recreation programs.
We do not wish to engage in a program-by-program assessment of the relative value of the large number of recreation programs in an effort to find areas most appropriate for further cuts, beyond those that have already been identified by the City Manager in his proposed budget. Most of these programs are very laudable and worthy of public support, particularly in budget years when City revenues can fully accommodate their budgetary requirements. But we are not in one of the salad years of the recent past. We are in a funding crisis in which very tough decisions have to be made by our elected representatives.
We also note that recreation programs are slated under the proposed budget to receive only 13% of the proposed employee layoffs while the parks maintenance budget is slated for a disproportionate layoff of 43% of its workers. Even accounting for the fact that an estimated 43% of the recreation programs budget is state-funded and should be considered “hands off” for layoffs (other than for efficiency purposes, of course), the 57% remainder of recreation programs are paid for out of the City’s general fund and employ approximately 340 positions. Of these general fund positions, layoffs are slated for only 20% as compared to the proposed 43% layoff of park maintenance workers. Anyway you slice it, the parks maintenance is being singled out for the deepest cuts of all.
Our common heritage tells us that government exists to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If 5.5 million people are using our parks each year and a small fraction of that number are able to participate in general fund-financed recreation programs, which side of the budget does sound public policy tell us should bear the brunt of the cuts? The answer is clearly recreation programs, which currently cost substantially more than parks ($16.5 mil. vs. $11.8 mil.) yet are slated for a much smaller percentage cut in employees than parks (20% vs. 43%), while benefiting far fewer people. The proposed budget turns sound public policy on its head.
We recommend a top down review of all general fund-financed recreation programs with a view towards reversing the relative proportion of budget cuts, trimming programs before parks, to avoid punishing the 5.5 million annual park visitors for the policy errors of our budget makers. We make no recommendation on the relative merits of the recreation programs, other than to say that for the DPR to be operating a travel agency, which competes with private firms offering the same or similar services, while we are discussing proposed cuts that would bring our public parks system to the point of ruin, is politically tone-deaf. We have no way of knowing whether the travel agency would survive the budget axe under the proposed budget. We hope not.
4. Increase Park User Fees. Park use has risen considerably in recent years while the quality of our parks’ condition has remained high and, in several cases, improved markedly. This is all a credit to the excellent job being done by the DPR, its staff and field workers. But increased park use does increase the need for park maintenance services. While we understand that the City Council approved fairly significant park user fee hikes last year and adjusted them quite modestly again very recently, we recommend that the City take a fresh look at raising park user fees across the board to help mitigate cuts in park maintenance budgets, as well as broadening the scope of the fees so that special exemptions are eliminated. There is justice in requiring that those who are the heaviest users of the park –such as parties who rent large picnic areas and the like – should bear a fair share of the costs of maintaining the parks they enjoy.
We also recommend that the DPR change its reservation and billing system to provide tighter spot checks and stiffer penalties on those who self-declare to DPR reservation clerks that the size of their party is X people when the actual size that attends their function not infrequently turns out to be 3 to 5 times X. We also recommend that the DPR and Council consider setting aside park user fees for park maintenance and betterment.
5. Temporarily Reclassify “Permanent” Employees to “Temporary” Status. We recommend that the DPR and the Council approve the reclassification of a number of current “permanent” employees to “temporary” status until the current fiscal emergency passes. Such a reclassification will save a significant amount by cutting benefit costs and help to reduce the number of layoffs needed in park maintenance.
To the extent such reclassifications may be impeded by the City’s current labor agreement with Local 39, we strongly urge that, either in the context of the current renegotiations or once the agreement expires, that the City insist upon preserving the discretion to reclassify employees from “permanent” to “temporary” status during fiscal hard times, the flexibility to broadly transfer employees between broadly comparable jobs and, most importantly, the authority to privatize park maintenance in the sole discretion of the City.
6. Privatize Basic Park Maintenance. As noted above, contracting out basic park maintenance would generate significant cost savings while avoiding draconian cuts in maintenance service levels. More skilled work, such as irrigation system work, can be performed by a significantly reduced work force of skilled and experienced park employees. We estimate that privatizing basic park maintenance will generate a cost savings of approximately $2 million annually, matching almost exactly the City Manager’s proposed cut in park maintenance.
7. Joint Maintenance Agreements with Other Agencies. We note that the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Work Release Program occasionally provides maintenance labor to some Sacramento parks and several other public facilities. We recommend that the DPR aggressively seek out opportunities for securing a larger share of such labor in the future and on a more consistent basis, if possible. We also recommend that the DPR explore opportunities for employing young people in the Job Corps programs to work regularly for the park system.
