Comments to Napa City Council on Budget

The Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance has reviewed the most recently available public budget document for the City budget dated April 18, 2007. We have the following comments which we hope will be taken into consideration for the public budget meeting coming up June 4.

We support the general spirit and detail of the proposed budget cuts and adjustments as outlined by Mike Parness and his staff, and commend them on doing an excellent job under difficult circumstances. In particular we agree with looking into reorganizing and possibly privatizing some services to save money, as well as the need to simply make cuts to stay within our current means. Employee lay offs are difficult but at present there appears to be no other reasonable options.

We have two key concerns. The most serious problem with the current plan is that not enough is being set aside to pay for already committed obligations for retiree medical and pension costs. These costs balloon rapidly if the required investments are not maintained on an annual basis, and indeed throughout the entire state this is an increasingly obvious and alarming problem. Recently the state of California announced that their retiree medical and other benefits fund, referred to as OPEB, was $48 billion short of being able to pay current obligations—and this analysis was based on assuming that the cost of medical care would not grow over the next five years! Governor Schwarzeneggar immediately announced that the state would not be paying into it the required $2.3 billion a year, thus ensuring that that amount would continue to grow exponentially. This is a huge mistake and we cannot let our local governments head down the same path, at least any more than they already have.

The current city plan includes only $200,000 next year to pay a liability that they have been told requires $800,000 to meet. The unfunded liability on safety pensions alone in 2004 was $22 million, and $18 million for non safety employees, and continues to grow. $40 million is almost an entire years operating budget.

The reason this gets so out of control comes from not paying sufficiently into the fund each year, combined with the fact that costs are continually going up. Napa County just found out that they have a $5.9 million annual payment for 14 years to make up for a $34.2 million unfunded OPEB liability alone, not counting pension. Note that that adds up to over $82 million actual cost in that time.

Employee costs for government workers, not just in Napa but throughout the state, are also rising faster than the Consumer Price Index and faster than the income of private sector employees whose taxes go to pay for all this. This is a formula for economic recession if not worse. It is economically unsustainable to have your costs continually rising faster than your income to pay them.

In the past five years of City budget troubles, having to spend reserves and make substantial cuts, firemen have seen a 24% increase in salary, and police have seen a 33.5% increase. Pension and medical benefits are far superior to those given in the private sector, and this all at a time when

tax revenues have increased, during the last three years by 18%. This is twice the rate of inflation.

If costs for government were in line with costs for every other aspect of the economy, then we should have seen a rise in our ability to afford more services, rather than these draconian cuts.

Therefore, in addition to the $800,000 in requested cuts for next year from the employee unions, we believe an additional $600,000 should be cut from employee budgets to shore up the medical and pension plans, money that will save millions in future budgets. The needed amount to make a full payment for 2008-09 should also be included in that years budget. This seems very fair as this money will be going to ensure the solvency of their own future benefits, in essence cutting from the employees themselves to give to themselves in the future, while saving the City and taxpayers millions.

The second issue of concern is the long term health of the City budget. The City currently has a number of development projects in the works, and the tax revenue from that is expected to bail out the City over the long term. Along with all this development we will need new staff for the City including remediating the low level of police personnel, and we will likely see the continued rapid growth of salaries, benefits and new infrastructure expenses.

All this needs to be carefully evaluated to make sure that the new tax revenues that come on line will cover expected growth in government. Our fear is that we may be in a situation that will constantly demand new development to support an ever expanding and never ending spiral of always being behind and always needing to build more tax generating businesses just to pay off last years shortfall. This may be a more appropriate subject for after the budget has been finished, but it needs to be carefully evaluated and costed out in detail so that we do not find ourselves continually in the same position in the future.

Thank you for considering our comments,

Michael Haley

President, Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance

Comments

[Matt]

Mayor Jill Techel
Napa City Council
Bill Of Goods
Author: Ben Dover

I am livid after reading the nonplus NVRegister article titled Unions Asked to Pitch In On City Budget, By Kevin Courtney, Register Staff Writer, printed Saturday, May 26, 2007

Last I looked, City Employees work for the Citizens of Napa, not for the Up-Valley Grapegrowers. They are the Best and they deserve the Best. Kevin Courtney is in lockstep with City and County governments who are desperately trying to make this Farmworker Housing fiasco disappear. Courtney’s trite remarks characterize our City Employees as good Boy and Girl Scouts “pitching in” to save the struggling Grapegrowers, when in reality Napa Employees are being asked to sacrifice their personal wages, benefits, job security, and co-workers to subsidize Grapegrower Farmworker Housing. The NVRegister should defend Napa issues. Let the St. Helena Star defend the illegal diversion of Grapegrower Farmworker Housing expenses to Napa City Employees and County Taxpayers.

Napa City Manager Mike Parness has been ordered to saddle Napa Public Employees and Napa County taxpayers with special assessments to pay for fiscal misappropriations by our City and County officials.

The most recent and blatant misappropriation was $2.2million the City of Napa gave to the Napa County Supervisors (read Napa County Housing Authority) to pay for Grapegrower’s Farmworker Housing facilities expenses. Please note that the $2.3million Mike Parness is demanding from Napa City Employees is virtually the same figure as the $2.2million Napa City misappropriated to subsidize Grapegrower Farmworker Housing facilities.

These Farmworker Housing facilities are not an expense of Napa County citizens. These Farmworker Housing facilities benefit no one in Napa County but Grapegrowers. Farmworker Housing facilities are a 100% direct expense of Grapegrowers, and should be a 100% expense of Grapegrowers, not City Employees and Citizens.

Mike Parness is demanding $2.3million in budget cuts in School, Library, and other Public Service budgets, and eliminating 46 Public Employee jobs in the City of Napa. He is also demanding that our Police and Fire Protection Employees sacrifice $800,000 in income and benefits and three badly needed Police Officers to pay for the $2.2million Napa City misappropriated to Grapegrower Farmworker Housing facilities. These cuts will seriously diminish public safety, public services, and significantly increase workloads for already overburdened City and County Employees.

The Napa Valley Grapegrowers coerced their lackey Napa County Supervisors (read Napa Valley Housing Authority) to amend their self-imposed Agricultural Preserve legislation, rezone Ag Preserve lands, and develop, built, and pay for Farmworker Housing facilities using over $8million of misappropriated Napa Valley Taxpayer money to fund the project. Farmworker Housing is a 100% farm expense of Grapegrowers, with little or no direct benefit to the Napa City Public Employees or Napa County Taxpayers whose personal fortunes Mike Parness is plundering to balance his budget.

If the recent Napa City misappropriation of $2.2million to subsidize Grapegrower Farmworker Housing was reimbursed by Grapegrowers, then Mike Parness would not have to demand that Public Employees, Taxpayers, Schools, Library, and Napa City Social Programs “pitch in” to save Parness’s job. Get the $2.2million back from the Napa County Housing Authority (they can get it from an increased Grapegrowers “self-tax”) and Napa City budget would not have a shortfall.

Remember, nice guy or not, Mike Parness is a hired gun, paid big bucks to balance the Napa City budget regardless of cause or effect. But, Mike has no skin in the game, he has a large guaranteed salary with no penalties if he fails, and he will be on to the next high-bidding City as soon as he is finished here, win or lose. He could care less about the demise of Public Employees, Schools, Libraries, or Taxpayers. As soon as they acquiesce, he will be gone. With a big smile and “Thank You!”, he will sack your money, benefits, security, and your co-workers . . . . . . and Adios!.

The Grapegrowers and their Farmworker Housing facilities scam are the real culprits here; with the County Board of Supervisors colluding to promulgate it’s success. The County Board of Supervisors coerced the City of Napa to misappropriate $2.2million to subsidize the Farmworker Housing facilities because the County did not want to burden the expense by them-selves. Farmworker Housing is a 100% Grapegrower expense that should be 100% borne by the Grapegrowers. Put the fiscal responsibility where it really belongs and save our City Employees from picking up the tab by making undeserved sacrifices.
(0ver)
Today, Grapegrowers proudly brag that they have imposed a “Self-Tax” to promote County Farmworker Housing facilities. Let’s analyze this self-imposed tax:

Grape Growers tax themselves $10/acre. Assume 45,000 acres of vineyard x $10/acre = $450,000/yr. to support Grapegrower Farmworker Housing facilities. Total to-date cost to Napa County Taxpayers for Grapegrower Farmworker Housing facilities exceeds $8,000,000. The annual operational expenses for Farmworker Housing Facilities exceed $450,000. (P.S. Facilities shelter 45 illegal aliens and run < 50% occupancy annually)

Bottom line, the Grapegrowers are not even paying for the day-to-day expenses of the Farmworker Housing facilities, let alone paying down the original investment or interest expense on capital outlay. Mike Parness is demanding that the Public Employees and Napa Taxpayers “pitch in” for Grapegrower expenses to the tune of $8million, over time.

Let’s take that a little further. Assume the 2006 Napa County Crop Report datum:
42,200 acres of producing Vineyard planted in Napa County
$469,000,000 total value 2006 Napa County Grape Crop (down from $542million in ’05)
$3,071 Price Per Ton-Average
152,776 Total Tons of Grapes Harvested
3.62 Tons/Acre-Average
$11,117/Acre Gross Income-Average = sum of $3,071 Price X 3.62 Tons/Acre.

The $10 Grapegrower “Self-Tax” totals a paltry.00083% tax to “insure” they can pick their crops and feed us lucky Napkins. . . . . a Carpetbagger pretension to brag civic/fiscal responsibility while bilking Napa Public Employees and Taxpayers of their livelihood.

The County Board of Supervisors could legislate, or the Napa County Grapegrowers could “self-impose”, a $25/acre Grapegrowers “self-tax”, to pay for Grapegrower Farmworker Housing expenses. If they did, all this Napa County and Napa City misappropriation of funds, shady land donation to the County, unnecessary million dollar renovations, blank checks to Napa County Public Works for well-drilling with 25% overrun protection, and California State Grants that we will never see . . . . . all of these sticky issues will disappear along with the demands for Napa City Employees and Taxpayers to “pitch in” with sacrifice of salaries, benefits, increased workloads, and decreased services. And, the fiscal responsibility for Grapegrower Farmworker Housing will be squarely where it belongs.

With a $25/Acre Grapegrower self-tax, Mike Parness could withdraw his demands on Napa City Employees and Taxpayers, and balance his budget with no contentions. Game Over.

A $25/Acre Grapegrower “Self-Tax” constitutes a .00225% tax on an Acre that produces $11,117 and an industry that boasts a $Half-A-Billion crop value. Grapegrowers could impose a sliding scale to fairly tax disparities in crop value and production. One acre of vineyard would see a tax increase of $15/yr. on a $11,117 income. Nothing.

There is absolutely NO REASON why Napa City Employees and Napa Taxpayers should pay for Farmworker Housing when wealthy Grapegrowers are financially capable with little or no effect on their bottom line.

Moreover, Napa County Taxpayers are entitled to know WHO demanded that the City “pitch in” to pay for Farmworker Housing. The City of Napa and the Napa County Supervisors did their bidding, but the real culprit is still at large.

I will direct you to an article written in the NV Register titled County signs off on plan to repay farmworker camp renovation debt, By DAVID RYAN, Register Staff Writer, printed Wednesday, May 23, 2007, along with it’s 35-ish blogger comments from average Napkins. Click on: http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/05/23/news/local/iq_3963025.txt or go to http://www.napavalleyregister.com/ and type in “County signs off on plan . . . . .” in the “Search last 14 days here” window and click GO. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to read the Comments. You will find awareness of the Grapegrowers arrogance and much support and empathy in Napa, so use it to your advantage. A well-organized Letter to the Editor campaign will spark public dialogue and bring the real culprit Grapegrowers into the bright light.

If you are not willing or able to win this fight, then you deserve the consequences, but every citizen in Napa will suffer the loss of public services, all to the benefit of the wealthy Grapegrowers who do not live in the City of Napa.

(over)

[Eduardo W.]

Nice budget allocation!!! Hope that they could combine all of their effort to scuffle the global economic crisis including the issue on the new spending bill. A new spending bill is never a really popular thing when the nation is strapped for cash. A new spending bill is about to make its way through Congress, and President Obama has already indicated that he will sign it. The odd thing is that the bill, about $410 billion worth, is laden with earmarks and pork, things he has pledged to stop because taxpayers are tired of forking over the cash advance for special interest groups’ pet projects. The President has said that earmarks are at times worthy, so he won’t eliminate them outright, but he has made it clear that there are going to be changes made after he passes what he acknowledges to already be an imperfect spending bill.