tough times wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:14 PM:Tough times require tough measures. Has there been any decision from the city council on their own pay increases? No mention of cutting them 5% off their existing salaries yet? 5% across the board reductions would help.

Escondeeter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:14 PM:Just so it's clear, when Dave says "leave station 6 without an engine company" he means, "it never had one, it doesn't have one now, and it still won't have one". He doesn't mean one will be removed.

Station 6 is one of the new stations, originally authorized at a time when the city's population was growing and that growth was increasing fire department workloads. The city's population has been shrinking for the last year.

Station 6 is now staffed with an ambulance, upgraded in the last few weeks to a full advanced life support ambulance, and providing rapid paramedic responses to west of the freeway neighborhoods for the first time.

Layoff Staff wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:52 AM:The public employee unions are a plague. Layoff staff AND cut the salaries. Let the union strike to protest the pay cut.

Hooray wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:04 AM:Hooray for the Citizens!

Hooray for the Citizens!

Hooray for the Citizens!

Keep fighting the Good Fight!!!

Citizen wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:41 AM:So...we're getting the big lecture from the City Manager & the Budget Subcommittee about the importance of our expenditures not outweighing our revenues.

And who's fault did they say that would be?

Oh...that's right...it's "the economy" and it's "the employee costs".

The City Council...The City Manager...well, they are COMPLETELY FAULTLESS! They were innocent bystanders.

Geez Louise. These people are the most accountable for this situation! I guess they forgot to mention the extravagant fee breaks, fee freezes and cash breaks they have given to residential developers. You know...like the $4.6 million dollar cash and fee breaks for housing development Tract 932.

I suppose the Council would say that the fee breaks were necessary in order to attract the kind of residents to Escondido...ahh yada yada yada. Just this past July the Council (and the Chamber of "Commerce") were expounding on the need the benefit of new homes (as the council approved a 41-home housing development). I think it's pretty clear how well that "plan" has panned out (or should I say: bottomed out?).

Anyway, the time for gambling with Escondido's future is past! It is time to get down to business!

First! Forget the Hotel!
Second: Serve the Citizens - which should have been first to begin with.

Next, follow the following "five point plan":

1. Use the $19 million to settle the deficit.
2. Retain the Staff - no layoffs in this economy. Keep Eco Devel. Dept!!!
3. Hire proper Fire staff and retain Police staff.
4. TRIM THE FAT @ City Hall - like the Council's $9,000/yr fat gas allowances!
5. Promote (aggressively promote) the ERTC Park.
6. PUT THE REST OF THE MONEY INTO THE RESERVES! There should be at least $10 Million LEFT after Steps 1-5.

The City Manager and the City Council need to quit with the tired excuse about 'not using the $19million to pay for recurring costs'.

Duh! Nobody is suggesting they do! We are suggesting that they trim the fat. STOP SPENDING MORE THAN YOU HAVE! Diversify your INVESTMENTS! Reorganize, restructure, re-prioritize and...

STOP EXPECTING THE CITIZENS TO MAKE UP FOR THE DEFICITS!!!

Monkey See wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:51 AM:Monkey See - Escondido Don't!

San Marcos is building a brand new hotel!

The City of San Marcos' contribution (aka. the taxpayers of San Marcos' contribution):
ZERO DOLLARS.

Meanwhile...down the road:
Escondido is TRYING to build a new hotel.

The City of Escondido's contribution (aka. you know...the taxpayers contribution):
$19.8 MILLION plus a "few million" for associated infrastructure improvements.

Escondido's leaders are always interested in emulating cities around us. So Why In The World does Escondido pay out of the nose for a new hotel...and San Marcos does not?

Monkey see - Monkey do? Not our Council...for some reason, they have to give away millions while taking from their own employees and citizens. Bad Monkey!

keepelectingfools wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:11 AM:The City needs to take a hard look at the top tier. Our illustrious City Attorney is one of the highest paid in the State! And for what? He just subs everything out to outside law firms. And upper management -- are they taking the 5 percent paycuts? I certainly hope so!

Who is Escondeeter wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:19 AM:I used to think it was Tom D'Agosta or June Rady, but lately the posts about the fire stations make me think he (or she) works for the city.

Karl wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:21 AM:Putting the hotel money aside, the City must not spend more than it takes in, period. If I were in the City Hall Union I'd rather take the 5% pay cut along with the 10% reduction in hours than see one of my fellow loonyun members lose their job. If the Council does not postpone their raise and cut their own salary by 5% they will reap what they sow.

Look at the Budget wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:29 AM:Almost $140,000 just in auto allowances for City Council & Upper Management. No mention of cutting that, is there?

$220,000+ salaries for City Manager and City Attorney who claim their refusal of a 5% increase in July is equal to a 5% salary cut...but they're still enjoying the same take home pay. That won't be the case for City employees if they take a 5% pay cut.

From 2002 to 2008, City Manager received 45% pay increase. The City employees got 4% net. Where do we need to trim the fat???

To Karl wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:31 AM:If that was all the City wanted to cut, then they might be able to deal. But the City wants much more that they are not now making public.

Very Sad wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:53 AM:This article is devastating. We can thank Marie, Sam, and Ed yet again. As a business owner I can't say how many people have told me they have stopped supporting the city due to all the negativity. Maybe this will give them a clue. And Sam wants a Wal-Mart? Wake Up! Every business would be dead!
I hope with Ed gone the counsel will focus on how to revive Escondido's image.
Cutting economic development is TERRIBLE! Joanne Case is one of the few who actually gets it.
FYI the new Mac store exceeded black Friday sales by over 50%. We need more stores like this one.

Pfeiler and council wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:05 AM:You don't set aside money for revenue projects when you can't even pay your bills!!!! It's very simple. Keep with the budget cuts until the economy improves, but have the 19mil as a reserve to draw off of for the next 2 years. Once the economy shows signs of improvement you can began your projects; but for Gods sakes no hotel! It's bad business to build a hotel in a city with bad reputation. Also, why in the world build a luxury hotel in Escondido? Escondido has NOTHING to offer as a tourist attraction. Especially NOT the CCAE. Ever heard of the "punch bowl" analogy? Use that money to promote industrial and big box buiseness.

WiseGuy wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:10 AM:San Marcos has been buisness friendly. Escondido has been low income housing friendly. Now, "Escondido's Chickens comin home to roose!"

to Citizen wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:17 AM:I get what you're saying- I disagree, but that's fine. But I find it ironic that you want to keep Economic Development. What's the point of paying money to attract businesses if you're just going to gouge them with high fees, taxes and costs? Why spend money attracting businesses if they're not welcome here?

Im wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:20 AM:thinking the Escondeeter is Wally? Anyone else?

to keepelectingfools wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:20 AM:He's definitely not the highest paid city attorney. In fact, amongst attorneys with his experience and background, he could easily double or triple his income by going to a large firm.

to keepelectingfools wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:23 AM:NEWS ALERT: Attorneys are expensive. Losing a case is even more expensive. If you trim 80-90k off his salary, he'll just leave and someone with less experience and expertise will fill his shoes. Do you really want a mediocre city attorney representing the City?

CITIZEN AT RISK wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:48 AM:"They include eliminating six police officer positions, disbanding the Police Department's SWAT team,..." Crime always increases in recessional times. Cities reduce the cops and citizens suffer. Stupid cities never learn.

To to keepelectingfools wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:59 AM:It's a municipal position. Of course he could double his money in the private sector. (maybe not right now) Point being for an elected office, he is paid in the top 3rd (in county). Also regarding your "New Alert" that argument could be made for several positions. (Police, Fire, Engineering Ect) Your giving the unions ammunition. Careful what you say.

Questionable Priorities wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:03 AM:I'm sure there is more to it than I am aware of, but it does seem that the city should cut back on firefighters, and keep the 6 police officers. With all the scum floating around Escondido, we need all the police we can get! Conversely, I haven't heard of or seen a fire in the city for, oh, a bit over a year now, right? Unfortunately for the police, the firefighters have all the "hero" charisma, even though they do precious little to deserve it.

Ken wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:33 AM:This is truly insane, cutting law enforcement officers and other services, while letting ILLEGAL ALIENS stay and receive benefits that should only go to LEGAL CITIZENS! WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE??????

Let them Go wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:34 AM:If the Unions can't see the need to participate in cutting costs the city then needs to start laying off people. Get a clue, that is why the Auto companies are in the hurts. Labor costs are to high. Lay city workers off. The council should cut their pay also. A hard look at the number of council members needed should be looked at also.

Question for all you bloggers wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:36 AM:I think there are about 25-30 of us that regularly blog about Escondido city politics. I bet if we all walked into the same room, we'd all recognize each other. Kinda funny that we beat each other up everyday in these blogs.

to to to keepelectingfools wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:43 AM:So should we just pay our municipal workers a fraction of what they would earn the private sector? I think we risk losing some very talented individuals. Consider that in the position of an attorney, one mistake can cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Karl wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:43 AM:To Karl @ 7:31 AM:

What aren't they making public? Please inform us if you know something.

Peace

AResident wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:51 AM:"A key element of the proposed cuts has been the voluntary 5 percent salary cuts by the 236 employees working at City Hall, but those cuts require cooperation from labor unions".
Phillips said Tuesday that the police union and the Teamsters have been cooperative so far. But he has not met with the firefighters union yet, and he said the Escondido City Employees Association has balked at the proposed pay cuts".

"Phillips said the union, which represents roughly 180 City Hall employees, has been unwilling to adjust their contract. Leaders of the union could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening".

"The city may be forced to lay off employees if all the unions do not agree to voluntary pay cuts, Phillips said".

Start at the TOP............with CUTS.. Then reduce the number of City employees. There are so many duplicated job in this City it's funny.

Get rid of the UNIONS. Look at what they are doing to the BIG3 auto makers. Isn't it time for City's to realize that Unions are bad in today's day and age.

If the City didn't have Unions to deal with, they might be able to run the city the way others run their company's.

Just a thought City Council. Ever thought about that? I bet not. You don't have the gut's to let them strike. Let em strike and see how well their union takes care of them when they don't get a check.

Wake up.....

AResident wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:00 AM:"Also, the city's two-year-old crackdown on code violations would be cut from $865,000 per year to just over $600,000 per year, but there would be no cuts to the city's anti-graffiti campaign or retrieval of abandoned shopping carts".

You don't need the Code violation dept. They are only REACTIVE not PRO-ACTIVE. You can have one person that goes out to the homes. If this person drove through the City every day he/she could cover the whole city of Escondido in two days. Then go back and do the paper work. Then back to deliver it to whom ever lives at the resident.

Give then 3 days to comply or seize the property. After the city seizes afew property's, everyone in the city would comply.

Just think of all the slumlords you could remove from the city.

The city could then mamage the property's, and turn them into the beautiful place they talk about but do nothing about.....

To keepelectingfools wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:07 AM:Memo: City Attorney is not an elected position--it's appointed by the Council. And the people next in line are well-liked, and capable.

What ya know wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:22 AM:Daniels and Pfeiler (along with Abed) are the ones who got us into this mess voting for extra pork in the 2009 budget and ignoring the firefighters back in June. Now they are trying to act like they are the champions of the cause.
However, to their credit, the council DID take a fat paycut two years ago. I think it was a reduction of $300 a month. That equates to $3600 a year cut from a salary of about $20,000 total.

TO DO LIST wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:26 AM:email ESCONDIDO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
tell them how you feel about this mess!
Then come back and tell us how good it felt!

lpfeiler@escondido.org

mwaldron@escondido.org

odiaz@escondido.org

sabed@escondido.org

ddaniels@escondido.org

j j j j j SEASON'S GREETINGS j j j j j

the TRUTH wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:28 AM:is NEVER tiring !

Citizens wake up wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:33 AM:EPD is already short by more than six officers. It's been said that by the new year they could down closer to 20 positions. The city is saving a bundle not paying all those salaries and benefits. They are going out on the street everyday short staffed. It is dangerous for them and for us!!

To Questionable Priorities wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:37 AM:I agree that the fire department's "hero" image has been over-hyped and stretched to the point that their union leaders now consider themselves to be minor deities, but it's worth considering that firefighting is the smallest part of their job these days. They operate the city's emergency medical system, and over 85 percent of their call volume is in that area. It's less visible than a major fire, and that leads to the impression that they don't do much, but they really are pretty active, and it's a very important service.

The key to fire staffing is to find the point between understaffed and the level the union wants, which leans heavily to the 'featherbedding' side. The current level of staffing meets that Goldilocks standard of being "just right". I wouldn't cut it.