Time for City Council to cut its pay

This week I received my copy of the city of Lodi draft budget for 2009-10, a 551-page beast.

While there is some double accounting because of transfers, such as from the electric utility to the general fund, the budget covers spending for $170,270,688 — down from $187,032,383 in the original budget for 2008-09.

Those are all really big numbers, from the pages to the dollars, and I can tell you that very few people have any idea what is in it except perhaps the city manager, deputy city manager and the budget staff.

The electric utility is the largest fund in the budget at about $73 million, and, as I have said before, it has the least amount of oversight. The general fund, which covers basic government, is proposed to be just short of $40 million, yet the city council will pick it apart all the way down to the contribution to the Downtown Lodi Business Partnership.

Yes, the city council wants to again subsidize the DLBP. Why? I don't have a clue. It cannot be to keep the thing running, because without the $28,900 subsidy from yours and my tax dollars, the DLBP could charge their members — of which I am one — more money.

The problem with this subsidy to the DLBP is that it now maks an otherwise balanced budget unbalanced by $28,900. In other words, unless the city manager or city council cuts something else, they will dip into our savings to subsidize the salary of Jaime Watts.

Well, since I don't like the subsidy and I don't want further cuts, I have an idea — cut the City Council pay to pay for it.

At a recent meeting of the budget and finance committee, I proposed a cut in the pay for City Council members. At that meeting, the city manager labeled it a symbolic gesture and he spoke of how hard they work. Another member of the committee dismissed the cut as small dollars relative to the total budget. On the latter I absolutely agree, but I do not see it as symbolic at all because it is real money — money that could employ a part-time person to clean our parks or to fund the travesty that is the DLBP.

According to the budget, our City Council members will each receive $10,322 for the year, about $860.17 per month. Up from $6,000 at their previous pay of $500 per month. Yes, an increase of 72 percent brought forward by Bob Johnson and approved by the council.

Now, if you think the council pay stops there, not a chance. The total budget for city council pay and benefits is $112,720. An increase of nearly 11 percent from the prior year.

Benefits, you ask? Oh, yes! Everything above their pay of $51,610 ($10,322 times five members), $61,110 is for benefits. The benefits are for: medical insurance; dental insurance; vision insurance; medicare insurance; a California Public Employees Retirement System contribution; unemployment insurance (can they collect if they don't get re-elected?); chiropractic insurance; and an insurance refund to JoAnne Mounce for, I guess, not taking some of the insurance.

Oh, let's not forget the $2,900 each for conference expenses with $500 added for Mr. Hansen, and the good times just keep getting better.

Wasn't it our mayor, Mr. Hansen himself, who suggested in this paper last week that the state of California should cut everything across the board like the Lodi City Council already has? Well, Larry, you didn't cut everything across board, now did you?

So, here's my proposal for the city council — cut the pay back to $500 per month each until such time that property taxes and sales taxes increase in Lodi and you get a percentage increase that equals the percentage increase in those two, according to the limits set by law. When things improve, you get more money — what a concept.

Now, assuming the city council benefits would not change, and they probably would go down a bit, this would be a savings to the general fund of $21,610.20. Since this is not quite enough for your subsidy to the DLBP, cut your conference budgets in half and you save another $7,500 for a grand total of $29,110.20 — more than enough for the subsidy to the DLBP.

By the way, the energy cost adjustment will be a negative $0.0053 on your coming bill. Yes, it is negative. If you use 1,000 kilowatts, your bill will go down by $5.30.

John Johnson, CFA, is a Lodi-based business appraiser. Contact him at john@johnejohnson.com or at 369-1451.