STORYLINE City Budget

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Council sets new hearing on parks, police and fire

by Kathleen Haley, published on May 25, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Storyline: City Budget RSS Feed

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images
Slideshow image

If you thought the last few budget hearings on proposed budget cuts to the city’s parks, police and fire services were heated, just wait until June 7.

At the close of a nearly four-hour budget meeting on proposed cuts to the Sacramento Fire Department Tuesday night, the City Council unanimously decided to discuss the cuts again on June 7.

But the June 7 meeting will be different from previous hearings because the council decided it will discuss all the controversial budget cuts – to the Parks and Recreation, Police and Fire departments – at that time.

Councilman Rob Fong said the cuts should be discussed all at the same time because the city does not have enough money to prevent cuts to those departments.

The council does not have funds to restore money to one of the three departments without cutting money from another of the departments, Fong said.

“When anyone comes and says ‘don’t cut us, just keep us whole,’ please understand what you’re really asking us to do is cut them,” Fong said.

“When the police say don’t cut us, they’re saying ‘cut the fire department’ ... because that’s where we are – it’s a zero-sum game. We don’t have enough money,” Fong said.

City leaders are wrestling with a $39 million budget gap for the 2011/2012 fiscal year.

Council members indicated Tuesday night that they will likely approve a federal grant for the Fire Department next month. Several council members said Tuesday night that they support the idea of approving the $5.6 million in federal funds from the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant Program.

The department has already been selected to receive the grant and is waiting on the council to approve it.

If the council signs off on the federal grant, the proposed cuts to the Fire Department would be lessened. The department would still face “brownouts” or alternating closures of fire services, but the number of brownouts would be less severe.

The department now closes two fire companies on an alternating schedule. The current budget proposal from Interim City Manager Bill Edgar and Interim Deputy City Manager Betty Masuoka would bump the number of these closures to six.

But the federal grant money would bring the number down to four, according to Fire Chief Ray Jones. The department would still see an increase from two to four, but not from two to six.

Jaymes Butler, municipal vice president of Sacramento Area Fire Fighters Local 522, told the council Tuesday that the cuts would hurt communities.

“Whole communities will be without emergency medical response and fire,” Butler said.

In a press conference before the City Council meeting, firefighters protested proposed cuts to their department.

When talking about the proposed cuts at the press conference, Butler said firefighters would be “laid off.” However, when pressed by reporters if there would be “out-the-door” layoffs, Butler said that 49 positions slated for cuts were not filled and no current workers would actually be laid off.

Earlier Tuesday, Mayor Kevin Johnson commented on the proposed budget cuts. When asked about proposals to save money with cuts to police and fire, Johnson said he'd rather hear from all departments and get information from them before the council makes a decision on what they can or can't do.

"I've said from day one I want to hold the line on public safety if at all possible,” Johnson said. “And that's police and fire. Certainly parks and being a full-service city are very important."

Video by Kathleen Haley

Staff Reporter Suzanne Hurt contributed to this report. Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. 

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

May 25, 2011 | 10:02 AM
The cost of "public safety" is geometric, right? If being 50% safe costs $10, being 80% safe costs $100. Keep going...if being 90% safe costs $1,000, being 95% safe costs $100,000, and being 98% safe costs $1,000,000. Since 9/11 this nation has been on a safety jones...and as surely as the sun comes up, we cannot buy 100% safety. This, I believe, is the fundamental issue our council is wrestling with today...how safe can we afford. Personally, I still believe we're the home of the free and the brave, not the home of the compliant and securitized, but then I'm old fashioned.
2 2
REPLY
May 25, 2011 | 3:09 PM
whether we are the home of the free is questionable at this point. The US has a record 4 million people involved in some way with the criminal justice system, either on probation, parole or incarcerated. Not to mention surveillance systems around many corners, gang injunctions prohibiting people from going into certain areas..., wire taps due to the RICO act.... The land of the Free appears to be the not-so-free
2 3
REPLY
May 25, 2011 | 1:17 PM
I can't even believe this is an issue! Schools, Police, Fireman and Parks and Rec should never be looked at for budget cuts! It's an important part of our society and our future! The council shouldn't be the ones making the decision, it should be the people! They obviously have money and security where a lot of people don't. This crap pisses me off.
1 2
REPLY
May 25, 2011 | 3:35 PM
Sounds good. Nobody wants cuts. The problem is what is the alternative? How can we balance our local budget?
1 0
REPLY
edited on  May 25, 2011 | 5:55 PM
If my household budget was hit hard by unexpected decreases in income, and I couldn't find anything else to comfortably cut, I'd try to earn more money...how does a city make more money?
4 0
REPLY
May 25, 2011 | 11:15 PM
Darn good point William. Heck, instead of looking at the glass as half empty (looking at the cuts) they could look at it as half full ( look for ways to earn more money). The cuts have to be made- You can't drain blood from a turnip. But when will they generate a course of action for the city to earn more money. So many tasks forces lately but no generate city revenue task force.-lol

Our mayor and city counsel have become dependent on grants. I guess you can say they are a government of welfare looking for hand outs (grants) not a hand up (generating revenue) Grants are temporary - sooner or later they run out not to mention they often come with strings attached. Seems like the way this city is going every year they will cut, cut, cut every year give employees pink slips, pink slips, pink slips and at the same time keeping their fingers crossed in hopes a grant will come from the sky to save one department or another. It’s a sad display of leadership.
0 1
REPLY
May 26, 2011 | 8:30 AM
"....how does a city make more money?" Confiscate it from the families of earners.
0 0
REPLY
edited on  May 25, 2011 | 1:55 PM
Yes, cut police, fire, parks and schools. But certainly, Mayor Johnson will travel to NYC to beg for the Kings to stay, and promise to use city funds to build a new stadium. That one trip alone cost the city as much as one Police Officer's annual salary. Sacramento should have never elected a basketball player into office... he is completely biased when it comes to prioritizing the issues of Sacramento.
3 3
REPLY
May 25, 2011 | 3:17 PM
I think he is bias when it comes to prioritizing issues and I have to agree. But I have to say the game of basketball appears to have taught him to be competitive, develop a game plan and fight to win. Those aren't bad qualities. It's sometimes not what you do but how you do it which can be concerning. He choses to use those qualities for self-promotion. He's self-absorbed, using them for the city as a whole would actually make him an asset to our city and not the liability he is proving to be.
1 0
REPLY
May 25, 2011 | 3:42 PM
bizzare logic. I don't think a trip anywhere would solve these budget issues. I believe you are comparing apples to USB plugs.

As for the cost of the trip to our taxpayers, it would have been negligible compared to the budget deficit if it was not already allocated for this kind of work. Mayors travel for many reasons. Keeping a large corporation in town makes some sense.

As to public funds and the arena, until we know what the funding mechanism is there is no point comparing it to balancing this budget. We simply don't know where that money will come from or what form it will take. We could always speculate, but why?

So I propose we all try to work on the problems at hand and talk about what may need to be cut and by how much. What are our priorities? At this point it is not about personalities, but about policy that affects our region.
2 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background