City officials plan to hold an 11th-hour meeting with council
members behind closed doors to brief them on what plans two of the
city’s four bargaining units have come up with to possibly save
jobs, according to city officials and union representatives.
City officials plan to hold an 11th-hour meeting with council members behind closed doors to brief them on what plans two of the city’s four bargaining units have come up with to possibly save jobs, according to city officials and union representatives.
Options include lowering wages, reducing hours, cutting benefits and modifying working conditions, and the council will also discuss how the second half of the fiscal year could lead to additional job cuts, according to Human Resources Director LeeAnn McPhillips. She will report what ideas she has thrown around with Gilroy’s four bargaining units – the Gilroy Management Association, the Police Officers Association, Gilroy Fire Local #2805 and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees – but it appears only fire and the managers have any real proposals
to offer.
“We were upset our original proposal had not been taken to council, and the council did not know anything about it, so we asked them to take it to council,” said Firefighter Jim Buessing, who represents Gilroy Fire Local #2805.
Last month, the council voted to layoff a total of 48 full-time and 12 part-time employees by Jan. 31, but Buessing declined to describe whether fire’s proposal was a revenue neutral solution to restoring the six firefighters who will lose their jobs at the end of the month, and McPhillips offered only a vague explanation of the proposals.
“We’re not in the midst of reaching an agreement, but we’re floating ideas and testing temperatures,” McPhillips said Monday. She added that “it’s possible” the council could restore a few jobs at the last minute, “but it will be more in part looking at the future and any further reductions.”
As for AFSCME and the police union, representatives said they haven’t come up with any proposals and are not really sure what council members will consider for them when they meet 7 p.m. Wednesday at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna St.
“No kind of proposals or agreements have been discussed with the city at this point, so I think it’s going to be (council members and city officials) getting together and talking about game plans – it’s nothing we’ve discussed or voted on,” said Corporal Royce Heath, vice president of the Police Officers Association.
“The ball is in the city’s court,” said Tina Acree, the AFSCME business agent who represents more than 125 Gilroy employees that include engineers, equipment mechanics, environmental employees and building inspectors. AFSCME is Gilroy’s largest union, and its members received the majority of pink slips. For this reason, Acree has said the police and fire departments, which receive 74 cents of every tax dollar the city collects, should take more hits to relieve her members.
No sworn police officers will lose their jobs, but Chief Denise Turner has moved employees around to compensate for a handful of upcoming retirements that will remain unfilled. Council members have also said it is not the time to cut public safety employees after a spate of gang-related violence at the end of last year and an economy that continues to show declining health.
Mayor Al Pinheiro and other council members said Monday they await reports from McPhillips and City Administrator Tom Haglund – who set up Wednesday’s meeting – but they said they don’t expect any major reversals.
“To get a proposal this late is surprising,” Councilman Perry Woodward said. “This is the two-minute warning. Where were these people in the first quarter when all this was being discussed?”
He also noted that the city’s existing contracts with the unions and managers’ association – known as “memorandums of understanding” – stretch into the future, so modifying them would require time-consuming negotiations.
During past negotiations, the unions and the city’s arbitrator have pointed to the city’s robust general fund reserve as justification for higher salaries and juicier benefits, but Pinheiro said turning to the dwindling rainy-day fund is impossible now.
“They can’t point to that anymore,” Pinheiro said. “The unions have to come to the table and understand that there is no longer this cliche of the reserve.”
The account held $26 million a year ago, but staff expects the balance to drop to $8.7 million by June 2009, and down to negative $11.5 million a year later if the city does not permanently cancel or delay major capital projects that the reserve fund insures when the city is not collecting fees from developers to pay for those planned projects. No building means no income from developers, and this year the reserve could cover nearly $11 million worth of major infrastructure and public facility projects.
Staff has already frozen a slew of expensive projects as the council deliberates, but some projects rely on state grants or joint financing with entities such as the school district. At the council’s annual policy summit this weekend, elected officials will look at specific projects and prioritize them.
The Dispatch obtained a spreadsheet detailing $63 million worth of major short- and long-term construction initiatives ready to go out for bid. The list includes public park projects, sidewalk and street work and sewer works, but Councilman Bob Dillon cautioned that most of the potential savings would not be realized immediately and could not legally pay for salaries. The mayor agreed and said Gilroy will need to continue pinching every penny to even stay afloat.
“What we’ve laid out so far is survival,” Pinheiro said.
