Our View: If the arbitrator’s decision makes the fire department
too costly, the city should explore contracting with another agency
for protection
When it comes to the Gilroy firefighters union’s claims that the city sets aside too much in reserve funds, we have two words: Prove it.
Firefighters made this claim in a recent arbitration hearing. A three-person panel will decide if Gilroy firefighters will receive the costly 3-at-50 retirement package they seek, among other benefits.
Claims that city reserves are too high or that estimates about future economic conditions are too gloomy are arbitrary, at best, without expert financial analysis to back up the claims.
In the meantime, lacking such proof, residents and officials are wise to rely on the conservative guidance provided by City Administrator Jay Baksa, whose advice has kept Gilroy in good fiscal shape for decades, despite the dot-com bust and state raids on local funds.
It’s ironic that even Jim Buessing, Fire Local #2805 representative, acknowledged this to reporter Serdar Tumgoren, saying “Even through the dot-com crash, the city has held up very well financially.”
That the city has done so well is thanks, in significant measure, to Baksa’s guidance. It makes no sense to punish Baksa for his prudent fiscal plans by calling his methods unrealistic.
And the truth is, Gilroy will not be adding huge sales tax increases to its coffers in the same way that it has during the past decade. We’re big-box-stored out.
Hopefully, arbitrator John Kagel sees through the union’s smoke-and-mirror allegations and sees the wisdom in Baksa’s words about budgeting: “One must budget for the worst and hope for the best.”
And the question should not be simply one of “can the city afford it”; but rather “should this be the priority” for spending over other employees, other projects and other services.
Kagel, again hopefully, should put the firefighters’ “us-too” position in proper context. Firefighters say that Gilroy police officers have the benefit, so they should have it, too. The city says that firefighters are already well compensated, especially compared to California Department of Forestry firefighters. Given that there’s an incredibly long waiting list to join the fire department, it’s hard to understand why taxpayers should foot the bill to make the job even more attractive.
But because city officials and residents have no control over how Kagel will handle this case, we urge the city to remember that if his decision is too costly to implement, an option remains: The city can dissolve the Gilroy Fire Department and contract with Santa Clara County for fire services.
It’s an option that should be seriously considered.
There’s a certain measure of civic pride in seeing “Gilroy Fire” lettered on fire engines. But if the arbitrator’s decision prices Gilroy out of the fire department business, the city will have to decide which is more important: safe sidewalks, maintained parks and recreation programs, or maintaining the GFD.
