Download this page in PDF format
The Yucca Valley Town Council needs to be reminded they represent the people of the Town, not Town Hall. The latest move to cut two Town services that add greatly to the residents’ quality of life and public safety are petty and misguided.
The amount of money actually being saved by canceling the swimming program and summer concerts is tiny when compared to the overall budget. We think these cuts were done more to publicly punish voters for not passing a Town sales tax than to actually balance a budget. The Town Council cutting these high- profile amenities seems more like a move designed to bully the public into passing another attempt at a sales tax than anything really financial.
Will it be worth the superficial cuts if a child drowns in a backyard pool because the town took away the only opportunity a parent has to teach that child how to swim and be safe in water?
One of the only things that almost everyone agrees the Town does well, the summer concert series, is being cut. Is it worth the cuts so some 2,500 people from all walks of life can no longer come together to enjoy a concert on a cool summer evening? What about the income to local business and those on site that those concertgoers brought?
By canceling the summer concerts, the Town squanders seventeen years invested to make them a quality destination. We urge the members of the Yucca Valley Town Council, elected by the people, to act in the best interests of those people, not play small-town politics, and restore the Town’s invaluable swimming program and summer concerts.
Related Posts
Timeline: 2010 Yucca Valley Sales Tax Question
Nuiami tells Gary what he said, …. “was small town politics and irresponsible”
City Audit Reveals General Fund of only $7,600 Cash for Fiscal 2012
Councilman Robert Lombardo’s Sour Grapes over Measure U Defeat
Busy Weekend for Riverside County Off-Highway Vehicle Enforcement Team
Incoming search terms:
- citizens punished cactus thorns
How do manage to find the worse kind of assholes to put in place at our City Halls? This me-against-them mentality make me sick. Who are these people anyway? These people do not serve the residents of their cities/towns…why do we follow like lemmings and allow them to remain?
I have to agree with Gary on this…. It is hard to justify giving a Town Manager a raise when public services like this are being scrapped.
Did I miss something here? Aren’t raises usually based upon bringing home the bacon?
It is hard to claim that the bacon has been brought to the table when you have to cut services? It is hard to justify a raise when you go nothing but empty hands and empty promises…..
Terrific editorial. While the YVTC paid the town manager more money, they cut the summer concerts to punish the public for defeating Measure U. The other view is the YVTC cut the summer concerts to pay for town manager “pay boost”. Either way the YVTC is acting like an elitists oligarchy click.
Gary,
I have appreciated our open lines of communication in the past and the opportunities you have provided the Town to discuss matters affecting the community. I heard your editorial this morning and have the following observations:
1) Bullying Public to Support a Sales Tax: The Measure U election occurred LAST November. Had the Town made cuts to programming last year, perhaps an accusation could have been made that the cuts were scare tactics to drive support for Measure U. Such cuts were not made last year and they would have been justified last year. We actually tried to insulate the community from such cuts to avoid such accusations of scare tactics or bullying. Now that the election is over and we don’t have the additional revenue coming to our General Fund, we are obligated to balance our budget! Put another way, elections have consequences.
2) Timing of Cuts: Your editorial also implied that these two programs were selected for cutting to deliver the most pain to the residents (“petty and misguided”, “cuts were done more to publicly punish”), while delivering little savings. These two programs were brought forward this past meeting because they require immediate decisions for hiring of seasonal staff, scheduling of performance talent, etc. These will not be the only service impacts to the community – but they may likely be the first.
3) Organization Has Structural Deficit : As we discussed at great length at the Town Council meeting, we face a budget deficit from $400,000 to upwards of $1,000,000 depending upon policy decisions from the Town Council. While they have already made some decisions that will lessen the “deficit” in FY 13/14 (like no General Fund $$ towards road maintenance), that structural deficit remains.
4) Cuts Are Unavoidable: What your editorial fails to acknowledge is that the Town has been taking responsible steps to avoid such service cuts to the community. We have exhausted cost savings measures that don’t reduce service levels:
a. In prior Fiscal Years, the Town reformed its benefits program, employees picked up their FULL SHARE of retirement costs (8% of gross salary) without it being offset by a Cost of Living Adjustment;
b. The Town implemented a 2-tier retirement system that reduces the long-term costs and liabilities of new employees;
c. The Town brought forward a revenue measure to the citizens seeking their support to provide the Town resources to address Sewer, Streets, & Safety. We weren’t kidding when we told the community we needed 1% sales tax for 30 years;
d. The organization has had a series of layoffs and early retirements – eliminating much of the Town’s mid-management and supervisory staff;
e. The Town allocated CDBG funds to Code Enforcement to reduce the burden on the General Fund. The Town has aggressively gone after additional funding sources to deliver services.
5) Seeking Outside Funding: Your editorial also missed the fact that the Town Council action directed staff to seek outside funding to continue the two programs being cut. We would love to have Z107.7 support as we approach other agencies to contribute to the costs of our services that benefit the entire basin, not just the residents of our Town.
a. The Summer Concert series is a great example of a Basin event – not just a Town activity. The 1,250 attendees per concert come from all over the basin;
b. The Town Council Ad-Hoc committee is meeting with Supervisor Ramos to see if the County could assist in funding a number of Town funded services / events that benefit the region. These include: 4th of July, California Welcome Center/DRTA/Chamber of Commerce, library subsidy, Hi-Desert Nature Museum, ballfield maintenance, etc.
c. Given the redevelopment agency dissolution, the County General Fund is receiving more property taxes from the Town and we believe those funds should remain in the Town to benefit the residents.
d. The same is true with the Morongo Unified School District. The Town currently provides services & facilities to MUSD and we receive little compensation for those investments. Our juvenile officer spends considerable time on the High School campus – at a full year cost of $200,000 – and the district contributes $25,000. The pool is on the high school campus, is used by the high school swim team (they pay $40 per hour to use – which doesn’t cover the full costs), and yet the Town operates, maintains, pays the utilities, etc. for maintaining this asset.
Gary, while the message is simple — we have to live within our means – The challenge is complex in that we have a significant structural deficit. There are going to be many more cuts to services than the two that were brought forward at this time. We have an infrastructure cliff that we’re heading towards by continuing to not invest adequate funds into road maintenance. The Town Council once again has taken a responsible step at addressing this issue and directed staff to bring forward a ¼% sales tax for roads (along with the ½% for sewer). While this will address the roads, it won’t be able to address the other structural issues with the organization.
Your editorial admonishes the Town Council to represent the people – they are doing just that by demanding a balanced budget! You accuse the Town Council of playing small town politics when, in fact, they are doing the responsible thing and making difficult decisions that were previously kicked down the road. I would suggest this issue cannot be encapsulated by an editorial position of Z107.7 wherein future tragedies were laid at the feet of the Town Council – doing that was small town politics and irresponsible.
Thank you for taking the time to read this response and I’m happy to come on the air anytime to discuss the Town’s issues. Name the time & date and I’ll be there.
Mark
(this is an email sent to Z107.7 earlier in the day)
To all you who claim to be fiscally conservative…who think the gov should stay out of private enterprise and the taxpayer should not subsidize losing corporations…remember this when your cities come to you with their hands out for MORE MONEY RATHER THAN CUTTING THEIR BUDGETS! Asking the taxpayers for more money for their corporation called ____(city)___, fill in the blank – is no different than a private corporation which comes to the taxpayer for a subsidy rather than figuring it out for themself. We pay a lot of money for these town/city managers who are not doing their jobs. The very first place they should cut is their own salaries and those of their staff who have not been successful in their jobs. And start reducing staff.
Two quick thoughts
The fifth largest retailers CEO Costco makes $500 grand annually, how in the hell can there be any justification for the outlandish salary of city managers with their meager work force and duties?
Is it appropriate for people’s hard earned tax dollars to go to entertain a few? Does doing this skew the market? Making it harder for the private sector to offer the same?
This all would have been easier to swallow by the public, if they could have seen, at least on your part, a willingness to tighten your own belts and instead of pay raises taken a few pay cuts….
I believe you could have paid the whole Summer concert budget by simply reducing that big package of yours. The citizens of your fair town could still find pleasure in your servicing them with a little smaller package.
Again, I reiterate, without “cities” we would not need to pay any of these salaries, consultants, legal fees, overhead for administrative costs, etc….DISINCORPORATE. If you take away all the community programs, then what you have left is what you would receive under county control. DISINCORPORATE! There is no argument in favor of maintaining a corporation that continually loses money and does not provide the product the corporation was formed to produce in the first place. DISINCORPORATION IS THE ONLY ANSWER!