Furloughs sound nice, but don't always help budget

Previous Entry | Next Entry
| | Comments (1) |

When the City Council approved implementing mandatory unpaid furloughs for city employees (other than police and firefighters) this month to finish eliminating a $19.2 million budget shortfall in the general fund, the move affected non-general fund departments as well to save money and to show solidarity. Those departments, such as Harbor, Water, and Gas & Oil, don't necessarily have the budget shortfall that the general fund faces, and in some cases, the furloughs may mean very little.

Case in point, the Water Department, whose board met last week to discuss their fiscal year 2010 budget, the rising cost of water and the need to raise water rates in Long Beach. At that meeting, officials said that they are implementing furloughs to comply with the council's action, and also voted to cut the salary of Kevin Wattier, the Water Department's general manager, by 1.9 percent to equal the expected savings from the furloughs.

But Water officials also said that running the Water Department -- repairing and maintaining water and sewer lines, treating drinking water, etc. -- is a 24-7 job that means they really can't be short workers. The estimated savings from the furloughs of the Water Department's 218 employees may be $300,000 to $400,000, officials said, but they told me after the meeting that the reality is that other workers have to work overtime to make up for the furloughed employees' absence. So, there may not be any savings at all.

"It is unclear whether we will actually realize furlough savings," B. Anatole Falagan, deputy general manager of business, told the Board of Water Commissioners.

Not that it matters to the general fund one way or the other. With or without Water Department savings, the general fund's $19.2 million deficit this year won't be affected one bit. So it kind of makes you wonder, what's the point?

1 Comments

Royce Handler Bell said:

As a city employee, in a department that is NOT generally funded, we also are taking 'forced furloughs'. As a show of solidarity, and to hope that other employees do not get laid off, this is fine. However, with the city suggesting 26 'forced furlough' days next year ... again, at no savings to the general fund ... but WITH a loss of productivity, which in turn will cut our Federal funding, thereby causing layoffs in the department, what IS the point ?????

Leave a comment

About the Bloggers

Paul Eakins reports on Long Beach City Hall, and local and regional politics. A newcomer to the Press-
Telegram, he previously has covered local and state government and politics in San Diego County, Mexico and his home state of Kansas.

E-mail Paul at paul.eakins@presstelegram.com.


Kris Hanson reports on the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, covering environmental issues, economic triumphs and pitfalls and trade trends of America’s largest port. He also writes a weekly column “On The Waterfront”, appearing Tuesdays, and also produces an occassional video and column titled “On The Job,” which follows the hard-working men and women who keep Southern California’s economy humming.

E-mail Kris at kristopher.hanson@
presstelegram.com
.


Karen Robes Meeks came to work for the Press-
Telegram in April 2002 as a beat reporter, covering the cities of Lakewood, Bellflower and Paramount. She now covers business, specifically redevelopment, tourism and small businesses. She also writes Eye on Redevelopment, a monthly column that appears in the Business Monday section.

E-mail Karen at karen.robes@presstelegram.com.


About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Paul Eakins published on May 26, 2009 2:22 PM.

Hear update on swine flu at 6th District town hall tonight was the previous entry in this blog.

State to appeal redevelopment ruling is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.25