Critics of Measure Q on the Nov. 5 ballot point to the three quarter cent sales tax hike as being a windfall for municipal employees.
They believe the smoking gun — if you will — are contracts reached with the city’s seven employee groups in 2023.
All seven contracts include language in memorandums of understanding (MOUs) that state on or about March 1, 2025, the labor groups and the city will discuss the city’s financial position.
The MOU states if there is an increase of 5 percent in sales tax from the previous fiscal year, both parties agree to open the contract on matters pertaining to wages only as related to the current contract.
However, if Measure Q passes it will not trigger the March 1, 2025 reopener. The reasons are:
*The sales tax increase needs to occur in the fiscal year that ends June 30, 2024.
*Measure Q, it passes, would not go into effect until Jan. 1, 2025.
*And the city wouldn’t be in receipt of increases sales tax until after the first quarter of 2025 ends, which is months after March 1.
Six of the seven employee groups signed three-year contracts that run through 2026. The firefighters local went with a two-year contract that ends in 2025.
The bottom line is the MOU language for wage reopeners in place will not be triggered by passage of Measure Q.
And it is unlikely there will be an increase in revenue with the sales tax currently in place.
That’s because sales tax in recent years has been sluggish in terms of increases due to a surge in online retail sales.
There is, however, more than a kernel of truth that some of the $13 million in annual sales tax increase that Measure Q is projected to generate if approved will likely make its way into the pockets of existing city workers.
Councilman Charlie Halford notes that it is basic economics.
City payroll costs increase just like private sector payroll costs do.
And just like in the private sector, if the city isn’t in the ballpark of being competitive, they run the risk of losing qualified workers that have specialty skills in high demand when they are not competitive.
They also have a tough time trying to attract qualified candidates to fill vacancies.
A prime example is the loss just recently of the deputy director of finance as well as the finance accounts manager.
Both were hired roughly six months ago from Stanislaus County. They left their jobs in Modesto because Manteca paid better.
Stanislaus County, which has had a major drain on key staffing, earlier this year upped pay levels considerably including for the financial operations.
The two workers have since given notice and are going back to Modesto for better paying jobs.
City Manager Toni Lundgren said the city is now looking at dipping into reserves and reworking the duties so Manteca can pay more to attract and retain critical staffing in the finance department.
The two positions are key for the city staying on top of audits and fiscal oversight.
Halford has examples that strike directly to the heart of the Yes on Measure Q Committee’s argument for passing of the three-quarter cent sales tax hike that expires after 20 years — police officers and firefighters.
“The reality is we need to stay competitive even with Bay Area cities,” Halford said.
He noted that is especially true with freighters who work a 24-hour shift then have multiple days off. That makes commuting less of an issue since it can be done just twice a week and during times there is not traffic congestion.
Halford noted during his tenure as Manteca’s police chief from 1997 through 2008, the department was constantly struggling to hire qualified officers given the city’s pay for police was not competitive enough with regional jurisdictions.
Budget reflects
funding issues
During the adoption of the current city budget that went into effect July 1, only 5 of the 44 general fund positions department heads identified as crucial to keep existing or targeted service level goals for residents were approved.
And — as Halford pointed out — at the time only two of the positions (two additional police officers) were actually funded with general fund revenue per se.
The other three were park maintenance workers.
Those three positions are funded with transfers from defined community facilities districts set up to pay for the cost of ongoing park maintenance and other expenses in new neighborhoods. Homeowners in those neighborhoods pay for the labor and operation costs associated with the parks.
If the trend continues — meaning the city can’t find new general fund revenue to help cover a large number of parks in Manteca not maintained by annual CFD assessments — the likelihood is you will be able to tell the difference between a CFD park and a 100 percent general fund park in its landscaping and how it is groomed.
It’s a stark reminder of a number of realties.
*Workers — in the form of police officers, firefighters, street crews, recreation aides, and such — are how services are delivered to the city’s 91,000 residents.
*Wages and benefits account for 60.9 percent of all of the $73.8 million general fund budget for this year, a percentage that falls roughout in line with California’s other 481 cities.
*Taxes such as those collected on new growth for specific services through CFDs can only be used as intended. In short, it is illegal to use CFD funds operating for park workers they fund to work on a non-CFD park.
*Manteca is not just competing for qualified workers with nearby cities and the Northern San Joaquín Valley private sector, but Bay Area municipalities as well. That is true not just for police and firefighters that typically commute across the Altamont Pass during non-peak times but positions that require extensive specialized training and are in high demand such as wastewater treatment plant operators.
It is against the backdrop Manteca is trying to retain and attract city workers.
A year ago, Manteca — which currently has 474 budgeted employees in the general fund and enterprise funds (sewer, water, solid waste) — had nearly 12 percent of its funded positions vacant.
Manteca was actually doing better at the time than San Joaquin County that was struggling to fill 1,239 open positions or 17 percent of its budgeted 7,942 workers.
Such a situation doesn’t necessarily free up money.
Critical work that can’t be delayed still has to be done such as police and fire protection and running the day-to-day needs of the municipal water and sewer system. As such, overtime costs skyrocket.
Other work that isn’t a question of assuring public safety and health, still needs to be done. That often forces the city to contract with outside concerns to plug holes in its ability to deliver services.
And many of those unfilled positions often have a snowball impact and can cost the city money in the long run by missing out on everything from funding sources to not being able to stay on top of critical operational needs such as keeping financial books current.
To contact Dennis Wyatt, email dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com
.
