Newton: How L.A.'s shortfall adds up

PoliticsBusinessFinancePublic EmployeesBudgets and BudgetingJobs and WorkplaceUnemployment and Layoffs

As Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa works to bring the city's finances under control, he's made some laudable moves, but his actions today are constrained by two decisions from earlier in his tenure that limit his options.

The first came in late 2007, when the mayor and other city leaders approved a five-year package with the coalition of unions representing most civilian city workers that promised 5% raises each year.

The second was in response to the economic downturn that blew up the assumption that the city could afford those raises. When revenues suddenly declined, the city had to cut labor costs, and Villaraigosa and other city leaders tried to minimize the impact of cutbacks by shifting city workers from jobs paid for by the general fund into those that are supported by their own revenue streams — sanitation, for instance.

Today, the combined effect of the raises and the shifting of employees out of general fund jobs hamstrings the city's attempt to close its staggering budget shortfall, a $220-million to $250-million hole that Paul Krekorian, the council's Budget and Finance chairman, calls "maybe the most daunting budget challenge since the Great Depression."

The two decisions at first glance seem unrelated. One was a simple benefits package of the type routinely negotiated by the mayor and leaders of the City Council. Those negotiations invariably are shaped by politics. City unions help elect the mayor and council members and expect to be repaid when it's time to cut the deal on salaries. In 2007, for instance, the raises — and the city's willingness to commit to a five-year deal — suggest that the elected officials were catering to organized labor.

That might have been fine, if the city's revenue projections had held true. A year later, however, the bottom fell out of the tax base as the national economy took its 2008 nose-dive in the waning months of the Bush administration. As a result, while the city's salary expenditure line continued to rise, the revenue line that once accompanied it veered sharply downward. To this day, the city suffers from its largesse in 2007.

Which brings us to the second of the fateful decisions. This one was equally defensible on its own terms. As they confronted the increasingly strained budget brought on by the recession, city officials looked for ways to lighten the burden on the general fund without simply casting employees aside — creating hardship for them and their families and contributing to an economy awash in unemployed workers. One way to do that was to move workers into vacant positions at the city proprietary departments or specially funded operations.

As a result, the workforce in those operations has grown or held steady while the general fund workforce has been sharply reduced. As of today, more city employees work in special fund units than are paid by the general fund.

And that, in turn, creates a new political problem. One way out of the current morass would be to persuade city workers to give up the raises promised them in 2007. Employees might well be willing to do so to save their jobs. The trouble is that only general fund employees are under any threat of layoffs because the special fund workers are paid for by the money their operations generate — sanitation fees, for example. Because fees collected by the city for specific services must be used to pay for those services, the city can't simply grab sanitation fees and put them in the general fund. And because the bulk of city employees now work in such "safe" jobs, it's hard to imagine that the city can persuade a majority of its workers to give up their raises.

As Miguel Santana, the city's chief administrative officer, ruefully acknowledged last week, "The politics don't add up."

It's possible that the unions could bail out the city, that workers in one department would give up raises to protect workers in another. But city workers are understandably tired of being vilified for Los Angeles' troubles, and they justifiably feel entitled to the raises they were promised. If they refuse to shoulder the burden of this shortfall, layoffs will come, as they have before, but they won't be felt equally across departments.

Villaraigosa has a talented team assigned to the budget, and in the past he has proved willing to make difficult choices and alienate old friends in order to respond to a crisis. He's to be commended for that, but no one should forget that though the mayor is not to blame for the national economy, his decisions helped create this problem for Los Angeles.

Jim Newton’s column appears Mondays. His latest book is "Eisenhower: The White House Years." Reach him at jim.newton@latimes.com or follow him on Twitter: @newton_jim.

 

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
PoliticsBusinessFinancePublic EmployeesBudgets and BudgetingJobs and WorkplaceUnemployment and Layoffs
  • Why single out L.A. hotel workers for a wage boost?
    Why single out L.A. hotel workers for a wage boost?

    The Los Angeles City Council is, again, trying to rush through a proposal to establish a special $15.37-an-hour minimum wage just for hotel workers. A committee hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday and a full council vote is expected the following day, even though three reports from...

  • Why mandating higher minimum wage isn't best way to address poverty
    Why mandating higher minimum wage isn't best way to address poverty

    Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, among other city and state officials across the country, have recently proposed raising the minimum wage well beyond the current state-mandated levels of $9 an hour in California and $8.25 in Illinois. And public opinion polls...

  • A higher minimum wage makes sense for L.A., but it's no cure-all
    A higher minimum wage makes sense for L.A., but it's no cure-all

    Hardly a week goes by without some new study, quarterly report or economic forecast proclaiming the same troubling news — a combination of stagnant, low wages and a high cost of living has left far too many Angelenos struggling to make ends meet. About 25% of families with children in...

  • L.A.'s rush-hour construction ban is costing taxpayers millions
    L.A.'s rush-hour construction ban is costing taxpayers millions

    Soon after taking office in 2005, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signed an executive order banning construction by "any city department or agency on major roads" during the morning and evening rush hour. It was a popular move, intended to reduce traffic delays and "improve our...

  • Justice takes to the streets of L.A.
    Justice takes to the streets of L.A.

    Since charter reform paved the way for neighborhood councils, Los Angeles has made steady progress toward a more neighborhood-centered government. But up to now, that hasn't included neighborhood-centered justice.

  • Should L.A. City Council be a landing pad for termed-out politicians?
    Should L.A. City Council be a landing pad for termed-out politicians?

    The Los Angeles City Council has already become the landing pad of choice for termed-out legislators from Sacramento. Is it now going to become the next job for termed-out county supervisors too?

  • Are Republicans extinct in L.A.?
    Are Republicans extinct in L.A.?

    The scene at Mayor Eric Garcetti's minimum-wage announcement on Labor Day was telling in a way that had little to do with his proposal. Joining him on the podium were the head of Los Angeles' labor federation, the city's preeminent businessman and philanthropist, and seven...

  • Great bookstores? In L.A.? You bet.
    Great bookstores? In L.A.? You bet.

    If anyone had told me before I moved to Los Angeles that it was a city of great bookstores, I would have said they were nuts. I grew up haunting the bookstores along Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley. Moe's. Cody's. Shakespeare & Company, all within spitting distance of one another. I...

Comments
Loading