This is an archive of a past election.
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/alm/ for current information.
LWV League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Alameda County, CA November 6, 2012 Election
Smart Voter

Jane Sullwold
Answers Questions

Candidate for
Council Member; City of Alameda

[photo]
 
[line]

The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Alameda and asked of all candidates for this office.
Read the answers from all candidates (who have responded).

Questions & Answers

1. (Most pressing problem) What is the single most pressing problem facing the City in the next 24 months and how would you work with your elected colleagues to solve it?

Unquestionably, the budget is our biggest problem. The key fact about the current state of the City budget is that, according to City staff, the City will run a deficit -- i.e., spend more than it takes in -- every year between now and fiscal year 2016-17, and, as a result, the City will exhaust its reserves -- i.e., run out of money -- by the end of that year. The budget for the current fiscal year ending June 30, 2013 anticipates revenues of $71.1 million and operating expenses of $71.8 million, leaving a deficit of $0.7 million. While revenues are projected to be fairly flat for the next four fiscal years, expenses are projected to rise, resulting in ever-increasing deficits that will have to be covered by our General Fund reserves. By fiscal year 2016-17, the deficit is projected to be $5.7 million, which will more than exhaust the reserves.

There are some who apparently believe that nothing can or should be done to address this situation. For example, I have heard that:

I hope both of these wishes come true. But I, for one, am not willing to risk our future by relying on Washington or Sacramento to solve our problems for us.

Nor I am willing to risk our future by trusting that economic recovery -- if and when it occurs -- will eliminate the need to make hard choices. I hope we haven't forgotten the recent past. Every time the economy boomed, fiscal restraint went by the wayside. Why pay attention to costs when the dot.com boom, or, later, the housing boom was filling the state coffers with tax revenue? Look where such misplaced optimism got us. Eventually, the piper has to be paid.

This is not a bean-counter issue. Unless the budget is brought under control, the services provided by the City to its citizens are going to suffer. Some services may have to be eliminated. Some may have to be reduced. And others may be provided only if citizens are willing to pay for them out of their pockets. I don't want to wake up one morning five years from now and find out it'll now cost me $5 if I want to use the public library or attend a class at the Mastick Senior Center. But if a "don't worry, be happy" approach prevails, that day may come.

What actions should we take to get the budget under control?

The less painful course would focus on increasing revenues. The City's revenues come from taxes, and there are only two ways to increase tax revenues: increase tax rates or expand the tax base. The voters' recent rejection of Measure C suggests the electorate doesn't favor the former option. But exploiting the latter option is more complicated than simply proclaiming support for a "vibrant" business community. Different businesses offer different opportunities. Retail stores generate sales taxes. Office buildings generate property taxes. We've got to go after both. And we shouldn't kid ourselves by touting "out-of-the-box" -- some would say, off-the-wall -- notions of minting money by making Alameda a tourist destination.

Renewing Alameda Point potentially would have the most dramatic impact on revenues -- in the long run. Currently, the revenue from commercial leases barely covers the City's costs. Once the City takes title to the developable area of the Point, we should undertake an aggressive program to market commercial buildings for sale or long-term lease. In exchange, we would want the buyer or lessee to invest in infrastructure and capital improvements. This is the approach that we chose for the Golf Complex -- and it can work at the base, too. But the effects won't be seen immediately.

Increasing revenues won't solve the problem. We've got to focus on reducing costs.

The familiar refrain is that the City has "cut costs to the bone," and there is simply nothing more that can be done. I don't buy it. My approach would be to identify the core services demanded by Alameda residents of their government and then determine the most cost-effective ways of providing them. If the conclusion is that Alamedans already are getting only essential services at the lowest possible cost, so be it. But let's be sure.

Here's an example of what I mean: Fire protection obviously is a core service provided by the City. Back in 2009, the City engaged a consulting firm -- the International City/County Management Association ("ICMA") -- to analyze whether it was doing so in a cost-effective way. ICMA came up with a report contending that the City could reduce costs yet maintain acceptable service levels with fewer fire stations and fewer personnel. The Acting City Manager shelved the report, and it was never publicly discussed until it surfaced during the Measure C debate. At that time, both City staff and the firefighters' union ridiculed the report as full of flaws. They may well be right. But -- this time -- let's open up the topic for discussion. If I were on the Council, I'd invite the proponents and opponents of the report's recommendations to make their case publicly and take questions from not just the Councilmembers but also the public. Who knows? We might learn something.

Maybe it will turn out that those who see nowhere to cut expenses are right. Then we'll have to explore the options of saving costs by out-sourcing services in whole or in part; entering into "public/private partnerships" in which we rely on the generosity of contributors to pay the costs of offering services once provided by the City, or charging citizens "user fees" for services they once got for free.

Finally, any discussion of the budget cannot ignore the issues of "unfunded liabilities" and deferred maintenance.

The City has two major "unfunded liabilities":

Obviously. the City doesn't have enough money available in the general fund to set aside now to cover these unfunded liabilities. In fact, if the budget projections discussed above are accurate, the City can't even afford to begin setting aside a little money every year to make a dent in them. The pension task force appointed by City Manager John Russo has been considering what to do in this situation. No one believes it is acceptable for the City simply to walk away from the promises it made. One option worth further study is issuing pension obligation bonds to raise money to pay off or pay down the unfunded liabilities now. I expect the task force, whose report will be presented to Council on October 30, will crunch the numbers to determine whether this option makes financial sense.

Like unfunded liabilities, deferred expenses are another elephant in the room. When the Fiscal Sustainability Committee was doing its work, the Public Works director estimated that the total cost of improving the City's infrastructure -- e.g., streets, sewers, storm drains, parks and the like -- was a whopping $662 million. Nevertheless, the fiscal year 2012-13 budget included only $17.8 million (of which only $1.2 million came from the general fund) for capital projects. Obviously, spending at that level leaves a lot of work left undone.

As with the unfunded liabilities for pension and retiree medical benefits, we're not going to be able to tap the general fund to fill the gap all at once. Bringing the operating budget under control is a necessary but not sufficient first step. We'll still face a series of hard choices requiring trade-offs between maintaining the current level of services and ensuring that the infrastructure doesn't disintegrate in the meantime.

The bottom line is that all options must be on the table and discussed openly if we hope to preserve our heritage and secure our future.

2. (Growth and development) What is your vision of Alameda ten years from now as it relates to residential growth and business development?

If City Council, the City's employees and the citizens are willing to be realistic and do the hard work it will take to get Alameda's budget under control, then I believe Alameda in ten years will still be a wonderful place to live and raise a family.

The City has agreed to comply with the State of California's housing element by designating ten areas within the developed part of Alameda where multi-family housing may be built. As a member of Council, I would look closely at any specific development proposed for those areas, particularly the impacts of the proposal on traffic on and off our island. I was pleased to hear the Mayor state after Council adopted the new housing element that Measure A will still govern the rest of developed Alameda. For my part, I am committed to that result to ensure that our historic residential areas are preserved.

Regarding Alameda Point, I would expect in ten years to see construction of all or part of the 1,425 residential units that our "no cost" conveyance agreement with the Navy allows, 25% of which would be affordable housing as we have promised. I favor reusing historic buildings where possible, but I recognize that the exact type and location of any housing development will depend on market conditions.

The next ten years should be very interesting in terms of business development. Once we obtain title to the first 918 acres of Alameda Point, I envision aggressive marketing to find long-term tenants or buyers for the existing buildings in the historic district, with an emphasis on businesses that will create jobs and sales tax revenue. With a recovered economy, we should also see growth in our existing business districts where there are current vacancies, including Webster Street, South Shore and the Harbor Bay Business Park.

3. (Partnership of city with schools) Good schools are important for a city's economic growth and well-being. What is the most effective way the City can partner with the school district to improve the academic performance and perception of our schools?

Keeping the lines of communication open is essential. Although the City Council is not empowered to vote on school issues, nothing prevents it from making recommendations to the School Board and school administrators about appropriate steps to be taken. Council cannot prevent the School Board from spending AUSD money to lease new office space, but its members can, and should, raise their voices when the school administration decides to enclose historic Alameda High School with a prison-like fence.

We also should recognize that the success of the City and the success of the school district are interrelated. If the City brings its budget under control and provides necessary services in a cost-effective manner, families will want to stay in, or move to, Alameda and send their children to our schools. It won't be just the City that benefits economically from such a result; the schools will benefit as well. And well-funded schools have demonstrably better academic performance and perceptions in the community.

Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Candidates' responses are presented as submitted. Direct references to opponents are not permitted.

Read the answers from all candidates (who have responded).

Candidate Page || Feedback to Candidate || This Contest
SmartVoter Home (Ballot Lookup) || About Smart Voter

Created from information supplied by the candidate: October 24, 2012 22:30
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund   http://www.lwvc.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.