The Fullerton City Council gave direction at its July 21 meeting to proceed with Scenario C, the deepest of three proposed budget-reduction plans. Formal adoption of the budget is scheduled for August 18.
Scenario C promises to balance the General Fund for three years through approximately $7 million in ongoing reductions and the elimination of dozens of vacant positions. City staff described it as the option with the “greatest service and staffing reductions,” but also the only scenario projected to eliminate the structural deficit for three years without relying on reserves.
Fullerton has a structural budget problem. Recurring expenditures exceed recurring revenues, and reserves cannot permanently close that gap. Not every position that has appeared in a City budget must remain there forever. But the Council is overlooking a basic distinction: A vacant position is not necessarily an unnecessary position.
The City budgeted these jobs because departments were expected to perform a certain amount of work. Unless the Council also eliminates the services, responsibilities, and performance expectations associated with those jobs, the workload does not disappear. It is simply transferred to the employees who remain.
Consider the Fire Department. The proposed reductions include unfunding the vacant Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal position. Fullerton has also recently brought ambulance operations in-house, adding a major operational responsibility to the department. The City is not eliminating ambulance service, emergency response, fire prevention, plan review or departmental administration. Someone will still have to perform and oversee that work. Without the deputy chief position, more responsibility moves upward to the Fire Chief and outward to other members of the department’s command staff. The City may save the cost of one position, but it has not reduced the complexity of running the department.
How long does the Council expect a capable fire chief to operate an entire department, oversee a major ambulance program and absorb responsibilities intended for another executive position before deciding that another city offers a more sustainable job?
The same problem exists in Community and Economic Development. Scenario C proposes eliminating or reducing positions connected to planning, permit processing, code enforcement and economic development. The detailed list includes an Associate Planner, Senior Permit Technician and Economic Development Project Manager, along with an underfilled Code Enforcement Manager position.
Fullerton is not reducing the number of housing laws it must implement. Development applications will continue to arrive. Residents will continue to expect timely permit processing and code enforcement. The City will still need economic development if it hopes to improve its long-term revenue base. The work remains, but fewer people will be available to perform it.
There is also a damaging message being sent to high-performing department leaders. When a director improves turnaround times, clears backlogs and strengthens operations, the Council should reinforce that progress. Instead, those improvements can become an excuse to remove resources: the department performed better, so perhaps it can function with less. Success becomes self-defeating.
It also damages the performance measures that experienced public administrators use to demonstrate their effectiveness. Why would an ambitious director remain in a city where every operational improvement is followed by another reduction that makes future success harder to maintain?
Fullerton has lived through this exact same cycle already. The City’s vacancy rate reached 23.2% in fiscal year 2020-21, rose to 25.5% the following year and remained at 20% in fiscal year 2022-23. After the City approved new multiyear labor agreements, the vacancy rate declined to 14.6% and then 10.5%. Separations also fell substantially.
City budget documents have repeatedly credited those compensation agreements with improving recruitment, retention, organizational stability and services. The City’s adopted budget said the agreements helped reduce vacancies from more than 20% to approximately 14%, producing an improved level of service.
Those improvements were expensive. The same compensation agreements that helped stabilize the workforce also increased salary, benefit and pension costs. The City now lists previously approved labor agreements among the factors contributing to its structural deficit.
That history should teach the Council something. When staffing deteriorates far enough, the City eventually has to pay to repair the damage. It raises compensation to become competitive again. It spends money recruiting replacements. It uses overtime, consultants, contractors and interim employees to cover responsibilities that never went away. Projects take longer, permits move more slowly, and opportunities for new revenue are delayed.
The cycle is predictable: Vacancies increase. Work is transferred to remaining employees. Those employees become overworked. More employees leave. Services deteriorate. The City then raises compensation or spends money elsewhere to restore capacity.
It is difficult to understand why the Council would now risk recreating the conditions that made those expensive agreements necessary. The City Council should remember what happened the last time vacancies, excessive workloads and organizational instability were allowed to compound. Fullerton eventually paid millions of dollars to become competitive and retain employees.
and rebuild its workforce. Now, before that recovery is complete, the Council is preparing to remove much of the capacity it paid to restore.
A balanced spreadsheet is not the same thing as a balanced organization. And a vacancy is not proof that the work is unnecessary. It may be proof that the organization has already been operating without enough people. On August 18, the Council has an opportunity to show that it learned from Fullerton’s recent history, or to begin repeating it.
Related
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.