Stuart Kasdin (can’t make the meeting)
Comments on C.1, “Adoption of the City of Goleta Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program Budget for FY 2026/27 (Mid-Cycle) and Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, Approving Updates to the Personnel Rules, Approving Certain Benefits, and Side Letter Agreements with SEIU Local 620”
I want to commend those who worked on this budget. At a time when other municipalities are forced to take extreme budget actions, we have had no such need.
1. Pavement
I recognize the challenges of grappling with our backlog of road maintenance and repair in a time of rising costs and limited budgets. I also want to recognize the innovative investments previously made for pavement – the crack sealing machine.
The report indicates that,
“Spring 2027: Pavement Maintenance, Value Engineering and Long-Term Funding Strategy. Staff will present additional detail on pavement maintenance and value engineering, including updated Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Information and funding level scenarios, for discussion at future meetings (whether as part of its annual pavement update or part of the broader deferred-maintenance discussion.”
My lingering concern is tied to the fact that the budget allocates $6 million to pavement, while $20 million is the amount needed to maintain the pavement at its current Pavement Condition Index level. The city established our target PCI of 67 by council vote as an official city policy. My further understanding is that we are at a PCI of about 58 now, and that if we continue the current funding level of $6 million, within 10 years we will fall to a PCI 43.
This matters because the costs of maintaining our roads dramatically increases as the PCI falls.
The PCI is rated on a scale of 0 to 100. Investment and repair strategies change as the road deteriorates: for a PCI of 71 to 100, more or less, only maintenance and preventative maintenance is needed; at PCI of 56-70, minor repairs are added; while for a PCI of 0-55 major repairs/ rehabilitation are needed. The SF Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission notes that, “At 67 out of a possible 100 points, the region’s average PCI score is much closer to the 60-point threshold at which deterioration accelerates rapidly.”
In the previous council meeting on the budget, Nina indicated that the graph showing how our funding translates into PCI levels over time, did not incorporate the impacts of the value engineering. That is, Nina indicated that by using value engineering, it enabled the city to maintain the PCI at around 58.
So, first, I would be very encouraged by the opportunity to use more value engineering to potentially offset the impacts of our funding gap. How much can value engineering impact this budget in terms of our PCI? Can value engineering make a significant difference?
In addition, Nina indicated that the challenge with value engineering was that it was very time consuming for her personally. It required an in-depth analysis. Would providing new training for PW staff enable our ability to do more value engineering, without it being so Nina-dependent? Is adding value-engineering training money a way to hit our PCI goals?
I know we all share our concerns about the fiscal impacts of the increased costs when we don’t maintain our roads. How far can value engineering get us to our goals? It would be good to get some clarification on whether we have a realistic opportunity to halt this downward PCI trend.
2. Additional Staff for Planning.
The report indicates that,
“Staff requests two related changes in the Planning and Environmental Review (PER) Department’s Affordable Housing Program (4600): (1) reclassifying the existing Senior Housing Analyst to a new Housing Manager, and (2) adding a new Management Analyst position. Together, these changes restructure the Housing Program to parallel the Sustainability Program (4500), with one analyst (Grade 137) reporting to one program manager (Grade 150).”
Regarding the addition of a new staff person in housing, I am concerned about the organizational design of having the proposed new employee report to the existing staff person who makes up the Housing division. In general, most management theory aims to make organizations flatter, with fewer layers. Creating two person divisions creates an additional layer of management and it isn’t clear why that is needed.
In addition. It’s my experience that being good at a task, whether budgeting or program analysis, does not mean that one is good as a manager. It is a distinct skill. In the future, hiring people both to manage one person, as well as for their subject matter expertise will become a more complicated task. Moreover, we will presumably need to provide training for the new division head to learn more on how to manage a staff person.
Instead, perhaps the new employee can be part of the PER director’s staff. Currently, for the PER director, his direct supervisory span is 4. Usually, a span of 7 direct reports should be acceptable, thus keeping our organization flat and reducing the need for more managers. It also enhances the flexibility in the organization for the employee to work on the most critical issues, regardless of the division.
The report indicates that the cost would be offset by two intern positions that are not being used. It would be good to understand why shy away from using interns? Interns have many advantages, including lower compensation costs, more flexibility in expanding or contracting personnel, and also as a kind of way of evaluating talent that one day might lead to a permanent position by seeing interns’ performance in action. This was how the sustainability program added an extra staff person previously.