EXPENDITURE CONTROLS/COST SHIFTS
Options
(Per Management Partners)
Estimates
(Per Management Partners)
19 Reduce staffing levels for General Fund position by eliminati ng vacant positions High ($5.4 million) 20 Perform fire department study for utilization and organizatio nal efficiencies High ($2.7 million) 21 Perform police department study for utilization and organizat ional efficiencies High ($2 million) 22 Reduce overtime costs High ($1 million)
23 Shift greater percent of pension costs to employees Medium ($9 00,000) 24 Perform organizational assessment focusing on management staf fing levels Medium ($700,000) 25 Shift fire sworn inspectors to non‐sworn inspectors Medium ($6 00,000) 26 Shift police sworn position to non‐sworn positions based on c alls for service analysis Medium ($500,000) 27 Implement equitable healthcare cost sharing with employees Low ($250,000) SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS
Options
(Per Management Partners)
Estimates
(Per Management Partners)
28 Eliminate services funded by the Chevron ECIA funds High ($9 m illion) 29 Reduce overall number of General Fund employees by 5% High ($5 million) 30 Eliminate social service programs/spending and/or push servic e to the County High ($1.9 million) 31 Reduce library operations by reducing hours or closing a bran ch Medium ($700,000) 32 Eliminate General Fund subsidy for recreation programs Medium ($700,000) OPTIONS FOR FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY
This refers to strategies that cap or save General Fund expenditures either by shifting costs to other funds or service providers to reduce the cost of services borne by the General Fund.
This involves reductions based on prioritizing core services and reducing non‐core services. Since we assume that preserving services is a priority, this is typically a fallback strategy when other approaches to restoring the balance between revenues and expenditures are not possible.