The ballot measure’s financial analysis shows the city could save up to $27 million annually through competitive bidding, a process known as “managed competition.”
At our debate on Proposition D, Councilman Kevin Faulconer, a Prop. D opponent, said the city should realize the estimated $27 million in managed competition savings in time for next year’s budget. Faulconer’s point was that the city didn’t need a tax increase to solve the $70 million-plus deficit projected for 2012.
Gloria, a Prop. D supporter, scoffed. He said the city only could save the $27 million if it bid out every city service possible.
That’s not accurate.
The $27 million estimate comes from competitive bidding a specific set of services, not everything the city could do.
City Chief Operating Officer Jay Goldstone examined six to eight services, including its publishing and fleet maintenance departments, that are ready for managed competition.
Yes on D spokeswoman Rachel Laing agreed Gloria’s statement was incorrect. But she argued Gloria’s larger point was true. The city, she said, could not save $27 million through competitive bidding for next year’s budget.
Further, Laing said she expected the six to eight services Goldstone had identified to be the only ones the city competitively bidded “for a couple years.”
“That’s not an accurate impression,” Laing said of Gloria’s statement, “but I would not call it misleading.”
The statement that these savings might not be achieved by July 1, 2011 is credible. However, the $27 million savings estimate comes from the city bidding out six to eight city services, not everything possible in the city as Gloria had said.
That’s why we’ve decided it’s false.
If you disagree with our determination or analysis, please express your thoughts in the comments section of this blog post. Explain your reasoning.
You can also e-mail new Fact Check suggestions to firstname.lastname@example.org. What claim should we explore next?