Monday, February 28, 2011
Fire Assessment Commentary
Our mail-in fire tax ballot came today. It's worded a little funny. The yes box says, "Yes, I support the proposed assessment on my parcel for fire suppression services, including firefighter personnel, equipment and apparatus. while the no box simply states, "No, I oppose the proposed assessment on my parcel for fire suppression services."
I went on-line to see how much our firefighters actually earn because the fire tax ballot mentions it will help pay for personnel. The state controllers web site has the amounts for 2009. Two of our three Battalion Chiefs earned over $257,000 each with more than $120,000 of that in overtime. A Fire Captain earned over $153,000 with over $40,000 of that in overtime. The rest of our firefighters earned over $120,000 on average and that's not including benefits. I can see why given these amounts the city manager wants us to tax ourselves more on behalf of the firefighters. Perhaps a better solution would be pay cuts for our hero's. At least it would show some empathy from the public sector toward us regular schmoes.
The ballot came with a breakdown of who will pay what if you vote yes. If you vote for this parcel tax and are a resident you will be adding $73.17 to your annual property tax bill, you will also be adding the whopping sum of $678.28 to the property taxes of all our local businesses and $41.13 per acre of undeveloped parcels like Dave Colt's acreage on Pedro Point.
I'm voting NO because I think it an unfair tax. The thought that a yes vote will condemn business owners like my favorite mechanic or restaurant to an additional $678.28 a year is just too much to bare, and that friends of mine will pay an extra $41.13 per acre for land that is undeveloped is just plain mean knowing how combative we as a community can be toward development.
I'm sorry but given the impact on others I live with I can not in good faith vote for this tax. I urge all city employee's from our city manager to our lowest paid hourly contractor to take a 5% pay cut and pay into your own retirement like the rest of os do. We are hurting too and it would be nice if you could show you understand that. A simple 5% wage cut would more than equal the fire tax. What do you say folks?
Todd McCune Bray
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
204 comments:
1 – 200 of 204 Newer› Newest»I would add to Todd's commentary that the "non-residential" parcel assessment of $678.28 is all over the map (no pun intended) in its fairness.
For example, the shops in Pacific Manor are all on small parcels, each of which are assessed the amount. Yet Eureka Square Shopping Center is one parcel, and will pay only $678.28 for the whole shebang!
Should we funnel more money to a city government that spent three-quarters of its monetary reserves on a "structural deficit," instead of quickly trying to start dealing with the problem?
"...start dealing with the problem.."
Another parcel tax is not the answer. City council majority has had 9 years to figure-it-out, and they continue to do just about nothing to help the financial and service structural problems in this city. Big NO for this non-solution.
One thing that is positive, city council has managed to unite us on a few issues, this being one.
It's more than council and senior staff,it's every employee from the city manager to an hourly contractor. Everyone has been well aware of the shrinking revenues, every manager, every union rep, everyone. None of them have acted as part of the community at large because of short sighted self interest. The public sector are far more aware of the constraints on budgets than me and have decided to ignore the realities that are known about wage levels, staff levels and pensions and instead are pulling harp strings, that are broken, to get us to tax ourselves more to ensure their standard of living. If the public sector wanted to show they have even he slightest bit of empathy for us beyond their contractual obligations they would band together at the table and work this thing out. That clearly hasn't happened and the unfortunate avoidable result is what we are now seeing.
Below is an e-mail I sent to Steve Rhodes this morning, waiting for a reply
Hi Steve,
I just had a call from my neighbor Flo who is 93. She is very upset about the ballot because she must sign it. Her fear, whether founded or unfounded, is that her ballot will be public record and it will identify her personally and how she voted. She feels her right to vote is being impinged by the lack of anonymity because, as she explained, unlike a regular voting day where you walk in and vote anonymously this ballot will put her on a public list of some sort that can be accessed by anyone at anytime for any reason. She is seriously concerned about this and is contemplating not returning the ballot as a result.
I think Flo raises a very interesting issue. I'm now very disturbed myself that a lot of people will not return their ballots for fears like Flo's whether they are voting yes or no.
What advice do you have for folks like Flo who are afraid, literally afraid, to return their ballots? What sort of reassurances can I give her that voting either for or against this fire tax is, well, safe?
Hi Steve,
I just had a call from my neighbor Flo who is 93. She is very upset about the ballot because she must sign it. Her fear, whether founded or unfounded, is that her ballot will be public record and it will identify her personally and how she voted. She feels her right to vote is being impinged by the lack of anonymity because, as she explained, unlike a regular voting day where you walk in and vote anonymously this ballot will put her on a public list of some sort that can be accessed by anyone at anytime for any reason. She is seriously concerned about this and is contemplating not returning the ballot as a result.
I think Flo raises a very interesting issue. I'm now very disturbed myself that a lot of people will not return their ballots for fears like Flo's whether they are voting yes or no.
What advice do you have for folks like Flo who are afraid, literally afraid, to return their ballots? What sort of reassurances can I give her that voting either for or against this fire tax is, well, safe?
Can't help but suspect that the format or method of voting on this ballot measure was very carefully chosen by the city to improve the measures's chances of passing. Sneaky and hardly transparent but thats how they roll in Pacifica. It has never been more important to take a stand by casting your vote against this tax. The City would love for voters to be confused by this measure or to be worried about their name on a list. Take a stand people.
Tell Flo she must vote NO on this one. These votes are counted, not scrutinized.
Only those who own property have the privilege of voting. She is an "elite", that may make her feel better (or not).
The ballot heading is "your opportunity". Free speech, here you go Flo: take the opportunity to say NO, and advise your friends to do the same. There is no exemption on this one.
And, by the way Todd and Lionel, what are your ideas about bring-in needed tax revenue to this city other than none? Inadequate city tax revenue, failing city infrastructure, and no plan might not work.
Council sent a very clear message out last nite with their choices for the two planning positions that were vacant. Two very left of center applicants, Mike Brown (architect of the failed bio-diesel business plan) and incumbent Langille, she of enviromental activist litigant fame, were selected. It seems that more of the same is in store for anyone so unfortunate as to have to go before the Planning Commission for any building project. There was a very vocal outpouring of support for centrist Connie Menefee that was ignored by the majority of council. Living on the dole and taxing their way to viability seems to be the modus operandi of the Council. Think carefully when you vote.
Kathy, Martians and Invitations show up as posts from you. Is that so?
Oh how funny, no place to hide and being "Anonymous" is so 20th century along with my tech skills.
I think we need NOT be fearful in voting or expressing our views in this city. City council leadership has been driving failure in the latest cycle for at least 8 years.
I am keenly interested in what you and Lionel each think might be workable to build city tax revenue. We agree on some issues. You know my views, not sure I know yours other than cut payroll and services. Don't see how that can work over the longer term.
Don't take the "Martians" cartoon paranoia comment personally, I'm am also a fat person and have been amused by "they (the Martians) are coming for the fat people first". Sounds somewhat reasonable, possibly from a theoretical Martian viewpoint (assuming there are Martians who happen to be cross-planet cannibals), for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence or considered validity whatsoever.
Someone needs to print a letter in the Trib notifying the public about the Yes and NO.
Who cares and don't really care that they print my name on the ballot. Last time I supported thinking that the city would do something beneficial to our community. Sorry they lost my trust. Can you imagine how people feel when they own more than two parcels?????
The truth is that is very difficult to get money no even people with credentials or a good educational background can get a stable job.
In Pacifica Council and their gangs members want to squeeze every single penny out of our pocket to their pockets. We should put a big NO sign in Pete Pereria's lot.
Enough is Enough. We don't have the money to cover their retirement. We need to think about our retirement too.
Todd, your friend Flo is correct: if someone wanted to, they could make a public records request for all the ballots and compile their own list of how people voted. This is not a secret ballot.
That would be a lot of work to go to and would not change the result of the vote at all.
If someone doesn't like how I vote, they can p!%$ off; it's my vote, not theirs.
Please, everyone vote. Vote Yes, Vote no, but make sure your voice is heard. Don't let fear keep you from voting.
Kathy I am not advocating for cutting services. I am advocating for a pay cut equal to a furlough day so there are no service cuts and so there are no city staff/employee layoffs. If two furlough days are needed so no one loses their job then I'm advocating for that. I don't wan anyone working for the city to lose their job.
Clifford, lose the moniker. There's lots of vets out there from many "wars" and they don't put it on their business cards.
I have no doubt that if you are correct on the public access to who voted how, that someone will request the tally. That could be entertaining. DeJarnatt's family own 5 properties, me think. It would be enlightening to see how the rest or our "no-growthers/entitlements for all" vote. Planning commissioners and council would be fun to peruse.
More important than new revenue sources is living within our means. If you have no secure, or at least stable, cost basis for city government, you've got what we have now.
Living within our means? That's an idea whose time has come--whether we're ready or not. I'd love to believe in that simple, comfy solution of more development, more business (and we should make a better effort there)but it fails to address the real problem--we simply spend too much money on labor, public employee pensions, sweetheart contracts, pet projects,and god knows what else. If we'd had more money we'd have firefighters making a half a mil a year instead of a quarter mil--and probably more of them. More money doesn't fix the real problem. It just passes it on like a hot potato to the poor schmuck who catches it when the money runs out. That's us and when the money is gone we'll see a painful and scary self-correction like we saw in the market and housing. It may be the only way to put this city and state back on track. It needs to happen. I'm not putting one more dime down the parcel tax rathole. Life will go on and maybe someday it will be better.
After what you cost the tax payers Lionel and gained absolutely nothing. Cost to the taxpayers: $150,000 or higher for your exercise in ego. Thanks for raising my garbage bill even more Mr. Emde. How dare you talk about "living within your means!"
I didn't get my ballot should I be concerned?
Oh man it just gets weirder. This isn't a parcel tax where one ballot equals one vote. What we are being asked to approve is a special assessment district where one ballot equals the dollar amount of your parcel. My ballot value will be 73 votes and any non residential ballot will count as 678 votes. Apparently Article 13 C of our State Constitution explains this but I can't unravel that document.
So one ballot does not equal one vote. Can we get a lawyer in here??
Ask Lionel for a lawyer referral.
"I am not advocating for cutting services. I am advocating for a pay cut equal to a furlough day so there are no service cuts and so there are no city staff/employee layoffs. If two furlough days are needed so no one loses their job then I'm advocating for that. I don't wan anyone working for the city to lose their job." Tod, 3/1/6:31pm
"More important than new revenue sources is living within our means. If you have no secure, or at least stable, cost basis for city government, you've got what we have now." Lionel 3/1, 7:11pm
Thanks guys, all good, but my concern is NOT about today alone (although that is important too); my concern is about the long term future and survival of this city. What is the vision to make this city economically sustainable, and how can we get there? Inflation alone is a known compounding and problematic factor. Then, there are all the outstanding city infrastructure maintenance, replacement, debt, and needed improvement issues. This city does not have enough money, and city services are marginal.
Without ever increasing taxes and ongoing substandard services, where do we go from here?
"...There's lots of vets out there from many "wars" and they don't put it on their business cards."
Cheap shot, one who takes on the pseudonym of Thomas Paine. This is one citizen who appreciates being reminded periodically that some people have genuinely sacrificed for our freedoms. Tom Clifford is a veteran of the Vietnam war and proud of it. Imagine what that must have been like then, and with some nightmares and scars carried forward.
I respect your comments on this post, and the sacrifice of your service, Tom. Thank you from those of us who "get it".
"I didn't get my ballot should I be concerned?"
Here's the response from City Clerk, Kathy O'Connell: "they should request a ballot in writing. Including the property owner’s name, address and parcel number. A ballot will then be mailed to them".
Initially I asked for a phone number or email.
Here's the city address:
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
Thomas Paine? I don't think so. Some of us remember the Vietnam War and how very unpopular it was. So unpopular that some Americans chose to spit on returning Vets and call them baby-killers. Thankfully, we haven't seen that behavior since then. No one likes war but the men and women who serve are our children, brothers, fathers, husbands, neighbors. They deserve our respect and gratitude. Thank you for your service Mr. Clifford. You can call yourself anything you want.
Who counts the ballots? The city clerk or the county election board?
Though it would be legal for a city clerk to do so, I believe Willdan Financial Services will be the ones publicly counting the ballots at the end of the City Council meeting on April 11.
Neither one, according to the info that arrived with the ballot( in the section Your Ballot Counts) the City has hired Willdan Financial Services, an independent consulting firm, to tabulate the ballots received by the City. The pre-print address on the return envelope that comes with your ballot is City of Pacifica 170 Santa Maria and the notation in the lower left corner is Official Fire Assessment Ballot. The official count takes place on April 11 after the public input portion of the hearing scheduled on that date for Council Chambers at 7PM. Tabulation of the ballots will be open to the public according to the notice. Ballots can be returned at the public hearing up until the close of the public input portion of the hearing. Hmmm, I guess the City hands over the ballots that were received by mail to Willdan to tabulate. Might have been more "bulletproof" if the ballots went direct to Willdan. Guess the public hearing complicated that.
An outside agency scans the votes and gives the tally to the City of Pacifica. The City Clerk does not count any of the ballots.
Yes, an outside agency tabulates at the close of the public hearing on April 11. The ballots, if returned by mail, go first to city hall. Why didn't they use the outside agency's address on the return envelope instead of city hall so there is less basis for suspicion of city hall shenanigans? There already paying the outside agency...just wondering.
It's to establish chain-of-custody.
"Why didn't they use the outside agency's address on the return envelope instead of city hall so there is less basis for suspicion of city hall shenanigans?"
"Chain-of-custody" definition: the city opens the ballot, but if you voted "the wrong way" (NO), your land is transferred to the GGNRA.
hmmm, I am getting old, so I need a refresher in Pacifica history...
In 1997 or so we passed a tax for Fire Services, correct? Shortly after handing our tax dollars over to our fair City, they closed a fire house and kept the money by rolling it into the General Fund? Isn't this a cause for our inability to get voters to approve parcel taxes? PLEASE correct me if my tale is erroneous... I would like clarification on this faded memory. Thanks!
Was it 1997? frankly we've been screwed so often by the city that i can't recall the date but the details seem correct. This time around I really don't trust the tally if the city gets their hands on the ballots first and then gives them to the official tabulator. And that is exactly what they're going to do from the info that came with the ballot. They go to city hall first!!! Those return envelopes should be addressed to the impartial, outside firm. Otherwise how do we know all the returned ballots actually get counted? Seems fishy to me.
Kathy aka "High Anxiety,"
The city won't be opening the ballots. They will be handed over to Willdan to open and tabulate in full view of the public on April 11.
I suggest everyone go and witness the process themselves unless, of course, you'd prefer to stay at home and whine about conspiracy theories from behind your keyboards.
Everyone will be relieved to know that Willdan will be payed $45,000 for their efforts.
I think we got a helluva lot more for my attorney's $55,550.
Kisses to all Recology employees.
Fool me once...shame on you......fool me twice???
Thank you Lionel! For $45K you'd think they could manage to come up with a process that doesn't create distrust and more questions. No where in the docs that came with the ballot does it say the city won't open the ballots--does someone on here have insider info to be able to say that here? And as mentioned elsewhere, how do we know all the ballots make it from city hall to Willdann for counting? And, before we get all defensive and cavalier about conspiracy theorists let's remember that the voting system should be above reproach and beyond suspicion of tampering. That should be the goal and the foundation of any gov't. Clearly, that is not the case with this ballot measure. I guess the question to ask is if other cities handle it this way because it would seem to promote challenges of the results. This all could be perfectly SOP, an innocent misstep in the planning, or one more sneaky trick to control the result. I don't know but I'd sure like to. Now would be a good time for some insider knowledge. And, again, kudos Mr. Emde.
Uh, we have a volunteer to count 'em for free.
further clarification please... it is my understanding we have two Batallion Chiefs vs the three we are supposed to have so they're working roughly 15 days a month vs the usual 9 (24 hour shifts) so they're costing us 200M in overtime a year? Why isn't the focus on hiring a third BC first, negotiating salaries and furlough days THEN asking taxpayers to help out?
"Anonymous said...
After what you cost the tax payers Lionel and gained absolutely nothing. Cost to the taxpayers: $150,000 or higher for your exercise in ego. Thanks for raising my garbage bill even more Mr. Emde. How dare you talk about "living within your means!""
WORD!!!!!!!!!
USS Pacifica, right?
Your question is a good one. The salary report floating around lists 2 BC with 2009 W2 earnings of, brace yourself, $257,527 and 256,172. The annual base salary range for a BC is from $118,080 to $137,052 so each doubled or nearly doubled their base with OT. A 3rd BC is also listed with same base range but 2009 earnings were only $88,598 so we can assume that the position was not filled for the full year. I have no 2010 info but expect it to be public soon. We can expect that both BC made more in 2010, along with every other position on that report. Apples to apples, of course. I'm sure the city has a dandy and mesmerizing reason for 2 BC at a quarter of a million each but frankly it doesn't change the facts-- that's what was paid, that's what goes towards their pension calculation. Half a million dollars for 2 city employees. It's just too much money. I am sure these are two terrific people in difficult and important jobs but their total comp, however it came about, is excessive. Looking at the rest of that report is a real eye opener. The problem is staggering and the city's solution is a lot of too little too late. I have no confidence in their ability or even their resolve to straighten out this mess. And because of that lack of faith I will not support the parcel tax.
Wordy@11:35, You're like an abused pet that still loves its abuser. Save your outrage for the folks who want more of your money to pay for their lousy decisions and poor management.
Try as you might, you can't put Lionel in that group. Nobody's buying it.
"...Those return envelopes should be addressed to the impartial, outside firm. Otherwise how do we know all the returned ballots actually get counted? Seems fishy to me."
If the votes are going to be public record, I suppose people could check afterward to see if their votes were counted correctly.
I guess so, but if it's important enough to spend $45,000 to have the actual count done by an outside and impartial 3rd party and thereby I guess gain credibility then where's the logic in having those uncounted ballots received and held for an unstated period of time by the very city who has contracted for the service and then given to the counting firm? In this scenario it would seem that the counting firm could not vouch for the completeness or wholeness of the ballots. I'm not accusing anyone of tampering but this method seems to leave the door wide open for such an accusation. Why bother to contract out the count if you muddy the waters along the way? An election should be free of suspicion and reproach. This one may not be. Those mail in ballots definitely go to the city first.
Ok, so what the hell are we paying the $45,ooo for? Counting? We're paying for counting? And then we're going to wonder if all of them were counted or were they opened and picked over or lost in a drawer before the uh professional counters got a chance to do their professional counting. No way they can certify the results as complete. Counting, we're really paying $45,ooo freakin' dollars for counting?
Lionel, tell that attorney to stand by.
Over on RIPTIDE under the same commentary above Chris Fogel has posted a lot of links to the constitutionality of this assessment district and how the ballots will be handled and ultimately disposed of. Honestly, it's all really good info. Just wish the city manager had been so forth with instead of misleading me and not really providing any trustworthy info. I'm still smarting from that. I apologize for anything I've posted here based on info received from him.
"Cost to the taxpayers: $150,000 or higher for your exercise in ego. Thanks for raising my garbage bill even more Mr. Emde."
You should try reading for content.
Your garbage bill is headed higher, but not because of the lawsuit. The elected officials who signed the lousy contract with Recology, which locked in the highest rates in the county, are the backroom dealers you can thank for this. Pete DeJarnatt was not at that meeting and didn't vote on it and of course Len Stone had nothing to do with it.
One of the two major things we were able to accomplish was changing the city's percentage off the top of the contract to a flat rate. There won't be any motivation on the part of elected officials to jack rates up because it profits the city coffers.
The city gets a very high level of guaranteed income, and the people are protected from the whims of desperate politicians. A good compromise all 'round.
Now if only the people use their new power of protest...
11:35 pm, this is USS Pacifica. Where is this report you speak of? I have been through the Contra Costa Times site and scoured the archives... and, interestingly enough, Pacifica is one of the ONLY cities that does not have a list of their city earners. Please share and we'll be BFF's
BFF on USS Pacifica,
Happy to assist and golly do you have a real treat in store. Go to the City of Pacifica website. Under City Focus select the bullet for Local Government Salaries. It will take you to State Controller John Chiang's wonderful website. Follow the prompts and you will get a Pacifica full salary report by position for 2009 earnings. It's all there. Unbridled generosity with public funds is sooo damn cool. I've heard the Council hogwash about PFD OT being the result of mutual assistance during fires in SoCal but PFD OT has been out of control for years. Years. And this is not all about the FD. Not at all.
Can't wait to see the report for 2010 'cause I don't think we've reached the high water mark on salaries even yet. Not even now. I want to guage the effect Cafeteria Cash has had on each department. Even city employees are concerned about that one. Those contractual 3% raises are not the whole story. Well, happy reading.
Be sure to vote. Check out the recent posts on Riptide for more indepth and correct info about the ballot process. The city has done their usual squirrely job of presenting the whole thing as poorly as possible. Is it incompetence or something more sinister? Fair winds and following seas to you!
Anon@8:03
We sure know what Cafeteria Cash did for the council members.
Made them the highest paid in the county didn't it. All but len Stone. In the campaign he said he'd waive salary and bens. Hope he did.
USS Pacifica,
Your orders are to proceed to Pacifica's Salary Report HERE.
Stay alert for enemy troop movements.
Reports of mines in area.
God bless and good hunting
Yes Anon 8:30 but did Len Stone actually wave the cash? Interesting what he said and what he did.
Thank you Admiral Anonymous, that was enlightening and long overdue. I will share this with my double-secret society. One must be careful aboard the USS Pacifica or socially he may suffer the fate of Don Aranda. This mate leans to the starboard side of the ship.
"The city gets a very high level of guaranteed income, and the people are protected from the whims of desperate politicians."
Funny Lionel, people are using smaller cans, recycling is up, the city already gets less. I think they said $300.000 less right now, because the use is lower. They won't come near $805,000 so what did you actually win? Nothing except to add to the cost that you the rate payer will have to pay so we can get a notice our rates are going up. No one hardly contests or notices but we all have to pay for you to get that notice. What a nut case! Wow big win for my bill. It will go up because of you.
Hard to support additional city taxes, when the past 2 city councils have done everything possible to assure Pacifica has a very limited future. Some of us have had enough!
At least transparency is a good thing. Most utilities provide an end-of-the-year reporting, so should city franchises, at least we'll get that much.
Pacifica needs a future, and neither Lionel nor Todd, nor city council majority, nor their "no growth" friends have been willing to step-up to assuring a positive economic future for this city happens. As another Anonymous mentioned maybe its "too little, too late". Now what?
Len Stone is not taking a salary from the City of Pacifica. His decline of salary is more than likely saving a part-time employee job working for the City. At least he keeps his word.....
I thought Councilmember Len Stone said the would not take salary until the Fireman's contract was settled, not forever. Why should Stone work for "free"?
Some issues have been brought-up which deserve further clarification. 1) Even though the city is reimbursed for Firemen overtime from outside jurisdictions when big fires occur, is this overtime added pension benefits? And, 2) "Cash out" for health plan benefits not taken in this self-inflicted "poor city"?
Wonder why ordinary people who pay in part the overhead of this city might find these benefit practices abusive?
But, city structural issues run much deeper than quibbling over cost of a test case for prop 218, and legal abuse of city health and pension benefits.
If they receive federal funds for fires out of their jurisdiction (say Southern California,) that is not factored as pension. Overtime abuse is a serious problem, but a problem easily resolved with proper leadership at the City level.
Anon@10;34 are you sure about that? It would seem that any amount appearing on W2 in Box 5 as income taxed by the IRS would also be considered in their pension calc. Where'd you get your info? City Hall? No criticism of you but just wondering because those people will say anything.
Oh Admiral Anon,
Thank you for the quick link to the City Salary Report. So much easier and faster and let's hope lots of bloggers make the trip. You're my hero.
Again, Len Stone is not taking a salary from the City of Pacifica. This was his statement before he was elected. Not after. Not during negotiations.
Looks like Anon at 9:16 continues to use Lionel as a smoke screen. Spouts nonsense and points at him while the real culprits continue to run this city down a rathole.
11:07 anon on Len stone
that's right no salary for len or benies. He put it in his trib campaign ads. Good on him! Don't be like the rest of them. the other 4 are shameless parasites. they Do a lousy job and keep on taking. That's leadership??
At least they should give up their fat cafeteria cash of over $1000 per mnth. That Subject is taboo because they're own hands are dirty. They can't ask employees to give it up when they won't set the example. There's alot of money involved. Add it to the 3% contract raises and you get some hefty increases still happening in a broke down city. Even city employees know it's not right. Legal but just not right. Shameless incompetent parasites and they want more of our money.
Sinking Ship @ 9:12 I wonder which one is the Queen of Spain? Banishment may not be all bad given the current state of the city.
Maybe the City Council members that have full time jobs should lead buy example. If they have benefits from their existing jobs, STOP double dipping, just as they accuse the Battalion Chiefs about their overtime?? When was the last time Maryann and the gang ran into a burning building or picked up body parts off the road??
The Fire Dept. and Police Dept. have earned their incomes. It's time for the Council to make tough decisions. They chose their job, now they should do their job. This is not a picnic.
Maybe the rats should give their Cafeteria Checks to the Resource Center for a tax donation. For people who really need the warm jackets and new underwear. Maybe some new socks for their kids. We think we have problems?? How magnanomous that woud be. And the rats can write that off on their taxes.
San Jose Firefighters are stepping up and doing the right thing. 10% pay cut to save their jobs so no one gets laid off. Average wage is $120,000 there to.
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_17535180?source=rss&nclick_check=1
Todd where were you when Firefighters in Pacifica took over 10% cuts? Seems like you just want to beat our people up. This is the real NOTHING for Pacifica.
Let's just make stuff up shall we. Maryanne works harder than all of the rest put together. she took cuts first and quietly, doing the right thing. Of course you people wouldn't care cause that doesn't work well with your story or your need to find someone to blame. Todd weren't you also NO on L?
Anon 6:48, ball up and post the documentation. The only available info on the city wed site as of last Monday is a link to a state website that you must navigate through, and I'm barely computer savvy enough to do that.
It's not about salaries it's about keeping all our city employee's employed. My suggestions are intended to shrink the expenses to fit the revenue instead of watching a few self interested public servants fire a bunch of other public servants. I've made that clear many times now over the last few weeks.
And if you want to say I'm beating our people up you are perhaps being combative just for spite or are a public employee yourself who feels owed. This "Princess and the Pea" thing is old.
If you know me confront me as yourself. Or are you one of those "I'm to important and would only be attacked or minimalized," if you used your real name? Kathy and Steve have done a great job keeping the nastiness at bay. Kathy even stood up for me against all that underage nonsense. There are real discussions happening here. Participate.
10:57...
The State reimburses cities for time spent on fires out of jurisdiction. The city pays into pension while the FF is away however, nothing is paid into the pension for overtime. It's the equivalent of working a taxable side job for those folks who have two careers. The state reimburses for the straight time and for the overtime (straight time and pension are paid to the FF - because the FF is missing the usual shift at work to support other counties.)
Pensions are calculated based on the two highest years of service NOT including overtime. So, if our two BC's are making base 150,000 each and have $100,000 in OT (even if it is within his or her jurisdiction,) the pension is based on the $150,000 not the $250,000. Go ask a FF. And, to answer your question: no, I do not correspond with City Hall. Please don't insult me.
Again, what should be addressed is the overtime abuse. It's not just here, it's everywhere in the public sector. Ethics and quality leadership are the keys that open the door to change.
When did firefighters in Pacifica take a 10% pay cut?
Mary Anne seems to be the city council "all star", and deserves a whole lot of credit for doing what she can to push this financial and social crisis "medicine ball" up the hill. While the other city council members (3) are limping along, she has been carrying the load (to my observation). So, from a relative view and these sideline comments, she really isn't paid or appreciated enough. No question she is doing what she can to save this city.
On the other hand, as a citizen it takes courage to stand-up for issues you believe in, doesn't it Anonymous people? That is just what Lionel has done, with Todd's support on this issue on this blog, Riptide, Patch and in the Tribune. Lionel and Todd have driven the discussion with fact. What's not to like or respect about that?
Anon 7:03am, City Council (4) did not support Measure L, quality, appropriate tax revenue producing re-development,(big bucks) in the quarry. And, the re-development failure there is 25 years old-- why pick-on Todd? However, same story, this city needs a lot more money to thrive-- how are we going to get there?
Wow, you deleted my post!? That is very interesting. Why would you delete my post about the FF's in Pacifica? Did I not serve your agenda? Because it contained factual information about how the pensions are handled and the overtime? You said it yourself, "You can't handle the truth." This is why Pacifica is screwed up, it's a mentality here. You are either an adult with a conscience (and some resilience I might add) or you are a coward behind a computer who cannot engage in a little didactic. This is why your team is losing the battle at City Hall, how profoundly immature.
The VOTERS did not support Measure L.
With knowledge of this city's financial/service inadequacy, city council (except for Cal Hinton) did not support quarry redevelopment in 2002 or 2006.
25 year of ongoing lost revenue in the only redevelopment zone this city has. If nothing else, that speaks for itself. Do you really want to revisit the merits of Measure L, and the failure of city council 4 from 2002-2008?
Apparently we have to keep revisiting both Measure E and Measure L until some people get it through their thick skulls that the voters rejected both of these.
Carr, Maxine and Cal were for Measure E and it cost Barbara and Maxine their seats. So what difference does it make what council thinks about either E or L?
carr, maxine, and cal saw the need to secure the financial future of the city because the gravy train wouldn't run forever (the truth). they were booted.
vreeland, lancelle, digre all ran in 2006 saying we had the healthiest economy in years (a lie) and got re-elected. i believe kathy's argument is that their honesty about the city's finances may have swayed more than a few voters.
dejarnatt said in 2008 we have a $7 million reserve (a lie) and got re-elected.
anyone who wonders why the ship is sinking is a fool.
Thanks 1:53pm and Todd, the city is BROKE, and here we are fighting about it. The city spin machine did its job, congratulations (not). Had 2006 city council supported that quarry development and countered the nonsense, Measure L would have passed (the vote was close).
As a result this city is not left with many choices. And, neither you nor those of us who were supporters of Measure L like taxes. Stalemate, so "Sinking Ship" anonymous has that message perfect.
At this time I wish to apologize for my misspelling of Mayor Mary Ann Nihart's name. Unfortunately I do make typos, and periodic spelling errors. All that, but I do "get" that this city needs money. So, where is the plan if not tax revenue development? Looks like you guys blew away the advantages of city redevelopment.
Anon, 3:08pm, I've really been appreciating your recent quality postings, THANKS for joining the conversation!
When are you all going to run for council? You seem to know how to run things better. Truth is most of you would never dare because it is a miserable, THANKLESS job . . . YES JOB -- way underpaid JOB. You all help make things much more fun with your squaking and suing.
"Had 2006 city council supported that quarry development and countered the nonsense, Measure L would have passed."
And if city council supported wings on pigs, they would fly.
Got the dodge. What's the economic plan?
good grief. this one's a hero that one's a dog
no wait it's Friday and it's the other way around. sadly it doesn't take much to standout in the pacifica political playground. we've been cursed with a lot of perfectly nice, completely clueless, sometimes amusing, frequently disappointing hacks. that's small town politics.
when it works--and it can work- what makes it work is that partnership that has to exist between the bunch elected and the city's professional staff. that partnership seems to have failed at a most critical time. add in the worst economic catastrophe in 75 years and you have the perfect storm.
looking back a few years those on council probably did think we had lots of money because they are clueless, tend to be insanely optimistic and are in way over their heads. way. clueless and not receiving the best of advice. particularly with that ill-timed, whacky job combo at finance director. somebody had to get something out of that deal. was that a Joe Tanner idea or the guy after him? ol Joe was too smart and crafty to do that wasn't he? Must have been the interim guy. quite a legacy to leave us and just in time for the near-depression recession.
look at this mishmosh over what should be a pretty straigtforward ballot measure. does city hall want it to pass? because they couldn't possibly have done a worse job of explaining the thing. it just reeks of sneakiness and that may be just the way it passes. could that be an actual strategy or did they step in it? what's that old saying-even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then--could be. really do not like the idea of those ballots being returned to city hall and then sitting in a "locked box" oh wow that's tamperproof hitech security until the outside firm counts them on April 11. counts them at the public meeting for $45,000. all I know is I've had enough of the excuses, bad ideas and horrible decisions and especially enough of the scare tactics being used. I'm voting no on the parcel tax. make the cuts if that's what it takes and get this mess cleaned up. stop spending more than we can afford. if we don't like the new Pacifica we can always go back to the old one. the politicians will still be here and all we have to do is throw money at them. And we've had a lot of practice doing that.
anon@3;50 oh thank goodness. My day just isn't complete without a cityhall/recology/council bash of Lionel/concerned fed-up residents.
Kathy, lets all move on. We've made great progress over the last couple of months.
Mayor Nihart opining on Patch Re tax
check it out & comment!
http://pacifica.patch.com/articles/mayor-niharts-faq-about-the-proposed-fire-assessment-tax
"We've made great progress over the last couple of months."
progress in what? same song, different year. let's all hold hands and get along and agree and then WHAM! the hammer falls again and we take 7 steps back.
Todd 7:31pm, I'm just sayin... think about how to move this city forward. That's where we "hit the wall", and that's where the city is at risk.
Otherwise, I agree with you, we keep talking, as you said at 7:18am "there are real discussions happening here."
Some of this morning's dialog (3 posts) ended-up in spam, (google did it), sorry. Trust me, this has happened to others. Some times I've looked at my own comments there, and agreed with google. Your comments there this morning are worth reading.
And from Anon 9:37am, here's a researched notation about how Fire Department pensions are calculated:
"Pensions are calculated based on the two highest years of service NOT including overtime. So, if our two BC's are making base 150,000 each and have $100,000 in OT (even if it is within his or her jurisdiction,) the pension is based on the $150,000 not the $250,000."
So, we'll move on and enjoy the shared rewards and reflection of our "collective intelligence", whatever that brings.
7:34 PM, checked out the Fire Tax on Patch. Same as included now in our property taxes. Basic city service, now we're being asked to pay for that? No thanks, been there done that.
Anon; When are you all going to run for council? You seem to know how to run things better. Truth is most of you would never dare because it is a miserable, THANKLESS job . . . YES JOB -- way underpaid JOB.
I may be crazy Anon, but I'm not stupid!
So gutless too - Todd - easy to sit back and complain
Well Mr. Bray, if, in your opinion, it takes stupidity to run for council, then it all makes sense. How can anybody expect more of our councilmembers, then?
They are hardly paid anything for the time they put in, and what they are actually paid, they constantly get bashed for it. Plus the constant shizzle and negligible gratitude. Cannot expect more then. Get what you pay for.
Constant shizzle
Ok, I paid. I don't like what I got. It doesn't work. I can't seem to return it and there are no refunds. Buyer beware, right?
Fine, but I'm not paying one more dime for it. Do the job you were elected to do and quit asking me and everybody else to bail you out. And, if you can't do the job then step aside. There's never a shortage of candidates (low pay and all) so we'll just roll on.
I finally had a chance to review the compensation reports. Compared to other places with similar demographics, we're not that far off the mark. PB&R looks like it's under water, but some programs are subsidized by the state and we have lots of section 8 so we need those programs. We definitely have some overpaid city workers, but it appears Mary Ann is addressing that - especially since she is a laid off state worker - she understands the pensions, that's a huge asset. So we still need our tax base, but until then we need to keep the ship afloat. This tax does reek of sneakiness as someone put it. Fire and Police are two services you just don't hack away: they should make up the majority of our budget. I watched a house burn to the ground in Pacifica because of delayed response time after we made a mess of our Fire Services last time. Maybe this group could offer some ideas for income without development - minus the negativity and sarcasm. Parking meters & permits, JLo doing his job could produce some notable income for Pacifica in code enforcement fines, a nifty little photo radar camera at stoplights Hwy 1 X Reina Del Mar alone would be very lucrative and would pay for themselves quickly. Or add one atop the useless speed reminders situated on Fassler and Hickey, I am sure the parents of Terra Nova drivers will really enjoy the insurance hikes. It will take multiple sources of income to get us where we need to be financially, but more importantly cooperation.
3/4, 10:41pm, 3:50pm "Get what you pay for".
Many of us have tried to prop-up this dysfunctional, lopsided city through various forms of volunteerism over a whole lot of years. That does NOT come with pay. That comes with personal financial loss, various sacrifices (including insults such as the one ones you have advanced)-- all because BECAUSE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FAILED this city.
Appreciation? You know the saying "want a friend, get a dog."
Sinking ship@12:06am
Sounds like you drank the kool-aid. You'll have a nice buzz for a little while and then a killer hangover. Speed traps, parking meters, fines and fees? All too little too late and all the good intentions and cooperation in the world are not going to change that. We are doing what everyone did on the way to this meltdown. We're ignoring the warning signs and hoping it will all just get better without any serious sacrifice. We're gambling and pinning it all on this parcel tax when we should be cutting non-essential services and getting the bloated labor costs under control. We're dreaming when we talk about new income sources during an economic downturn and in a town that has a long record of essentially no growth and shows no signs of changing that attitude (check out the "new" planning commission). Cutting services and payroll to a level we can afford without paying more taxes might be just the jolt this town needs to start moving ahead.
Anon: "Well Mr. Bray, if, in your opinion, it takes stupidity to run for council, then it all makes sense. How can anybody expect more of our councilmembers, then?
They are hardly paid anything for the time they put in, and what they are actually paid, they constantly get bashed for it. Plus the constant shizzle and negligible gratitude. Cannot expect more then. Get what you pay for."
Thanks for not paying attention Anon. In the past as now I have always supported council compensation because I do know how much work it takes. If you know me is there any chance you could man up and confront me as yourself?
Nihart has achieved nothing in her term of office other then congratulate herself for attending meetings.
"Nihart has achieved nothing in her term of office..."
Anon 11:32am, that is cold. Mayor Mary Ann Nihart has organized and lead anything that is "near progressive" and worked closely with the city manager to improve the outcome of this city. Also, she is actually doing the job, while the other 3 appear to be in "rest mode", and Councilmember Stone is new.
Get rid of 3 city council members, namely Vreeland, Digre and DeJarnatt and replace these with those who identify with progress (and will take action toward that end) and this city may come back.
BTW, I admire Mayor Nihart for promoting the taxes she thinks will protect the city status quo. Its just that from my view, doing this will continue to kick the economic can further down the hill, and in 7 years (if the city survives) "bingo" more and higher taxes. And in any event in the Fall ballot we will seeing more proposed taxes. Thus, when does the cycle of piling-on taxes and fees stop? In this city my guess is never, and the defacto progress plan is "managed (economic) retreat".
Cost scrutiny is good as has been aptly discussed in well considered comments on this blog, but that will not solve the financial structural problems of this city. Here's an emergency crisis idea: make a good offer with building assurances to a quality developer or several, that in best effort "cannot be refused". In other words: FIX THE PROBLEM.
In her defense she's serving at the worst possible time but she's been a big disappointment.
Too much 'look at me'. I expected someone with her knowledge of human nature to be more effective but guess not. You either totally buy her version of whatever or you're being negative. Maybe we expect too much from these people.
Challenge the three councilmembers that are at the root of this economic morass to a debate. It was done to great success leading up to the sales tax fiasco Measure D. Have two of them justify a tax that is needed because they have not done one thing to encourage our local economy. Look at their appointments to the Planning Commission this last Monday nite. We now have 7 commissioners that are all avowed no-growth advocates. These three councilmembers voted for each one. Classic! Nihart and Stone aren't responsible for this mess. It lies squarely on the doorsteps of Vreeland, DeJarnatt, and Digree. Period.
Wow, Anon 1:07 PM do you know something I do not know? I have heard Mayor Nihart do nothing but thank others for their hard work and work harder herself - publicly, privately, and otherwise. Wonder what other axe you have to grind? Or maybe you are Vreeland just being jealous? If you are, why didn't you restart the Economic Development Committee? At least Nihart is trying to fix the problem with absolutely no help from the others, including you.
Kathy I agree, Mary Anne is doing a lot as a council member and deserves recognition for organizing communications between the various polarized factions in town. My attempts to improve communication with you and others is because Mary Ann challenged me to step outside of my comfort zone and stop playing the clown, and it so far it is working.
Some posters here are still playing hide and seek but you and Steve deserve a round of applause, just like Mary Anne does, for moderating the site and making it more accessible to a greater cross section of opinionators.
Good job Kathy, Steve and our Mayor Mary Anne.
I'm still voting NO though.
I didn't mean to imply Mary Anne moderates this site, just that like Kathy and Steve she has fostered better communication throughout our town.
None for me, thanks. I see enough of these clowns already and how many times do we need to
say the same things. This towns only hope is that after the big meltdown we use the next election for change. Of course it all depends on who runs. Nihart could easily wimp out and be a one term blunder. Pete has got that old 'I need my benies and I'm going to run again' spring in his step. We need two candidates who capture the voters' interest the way Stone did. Just two, not a crowded field of so so options that split the vote. Oh please oh please.
I actually enjoy the mayor when she and Vreeland start sniping at each other. Anyone who goes after him is ok by me. The best was a while ago when they tried to top each other about who took the biggest paycut. Edgy and hissy, real Must See TV. She's trying but it's like an ant pushing a rock up a hill.
Another thumbs-up for Mary Ann from me. I've already sent my ballot in with "No" marked, but I have to give her credit for effort.
Digre, Vreeland and DeJarnatt, who bear much of the responsibility for the financial mess the city is in, are as always sitting on the sidelines and while Mary Ann tries to fix the mess they made. Just as they left it to Julie Lancelle to do all the work when it came to saving the golf course.
This while Digre, Vreeland and DeJarnatt continue digging Pacifica into a deeper hole by making the anti-business Planning Commission even more extremely anti-business.
Todd (2:19pm), don't get too weak, you might catch the "economic improvement" fever. Glad you and Lionel are brave enough to enter the positively dangerous blog world of Fix Pacifica.
Mary Ann wrote a really good Q&A article about the Fire Tax on Pacifica Patch 3/4/11, and maybe others will choose to pay for the essential safety service we already pay for. Anyhow my ballot was mailed "next day", but I forgot to address it to the attention of: Councilmembers Vreeland, Digre, DeJarnatt, cc: Lancelle.
Steve Sinai is a fair and evenhanded guy, a Blogmaster fully in charge of his Fix Pacifica blog. I'm just a minor moderator, kind of like Santa a "bad" helper.
And yet, they were re-elected. And this town reflects their ideas, their vision more every day. Maybe it's not so much we get what we pay for with this bunch, maybe it's really we get what we deserve when so many are indifferent and apathetic. Wake up people. This is happening to you.
Vote for Mary ann. Oh yeah, we already did. Tons of credit for her trying anyway.
Steve Please help me out, I can't remember one commercial project that came before the Planning commission in the last six years that has been turn down.
Does anyone know if the parcel tax amount can change each year? The word initial is used in the lit and that's scary. Especially when the whole thing has been so sneaky.
excuse me but Tom Clifford may have a point. The voters ran off Trammell Crow and Don Peebles. Not to say the planning commission doesn't delay and harrass beyond human tolerance their share of smaller development but the voters ran off the big fish...before planning comm ever got to them. Just saying.
Anonymous 4:44 I don't know the answer to your very good question but I will find out on Monday.I will ask Mary Ann, Steve Rhodes, and Cecilia Quick. I am a little old school and need to be told three time when fact checking.
"Steve Please help me out, I can't remember one commercial project that came before the Planning commission in the last six years that has been turn down."
Tom, you're using the same argument that the defenders of City Council's anti-business policy use when trying to make it sound like they really aren't anti-business: "But we never turned anything down."
You don't have to say "no" to kill a project in this town. You just have to refuse to say "yes" while dragging the process out endlessly, until a developer or property owner either runs out of money or runs out of patience.
The previous Anonymous commenter alluded to the issue - the Planning Commission is used to delay and harass developers to the point that they give up, and people who are thinking of building here see what goes on and don't even bother.
I can't remember exactly who said it, but I recall that recently, at least two local builders publicly said they wouldn't bother building in Pacifica if they knew their projects had to come before the Planning Commmission. I don't think a new commercial structure has been built in town for the last 10 years. What other city of 40,000 can say that?
And what was it that caused BJ to quit? It was her frustration that some no-growthers on the Planning Commission were letting their ideology override legality when it came to voting on approvals.
Let's not play dumb here. We both know...in fact everyone knows...that Vreeland, Digre, and DeJarnatt put people on the Planning Commission who will act in accordance with their no-growth attitudes. They just did it again at the last council meeting.
Thanks for doing the research Tom. I like the 3 opinions idea.
"Nihart could ... be a one term blunder"
Blunder? Mary Anne started the ball moving to change things and fought alone. She is a rock and deserves a lot of our thanks for the stand up way she reaches out. She has stepped up in the community time and again for years. She is thoughtful, intelligent, inclusive, and committed. Mary Anne took on finance when none of the others would. You don't have to agree with her but don't criticize her for jumping in with both feet! There was no hesitation and definitely no blunder. I would vote for her again and again! Let us watch what Mr. Stone can actually accomplish if he is all alone.
Steve I can't speak for the other commissioners but I can say that I am not anti-business. I have been a member of the chamber of commerce for more years then I can remember, I support local businesses both with words and money. The opinions I express when sittings as a commissioner are mine and not given to me by some higher power. I base every vote I make on the facts and rules,If I think a project is good, bad, or needs improvement I say so. I am not interested in wasting the applicants time or mine.
"The voters ran off Trammell Crow and Don Peebles." 5:12pm.
Well, we know that story too. "Traffic", "355", "rich people", "outsider", etc. Never mind, who else but a national firm with deep pockets could build such a big, quality project. And how else would this city get enough money to fix the highway and the city. Here's the Impartial Analysis for Measure L (2006). Some how the "imminent domain" rumor floated by Dinah Verby (Attny) seems to NOT have been part of the "argument against" on the ballot (think we know the reason for that one too).
Compare the "argument against" on both 2002 and 2006 ballot measures. Measure E (2002). Similar language on housing, commute, environment. Note: "There are other solutions and other locations." Same Pacifica anti-development shell game, 9 years later. What are these SOLUTIONS?
Dinah Verby aka Wonder Woman? Who knew? I'd like to think that our being nearly flat broke
would make it easier for the next big developer to gain public approval but I'm not so sure that is what the voters would think. Not to worry, that train has left the station--don't expect any big developers coming around til the economy really recovers. And that makes the question of how to fund Pacifica very challenging. I think even Nick Gust is going to be put thru the wringer by our illustrious Planning Commission and that is an outrage.
Methinks Anon 11:27 is suffering from premature outrage. By all accounts, the Gust's presentation of their plan in a City Council-Planning Commission study session was a veritable love fest.
Anon: "don't expect any big developers coming around til the economy really recovers."
Don't be too sure about that. There is a coming announcement soon. I have a conflict so I can't break the news but it will be stirring. I's been in the works for some time now.
Toddy has a secret now so he's "important"!
Dude, you talking about the scammer who wants to build up behind the defunct lumber yard? Who happen to be the same guys who are telling people they are buying the horizons. Diaz and Morrow redo. Common knowledge. I would challenge you to come up with a real "project" for this town that you've heard about. And Clifford, how you getting along with Rick Lee? The planning commission is the firewall for the council 3. This town will never go forward until it is turned upside down and past practices cease to be the accepted.
No AWM, not talking about that, but thanks for the heads up.
"Kisses to all Recology employees". What does this mean Lionel?
So what if the Gust's finally got a positive review. This is a remodel,not a moneymaker complex. The people in town who are no on everything need to wake up and smell the capachino. If one of the development projects would have passed, we would be better off now. Our great Council members took either a negative or no position except Cal Hinton. What great leadership we have/had and these are three of the same people asking us for money now and to trust them. Why should Stone and Nihart front for them? Let them get out and tell us why we are in the position we are in. I really want to hear from Dejarnett.
"Blunder? Mary Anne started the ball moving to change things and fought alone. She is a rock and deserves a lot of our thanks for the stand up way she reaches out. She has stepped up in the community time and again for years. She is thoughtful, intelligent, inclusive, and committed. Mary Anne took on finance when none of the others would. You don't have to agree with her but don't criticize her for jumping in with both feet! There was no hesitation and definitely no blunder. I would vote for her again and again! Let us watch what Mr. Stone can actually accomplish if he is all alone."
Anon who said this, I second you!! Mary Ann is awesome. Smart, personable, capable, and damn hardworking. Ms. Nihart is totally trying to turn this city around; problem is, I suppose, this is a democratic society. Qadafi she ain't -- meaning it is going to take more than one resident of this city to take RESPONSIBILITY and help turn the boat around before it goes off the falls.
It is sad that you folks claiming to like and support her won't vote to support the plan (the fire assessment is part of it) she helped draft to save the city from devastating budget cuts. I do not like paying taxes, but I do not want my house to burn down or my elderly neighbor to die, because our emergency service was so stripped down that they could not get there in time. I want there to be a police force to respond to domestic violence and crime incidents even if they are on the other side of town from me. I want there to a parks and rec department so there are ways to keep the kids in town busy (cuts down on police activity) and the seniors active and fed.
The fiscal crisis may not per our fault, but fixing it is ultimately our responsibility as citizens of this community. Stop spending your time talking about whose fault it is and take responsibility for improving our community. The mess is not of her doing, but Mary Ann has taken RESPONSIBILITY for trying to fix it, BIG TIME!!!
I voted for the fire assessment.
Anonymous 3/5 7:02pm I heard Len Stone say he was having open meetings for citizens to come and speak to him about their concerns. Never heard of this happening before. You must be someone who supported the same old same old. I also agree that at least Maryann is trying. She is out working the City which is more than I can say for Jim or Peter. You see them (at least half of the time) every other week at the meetings.
Mary Ann has worked harder than any councilperson not doing a self serving project like Vreeland and the beach with still no parking fees collected. Anyone who says different is completely blind. I voted yes just for her efforts and because she will hold the City accountable for keeping the finances clear.
Liking and supporting some one is one thing but handing over more money to this city council is something else entirely. Despite all kinds of committees and task forces we're no better off than a few years ago. We owe the mayor our respect and gratitude for trying but she is only 1 vote and why on earth would anyone trust the 3 who have been running this city and will continue to do so until the next election?
"It is sad that you folks claiming to like and support her won't vote to support the plan (the fire assessment is part of it) she helped draft to save the city from devastating budget cuts. I do not like paying taxes, but I do not want my house to burn down or my elderly neighbor to die, because our emergency service was so stripped down that they could not get there in time..."
You must not have been around for the previous fire assessment. I voted for that one, even though I knew that the money collected was really a round-about way of freeing up more money in the general fund. After seeing how the city did nothing to fix its financial situation, and continued with its obsession on building more trails and keeping out business, I see no reason to give them a do-over.
This isn't simply about being cheap. I will vote for the upcoming school parcel tax, since I don't get the impression that the local school boards squander money the way Digre, DeJarnatt and Vreeland do. I won't vote for any new city tax until one of those three is off Council, so that they no longer form a majority.
Big develepor in town? Is that why council loaded up the Planning Commission with more like-minded no-growth activists last week? The city will roll out the red carpet for sure but it will have speed-bumps. Hope there really is someone with buckets of money and a ton of patience on the way. And enough legal power to make the city listen.
The Houmam's were accused of being "Big Developers," even though they only wanted to build something with three apartments and two offices.
I agree with Steve. I'll vote for the school's tax but the fire tax is just more smoke and mirrors by council. Give them more and they'll find a way to spend it and based on experience, years of experience, I don't like their choices and don't trust them. And I make it a point to never give in to scare tactics.
The responsible vote is NO. As in no more money for you, city council.
Anon11:57pm was that premature outrage or experience talking? we can be optimistic for Nick's but shouldn't forget that the planning commission and the big three on council are soulmates. At 90 years old Nick Gust still has more vision and guts and cares more about this town than those 3 and the commission ever will.
You can say that council members and planning commissioners don't care about this town, but it only makes you sound like the fool you are. You really think they don't care? Would you put in the hours and take all that crap for no glory and chump change? Maybe the reason they put up with it is they actually do care.
A no vote on the fire assessment is irresponsible. If it fails, the next step is big cuts, especially in police and fire. It's not money for the council, it's money to keep our town safe.
If they're the best you've got I'll go with Nick. Sure they care but they're vision of this town is one I do not agree with. And I definitely do not wish to give them any more money with this parcel tax. As to why they run for office I think many start out with healthy egos and good intentions but after a term or two it's all ego. BTW, I don't think any of the incumbents view the salary and benies/cafeteria cash as chump change-over $20k per year each for a PT gig. And let's not forget those egos.
The only thing Digre, Vreeland, DeJarnatt and the Planning Commission care about is running the city like it's a chapter of the Sierra Club.
If the city would have named this tax honestly, it would be called the "General Fund Replenishment Tax." It's called a fire assessment tax purely to scare people into voting for it.
Isn't there some kind of regulated staffing and response time requirement through the North County Fire Authority Jurisdiction, which manages Pacifica, Brisbane and Daly City?
Police and fire will be fine. More scare tactics.
This whole parcel tax thing is shady. You'd better believe there are city managers and conferences and consultants out there with all kinds of advice for cities on how to get your parcel tax passed. It's a growth industry. All the help you need on how to dupe the voters, scare the sheep, keep the gravy train rolling when you've screwed up again and again. Advice on how to word the measure, how and when to hold the vote, how to campaign. I don't know who advised Pacifica on this one but somebody sometime sure did. Bottom line, how to hang on to the power.
Folks it's not a parcel tax or assessment tax. What is happening here is a hold over in the state constitution from the 1800's called a special needs assessment district. The way votes are tallied is not by a simple one ballot one vote majority but by a weighted ballot system where-by each ballot is weighted by it's dollar value. This means one dollar of assessment equals one vote. In practical terms this means my parcel vote is worth 73 votes whereas a non residential commercial parcel vote is worth 678 votes, or more simply put a non residential vote is 9.2 times greater than my vote. It would take 9.2 no votes from residential parcels to counter act one yes vote from a non residential commercial parcel. This ballot assessment is suppressing the individual voter.
You say tomahto, I say rip-off. Call it what you will just vote NO!
at the risk of re-igniting a firestorm,I don't like at all that Maryann is doing the dirty work for Jim Sue Pete and gone but never far away Julie. She seems to be putting the city first but she's also saying council won't screw up again and frankly that's something she cannot even remotely guarantee because she's just one vote and they will roll over her to get to that money just as they did when making planning comm appointments. And as someone pointed out earlier this money goes to fire but it just means council has more money in the general fund to squander. This isn't about supporting someone who is trying it's about giving more money to the 3 who have failed time and time again. I can't support it.
People need to go to city council meetings and demand that Jim and Pete say something. That is if they even show up for the meetings. I don't care what Sue Digre says because I thing a lot of the time she doesn't even know what she is saying herself.
"Kisses to all Recology employees". Again, Lionel Emde what does this mean?
Love is in the air?
"I think they said $300.000 less right now, because the use is lower. They won't come near $805,000 so what did you actually win?"
You are to be forgiven for not knowing, as the Tribune is not exactly forthcoming as to the terms of the settlement.
The city is presently taking about $750,000 per year off the top of the contract w/Recology. The next rate increase, which is imminent, will put the city's take up to $805,000 per year for the life of the contract. That is capped until 2017 when the contract expires. Desperate politicians can't look to this lousy contract as a further cash cow, but Pacifica still gets a high guaranteed income.
And kisses to Recology employees, as we read your posts here.
And by the way, those of you not liking a rate increase have the power of legally accountable protest now. Use it.
Thank you Lionel. You've done the public a great service. Pacifica voters remain the ultimate cash cow for this council. How's that working out for you folks?
fake city financial guesswork. Last week's Tribune outlined how Pacifica will save upwards of $300K by sending some Pacifica cops to Half Moon Bay to run the HMB police dept.
My question in light of the fire assessment tax and the apparent unending appetite of Pacifica Council for more taxes: if we have spare cops hanging around being paid by Pacifica taxpayers and they can be sent to HMB, why have these underutilized police employees been on the payroll to begin with?
If Pacifica doesn't need them and HMB wants them, why are we currently paying for them?
If we can send police staff to HMB without reducing Pacifica police services, why in the world are we paying these people now?
And if underutilized police personnel are on the payroll, why are we being dinged again for a fire tax?
That's a really good question Taxpayer. If our bid to police HMB isn't accepted (the county is also bidding)can we expect that extra police captain who was to be stationed in HMB to then be laid off or perhaps promoted to replace the retiring chief and that position then left vacant? If the bid isn't successful it seems a reduction in force is called for and it should be at the rank of captain not patrolman.
DeJarnatt is in line to be mayor next year!
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Go ahead and pass the tax and see what DeJarnatt does with it!
I just sent this question to MaryAnne, hope to hear from her soon.
MaryAnne,
The most FAQ I'm getting at home these days is about the wording on the no box. It has folks confused because it says "No I oppose the proposed assessment on my parcel for fire suppression services." I'm being asking if this means the fire department will close down if folks vote no.
I've reassured everyone that it doesn't mean the fire department will shut down but I looked at how the yes box was worded and had a sickening feeling that whoever wrote the yes and no box commentary did so deliberately to mislead. Can you comment on who wrote the yes and no boxes and who in the city government like perhaps you personally signed off on them?
Thanks
Todd Bray
Todd 8:32am, very amusing. You're so bad Todd, glad you're posting here along with all the other baddies (from the view of city council 3 or 4 that is).
Consider these words "borrowed". Might have to take these words back when the next opportunity for city economic development occurs, if ever.
I oppose the tax for most of the reasons listed here, but the wording isn't really all that confusing. Mary Ann is trying to do what she thinks is best for the city, and if there were three of her on the council, I'd vote for it. Accusing her (or even the other council members with whom I rarely agree) of some kind of conspiracy around wording of the initiative or fraudulent vote counting is more than a little Fox News-y.
Also, her name is spelled "Mary Ann", I think.
Scotty, I'm asking a question directly not proposing a conspiracy. If 7 people have call me about the wording of the ballot and I pass the question on it's to clarify not to accuse. I'd be interested in what part of my post leads you to believe I'm accusing anyone of a conspiracy beyond perhaps using biased language on the ballot? And after all this time Scotty could you come out in the open and let me know who you really are? As a courtesy?
"I'd be interested in what part of my post leads you to believe I'm accusing anyone of a conspiracy beyond perhaps using biased language on the ballot?"
This part: "I looked at how the yes box was worded and had a sickening feeling that whoever wrote the yes and no box commentary did so deliberately to mislead."
Anon, where in that statement is there an implied conspiracy? Bias yes, conspiracy no. And again if you know me personally why not post as yourself?
As a courtesy, could you not engage in ad hominem attacks, Todd? Thanks
Okay Scotty, what are you referring to? What attack do you see here beyond a request? Perhaps you can explain what ad hominem means to you? And again, who are you and why is there an issue with honesty regarding your real identity? I don't see the big deal. Sorry.
Of course very careful thought was given to how best to get this passed. Much thought was given to the wording, timing, making it about the fire department, making it a protest type of vote, the shameless use of scare tactics by the city. Somewhere there's a consultant's bill for advice on how best to package this thing to get it passed. How best to sneak it past the voter. How best to make us think something's different at city hall and we can trust them with more money. It's just politics in a time of dwindling resources and a 'fed-up to here' public. And Jim Sue and Pete are still in charge.
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.
An example would be impugning someone's honesty based upon who they were/weren't rather than just responding to what they actually said.
Still don't follow you Scotty. If you feel asking you to give out your real name is a personal attack that's something for you to work out. I just would like to know who is, in all essence, "ad hominem-ing" me anonymously. I still can't figure out how that is an attack on you, who ever you are. Sorry.
I will vote yes for the upcoming school tax but certainly a NO vote for the so called "fire assessment". I've learned my lesson. Its sad to think that Vreeland & Digre combined, managed a mere 27% of the vote and still think they have the voter's blessings to continue their misguided vision of Pacifica. Their recent appointments to the planning commission tells me they are forging ahead with the same failed NO GROWTH mindset which brought this city to the brink of bankruptcy. The now Fab 3 still hold majority in council. Len Stone and Mary Ann can't really do that much to make positive changes as it appears the Fab 3 vote as one block on nearly all issues. If we can replace Pete in 2012 with someone holding a more balanced vision for this town, we may stand a chance to survive. Meanwhile, its crucial we keep the pressure and dialogue on. Hats off to Steve Sinai for giving us this avenue on this blog. Bottom line for me, no more voting for any new taxes, fees or assessments until council majority has a new vision for a more balanced economy.
Sorry, Todd... I can't explain it any simpler. Maybe try Google.
The Fire assessment can change from year to year based on that year's fire budget, but can never be more then $73.17 per Residential Dwelling Unit, $678.28 per Non-residential Parcel, or $41.13 per Vacant/Agricultural Acre. Those are the maximum amounts allowed.
Scotty, "play nice". I think Todd has a valid complaint about Fire Tax and there should be more complaints about the "ballot package". Similar to other 218 mailings we receive in this City, the Fire Tax ballot was a little "lite". From my view, the "yes" could be easily understood as over-weighted, compared to the "no". And, where was an argument 1) for the tax vs. 2) against the tax on any of the information sheets?
Background information, Fire Tax analysis and advisement "special assessment" (description of that again thanks Todd)-- can be found on the city website: Willdan Financial Services "Engineer's Report" 2/8/11, from that:
page 1, "The Assessment will provide a portion of the necessary funds needed to operate the City's Fire Department, which in turn, will allow the City to free up unrestricted general revenues that MAY be used for the purpose of funding the rehabilitation, or construction of a new fire station."
page 9, "Fire Assessment revenue will only fund fire protection services and equipment that are property related and assist the City in meeting its public safety goals. Other revenue sources provide funds needed for emergency medical services, non-fire related costs, and other non-assessed costs."
Same page (bottom) the threat could be "fire and first response services", not paramedic. On the other hand, isn't there a North County Fire Authority Jurisdiction staffing and response time requirement or regulation?
Tom (3:50pm), right the city could lower the tax, sure they will.
Kathy the important part of my comment was that the city can not raise the tax above the approved amount. Be well and VOTE
Tom,
I'm not convinced that is true and in fact the language states that the $73 figure is the "initial maximum" for a residential parcel.
If there's language that shows it's capped at this amount each year, I'd like to know where it is -- it's one of the items I hope to get clarification on this Wednesday.
Admiral "A" I'll see you there and if I am wrong the first round is on me.
I hope I'm wrong, Tom.
As much as I want to support our firefighters, I draw the line at handing over what might be a blank check to City Council.
..."the city can not raise the tax above the approved amount."
Right you are Tom (6:07pm), and they wouldn't even try to lower the tax below the approved amount. That's the counter point.
Tax saluted Sir, with a lowering of the flag.
Mea culpa: on the ballot it says "In addition, the Fire Assessment rate will not increase each year."
So, a big "duh" for me as I totally missed that line despite multiple readings.
Looks like I owe Tom a round.
Thanks all you salty dogs for the good info. I'm still voting no. Call it a "no faith"
vote.
Why cant we get some current salary info for fire and police and all city workers? The data made available is from 2009. W2's for 2010 went out in January. What's the hold-up? Haha bad choice of words there. I want to see what the real dollar increases to income are. Not just the contract raise amount. Why can't we see current info? What's going on here?
has Pacifica city council lobbied GGNRA to vote GGNRA acreage for the fire tax? That's a question to ask Council!
Nearly half (3,600 acres, or 47 percent) of the land in Pacifica is preserved as open space.
3600 acres x $41/acre fire tax = 147,600 votes.
The feds--GGNRA-, water district, county parks and state parks control 147,600 votes to tax you.
have a nice day!
OMG. We are doomed just doomed. Don't give those twits any ideas.
Fear fear and more fear! This thread is just plain fear based. How is that helpful? Doesn't solve one problem or change the situation.
The total proposed assessment across all of Pacifica is $1.3 million per year. Will the budget for fire protection increase by that amount? I suspect not, that money currently going to fire protection will be shifted to something else if this passes. If this is true, we should look at this as an assessment to increase the general fund.
That only property owners can vote, and that the number of their votes depend on the assessment of their parcel, is profoundly undemocratic where ever the funds ends up.
If I were a betting man I'd bet that neither GGNRA or S.F. cast ballots. They will take a wait and see attitude,If the assessment fails they have no problem if it passes they claim an exception as separate government Agencies. No need for them to get involved in messy local politics and bad press. I don't know that this is what will happen but it seem likely.
Anon @ 6:43 Sure there is fear here, there is also real discussion which is hope. Your intentions may be good but wouldn't it be better to participate then to just point a finger and exclaim some vague higher moral ground? Your comment is number 182, can you say all those comments before yours are just fear? None of them are informative to you? Perhaps your comment is really your fear(s) somehow manifested yet not understood?
Todd,
Thanks for the shout-out in today's Tribune.
John K. asks the one remaining question on my mind about this assessment -- a similar question was posted over on Patch. I want to vote YES, but ultimately my vote will depend on how this question is addressed at tonight's meeting.
Just guessing here, but I suspect the City will reduce the amount it sends the way of the firefighters as it currently drawing from reserves in order to maintain staffing levels and obviously this shouldn't continue. I hope the City isn't going to reduce general fund levels much beyond this draw amount or else I will have to vote NO.
And to Anonymous above, if you separate the wheat from the chaff, there's some good info to be found here.
Chris, you are welcome, and thank you.
Our City reserves were describe to me by Councilmember Vreeland (when pushed in a budget meeting 2 years ago) as "bottom of the city check book". In other words, money in the general fund not yet spent. (Additionally the city has continued to float a sizable debt, and not address infrastructure decay).
Reserves? 1-2 year ago, there was money which came back to the city from the North Pacifica LLC lawsuit (something like $5.5 million). Over 7 years the city only lost something like $1.5 million on that one, plus all the tax revenue from obstructing the residential development.
Read the Financing City Services Task Force Report. Here's the link
http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3783
Bottom line is city staff and employees need to overcome their sense of denial that revenues are not shrinking and that the only way to show some empathy to us the public is to shave wages and compensation to a level that is affordable.
There is no reason for the threat of Draconian Cuts beyond some sort of fear tactic to bully the public out of more money when a comprehensive restructuring of pay scales can keep everyone on the city's rosters employed.
We out here are all making do with less. We need our public folks to take a gulp and close ranks with us not charge us. We are all in this together residents, city staff and employees.
Are you kidding? I lost more than 10% in our contracts this year and last. What do you people want? Are you not paying attention? I have kids and a family too. Frustrated Fire Fighter
Pay freezes are not pay cuts.
According to Ann Ritzma there have been no pay cuts or furlough days for any city employee, just pay freezes. Not receiving an annual pay increase is not a pay cut and should not be calculated as one either.
Whether the tax ballot passes or not our public employees need to get together regardless of union leadership/senior staff and voluntarily take the necessary steps to lower they pay to make it all affordable and to ensure no one gets laid off.
If senior staff want some friendly advise I would insist they stay away from the table and let department heads and crews work out an equitable pay cut scale something like
$0 to $50,000=5% cut
$50,000 to $100,000=10% cut
$100,000 to $150,000= 15% cut
$150,000 o $200,000= 20% pay cut.
These are very reasonable suggestions, in my opinion, and would easily if not far exceed, the fire tax revenues. And pay freezes are not pay cuts and should not be calculated as such.
I think something like this is beyond the ability of Steve or Ann to negotiate not because they can't handle it but because the need and awareness for these suggested cuts must come from the ground up and that credit should be given to our public employees if something like this can be accomplished not to senior staff.
This would also give council the opportunity to adjust senior staff compensation to a lower more realistic level for a city of our small size. A $197,000 a year city manager (2009) is just way too much to pay.
8:37 am..Wouldn't that be nice? It's a wonderful dream. It will take the financial collapse of this city to move the needle on unsustainable wages and benefits. The fire tax may sneak by, wages may be frozen but we're all just postponing for a little while the day when the gravy train derails. Don't worry be happy, Fresh and Easy is finally here.
Just rec'd in the mail my reminder to vote yes on the Fire Suppression Tax. Did someone get paid to mislead and misinform or was this an all volunteer effort? Some of the statements made are really annoying.
"Vote yes for fire suppression funds that can't be taken by the state" Well, I'd be far more likely to vote for this tax if I knew the funds couldn't be taken by this city council through some accounting trick to be used at their questionable discretion.
"The state has seized nearly $28 million of Pacifica's revenue over the last two decades."
And what, you just noticed that and your only response is this pathetic tin cup? The very same tin cup passed by council seven years ago.
And my favorite bit of fear-mongering in bold at the bottom..."Vote yes for fire protection by April 11" Or what? No more fire department? What a piece of fear-mongering crap.
Apparently the mailing was paid for by Support Pacifica. I want to thank them for reminding me once again why I'm voting No on this tax. Thanks, guys, good job.
The "PAY UP OR DIED" rhetoric from senior staff is to old school, like a Mafia movie. It's not that kind of economy anymore. I voted whole heartedly for the parcel tax last time. I was employed, we were fat with cash so the $$$$ back then were easy to give away and each property owner paid the same amount. However the parcel assessments this time around are wholly unfair and unbalanced. By voting for this assessment I'm not just voting my money away but that of others who are being assessed hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year more than me just to keep paying firefighters (according to the engineers report) their six figure wages.
That the ballots are valued by a dollar amount not one ballot one vote is so un-American to me it is more like a throw back to the 12 Century or pre Magna Carte England. It's a cynical way to view the public and very disrespectful of the public to.
Sorry it should read DIE,
Someone needs to get a clue. Did you make this big fuss the last time the fire assessment was voted on? I believe the ballots were weighted then as well. Or, should I say how soon they forget. blah blah blah or is it just not convenient to remember? Logical reason I will listen to, this is crap. I got the same mailer and it didn't say any of these crazy conclusions. You guys are worse than the City Council.
I'm not impressed with the junk mail, community puppet shows or the reprehensible scare tactics. Council is still unclear on what their job is and the voters need to remind them. Quit asking for more money and make the cuts in non-essential services that need to be made. This is a new economy. Profound changes have taken place with more sure to come. Private industry has been forced to accept that. We can no longer shelter public employees from the economic realities the rest of the country has had to face. Why aren't we contracting out for some of these services? Plenty of other cities have, so why not Pacifica? And spare me the smoke and mirrors from city hall. What happens when you freeze a bloated salary? You still have a frozen bloated salary on the books. Postponing a raise is not a paycut. We are kidding ourselves if we think the status quo is sustainable.
Anon, read the mailer. You'll see the same statements as quoted. Anyone can draw their own conclusions. I'd agree and that's how it works. And I also have to agree with Todd it does seem seriously skewed away from the homeowner. This fire tax has a lot of people angry. so what if they went along qquietly last time. Like they say fool me once................
Post a Comment