Pete, once again, misses the point. This vote had nothing to do with the fire department and everything to do with his mismanagement of our cities’ finances. He heard the voters, he’s just tone deaf. We recognized this vote for what it was, a desperate money grab to shore up the failure of the three amigos, Dejarnatt, Digre, and Vreeland, who are implicit in the collapse of our city.
All three are long term council members that have taken every opportunity to miss an opportunity. We plugged this budget hole six years ago for these three and they returned the favor by giving our fire department away. Given away with a new million dollar per year endowment, courtesy of the electorate!
And you wonder, Pete, why this latest ponzi scheme was voted down. Get a clue. It is my opinion that you aren’t fit to be mayor next year. To so blatantly misread the public sentiment is a testament to your indifference to the message that over 60% of the voters delivered to you. We need leadership in this city and you are unable to deliver it.
Submitted by Jim Wagner
52 comments:
Get 'em all stirred up!
Waldo was the same guy that came up with his infamous "we have 7 millin dollars in reserves" qoute. I think the pain meds have fried his brain.
I am on the city council and you fix pacifica people are not..
Hahaha. I fooled you..
Sneaky you sound just like Jimmy. Let's hear what you say about those expensive city benefits and cash outs that keep you running for office. Stop the benies and you stop Sneaky Pete.
"we have 7 million in reserves"
put that in your pipe and smoke it
Excuse me, but before I inhale, was that $7 million puff or poof? Which was it?
Survey says:
Worst councilman ever, Fred Howard or Pete Dejarnatt?
You be the judge.
Ask Jeff Simons.
Impossible to rank one lower than the other.
You can't seperate Toody and Muldoon.
"Worst councilman ever, Fred Howard or Pete Dejarnatt?"
Peter Loeb.
I have secrets.
Worst city councilman
Fred Howard, or Peter Loeb??
I've figured it out, Vreeland and DeJarnatt are the same person! YOu never see them in the same spot together. Even when they happen to be at the same council meeting (rarely happens) Pete appears all shakey and his face doesn't move when he talks. CGI! Of course! He's a digitally created councilman. It's the only explanation.
Looks like Waldo couldn't make the budget session on wednesday either. Perfect mayoral material for Pacifica. Guess he's upset that Vreeman broke his attendance record and he's going back after it.
Pete's no show probably some kind of protest against council giving up their cafeteria cash. loved vreeland trying to trivialize the amount of savings after they agreed to give it up. a mere $36, 000. that attitude is the problem and having him involved and often leading the way on budget issues is ridiculous. and given the fumbles with numbers that comes out of finance dept the amt of savings is probably larger. now go after the rest of the cafeteria cash for all city emps and save up to $800,000 a year. why wasn't finance able to give a current number on that somewhere between $400,000 and $800,000? shameful.
Anon 2:05 PM not shameful at all. If you understand the plan, you know that employees can simply shift back to the benefit (health care) and the cash is gone but the city has to pay. Let's get our facts straight when we attack. There is plenty to attack, just not this one.
Anon619 sure and benefits is what they should get with a city job not a sneaky fat cash bonus for waiving them. Meanwhile let's continue cutting this cafeteria cash gift/theft of public money thru contract negotiations--and this process has started with this last round. Your smoke and mirror argument blurs the issues and misses the point. This shameful greed and the city's encouragement of it is just plain wrong but apparently, it's something you're quite comfortable with. Understand now?
Offer cash and you end up with too many sick and old in your plan. Nobody messes with the insurance company's profits so rates go up, plans change, etc. Beyond that what is wrong with the salary and real benefits offered for the job? Very competitive wages for these city jobs with great benefits and pensions. Even city employees know this cash bonus for waiving benefits was too much of a good thing and the kind of stupidity that will kill the golden goose for them. Bray's plan for voluntary cuts wouldn't work but that doesn't mean the average city employee doesn't recognize the problem. They've been on the receiving end for the city's misguided, negligent "generousity" and they'll be on the receiving end for the pink slip.
"...you know that employees can simply shift back to the benefit (health care) and the cash is gone but the city has to pay." (Anon 6:19am).
"...the cash is gone but the city has to pay." Poor city, the default victim of poor, unrealistic, anti-development planning, and funding by large debt as usual. So what will the city do?
The city is paying a cash benefit it cannot afford. Therefore, it needs to STOP, shut-down that benefit period (as fast as possible). This city needs to get real about the substandard level to which it has aspired.
The city is at the bottom of the San Mateo county general fund tax revenue spent on its citizens. Therefore, appropriate employee benefit answers may be found in the experience of backward California cities-- cities which manage their long term fragile tax revenue effectively. Study those.
The following describes how a private employer (large or small) might handle similar benefit funding management:
1. Provide an "average" cost medical plan (or, whatever the unions have negotiated). Consider including a small life insurance benefit.
2. Require employees to pay a portion of their medical plan (and any other benefits included), probably 25%. The Cafeteria plan will allow employees to tax deduct their health and other qualified plans cost.
3. Consider paying less, or not at all, for dependents.
4. Raise health plan deductibles and co-pays. The Cafeteria plan will allow an employee tax deductions for advance benefit expense planning during a given year.
5. No cash, no double medical coverage. All employees may choose 1) the city plan, or 2) their primary employer plan, or 3) their spouse employer plan-- period.
6. When the City of Pacifica economy improves, if ever, consider adding up to a $200 cash benefit in the Cafeteria plan for specific employee benefits: namely disability, dental and vision.
Thus, the view from public vs. private benefit management is (for the most part) quite different.
We cannot afford a payroll bloated by bad ideas put in place by council and staff who either don't get the basic 'expenditures should not exceed revenue' concept or have become too comfortable with the hodgepodge of gov't funding, rebates and legal settlements that Pacifica regards as revenue. The voters don't want any more of politicians or staffs cardtricks and "here's how it really works" bullshit they want cuts to restore balanced budgets. They want the wrongs made right. If they don't see progress, real progress being made and attitudes being adjusted, they'll want heads.
Cafeteria cash is a bad idea. A sneaky way to unneccessarily pad already competitive salaries without the public knowing. Sort of reminds me of that recent fire tax that was really a general fund tax. Adds very significantly to payroll costs without increasing productivity. Wouldn't you think that would be a big red flag if anyone is paying attention to where the money goes? Of course it's taxpayer money so who cares? Any surprise it's practiced by the City of Pacifica? Enjoyed for years by council? Not surprised at all are you? Even our regular city employees saw the problem with this.
make that bird a plover and I think you've got something
Watcher you so smart. Of all the jobs to eliminate it is very very interesting that Pacifica effectively eliminated the key position of finance director by choosing an individual with so much less financial expertise than the highly qualified incumbent. Didn't this happen during the interim city manager's term? Probably sounded like a good idea to him on his way out and it was undoubtedly pushed hard by one or more councilmembers. Perfect storm and it just would not have happened without someone on council behind it. They had no record or apparent prior interest in combining jobs or trying to save money so why that one and why then? Probably started hearing solid and responsible financial advice and questions--oh no not questions--she's gotta go! They set us up for disaster but what else is new? Maybe it's starting to bother them just a little.
Would of been ok with the cafeteria plan but need to cap the cash out option. Have to offer it if you have cafeteria plan but it can be any amount like $50 to avoid abuse. I guess a nice, responsible $50 per mnth cap just wasn't yummy enough when you could get over $1000.
"Have to offer it (cash) if you have cafeteria plan but it can be any amount like $50 to avoid abuse."
Anon 531pm, some confusion. I'm not aware that a city government employer must pay any cash (even $50) if medical benefits are refused.
A cafeteria plan is a qualified tax clause overlay plan, Section 125, that allows employees to claim tax deductions after spending their own money. The employee chooses from employer requirements, and/or a selection of benefits offered by the employer. To my knowledge, that's it.
Example, the employer pays for your medical plan, but not your family. You may pay for your family, and take the tax deduction at the end of the year. The employer does not pay for a vision plan, but its offered though the cafeteria choices; you elect that plan, pay for it and also take the tax deduction at the end of the year.
I believe a cash option is required on Pacifica's plan and that it can be capped at a low amount to avoid abuse but I could- be wrong. If I am wrong then this city has really gone out of it's way to be generous. How very heartwarming. Something to look back on with nostalgia from the unemployment line. Remember to thank our sage council and staff.
"I believe a cash option is required on Pacifica's plan..."
Anon (10:09pm) that may be the way the Pacifica city plan was structured (cafeteria choices, with medical plan or cash). As you say: generous.
Note, recently disclosed at the last city council meeting: General Manager Steve Rhodes refused the city cafeteria medical plan and did not take cash. Same with new city council member Len Stone, who in addition is not taking salary at this time. (Wish Len would take salary, that doesn't seem fair to him).
He has every right to take the stipend of $750 or so but I do respect him for keeping a campaign promise. So far so good with Mr. Stone.
He's showing thought and common sense, remains open to new info and insight and sees a balanced budget as top priority. Hope he keeps talking and listening to the voters.
I believe I heard it said at the last budget meeting that there had to be a cash option but that it could be as little as $1.00 per month.
I agree with Kathy that Len is entitled to the $750.00 a month stipend and respect him greatly for foregoing it at this time. I wish that other Council members that miss repeated meetings would refund the portion of their pay they did not earn. Times are tough and people are losing their Jobs our leaders should set an example. [I mean a good one!]
The council tied itself to a union contract (managers or dept. directors) in 2006, giving themselves what full time employees get.
The are not full time employees and they did not negotiate with anyone for this. They also were getting automatic pay raises every year, as full time employees, until Ms. Nihart pushed to stop that in 2009.
I would love to have seen this tested in court, they could well have had their heads handed to them (again!). It, IMO, amounted to a gift of public funds.
BTW, if they are getting $750 per month SALARY (it's taxable, therefore it's not a stipend) they gave themselves another raise. From 2002 until now, it was $700 per month. At the time they raised their salary, it was the second-highest in San Mateo County. Another outrage and taxpayer gouge when no one was watching.
While I don't agree with council taking cafeteria cash options I also don't understand why certain people in town want to take everything to court. Don't you understand you cost all of us money fighting your causes. Find another hobby.
While I think it would be a great symbolic gesture and lead to greater trust for council members to turn down the cafeteria plan option of taking cash when benefits are unneeded, it will only save maybe $30,000 max. Would love to hear more about where people would like to see the remaining 1.5million come from, followed by an additional 2 million in the following year. If we want to fix Pacifica, let's start generating some significant comments that will make a difference. Many outsiders also read this forum; would hate to think we are scaring people away from moving here or starting a business here. Can't we be more productive?
"Many outsiders also read this forum; would hate to think we are scaring people away from moving here or starting a business here."
Really? Who besides Jeff and Lois?
I hear this blog is a hit in Moronica.
Guess Scotty just proved his point.
Anon 522, you said, "..let's start generating some significant comments that will make a difference."
$30,000 x 5 years = $150,000. But if the city is even less "generous" in funding benefits, across the board (as private industry is, as suggested in my 4/30, 2:28pm) -- that's real money.
What is significant to you Anon 5:22pm, since that is your issue?
You also said, "...outsiders also read this forum; would hate to think we are scaring people away from moving here or starting a business here." As is, outsiders should be scared of this anti-growth, underfunded city.
Since when is $30,000 insignificant? It's public money. This cavalier attitude towards spending taxpayer's money is exactly what is wrong with Pacifica. It feeds the voters' growing distrust and contempt for city officials. Some of the ill-advised and foolish spending becomes public knowledge but most goes unnoticed and unquestioned. And, frankly, there are enough serious doubts about the city's financial expertise and leadership to put all the official financial data in question. The abiding symbolism attached to cafeteria cash is all about waste, greed and bad policy and certainly not about council's long overdue decision to do the right thing. Contract negotiations have brought some cuts to these cash bonuses but we won't know how much this very generous mistake costs us city-wide until the practice is ended. The reading of this blog by outsiders should not be a concern. Honest, open, competent government is the best advertisment for any city. Getting there takes time and can be a messy, often uncomfortable process. It's true we cannot cut our way to financial health but we have little choice having clearly missed the boat on meaningful development. Until that boat returns we'll have to tread water and choose better leaders
at the ballot box.
anon@5:22 I'm all for being productive but not hearing any idea from you just not wanting talk about some of the city screwups that cost money
we don't hav.
I think all the responses to my post are completely fair and reasonable so I would like to comment:
1) The $30,000 we would save by the council's refusing the cafeteria fund refund is in no way insignificant. I am all for it and think it is important on many levels. I just would like to see the conversation furthered so we can really evaluate how to get out of this budget fiasco.
2) I only voted for Len and Mary Ann; but I have lived here for many, many years. This city has been a bedroom community since it originated. I don't think we can only blame the current city council for all of our woes, and I don't think they are evil trying to destroy this city; they just have different visions of what they want for the city; obviously many people agree or they wouldn't have been reelected.
3) I do feel we would be more constructive if we worked with the city council in order to get what the city needs: more economic development, a stronger, more proactive approach to attracting businesses, working with the appropriate commissions to ensure we have the best vision and potential outcomes for developing the Quarry, and adjusting the budget so we no longer were operating with a structural deficit. Not sure how to do that in the short term without a big hit to our infrastructure and a disincentive to interested businesses and homebuyers, but that is why I appreciate having this forum to exchange ideas on how to do this.
why don't Sinai and Meeh run for city council they have all the answers.
And we all know they have plenty of free time on their hands..
plus Sinai doesn't know the difference between Mori's Point and Rockaway. Perfect for Council
"...they have plenty of free time on their hands.."
Trust me, I'm sure neither Steve nor myself have "plenty of free time", no more than anyone else. Sorry you really didn't notice that what Steve photographed was an example that on a clear, warm day all urban trails in Pacifica are empty, including Mori Point.
BTW "City council 3" (7:29am), you have worked an agenda over multiple years which has been irresponsible for this city, you should be recalled but some of us who work a day job don't have the time to do it.
"Since when is $30,000 insignificant? It's public money. This cavalier attitude towards spending taxpayer's money is exactly what is wrong with Pacifica. It feeds the voters' growing distrust and contempt for city officials. Some of the ill-advised and foolish spending becomes public knowledge but most goes unnoticed and unquestioned......It's true we cannot cut our way to financial health but we have little choice having clearly missed the boat on meaningful development" and "choose better leaders at the ballot box."
Anon 5/2, 7:59pm, this is a repeat of your words, well said.
"why don't Sinai and Meeh run for city council they have all the answers."
Kathy and I deal with the blog. That's our small contribution in the attempt to change the direction of the city.
cc@7:29, how about telling us what you've done to change the way the city's being run, other than pissing, moaning, and tiresomely repeating the same line over and over - "Why doesn't so-and-so run for council they have all the answers." You've probably written that same line 200 times on this blog.
You sound like a trained parrot.
Maybe the council should start thinking about the state of the people it allegedly represents; an increasingly poor and financially pressured group that doesn't need sewer/garbage rate increases. Nor does it need assessments/sales tax increases.
People are taking pay cuts, losing their jobs; their mortgages may be upside-down, and/or they may lose their homes to the bank.(These words are banned in writing at council meetings.)
So when do they start to realize this and represent us? When the pressure grows too great to ignore.
Get your protest letters folks, it's only the beginning.
Maybe council should rethink this fiscal plan of theirs because it isn't enough, not nearly enough. By their own admission we face even deeper cuts next year. And then what happens? All they are doing is prolonging the decline of this city into insolvency. There will be no bailout for Pacifica and no significant new revenue--whatever brought us here this is where we are right now. Labor costs and pensions are killing us just like the rest of California. And yet we can't get beyond trying to save jobs. Heartwarming, but that is not the function of government. It really isn't. And it is not council's job. Where are the serious discussions about out-sourcing as many city services as possible? Where are the serious discussions about combining fire and police under one public safety director and in doing so ditching the JPA in favor of local control? Are consolidations of depts possible? Certainly this may not be ideal but is it possible? Profound economic changes have taken place and yet Council and staff seem to be waiting a return to "normal" and a more accomodating voter. Normal in Pacifica was never very good and the average voter has made all the accomodations they can bear in the last 3 or 4 years. Maybe the only upside in this mess is that we may have to reinvent our city and how the city provides services for its residents---that's the real job of city government. Wouldn't it be better to do this now rather than later after total failure?
The only fiscal crisis we face is staff/employee compensation. Our revenue pie is only X big but the various negotiated contracts and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reflect a revenue pie that is 2X big.
Todd, I have read your ideas and philosophy regarding these cuts many times over the past couple of months and I have to say I respectfully disagree. Initially people may accept a job here in Pacifica where they will be paid less than anywhere else in the county out of desperation. Over the following months they are very likely to feel a great deal of frustration and low job satisfaction due to these inequities. Job turnover is hugely expensive due to the training and support that is required of new employees. We end up with less qualified employees as the older, more experienced members leave for higher paying jobs. Additionally, I don't believe that a family making $100,000 a year is an extreme amount. Only a few years ago Linda Mar ranchers were going for $650K, leaving a family with a $3,000/month mortgage, plus taxes, insurance, utilities, etc...it doesn't leave families with a great deal of left over spending money. These public employees are just trying to get by in an increasingly tough environment. They aren't rich by any stretch and I believe they are the wrong targets. Hopefully we can address some of the pension issues as new contracts are agreed upon, and over time this will alleviate the structural deficit as well. I voted for the fire assessment simply because I liked the level of services we had, and the quality of life that the services provided, and I did not want to see employee layoffs. Now there are few other solutions in the short term; hopefully this city will manage to improve its economic outlook in the long term and will learn important lessons from this devastating economic downturn. if they fail, we all fail.
Anon @ 9:55, I'm not targeting our employee's, I'm suggesting a way forward. I disagree that we have a financial crisis after reading the 2009 compensation report. We have plenty of money for staff and employees. We don't have plenty of money to pay unrealistic comparative salaries and wages of much wealthier cities, but we have enough to pay realistic compensation without laying off employees or cutting services.
As Anon 9:55am, suggests this city is substandard all the way through. The idea is to fix it, rather than sink further into the 3rd world, Todd (10:14am).
Once again, it's completely unrealistic to expect people to work for below-market wages. It's a silly solution that is a waste of time.
Public employee unions call the shots, not their members. Fault the negotiation process and a city in denial about it's finances and viability in the new economy. Add in a little incompetence-or maybe, a lot- and you have the perfect storm.
Post a Comment