Monday April 25, 2011, 7pm. Agenda.Okay its now Tuesday April 26th, and previously there was no place to post comments about the 2+ hour long city council meeting. A couple of people noted on the "Vreeland sighting" article that Councilmember Vreeland was in attendance at last night's meeting, but may have wanted to say more.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011, 6pm. City council budget workshop #2 (for fiscal year 2011-2012) at City Council Chambers (Beach Blvd), Budget Workshop #1 was televised on channel 26. Take a chance, this one may also be televised, or attend if you have time and are interested.
Any comments you wish to make for either last night's regular city council meeting, or Wednesday's budget workshop may be easily made here. Have fun!
Posted by Kathy Meeh
54 comments:
About Budget Workshop #2. I'd really like to see Council lead by example and give up that cafeteria cash bonanza that more than doubles their salary. It's roughly $1100 month each. Nihart and Stone are willing, Vreeland probably, but Pete and Sue lack enthusiasm. Let them keep the stipend of $750 or so and certainly reimburse for valid, approved, job-related expenses but let's put an end to this dirty business they voted to give themselves about 5 years ago. The city claims to have made dents in eliminating this outdated and excessive "gift" from the contracts of all city workers but it needs to be gone sooner. Hard to do that when Council hangs on to it. And these partial reductions in the absence of fairness and real leadership can too easily become just smoke and mirrors. It's significant that no one is willing to put a dollar amount on how much this little cash cow costs city-wide but seeing how lucrative it is for Council gives you a pretty good clue that the numbers are huge. How many people will now lose their jobs as a result of payrolls bloated by this bad idea? Also what's become of the plan to combine police dispatch services? The chief was hired back specifically to work on that project which was to save us so much money. What happened? No criticism of the Chief but was this yet another sweetheart deal for a retiring dept head? Couldn't one of the 3 captains handle it? There goes another $100,000 for nothing!
Here is a link to an article about part timer perks provided to city employees: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17919667?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com&nclick_check=1
This article is severely truncated compared to the print version which ran in this Sunday's San Mateo County times. Pickup the Times for a real eye-opener. Pacifica is not the only city guilty of this.
Read the article for a real eye-opener. No wonder we're broke in CA. Public servants? Hardly.
Nice going posting the announcement of the council meeting the day after the meeting..
Like Charlie Sheen says..
Duh!!!
I'm sure Charlie Sheen would agree with you "anonymous day late". For the rest of us this article is a place to comment, where there was none prior.
At city council the plover issue returned, the garbage rate increase was managed, there was another "open space" award (Pacifica Land Trust). Lots of citizens spoke, etc. That the city is broke was made clear, but there was nothing reported to change that.
Kathy, The city isn't really broke, it just pays out too much to senior staff, department heads, cops and firefighters. It turns out that Pacifica does have sufficient revenues to provide services but pays it's employees as if Pacifica was a wealthy community like Atherton or Menlo Park. 80 employees earning over $100,000 a year is the problem here, not lack of economic development.
Well it's sure one of the problems, the most painful to fix, and it continues. Nothing, nothing has been done to change this. Labor negotiations merely slowed the growth of payroll, they didn't reduce it. There is no growth in revenue on the way for years to balance the budget. Waves of service cuts, job losses are going to happen. The fiscal improvement will not be immediate. Severance and pay offs will delay the impact. It's going to be tough but it has to be done if this city is to survive and begin to grow in a healthy, realistic way. Council may finally get it. Maybe. Stone and Nihart seem to. Please lead the way. Please.
"Day late and dollar short", so now we now why Pete missed the meeting.
I don't think Mary Ann or Len do get it. I think they want to, but during the tax assessment Mary Ann avoided the issue of staff being over compensated. She said in an op-ed piece that it was now our turn to sacrifice and that supporting the fix tax was the way to go. I think the term she used was to step up and do our share.
Compensation is the number one thing that needs to be adjusted, not layoffs or service cuts but rather senior staff, department heads, fire and police need to take 20% wage cuts. Having a city manager that is compensated just shy of $200,000 a year for a town our size is just flat out ridiculous. The average firefighter pulls in over $120,000 a year here, Thats just silly.
No one needs to be laid off, services do not need to be cut. There is more than enough money to go around if we simply adjust the tongue in cheek shamelessness of 80 employees earning more than $100,000 a year. If senior staff, department heads, fire and police refuse to comply we can't afford them at that price anyway so they can update their resumes and move to greener pastures.
"I don't think Mary Ann or Len do get it."
They must not teach rudimentary economics in Ireland because you are the one who obviously doesn't get it, Todd. Thinking that people will take pay cuts just because you think they make too much when they can drive a few miles and get paid what the market actually says they are worth is ridiculous to an almost birther-esque degree.
Agreed. We are not wealthy enough to pay attractive or even competitive salary and benefit packages to our public servants.
Inserting phony environmental concerns into every attempt to develop revenue production in Pacifica is why. Can't have it both ways.
While I think many of the employees were somewhat overpaid, they don't deserve to be called greedy or selfish. My hope is that Pacifica eventually develops enough of an economy so that it can pay competitive salaries. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, we will have a hard time attracting quality employees.
"80 employees earning over $100,000 a year is the problem here, not lack of economic development."
The city has certain fixed costs to function, the city can't pay these costs. The city does not have enough money: a) is this a spending problem, or b) is this an income problem?
Todd (10:17am), you are an intelligent guy, but your view of this issue is unrealistic in my opinion. Why? a) because it is clear that the city has a failing infrastructure, b) this is not a new issues, it is a continuing, compounded issue, c) the city has fixed costs.
Then, 80 employees may or may not have payroll at lower than county standard. What percentage of the $100,000 income+ each is that to the total? How does our city payroll/benefits compare to that of other San Mateo County cities, and at what level of expertise? Any portion of these employees not active (retired or on disability)?
Employee labor cost and employment union contracts would need to be viewed one at a time. Over several years, this city has taken professional expertise "hits", downgrading qualified key employee position. What impact has this reduction in expertise level impacted city function? Would that factor also be measured?
Fixed costs, not enough money, multiple year infrastructure deterioration-- spending problem? No, the issue is clearly a structural economic development problem. Worth debating? No, its noise to avoid needed city income progress.
Somewhere down the road, way down the road, we may develop some sort of real economy but we are in serious trouble right now. Maryann has made some unfortunate statements in support of more taxes and the need for the public to pay it's share (love that one) but she's a politician and knows which way the wind is blowing and I think she's ready to do what needs to be done. And I believe she is able. Stone has a lot to learn but I think he knows that and he knows the budget must be balanced. He also seems very aware of what the voters want from him...change. These two remain our best hope for now. Of the other 3 the true politicians, Jim and Pete, heard the voters loud and clear. Let's get on with it, quickly, and without blaming the employees for things they had no control over. It was good while it lasted!
Re Kathy's comments about " this city has taken professional expertise hits"...can't help but wonder if we'd be better off had the previous finance director been retained. IMHO that's a definite yes!
"Maryann has made some unfortunate statements in support of more taxes"
I'd be totally willing to pay more taxes if Mary Ann were running things because I don't think it's realistic to think we can cut our way to health at the local level (or state or federal level for that matter). However, I refuse to give more of my money to the other three who pissed away the last fire assessment.
Sure, but that isn't how it works. We need to start being real about this stuff and exactly what our limitations are. Agreed, we can't cut our way to health but this is about survival. Surviving long enough to begin change..local, state and fed.
The employees are not to blame, every wage increase was recommended by senior staff and approved by council, but at this point if senior staff, department heads, fire and police don't take pay cuts they are going to be throwing their co-workers under the bus of unemployment. It's a big bus these days full of people with no stops.
Hey, what in the hell is this here Snowy Plover good for?
Too small to eat! Even a 410 would blow it to smitherines.
"..we can't cut our way to health but this is about survival. Surviving long enough to begin change."
Anon 242, thanks for singing the "red herring" theme song for Pacifica.
Sure, but that isn't how it works. We need to start being real about this stuff and exactly what our limitations are. Agreed, we can't cut our way to health but this is about survival. Surviving long enough to begin change..local, state and fed.
Cut and paste from 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010 . . . .
No red herrings sweetie, just those old chickens coming home to roost. Reality is going to set in pretty hard over the next 18 months all over CA. And here in Pacifica it's not going to be anything like 2002, 2004, and so on. We'll all look back on those years as the good old days. The good news is maybe we'll learn from this and start making better choices at the ballot box.
Elmer Fudd, I don't know what those plover things are good for but council discussed spending between $68,000 and 98,000 to build them a big corral on Linda Mar Beach. Isn't that just the most wonderful thing you ever heard? For the moment, the whole thing is "still being worked on" by city staff before it goes to Fish and Wildlife. It will be back before council. Isn't this about the same amount the city struggles to give the Resource Center each year? Damn, I guess we really don't have anything to worry about.
Plovers are fine eatin'. Come round on the 4th.
Plover puddin', plover hash, plover fricassee,
plover Que, they are a very versatile bird. And practically boneless. mighty fine
Anon 4:23 - easy solution. Serve plover at the resource center, duh!
Anon you are brilliant but let's create jobs, too. You know those cops that are going to be laid off? That's right, plover hunters. They're already trained and armed. Well, maybe over-armed for these birds. Give 'em nets. Next problem? Fix Pacifica is on it!
We're building a plover corral you fools so we can have a plover rodeo. Big money. Big.
It would be helpful if council quit wasting money on consultants to tell them what they clearly don't want to hear and are not willing to act on. Too much open space!
Between their ears.
The people who are counting on Vreeland, deJarnatt and Digre to approve a $90,000 Plover corral are also counting on their puppets to block revenue generating development and to raise taxes and fees to subsidize their lifestyles.
Enough already. Throw the bums out.
RECALL !!!!! It would be cheaper than having the 3 on Council for the next 2-4 years.
City council plans to get rid of Cafeteria Plan cash in lieu of benefits. DeJarnatt was not there, others all agreed.
City budget workshop meeting documents, 4/27/11.
City is running a $2 million annual structural deficit (as I understand it), and jobs to staff the city are at minimum now, with further cuts coming.
Solutions? 1) tax/raise fees, 2) outsource/more JPA's, 3) cut benefits.
And, the future? Oh yeah, let's not develop the (pristine) 25 year redevelopment quarry. Huh?
I love dog poop parks. Recology doesn't need to recycle fecal matter.
Why ruin a good thing???
It's about time they cut out their cafeteria cash. Might give them some credibility as they work their way thru employee contracts to cut this unbelievably expensive "gift/theft" of public funds from all city paychecks. Could be as much as $800,000 per year! City finance person just couldn't come up with a current number. Do the math folks. Talk about generous
benefits.
I might be in the minority here, but I don't like having Vreeland back and heavily involved in budget, again. He's one of the main architects of our current financial catastrophe
and here he is in a starring role doing his old shape-shifting, "special" fund juggling routine.
The guy is just too slick.
As several people mentioned on the budget telecast this year's cuts are only the start.
Next year they'll need to come up with 2 million in cuts. We can expect a lot of consolidation and outsourcing of services. This may be the end of council's spendthrift ways. They can check back with the voters about new taxes after they balance the budget and show a new and improved attitude towards development. Someday there will again be an opportunity for real economic growth in Pacifica.
The level of denial from our highest paid employees tonight was beyond my capacity to understand. There is no empathy toward us the public, that was made clear during the fire tax ballot process but their willingness to ensure their compensation at the expense of everything else in the budgets was, well, awful.
Rhodes compared his voluntary pay freeze to a pay cut and did not offer up his $500 a month car allowance as a cut. Ann like wise said she could not lower her salary any further. A firefighter asked me to look at the cuts they've taken which he claims are more than 10%. I gave him my email and phone number.
The denial coming from these folks is deafening
Where's your insight, Bray? It's just human nature to hold on to what you've got, particularly during uncertain times. And an argument could be made that anyone who turns down a raise they are entitled to has taken a cut. And what is it you expect them to do? Write the city a check? Many are part of a contract and that contract is binding on all parties for its term.
Next year will be even tougher and some of them will not have jobs.
Anon @ 11:54, Rhodes and Ritzma were too preoccupied with their fountain pens to bother tuning in last night. It didn't seem to matter if a council person was talking, a department head or a member of the public. If Ann was not speaking she was doodling. Steve took up the practice early on also. Beyond the obvious rudeness to the employees, elected officials and the public that pays their salaries that were present last night Steve and Ann were not paying attention to how they were participating, or not participating in last nights study session.
The city is receiving plenty of revenue to pay for everyone but city management instead of rationing compensation to revenues continues to compare their salaries to much wealthier communities. At what point does this wanna be practice become criminal? Pacifica is not as wealthy as any of the cities senior staff uses to falsely justify their salaries. There is just a gigantic over-riding denial by staff regarding their compensation that to me is criminally negligent at some level. Like a classic long con from a Hollywood movie.
Todd - you are the one not listening. There are nine unions covering all but four people in this town. None of the unions wanted your cuts. They already took major cuts, so they seem ready to lose staff and did not respond to your brother/sister plea. Until recently Rhodes was the lowest paid city manager in the county. Now, Half Moon Bay is less. Next year we will be there too. As for Ms. Ritzma, since you came late, you probably did not realize they started 15 minutes late because the staff were still putting together numbers from the negotiations for dispatch which they said had just concluded. How do you know that all of them were not still working with the numbers? Mary Ann caught an error at first glance. I think your comments are bad suppositions as usual.
Anon@ 7:22, 9 unions, 10 unions, a million unions makes no difference. Pacifica's pie is only so big. Compensation needs to ebb and flow with revenues. To compare compensation to other municipalities is nothing short of malfeasance if that information is used to knowingly justify salaries that are not affordable.
If our staff and employees want to cannibalize each other in order to survive that's between them, but I feel that foolishness is coming from the folks that wont lose their jobs like department heads and Union Reps.
If senior staff are incapable of or in the case or Rhodes "too embarrassed" to even talk about scaling salaries and wages to fit within Pacifica's revenue with the unions then it's way past time for him to move on. Steve's apparent ego not with standing to state that the boss is too timid to talk to his employees about shared pain to keep everyone employed is beneath contempt, and quite simply laughable.
Anon@ 7:22, man up and contact me personally. I'm in the phone book.
Todd, your dislike for Rhodes and Ritzma colors your ideas and statements. Your plan is ludicrous and would only prolong the pain. The unions are going to do what unions do...hang on to negotiated wages, benefits, work rules and seniority rights for their members. With all due respect for our city workers, council represents a much larger community which has clearly told them to do their job and get the budget under control. There is going to be pain in that process now and it may last years.
Don't get mad at city workers.
Get mad at the people who promised that empty space and no-growth would be Pacifica's economic salvation.
"...empty space and no-growth would be Pacifica's economic salvation."
The propaganda is "it brings in so many dollars per square foot." Maybe somewhere, not here, not in Pacifica in the metropolitan Bay Area. Just makes Paifica have to deal with the deficiencies (or not) as a substandard city.
Sharing the bottom of the economic/financial pile is one way to deal with it. Most people work out of town for that reason.
"To compare compensation to other municipalities is nothing short of malfeasance"
To not do so is either naïveté or ignorance, for the reasons that I've stated repeatedly -- primarily because that's what any right-thinking worker will do. These are jobs, not volunteer positions.
Steve,
Take it a step furthur. Don't get mad at the city workers or the no-growthers.
It's Council who hires and fires city heads and hand picks the Planning Commission and other no growth committees.
Get mad at Vreeland, deJarnatt and Digre.
Anon@ 8:58, man up. Make direct contact.
From my view, Steve's pictures are a clear comparison of 1) the Sharp Park golf course support community vs. 2) the Wild Equity plan for Sharp Park, less the tsunami.
John Bowie's (Wild Equity) Riptide Opinion article compares 1)the Point Reyes regional recreation area to 2) urban Mori Point, located in the heart of the City of Pacifica.
Although a regional rural area vs. an in city urban area is not a like kind comparison, Bowie made one solid point: 102 acre GGNRA Mori Point needs a parking lot, rather than impacting local City of Pacifica neighborhoods. (Having proper fire safety roads on GGNRA Mori Point would also be welcome-- the life saved may be yours).
The 2009 income comparison between Mori Point and Sharp Park Golf course? 1) There is NO direct consumer income produced at Mori Point, whereas 2) Sharp Park golf course concessions is listed as the top 26th business income producers for Pacifica. The 2009 (1 year only) San Francisco report Bowie referenced if true is likely adjusted accounting for SF Parks and Recreation expenses, including employee salaries and pensions. However, as Bowie also pointed-out Sharp Park Golf course has a (near) "80 history". And, apparently the longer term accounting track record also supports the financial viability of Sharp Park golf course. The 2009 (1 year only) adjusted accounting occurred during the second year of "the worst recession since the great depression".
This is a little off-topic but I don't know where to ask: Is the new owner of the quarry property, Swenson- isn't he the same guy who did the restaurant/hotel on the corner of Crespi and highway 1 ? I'm pretty sure it is.
I believe Swenson has made an offer on the quarry, but doesn't own it.
I've never heard that Swenson had anything to do with the hotel/restaurant on the corner of Crespi and Highway 1.
To Anon @ 12:38
No. The owner/builder of the Pacifica Beach Resort & Hotel is Paul Chakkapark (spelling?), who previously owned Humphrey's restaurant on Palmetto. Barry Swenson is a San Jose based developer - who once had an interest in the old waste water treatment plant on Palmetto. Other than that tenuous Palmetto Avenue link, I know of no connection.
And if the guy is lucky, he won't have any connection to Pacifica's infamous quarry.
OK, thanks for clarifying the situation. I thought years ago either before or during the construction of the PBR&H he was mentioned, I finally unlazied myself enough to at least do a shallow google search of what I thought was a connection and only came up with what appears to be an ancient blog...but there weren't blogs when this particular article was published. http://news.pacificapier.com/wp/?p=133
Only one more definitely off-topic thing to ask about: The amount of pit bulls on the beach running off-leash.
Yeah I know there's a whole bunch of people ready to leap to the defense of the breed-and I don't want to hear the endless lectures about 'Oh it's how they are raised, I know this guy and his dog is great..' whatever.
Someone makes a choice to have a dog like that, fine, this is America, great-I made a choice to have kids and when they were infants, I didn't bring them to movies and nicer restaurants so as not to infringe on others, which is what I feel is happening- and even if I brought the kids, people might find them a nuisance, but they wouldn't worry about being attacked. We should be able to use the beach without having to deal with breeds of dogs known for aggression roaming around.
From what I looked up, dogs are supposed to be on leash except at Esplanade. I'm not going up to the owners, the police can do that. Usually I do like to deal with people directly instead of getting The Man involved, but I don't know these owners, they aren't my meighbors, it's not going improve matters or even change anything for me to talk to the dog owners and I just plain don't want to deal with them. I'm not scared however, to approach an officer and talk to them about this, and I think I am going to the next chance I get.
You bet I'm afraid, that's the whole point of this screed. Me and my family trying to enjoy the beach: Losing Pit-bull owners from wherever on beach : winning!
Post a Comment