Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Playing chicken with Pacifica's population


The city budget crisis has been in process 10 years, and the "bedroom community" excuse ended then.  

Mercury News/Julia Scott, 5/4/11.  City officials were caught by surprise last month when an overwhelming majority of Pacificans rejected a fire assessment that would have buoyed the city's sagging finances and kept two firefighters and a battalion chief on duty. It was the cornerstone of a four-year recovery plan that would rescue the city from an astounding $14 million shortfall between now and 2014-15.Now the bedroom community has to cut its way to stability, and it's going to be a nightmare, according to city staff.  City Council members are preparing to cut $1.5 million, in part by eliminating nearly 20 positions, as they race to balance Pacifica's budget by July 1. 
"The scariest part is, this year, we're cutting bone. Next year, we'll have to cut a limb off," Police Capt. Dave Bertini said. The Police Department must cut 10 percent of its budget, or $634,519, by July. That means six police dispatchers could be let go as the city negotiates a contract to outsource police dispatch services to South San Francisco. The force stands at 36 sworn officers to police a city of 37,234, down from 48 officers in the mid-1980s, according to Bertini.

Other proposed layoffs include the city attorney, whose duties would be outsourced, a clerk, an account technician, two firefighters and public works and recreation staffers. The city would withdraw its funding of Pacifica's two libraries, which would have to cut back their hours. "There's going to be less access, which is not a good thing -- we have a lot of people coming here to do job retraining, apply for employment, apply for schooling," Pacifica libraries manager Thom Ball said. "Access to the Internet is critical for these folks, and I deal with them every day."

But that's only the beginning. Pacifica will need to cut another $2 million in 2011-12, since leaders have abandoned hope of passing a proposed utility-users tax in November 2012."People have said they don't want to pay more and they can't afford more," City Manager Steve Rhodes said. The city has cobbled together some $1.6 million in savings over the next four years through employee concessions such as a salary freeze and an agreement to pick up their own pension cost increases. The city also gained $640,000 over four years from a hotel-tax increase voters approved in 2010. But it won't nearly be enough. The city will still have to find another $6 million to stay solvent in the long term. If the city were hit with a major earthquake or tsunami today, there wouldn't be enough money in the reserve fund to cover the expenses.

City officials say they have no idea how to bridge that gap. Pacifica may be the sixth-largest city in San Mateo County, but its commercial tax base is fairly weak. It doesn't have the property value of cities like Burlingame, and the city's payroll has been subject to the same pension pressures and local tax restrictions as other California cities. Unlike other cities, like Half Moon Bay, Pacifica is too big to consider outsourcing its police force. 

"It's going to decimate our city in some ways. It means everything is on the table," Mayor Mary Ann Nihart said. "There's only so much you can contract out," she added. "The hard part is to do all this and still keep the community alive." Pacifica will hold its next budget study session May 11. The City Council will likely vote on a final budget June 13.

 Posted by Kathy Meeh

34 comments:

todd bray said...

It is an issue of wages and benefits. City staff and elected officials seem hell bent on slashing the work force and the work force seems happy to let that happen. Honestly if everyone took an appropriate pay cut would any of this be necessary?

Anonymous said...

Yes! The situation is bad and getting worse. Just how many "appropriate" pay cuts do you think would keep this sinking ship afloat? We will learn to make do with what we are willing and able to pay for or we agree to pay more taxes. There aren't any other workable options.

Kathy Meeh said...

"It is an issue of wages and benefits."

Big issue. Todd (614), right you are to stay with these issues. Anyhow being popular with City Council is overrated.

Cleaning-up the city medical plan could save the city a lot of money: 1 medical plan (city or the other employer), no cash en lieu of medical plan, 25% employee cost if the city insures the whole family, raise the deductibles. Sure there are union contracts, work it out, fixing this scam (in my opinion) is only fair.

This is another issue most of us who pay city overhead can agree on, questionable use of our public money.

Anonymous said...

"Questionable use of our public money"? Why be diplomatic? Try gift or even theft of our public money. And this crap was negotiated? Did anyone even show up on the City's side of the table? We know city council took their place at the public trough for their cafeteria cash.

Lifelong P towner said...

Funny how a failed "fire tax" could lead to all of these city layoffs. If it was just a tax to used used for the fire department only it probably would've passed. I would've voted yes.

todd bray said...

Lifelong, the cuts were coming anyway. Senior staff and council said so many times before, during and after deliberations on the topic.

Kathy Meeh said...

The city general fund has suffered since the city could no longer take $700,000 average out of the WWTP, even though the city still charges healthy fees for management, including accounting.

The first 5 year Fire Tax (2003/4) was really just another city general fund tax as well. Clue the city needs money, which includes benefit and spending reform (Todd and Lionel's approach), plus the urgent sustainable economy reform for which others of us advocate.

todd bray said...

Kathy, with all the malls and such we have that generate like a million or so a year how do you justify economic development bringing anything substantial to the table? Quarry development might have some shops and such but how will that make a noticeable revenue increase in sales tax? We already know the property tax increases would go to pay debt so there is no gain there and if there was those gains would be limited to the RDA associated with those increases.

I'm not knocking you. I think your thinking of what is best, but I think a real conversation needs to happen.

Are you up for that?

Kathy Meeh said...

Todd, "we're good". You said, "We already know the property tax increases would go to pay debt" (1230).

After 25 years, if the redevelopment agency has ended with such limited redevelopment accomplished; following your commentary, no doubt our citizens will pay the debt penalty.

The city has other accumulated debt, and if the city does not thrive and fails, there will be a whole lot more debt that our citizens will pay.

In approximate comparison, the redevelopment agency tax revenue pays a return of 80-85 cents on the dollar vs. the regular 15 cents. That's money. As for what will be built in the quarry, at this point does it matter, other than best use to develop tax revenue?

The developer will work-out a plan, hopefully we will agree the plan is friendly for our citizens and our economy, the project will get through regulations, and the city will move forward. To be continued....

Steve Sinai said...

How much city tax revenue did Peebles say his project would generate in the quarry every year? $12M? No doubt it was highly exaggerated, but even if it was half that, it would cover what the city needed.

Anonymous said...

That ship has sailed. Is anyone even building those types of developments with large numbers of single-family homes in CA anymore? With the housing meltdown still underway it seems like the demand is for nice apts. I believe SSF has some kind of large-scale apt development being built probably with a little retail thrown in. Too bad we can't agree on something that would just bring visitors who could spend and then go home where someone else could provide them with city services. We've been so foolish and now the opportunities just aren't going to be there
even if we're now ready.

Anonymous said...

The quarry, Mori's Point, the old Waste Water Treatment plant, Fassler Avenue, something revenue producing at Linda Mar beach, the big empty flat parcel at Pedro Point, Roberts Road.

Lots of Potential for revenue producing projects but what does the city have planned.

Another trail to the beach behind the RV park

Steve Sinai said...

The city ought to go to whoever runs Premium Outlet Malls and beg them to build in the quarry.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anon 5/6, 12:10 am, the conservative annual income stream of revenue estimate from Peeble's research for that project was $17 million. By the time the project got out of regulations assume Steve's $12 million recall would be closer. Haircut the stream of income by half, that's more than prudent.

The point being made is it is ill-founded that that "ship sailed", and for that "sailed ship" once again default city council majority leadership is to blame: they have the forum, the influence, the knowledge-- yet they acted against the best interest of this city. How about that, that's a fact!

Residential? The viable, researched plan by Peebles was a VILLAGE. The 102 single family homes were planned to be built as part of the 88 acres, and last. Otherwise, there were condos and apartments, and these approximate 500 residential people would add to the nearby daily business activity of the village. (Assumption: of the 355 residential units approved, 250 would be built, average dwelling size 2). Sweet!

Its not that "that ship has sailed", it more like "that ship has sunk". Either way, with without housing in the quarry, those who insist on "nothing for Pacifica" will be screaming "traffic", yet failing to support fixing highway 1 traffic congestion. City council majority? Oh yeah, they will default out-front, public leadership as usual.

Anonymous said...

They are still building those kinds of walk-able developments. Pulte is starting one right now in Fremont, after 20 years of environmental clean-up and political in-fighting, Lennar is about to finally start the Hunters Point project, and a third one got through SF Planning in only 18 months. There is the Windemere project in San Ramon, and something else just got through all the hurdles in Pleasanton... that's just from recent memory. It can be done, it can be done well. The question is, will Pacifica's Environmental Family realize that humans are part of the equation?

Anonymous said...

Sailed, sunk, whatev. Gone. The outlet village has always been the best idea. Quality outlets, some nice restaurants, none of the dollar store crap. People come, they shop, they make a day of it and they go home. Jobs and lots of sales tax revenue and some collateral spending as people discover Pacifica. No drain on our city services--the cost of which will only continue to go up. No polarizing dreaded houses even if a fool could be found to build them. We are not Pleasanton or San Ramon where work and living can be combined or made easy with Bart. With savvy marketing Outlet malls have revitalized communities. Revitalized. As far as the enviros--of course they won't stand down. And that makes it more important than ever that a proposed project be as persuasive and revenue-positive as possible. Outlets in the Quarry!!!

Anonymous said...

Pacifica and San Ramon, haha. Come on now you're comparing apples and oranges and you know it.
Can we steal the SJ Sharks? We have the perfect Shark Tank in the quarry. If we're going to fantasize let's go big and icey.

Anonymous said...

Sailed, sunk, whatev. Gone. The outlet village is a dead idea. Nobody's building them anymore.

Anonymous said...

Pulte is the largest home builder in the world, Lennar is second and their specialty is building on old military bases. If those guys wanted the quarry they'd have it. If the day comes when one of them or equal caliber wants it then we'll really see something happen but just because we think it's a greaat piece of property for housing doesn't mean it is.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if outlets are dead. Location is everything. Might have slowed but so has everything else. Gotta like the idea of just collecting the money and then sending them home.
retail works for just about everybody.

Anonymous said...

it's all good til they get a whiff of it. and the lousy access makes any development even harder. too bad we can't get a techie in there like genentech/roche or some other big biz. they could shuttle emps from bart

Steve Sinai said...

"The outlet village is a dead idea. Nobody's building them anymore"

Pacifica's persistent "can't do it" mentality gets really old. Here's a recent article about the growth of outlet malls. Weird that it's on facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150187356012893

Kathy Meeh said...

"It's all good til they get a whiff of it. And the lousy access makes any development even harder." Anon(200, 11:46), are these "red legged frog" stories?

A premium outlet would be awesome, as would another proposed village, etc.-- whatever demographic research indicates in preliminary economic studies.

A greentech business area would also be good, but the city needs retail tax revenue and the quarry is a natural for tourism and visitors. The city should have greentech businesses, but where is the land for that? Back in the valley? No, we sold or gave that away. Cattle Hill? Same issue as back in the valley. Etc, etc, etc.

If you look at the quarry redevelopment map, an access road is shown to be built, as is a big parking lot. A developer would need to mitigate traffic issues (as in pay for by the developer).

The main "whiff of...the lousy access" is our
NIMBY city council (3) and their BANANA supporters.

Anonymous said...

Oh my God yes, what was I thinking? San Ramon is invested in keeping their city solvent, Pacifica is waiting for the "lotto plan" to pay off. Lennar has successfully partnered with communities where these old military bases have been decommissioned to create new, vibrant neighborhoods.

If they wanted to take on the Quarry, I'm sure they have their hands full with Hunter's Point and Mare Island right now, but then again, you never know.

Steve Sinai said...

"too bad we can't get a techie in there like genentech/roche or some other big biz. they could shuttle emps from bart"

I don't think we'd get much tax revenue from an office park. We need retail.

My current contract has me working in the biotech area north of SFO. There are shuttles to BART and Caltrain, but almost nobody uses them. Everyone drives.

Anonymous said...

An outlet center has always made a lot of sense and it will deliver the most revenue for this city (and that's the important part)for the longest time. Quality outlets not the junk you see in failing malls. Market it right and you'd get lots of people making an afternoon of it and having lunch or dinner or staying over. Jobs and sales tax!! And as noted earlier, then they go home to their own city services and don't burden ours. They are being built and they can revitalize a city--even down at the heels Pacifica. Still have all the regulatory agencies to overcome and they are the key. If the quarry just defies development we can always hope a savvy shopping center owner will tear down Linda Mar and go outlet! Or even that hellhole in Pacific Manor. Highway frontage and all. We've given away just about everything else.

Anonymous said...

I'd love to see a quality builder with real clout, as in political, like Pulte or Lennar come to town. But the sad truth is that times have changed and projects are chosen very, very carefully. Pacifica is too much trouble for too little return. And the trouble isn't all local. Much of it is with the multiple regulatory agencies. Lots of lobbyists greasing lots of palms cuts into profits. Very few regional developers have the clout to make stuff happen politically.

Kathy Meeh said...

"we can always hope a savvy shopping center owner will tear down Linda Mar and go outlet!"

Yikes! Those are fightin' words Anon 738. Linda Mar Shopping Center is where those of us south of town and many south of Devil's Slide shop. That parking lot is full.

"An outlet center has always made a lot of sense and it will deliver the most revenue for this city..". You may be right about that. People travel to premium outlet locations as a destination, and they spend money.

This city has really limited its choices by "giving away" or shall we say "throwing away" its productive land. And as Anon 746 said "Pacifica is too much trouble for too little return." As a city (and people of a city) we have given-up too much. Its time for those who have opposed progress in the past to move our direction toward a balanced city economy.

Anonymous said...

No need to duke it out. Make it a double decker
and make full and smarter use of the entire space. Keep the Safeway and make room for all the old tenants and make a rooftop food court area and maybe a dozen nice outlet stores. Create some jobs and make lotsa money!

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, Pacifica has thrown away "productive land" by letting it become park land. Life would be so much better if all that open space was covered by development.

Kathy Meeh said...

"Life would be so much better if all that open space was covered by development."

Anon 911, your comment is absurd. The city is 50% mostly unproductive "open space". We have a fragile economy, and a dysfunctional city. If you understand green sustainable development and can balance your own family check-book and debt, you surely understand this issue.

Anonymous said...

Well we're never going to know about that but we are going to know real quick what it's like to give up the level of service and amenities we're used to. We'll get to know that real well. The depth and length of the crisis most certainly is made worse by the global financial meltdown but Pacifica would have found its way to this financial failure eventually. It was inevitable. Most people just want a reasonable balance between revenue-producing development and open space. It's common sense, really. You have to have some of one to pay for the other. But common sense is not so common. Particularly among the last decade plus of council who have used the voters as a personal ATM while they indulge their whims and hobbies and curry favor with supporters so clearly out of touch with the economic realities. We deserved better but since we, one way or another, put them in office we have no one to blame but ourselves. Be that as it may, consider this ATM overdrawn and closed til I see a council majority with a sense of duty and responsibility for their city's well-being.

Anonymous said...

While we're dreaming, I'd like someone to build an amusement park. And I want a pony. With wings.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anon 11:16pm, what part of this conversation is "dreaming"? Is it the rational comments by Anon 5/6, 9:51pm? "Most people just want a reasonable balance between revenue-producing development and open space. It's common sense, really. You have to have some of one to pay for the other."

The above comment is the same as or similar to "sustainable development" theory. Are you contesting that, if so why? Are you commenting on Pacific's ability to move forward, or something else? There are not clues.

Based upon your "dreaming, I want a pony with wings" comment, may be you are a creative 8 year old, and there is no statement. If not, you might want to let us know what you are thinking.