On
Wednesday, January 11 at the Crespi Center starting at 6:30PM our city
officials are hosting a financial meeting to sell us on the idea of
increased taxes to cover the cost of their paychecks. A few numbers that
most likely will not be discussed tonight are the eighty employees that
earned over $100,000 last year. Of those eighty employees forty four
earned over $120,000, sixteen earned over $150,000 and two earned over
$200,000. The fiscal crisis of Pacifica isn't a revenue issue but a
payroll issue. Please let me explain.
Several
years ago during the real estate boom we had a dramatic increase in
revenues thanks to the corresponding rise in property values. During
that time staff asked for and received very large increases to salaries,
wages and benefits for all of our employees. However when the housing
market crashed staff didn't volunteer to reduce their compensation
increases to match new reality of lower revenues so we are left with
their housing bubble wages without the housing bubble revenues. Rather
than reduce compensation staff is recommending cutting services so their
paychecks wont change.
The
numbers that wont be batted around tonight are the actual W2 line 5
totals for the following positions. City Manager: $195,872,
Administration Services Director: $$172,849, Planning Director:
$212,760, City Attorney: $200,751, Director of Public Works: $172,716,
Deputy Fire Chief: $184,185, Police Chief: $164,287 and so on for
another 73 employees
each earning over $100,000 a year.
God
bless our city employees but to cut library services, senior services
or what ever paycheck saving services our senior staff, department
heads, fire and police may target, none of that is necessary if they all
agree to a scaled reduction in pay of 1% for every $10,000 earned.
Todd McCune Bray
93 comments:
I agree. I asked for everything to be cut except; library, senior services and resource center family support.
Todd and his buddies have been fighting to keep this city poor by obstructing any and all development that might bring in some much-needed tax revenue. Now they want to pay for it by reaching into the pockets of city employees. Such irresponsibility is despicable.
anon701, So's the greed of public employee unions and the indifference, or worse, of city leaders. Guess we voters have to face the music, too. Seems like our just rewards are coming.
More importantly, what would your solution be? I don't agree with Todd's but I don't have a better one. You? Play fair and stay in the real world and your solution must solve the immediate problem. Please provide at least as much detail as Todd has for consideration. Counting on you!
Outsource police, close all but one library, cut other programs and fire city employees to make up the difference.
Unlike Todd, I can feel sad and bitter that these things need to happen because, unlike him, I haven't been obstructing development that would bring much-needed tax dollars at ever turn for as long as anyone can remember.
anon, agree on the PD and library,they're no brainers. The rest is too vague. I'd add we should combine pricy $150K dept heads like DPW and Planning, raise every fee and rent to market rate, don't cut other programs yet but continue consolidation/regionalization where possible-why not PB&R with another city, and most importantly continue to hammer those union contracts and get results or get rid of the negotiators. Those contracts, particularly the fine print re benefits and pensions, hold the key for staying out of trouble in the future... Hope we have one of those as a city.
We could have covered the hills with houses and it wouldn't have made F@@@all difference.
There is no way to keep up with the quantum leaps in public employee compensation since 1999. No way.
Why doesn't the city find some Jews to do its negotiating??
Steve Sinai said...
Why doesn't the city find some Jews to do its negotiating??
You have GOT to be kidding me. This blog has reached a disgusting new low.
how dare any of you think about cutting PB&R they dont get paid near enough what they do for the kids of pacifica period. I am going to be at that meeting and i say city employees should make a hell of a lot less. We also value our seniors. The city employees need to recognized that they are not worth the money they are getting paid.
Anon @ 7:01PM, The motivation behind my idea is to keep all of our employees on the job without cutting services. The saving in payroll will do that. Rather than throw employees under the bus a simple scaled reduction plan will keep them all employed. If they want to quit there are tens of thousands of qualified folks to replace them. I do not believe there is an alternative solution out there that addresses our "revenue" issue which is, as stated in the above opinion piece, a payroll issue, as fairly and easily as a simple scaled reduction program does.
Steve Sinai said...
Why doesn't the city find some Jews to do its negotiating??
Why doesn't the city find some Negroes to be its slaves?
The kids don't need all those services. They have the hills and beach. Ferchissakes! I managed to grow up without some low-paid babysitter. Get real and find another job. YOU CAN DO IT!
I'm Jewish.
Todd, your idea has some merit but most city employees are covered by Union contracts that will not agree with the idea. Many have already given cutbacks of some type so additional reduction in salary is doubtful.
There is no more money to pay these unsustainable public pensions. So therefore we are going to have to raise the debt ceiling once again because a minority of americans refuse to compromise and collect outrageous pensions and benefits while the majority slowly lose what little wealth and freedoms we have left. What will you do?
In a scathing letter sent to Barack Obama this morning, Senator Marco Rubio said that under the President’s first term in office, “more and more people have come to believe that America is becoming a deadbeat nation.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48605
I'm black.
You're not. You're white as the fresh-fallen snow.
And you're as Jewish as Barack Obama.
In a scathing letter sent to Barack Obama this morning, Senator Marco Rubio said that under the President’s first term in office, “more and more people have come to believe that America is becoming a deadbeat nation.”
So Pacifica has been turned into a deadbeat city!!
When other people get ripped apart on here Sinai, does nothing.
When Sinai, gets ripped on here he is outraged
Pot Kettle Black???
Hypocrite!!!
I'm not outraged.
I didn't know that Barack Obama is Jewish. I'm impressed.
We are doomed.
"I do not believe there is an alternative solution out there that addresses our "revenue" issue" -- Todd Bray
There have been tons of ways to address our revenue issues that you and the "Keep Pacifica Poor" crowd have continuously obstructed over the years. It's disgusting that you now want to pay for your irresponsibility with the wages of city workers.
Anon @ 3:03PM perhaps if you read the opinion piece above you will have a better understanding of my views.
Okay, I read your silly plan again, and then I thought about you and your buddies' past activities....
It's still disgusting that you now want to pay for your past irresponsibility by digging into the pockets of city workers.
Todd, looks like you've picked up your own personal little attack dog. I don't think your idea has a chance but I think you're sincere and you care. You don't want this city to fail and you're looking for a solution. Good for you!
How 'bout he digs into your pocket, or, is that what he's doin'?
Jeezlouise, not those "potential Pacifica businesses" again.
Bad Todd, Bad Todd.
City leaders and senior staff need to stop thinking in terms of cannibalizing our town to retain their standard of living. The compensation increases that were asked for by our employees and approved during the revenue boom of the real estate bubble simply need to be brought back to levels that reflect our city's post-bubble revenues. That's all that needs to happen. All the drama-queen nonsense by some on council and senior staff needs to stop.
Todd, you sound like a tea party loonie who's only able to focus on one thing, except your obsession is cutting wages instead of cutting taxes. In reality there are going to be lots of cuts to lots of different things. Just think of how much money we'd have to pay our cops or fund the resource center if we hadn't wasted so much on EIRs and consultants to appease environmental extremists like Todd.
I understand we just negotiated some cuts with the unions. Sorry to say it's not enough. Why should programs for the poor suffer when we are still paying ridiculous salaries and benefits to senior staff. Go back to the bargaining table, take away free health care for employee spouses, decrease coverage and increase premiums for employees and cut everyones salary by 10%. If the unions don't like it tell them we're filing for bankruptcy which will cancel all their contracts. We in the real world don't get these benefits. Why should the people WE PAY get them. We're fed up with this crap. Cut cut cut.
Have you people seen what we're paying city employees? It's crazy. Here's the State site that lists pay and benefits for Pacifica employees. Yes cuts have been bade since then but it's not enough. http://lgcr.sco.ca.gov/CompensationDetail.aspx?entity=City&id=11984161400&year=2010&GetCsu=False
Anon (1125), thanks for the link. These wages, particularly for highly skilled professionals, do not look "crazy" to me. And, these wages are probably on the lower side when compared to similar city employees in the county.
Looking for an appropriate scapegoat, try 10 year city council (Vreeland, Digre and DeJarnatt). With knowledge that a balanced city economy was necessary, these 10 year leaders went different direction, namely "our environment is our economy".
Before anyone jump to any conclusions, here is Mary Ann Nihart's response to this same article on Patch:
"Just to complete the facts, these are numbers for 2010. Today, We have no City Attorney. The Planning Director has retired. Plus, these numbers include cafeteria cash and other taxable benefits that are also being eliminated. And, the number over $100,000 are significantly reduced. In the "fat" times, our city general fund budget reached over $31 million plus, now we are at about $25 million, while costs for everything from worker's comp to health care to materials have gone up. We have completed hard fought renegotiations on almost 9 employee contracts with large cuts to benefits that are real money cuts to employees. This year and last begin the implementation of most of these negotiated cuts so the actual figures will not be posted on the state website until the 2011 tax year is audited and reported. Plus, in the "fat" times, the city employed over 200 and now we are in the 150s. Actually, i am not sure about the "fat" times since for about 10 years our city revenue has remained relatively flat. Mr. Bray has made one suggestion, and there are more possibilities or combinations of possibilities on the table. I have not made up my mind on any one course. I seriously am looking forward to hearing from the public both through the survey, as well as on January 11. As a community, we must together work out what is sustainable. See you at the community center, January 11."
Sorry Kathy, but "similar city employees in the county are also having their pay and benefits slashed. This same tiered old argument "that's what the other cities are paying" isn't going to fly anymore.
"Scapegoat"? Excuse me? Salaries and benefits are 70% of our budget. But you and the city choose not to include them in our "options". to make cuts. The city council is protecting senior staff because that's what they do.
Kathy says "These wages, for highly skilled professionals, do not look "crazy"
Really? In this economy? Pacifica cops making $120K+, Supervisors $160K, Sewer Plant worker $130K, Really? Really? Really?
If these "professionals" don't like the cuts to their exorbitant pay and benefits then there are plenty of qualified skilled unemployed professionals who would love to take their place.
And Kathy I agree about Vreeland, Digre and DeJarnatt. But I strongly disagree about cutting salaries and benefits. The city can't afford these high paid employees anymore.
Bankruptcy is not my first choice of actions to take. I would only go there if all other alternatives fail. Bankruptcy is costly, comes with no guarantees on the outcome and has long term negative impacts on the community.
If you just look at the salaries alone, I don't think they're crazy, especially considering that much of their income comes from working overtime. My gripe is with city employees, mostly police and fire, who have an unjustifiably generous package of salary, benefits, pensions, and early retirement opportunities.
I also was scratching my head upon seeing so many child care aids working for the city.
While I find it ironic that someone who opposes economic development is trying to pin the blame for the city's ills on its employees, rather than acknowledging his own role in creating the crisis - I've always thought Todd's basic idea on reducing compensation made logical sense. My income dropped 25% over the last few years. Todd's suggestion isn't all that onerous.
"All the drama-queen nonsense by some on council and senior staff needs to stop."
I'm assuming the term "some on council" refers to Digre, Vreeland, and DeJarnatt, since they were the ones who approved the compensation packages for city employees long before Nihart and Stone were ever on council.
Hmmm my comment was never posted?
I merely said it is ridiculous to say that these salaries are acceptable in these times. And to use the old "that's what the other cities are paying" is not going to cut it anymore.
If city employees don't like it there are plenty of unemployed skilled professionals that would be happy for any pay check.
I removed a comment referencing frogs, snakes and pockets because it came off as a personal attack. That's the only comment that's been removed/not posted in the last few days.
Sorry Anon (1243), probably the same as (130). Oh well, you just twisted my commentary, shame on you. And, I never said that union contracts and benefits shouldn't reviewed-- that is what's happening because the city is broke. (Maybe too little too late).
I stand by my comment that the 10 year city council majority (Vreeland, Digre, DeJarnatt) are accountable for this city's financial fiasco. They skipped all the significant economic opportunities, faked a true city cash reserve, and so many other safeguards. Finally, they gifted us (our city) with more than 60% permanent, unproductive "empty space" (ultimate city structural disaster). So, their 2004/05 city council approved "Cash in lieu of benefits" health plan option is just "small change" by comparison.
The Ian Butler (1225) re-post of MaryAnn's statement on Patch is worth rereading. Thanks Ian!
Ian,
your pasting of Mary Ann's comment underlines a lot of fiscal issues. Mary Ann asserts, "We have completed hard fought re-negotiations on almost 9 employee contracts with large cuts to benefits that are real money cuts to employees, " but doesn't give a dollar amount to that statement.
Mart Ann's defusion, or attempt at defusion by pointing out the figures I quote from the city's own compensation sheets, "Are numbers for 2010," does not detract from the fact those wages were paid out.
As Mary Ann rightfully states my idea is one idea. Personally I think it is the only idea that is fair. This insistence by senior staff and some council members like Mary Ann that we must somehow cannibalize our town or accept new taxes lacks commitment. However as she is a public employee also I understand her empathy for her fellow public professionals at the peoples expense.
Our city's revenue issue, to me, is a payroll issue. Nothing more, nothing less
Council Person Mary Ann Nihart said "We have completed hard fought renegotiations on almost 9 employee contracts with large cuts to benefits that are real money cuts to employees. This year and last begin the implementation of most of these negotiated cuts so the actual figures will not be posted on the state website until the 2011 tax year"
Then why isn't the City, or budget committee or City Council provide us with actual numbers of what we are paying workers now? Exactly what did we cut already? Why is this such a secret?
I believe because it will show these cuts were not nearly enough.
I hope they have this information at the meeting or there's going to be many angry people.
There are numerous revenue options and numerous ways to cut expenses. You've just fixated with bizarre OCD intensity on what will be one of the most difficult to implement, given the realities of union contracts. On top of that, you're basing all of your numbers on the ones BEFORE THE CITY ALREADY MADE SALARY CUTS.
Yeah Anon 457, lets not mess with the unions. That is so hard to do. Lets cut from the poor people using the Recourse Center. Lets cut senior and children services.
But don't you dare try to make REAL cuts to city employees that are still being over compensated even AFTER some phony negotiations last year designed to take the heat off the City Councils buddies taking all our cash.
It's amazing to see how adamant people are that this not even be discussed.
(Calls up Vallejo for instructions on how to get out of union contracts)
From the excerpt of Ms. Nihart's letter it seems the city has been successful in cutting benefits not actual salaries...otherwise I'm sure we'd hear about that "success" as well. The benefit cuts are staggered over several years and future contracts which not only make them easier for unions to present to their members but greatly dilute any cost-savings for the city. Cutting out cafeteria cash is significant and long overdue but it will result in real savings only if those taxable benefit dollars are not available to spend on traditional benefits. That's why those contracts are so important.
As far as head count...how many FT benefited positions have been cut/lost? That's where the big recurring dollars are spent, not on ten PTers whose jobs were eliminated 2 years ago. Haven't we filled the Planning Director job? Yes. Have we retained outside counsel to replace the city attorney? Yes, though at least we don't pay any benies on that one. Could numbers be made available now to show the public where we stand on a year to year payroll comparison of 2010 and 2011. Of course. Even in Pacifica. Call them raw, unaudited, whatever, but unless this city can't even run a payroll function, those numbers are available. What's the trend? And what about the elephant in the corner of the room, retirement benefits? Have we made any progress, or even begun, creating a second tier of benefits for new hires union by union? Now that would be real news because the burden of retiree benefits is going to keep us broke all by itself no matter what we develop in 5 or 10 years. Frankly, from the excerpt above it would seem there is very little good news for Pacifica. If this is what the city has accomplished so far then it is very clear that we are going to have to make serious longterm cuts and changes to services and pay more taxes to keep afloat. Demonizing the employees is just a distraction from the real problem created during the "good years" with plush pensions and benefits. Those union contracts hold the key to our survival as a city. Feel better? Right.
Getting the unions to give back or cut is tough but it's being done all over the country every day. Tell me about real cuts and give backs and spare us the council spin. I'm willing to pay more if I know that we're making the real changes. Need results not a hug.
The city made salary cuts? Which unions? What are the projected savings?
"I'm willing to pay more if I know that we're making the real changes."
Ditto.
Real changes! Like cutting a check for $50,000 in October for a trail on Pedro Point for regional use, AND, taking responsibility for maintaining that trail. How can council dare come to us for tax increases and how dare they talk about cutting library services while funding a feel good project for Vreeland!
Sinai, you and pay don't belong in the same conversation..ya cheap skate!!
Vreelander needs a couple feel good projects and pet projects for his "hippie & surfer" base.
I'm willing to pay more too if REAL cuts were made:
But Council is not providing us with any numbers for how much the unions gave up.
Here's some of what got us into this mess:
Mechanic - $74,929
Child Care Supervisor - $96,563
Food Service Supervisor - $88,504
Child Care Coordinator - $73,390
Tree Trimmer - $65,380
Van Driver - $60,980
Police Officer - $142,869
Sewer Plant worker - $161,569
Fireman -$135,442
Fire Chief - $179.842
Police Chief - $164,395
City Planner - $212,760
And on and on and on
80+ paychecks over $100,000
Plus over a million in health premiums
What are the numbers now? We don't know. Council won't tell us other than to say, "we made big cuts"
If Pacifica government were a company what would our product be? Jobs or services? Is the City here to provide high paying jobs and benefits? Or is it here to provide services to the people? The answer is obvious.
So as a company in crisis do we stop providing key services to our citizens and preserve jobs and pay levels? Or do we cut payroll in ways that we still keep our workforce but at a much reduced cost and continue to serve the people?
Why do we need a planning department?
Get rid of all the employees, and put a big sign on the door to their office that says "NO!" Then people will waste less time going through the planning permit dance.
Sure Anon (1120) generally when you need a professional (such as a Doctor for surgery), why not insist on the cheapest one. On the other hand, Anon (1129) may have the best plan, (and possibly the big "NO" Planning Department sign can be posted by the last employee out-the-door).
Personally, I'm willing to pay temporary higher taxes ONLY with a genuine, significant economic development strategy and plan out of this 10 year ongoing, declining city financial shortfall. Structural city change is a detail missing from the City Financial "Tax" Force.
Remember the citizen "Strategic Plan"? That was another citizen busy-work joke (adopted 2/14/06, updated 3/07). From the "Five year community vision statement" page 2. "Pacifica will be economically and ecologically vibrant, fiscally sound and community focused, and a beautiful, desireable and safe coastal community in which to live, work, play or conduct business." 5 years later, still waiting.
City of Pacifica including City Councilmembers, push the NIMBYS aside, and fix the city financial problem. Faking it is no longer viable (of course it never was).
Haha Kathy you're really equating a surgeon with van drivers, janitors, cops and bureaucrats? Nice stretch.
Do you work for the city?
This is the old mindset. "We can't break union contracts" We'll lose workers if we pay them less".
Now all across the county cities are drastically cutting contracts won by greedy unions. This isn't the 80's anymore. Cities are going bankrupt because of these suffocating union contracts. It is causing the poor to suffer from program cuts and it can't go on anymore.
I feel bad for the workers but we're all in the same boat. Almost everyone I know has had a big reduction in pay and benefits over the past few years. Most people don't even get their own health care premiums paid for let alone their spouse and dependents.
It is time to bring public union contracts more in line with what the average worker gets. The average worker in San Mateo County makes around $41,000 a year plus they pay a large potion of their own healthcare and all of their spouses and kids premiums. They can't retire until 67 and they contribute most of the money to their own retirement. They also get no health coverage from their company after retirement and must go on Medicare.
The City worker (who we pay) can retire at 55 (50 for cops), makes an average of $65,000 a year, gets free health care for themselves, spouse and dependents which continues for life.
Is this fair?
Kathy, the financial problem is a payroll problem.
The raises that were asked for and granted during the housing bubble need to be brought back to levels that reflect our post bubble revenue realities. Senior staff, department heads, fire and police know they are making more than the city can afford yet because of whatever sense of entitlement they have toward their jobs and compensation deals they are seemingly more that ready to cannibalize our community to retain their standard of living at everyone else's expense.
Nimby's, Yessies or Teabaggers have nothing to do with it. Neither does your vision of economic viability. Right now- right here, the issue is purely one of payroll.
Folks, your city is working on the problem and they love you bunches. Isn't that and lame excuses, busy work diversions,teary apologies, and carefully crafted half-truths (probably some quarters too)enough for you people? Big cuts have been made, uh, you know to uh something uh benefits. Yes, that's it. Benefits have been cut. No, we have no details to show you because um well we hoped we could grin ya and spin ya. It's always worked before and we've got some experts.
Todd, you repeating something hundreds of times does not make it true. Cutting salaries is one of numerous options.
If the city provided specific dollar amounts that salaries and benefits had been cut and it was 10% or more, would you then agree that more salary and benefits cuts are not the way to go?
Didn't think so.
Pointless discussion.
At anon 259
No, cutting salaries is Not an option. At least not one offered to us by the City (so far).
Todd is right, we need to severely cut wages & benefits. But I can see how this irks the "old guard" types.
Recipe for city solvency:
1. Cut salaries (Todd's suggestion is as good a strating point as any)
2. Cut retirement benefits (just talked to someone who retired after 30 years at Intel Corp. All they got was a 6 month Cobra for healthcare and whatever they had in their 401k. That's all folks...)
3. Departmental cuts (15% across the board - unconditional)
4. Outsource everywhere you can (City attorney, IT, planning, police, fire, etc.)
5. Hire a City Manager with history of successful downsizing
6. Learn to say "No" to the extreme environmentalists who care more about their ideology than whether this city circles the drain
7. Bankruptcy. If all else fails, this is the only way to get a do-over with respect to our suffocating union contracts and unfunded liabilities
Todd (205), in this city we have been lied to, and misdirected. And the primary long-term financial failure is NIMBY based. That is perfectly clear in this city.
However, your graded 1% for 10,000 payroll haircut plan is both smart and interesting, although it might not be appropriate immediately where union contracts are in place.
Anon (156), the median household income in San Mateo county was $84,678 according to the 2009, US Census.
I think most people understand its best to have qualified, smart people running a city, particularly in a lean city such as this one-- and in key positions such as sewer engineers, maintenance, police, fire, accountants, etc. I also wish the city employee who chopped-in-half the city tree (down the street in my neighborhood) had been more qualified in trimming or taking down the tree altogether.
Medicare is an earned benefit plan for those who have worked and/or paid into social security (private or government). Its good and cheap, see bottom of page 2 from the Social Security Administration.. However, you bring up a good point for another discussion, the gradual 30 year imbalance between government and private benefits. Its not just that government benefits should be reduced, but that private and social security benefit guarantees should be increased.
@ Kathy,
I said " The average worker in San Mateo County makes around $41,000"
You said the median HOUSEHOLD income is $84,687.
And paying more to workers does not equate to better service. Just ask Enron, Countywide or Bernie Madoff
Anon (408) okay, here's the official 2010 4th quarter average weekly wage for San Mateo County. That is $1,564 weekly x 52 weeks = $81,328. Per employee, that is even better than the household census income profile (2009).
Where are you getting your information? You gave no reference. But then, you have no name.
Todd's plan, if it weren't being put forward by Todd Bray, would have a lot more backers. Absent the warm fuzzy image of the workers saving the farm, it isn't anything more than the contractual pay rate cut the city has been unable to obtain. I say they haven't cut actual pay rates because they claim to have negotiated millions of dollars in cuts to benefits but make no claims about cutting salaries. Cutting jobs certainly cuts payroll but it also cuts services for us. And, Todd is correct when he says that is not necessary. Todd's plan hits the part of the target the city missed or hasn't even shot at. Other cities have cut benefits, cut actual pay rates, and made smart changes to retirement plans (the hidden killer of cities).Why not here? And where are the details of what's been cut in benefits? Before and after comparisons?
Most importantly this "across the board wage cut" supported by Bray addresses the problem right now while this city still has a chance. It's a good idea no matter who it came from.
San Jose is doing it, why can't Pacifica?
Anon, your question misleads-- Much like the info put out by the city on what's been cut. "Cuts to salaries and benefits" is a meaningless phrase without details. Did we cut pay rates to reduce salaries or did we reduce the head count? Big difference and reducing head counts is the city taking the easy way out at the expense of services. Not ok. Cutting benefits sounds good but here again just what was cut and what wasn't, and for how long and is it really a cut or just moving the beans to another pile? Show me where Joe City made less in 2011 compared to 2010 and his benefits cost the city less and I start to believe. Show me further dollar reductions in 2012 and I'm going to your church.
And let's make sure none of these "hard fought"
pay cuts and benefit reductions aren't being negotiated to be quietly offset by some improvement to the already juicy retirement scheme to be collected at a later date. This bullshit happens all the time. The negotiators can't even take a bow because they're snickering so much.
Kathy your stats are wrong. Here's the census info
Per capita income (dollars) 40,383
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanMateoCounty.htm
Per capita money income in past 12 months (2009 dollars) 2005-2009 $39,369 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0654806.html
You're dreaming if you think the average income is anywhere near $80,000+. You don't get out much do you? We're in a recession. Unemployment in CA is over 10%. You're kidding right?
You do understand the difference between "median" and "per capita" income?
How can you say the "household income is $84,678 then turn around and think that individual income is $81,328? Does that make sense to you?
"San Jose is doing it, why can't Pacifica?"
San Jose has a mayor who is held accountable for the budget. In Pacifica, accountability is spread across five people, so nobody feels any urge to put their neck on the line and make hard decisions.
"Todd's plan, if it weren't being put forward by Todd Bray, would have a lot more backers."
Yep.
Agree Steve. And how can five people come toi the bargaining table with people they work with everyday?
This is the problem with public union negotiations. You have politicians giving sweetheart deals to their friends.
Union contract negotiations need to be a cut throat, adversarial, "you are the enemy" dance.
What we need are the toughest anti union, wage and benefit cutting people possible sitting on a negotiating committee. NOT a city council that has a vested interest.
That's how it works in the real world. And that's why it does't work in government.
I think Todd should have a kiosk at the 11th soiree!
"You do understand the difference between 'median' and 'per capita' income?"
Kathy's stats are going to be more relevant in this case. Per capita income would be total income earned by everyone in the county divided by everyone who lives in the county. So that's going to factor in kids, retirees, unemployed and employed.
Kathy's figure is the average amount that people who actually work earn. $1564/week is likely the mean average, which would be higher than the median average. I'd imagine median income for workers to be around $60K/year.
Anon (603), I'm staying with the "Average Weekly wage" from the US Department of Labor and the 2010 per household income as the gauge of income in San Mateo county.
At 1:56pm (above) you said "The average worker in San Mateo County makes around $41,000 a year." Now you're arguing per capita income from 1999? From that 12 year old ABAG Census, in 1999, median household income was $70,819, median family income was $80,737, per capita income was $40,383, individuals in poverty by number was 40,692." Those impoverished people from 1999 might have included disabled, unemployable, unemployed, illegals, and older citizens that exist in our county. By 2010, from what I'm viewing on ABAG, there was no tracking of "per capita income". Thanks Anon, but don't think I can learn anything from you, other than "attitude" that is.
Thanks for your comment Steve, I might learn something from you.
Median is not "average" Steve. Median is merely half way up a list. It is not the same as average.
The median is the value at which 50% of the observations lie below, and 50% lie below.
Anon@6:56, I'm afraid you're wrong. There are multiple types of averages - mean, median and mode. (And sometimes midpoint.) I will grant you that people typically assume mean when they hear "average."
http://www.gcseguide.co.uk/average.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
I had a lot of stats in college, and lesson #1 was that when someone said "average," you had to find out whether they were referring to the mean, median or mode. (Or sometimes midpoint.)
I believe it's Ritzma and a labor attorney/s of her choice who handle negotiations for the city. A few months ago wasn't there some uproar about the city hiring a union-busting labor attorney? I suppose council isn't involved in details but rather sets the tone for the city's position through the city manager and is then given as much detail as they want on the final contract in those closed sessions prior to the regular council meetings. Other than their remote exposure to collective bargaining on council or as a union member, none of the 5 have any real management/labor background.
I'm sorry if the following can be construed as a personal attack -- the people on this blog are a bunch of complete fucking idiots.
Mary Ann, I apologize for them, for they know not what they do. I recognize that you work hard on the council, just as you do in your day job. I don't think you lead some weird conspiracy to cheat us out of whatever these freaks have come up with this week, and I understand that you are trying to do your best. Please try and ignore the losers who lob grenades at you, but are unwilling to put forth the effort that you do.
This is a "family" blog, Anon. Please watch your language.
Ian's posting of Mary Ann's comments from AOL/Patch include, "And, the number over $100,000 are significantly reduced." The data available to us the public differs from this assurance.
The 2009 compensation sheet sent to the states controller's website has 80 employees earning over $100,000. The 2010 has the same number. The difference between the two years is the number of city employees making over $120,00 which is higher in 2010 as is the number earning over $150,000 a year.
If this up trending is being held back as of this year, good. However it does not address the basic fundamental flaw of too many employees earning too much money for the revenues we bring in.
Some favor taxing our modern conveniences, others our property and others want to chop up our town and out source basic services which is just plain nonsense.
I believe the only way forward that is fair to everyone is a scaled reduction in compensation that brings wages back to pre-boom era levels. It will effect the biggest earners the most but it is much more humane than a simple 10% cut that would be harshest on the smallest earners and that just wouldn't be right.
A 1% wage reduction for every $10,000 earned is the best option, the only option and the fairest option. Senior staff, department heads, fire and police need to step up and be leaders.
I support this idea Todd. But when going into union negotiations it's best to ask for much more than what you actually want. So lets start with a 2% reduction for every $10K. Getting the City and the unions to go along with it would be tough. But if we don't try it will be even tougher.
anon1057pm, Beyond ridiculous. No one is accusing Ms. Nihart of leading a conspiracy. In the excerpt from her posted earlier, she seems to question the "fat" years, ie, the city's surplus. Why? Because she can do the math and it doesn't add up. The people on here can also do the math and they want to make sure it adds up to survival for Pacifica. Asking for the numbers to back up the city's claims of millions of dollars in cuts is not personal and should not be a problem for an elected official. It just really shouldn't.
From the City of Pacific's webpage:
http://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/police/history.asp
On May 27, 1959, the City Council appointed Neil Tremaine as Pacifica’s first Chief of Police, chosen from 86 applicants. He was 34 years old, a former FBI agent and Santa Clara police officer and was presently the Chief of Police for the City of Tracy. His salary was $650 per month.
Next came the selection of nine police officers. Over 600 applications were received for the available positions, which paid $403 per month with no overtime, holiday pay, medical coverage, retirement or equipment allowances.
By 1969, the department had grown to 38 total employees and moved into the old school bus barn at 171 Salada. The salary was now $750 per month.
In 1998, the per-capita cost of this department was approximately $103 per citizen per year, as compared to a California average of $202.
==========
I'd be curious what the adjustments for inflation would be. Ha
So from 1959 to 1969 Pacifica police officers pay went up about $60 per week or about 30%.
Then by 1998 (30 years later) it had gone up 1000% plus they got great free health care and to retire at 50.
Nice negotiating.
Ah the 60's, the good old days. A Pacifica police officer made less than $10,000 a year and the price of a little house in Manor was what? %40,000? My allowance was $2.00 week IF
I didn't give my Mother, teacher and the neighbors any grief. Had to be 3 out of 3. Life was great!
1959 I got my first job. I was 12 years old and went to work for our milkman. He pick me up at 4:A.M. and drop me off at school about 8:00. for twenty hours a week I was paid $12.00 plus milk, eggs and butter for our family. During the summer I work between 50 and 60 hours a week for $35.00. Child labor laws didn't really exist for kids working on farms.
Kathy Meeh said...
here's the official 2010 4th quarter average weekly wage for San Mateo County. That is $1,564 weekly x 52 weeks = $81,328
Kathy, San Mateo County has an abundance of multi millionaires and even billionaires. Atherton is one of the wealthiest cities in the United States with a median home price of $4,010,200. Then you have all the other VERY wealthy cities like Woodside, Emerald Hills, Hillsborough ect..
I think the REAL "average" income in Pacifica, Daly City, South City is probably much much lower than the county average.
You want a medal?
So how did the meeting go?
Pffft.
Post a Comment