From Pacifica Tribue, Letters-to-the-editor, 1/31/12, "Financing city services" by Robert Hutchinson
 |
| City Kool-Aid tastes great! |
All this time I still haven't seen any hard reporting on the subject by the Tribune. How did the city come up with the $3.5 million number? Are they planning on cutting wages and benefits further when many contracts expire in June? If so, how much?
I think we're being railroaded. First the city hurries and negotiates a small 3 percent wage reduction for most union contracts, then they tell us we're in big financial trouble and give us a rigged opinion poll that conveniently leaves out any mention of wages and benefits which is the highest cost to the city. All this time the city is spinning this data into a fabricated $3.5 million in cuts. Anytime someone mentions wage cuts the city has it's pat answers, "we just made cuts" We can't cut too much or people will leave." Really? In this economy?
Have you seen what we're paying city employees? All the numbers are here:
just subtract 3 percent. And this doesn't include pension payments. Plus, we're paying 100 percent of their health insurance for the employee and all dependents. This is where all our money is going. This is why they want to cut programs to the poor and seniors and raise our taxes AGAIN. And it's only going to get worse unless they deal with it now. Speak up and demand they consider what the people want."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
78 comments:
Who is the "Kool Aid" pedaler? The city or the auther Kathy?
The problem continues to be senior staff. Pacifica needs senior staff that understand people. Currently we do not have a city manager that understands people.
I hate to ask this but is there a citizens course of action like a referendum or some such way of ousting a senior staffer? One that would actually result in the dismissal of our current city manager instead of waiting for three council members to wake up and realize the destructive road our senior staff has set the city on?
Honestly, the complete lack of empathy toward residents and city employees coupled with the insecure narcissism of our senior staff exemplified by this finance committee merry-go-round has to be dealt with sooner rather than later.
We have a real problem and it's going to get a lot worse. At least our hold on the title of County Laughingstock is secure.
"We have a real problem and it's going to get a lot worse." (Anon 702)
10 year deterioration. City council 3 have been wielding influence and making decisions for this city 10 years. They are accountable. Some of us thought we were moving into a city, not an "open space".
Anon (557), you might want to see the Patch/Camden Swita Report that Bob Hutchinson (the LTE author) also brought to us, 1/27/12 (scroll down). Employee salary/benefits/pension agreement reductions are more than 3%. This is one reform issue. But, FMV the main reform needed is city economic development-- you know, city cash to pay city bills (including city employees).
I agree Kathy we need more development and in turn revenue will come. But this will take years to bear fruit.
Right now 80% of our budget is employee wages and benefits. Every other city is making major cuts. Oakland just laid off 100 employees. Vallejo filed bankruptcy to get out from under strangling union contracts.
We don't need another bandaid. It's time to amputate.
What % of the budget are employee salaries and benefits in San Bruno? Does anybody know?
Todd, your personal vendetta against Steve Rhodes is getting tiresome. Rhodes is one of the few competent people at City Hall. He's already the lowest paid city manager in the county, and has voluntarily forgone raises for several years.
From what I can tell, your main problem with him is that he's open to economic growth in Pacifica, unlike previous city managers who were perfectly happy to follow the guidance of the no-growth dominated councils of the past.
Yes, some salaries for city workers are too high. But the economic misfortune this town is suffering is a result of a small, vocal group - yourself included, who have gone out of their way to block every chance at economic development this town has been presented with. If not for that, we'd merely be talking about how many police to lay off, rather than whether we should shut down the police department. We'd be talking about whether we should trim 15%-20% from PCT and the Resource Center, rather than cutting them off completely.
Why do you never bitch about Vreeland, Digre or DeJarnatt? They're the long-term, no-growth (i.e., anti-economic development,) council members who made decisions that got us into this mess.
As far as I'm concerned, Rhodes, Nihart and Stone who are the ones trying to clean up the mess caused by the first three.
So how about acknowledging some of your own personal responsibility for the city's current straits?
Steve, growth is great. I'm all for it. But unless we're building the new 49er stadium here, growth is not going to get us out from under the 20 million in bonds we'll soon owe for future pension obligations.
It's not that "some" wages are high. The majority of wages are way too high. And benefits are killing us.
Even if we close this so called 700K a year gap that's not going to keep our books balanced. We need to cut the over inflated wages and benefits we're paying.
And also approve new development.
I do also agree that Vreeland, Digre and DeJarnatt have caused our city to be in this hot mess.
I hope they attempt a recall of at least Vreeland.
I'm not against cutting wages and pensions, Hutch. I'm making about 25% less than I was a few years ago, and nobody provides me a pension. I just don't think Rhodes is the person who got us into the mess, and it's unfair and annoying to see anyone blame him.
Especially when the person doing the blaming is one of the people who very actively supported the policies and politicians that bear much of the responsibility for the financial hole we're in.
Rhodes didn't know he'd be working with loons in a town that defies explanation. If he doesn't bail soon he may end his career in this mess. Run, don't walk, Steve. Leave the bozos with Ritzma in charge. She's scary.
In answer to Todd's question about "ousting senior staffers",
the city council hires and fires the city manager and the city attorney. Those are the only positions they have any control over. The city manager is responsible for hiring and firing any other city staffers.
Steve, You probably haven't looked at the numbers - there is no way that filling the hills and valleys with houses or whatever would come close to paying for the promises made to city workers. The full effects of the contracts signed in 2007-08 have yet to be felt in the budget process. It won't be long now.
Strip mining all over the hills and a boardwalk at LM Beach would have done less damage to this city than these labor contracts will do. A lot of them were pre-meltdown but not all and the fools are still signing them. Still.
Bankruptcy, baby. Place your bets on when. Win a trip to our new sister city, Vallejo. No expenses paid and travel during daylight hours only.
We need a casino. Nice, self-contained casino in the quarry.
The anti progress folks shot down a casino proposal on Mori Point.
And then worked to give the land away to GGNRA.
Steve, get out a little more often. It will do you good. We differ on our opinion of Steve to be sure but it doesn't have to do with what you think of as pro development. Perhaps you could change the lens you see through and we could discuss this in person? We also differ on our views of Len and Mart Ann.
Steve I'm not blaming Steve Rhodes for anything you feel is wrong with this city. We all see the financial issue in our own way and the way Rhodes perceives it is not productive. It's a personality issue for me. I do not think Steve has the right mind set for our town.
As a contrast Bill Norton was an awesome interim city manager and to add to that I didn't have a problem with David Carmany and was very upset by his ouster. Manhatten Beach is fortunate to have him.
The cleaning up you seem to think is happening is what I see as a dismantling. Steve and Ann lack the personalities necessary to move our city forward without destroying it in the process. And there is no greater example than that yellow card and finance committee game show a the community center followed by Steve's behavior at the follow up finance committee meeting. Steve sees only one solution, make everyone pay.
Steve Rhodes does not have the right mind for our town to move forward without dismantling in the process.
Has Bray ever answered a question??
tick tock tick tock?
We're never all going to agree on everything. But it seems we all do agree about these chocking union contracts. So can we put aside our differences and stick together on this?
I don't really know any of you. But I do know Todd. Steve and Lionel have all agreed about this one thing.
Maybe if we actually stick together on this, the outcome will be different than in the past.
And I understand how you feel Steve. Peter Loeb turns my stomach. He has fought every progress and project in the past 20 years. But if you notice Peter Loeb is FOR raising our taxes (see Riptide) and against messing with his buddies pay checks in the city.
So I would say Peter Loeb is the opposision, not Todd.
Todd Bray said: "...and to add to that I didn't have a problem with David Carmany and was very upset by his ouster. Manhatten Beach is fortunate to have him."
Todd, you have to be called out on this one. Back in 2002 time frame, when Council majority of Vreeland, Dejarnatt, Digre and Lancelle were
illegally firing Carmany, your silence was deafening. No Letter to the Editior from you. No appearance by you at the special City Council meeting announcing Carmany's firing (even though dozens appeared on his behalf). In point of fact, you were too busy waving your pom poms for the aforementioned City Counicl members. Likewise you were too busy trying to undermine their recall which was largely based upon their illegal, cruel and unusual treatment of Carmany. In fact, you were City Council's biggest enabler, next to John Curtis, in the firing of Carmany. You have a lot of nerve making such an outrageous claim! You have lost all credibility.
"..the way Rhodes perceives it is not productive." Cancel that idea.
Todd (650), it could be your cross-perception of no growth vs. growth that gets in the way of viewing the body of work from Steve Rhodes, our city general manager. Those of us that view Steve Rhodes as a positive, pragmatic consensus agent (speaking for myself), think he has done the best job he can, given this city's financially unbalanced, stacked-deck. And, such actions as YOU proactively poisoning Swenson Builders' against viewing quarry ownership and development can't have helped YOUR relationship with Steve Rhodes and senior city staff.
After all these years, there is some movement toward Beach Boulevard planning and development, and Councilmembers Vreeland and DeJarnatt have moved-off their desire to build ocean front City Hall. A City inquiry to partner with the quarry financial owner for regulations compliance occurred. That may not have worked (I don't know), but it was an innovative and positive effort. A dog park is finally being built, partnering with a lot of dedicated volunteer citizens. Most cities have dog parks paid by their city. FMV, Steve Rhodes continues to explore "best practice" possibilities.
Along with neglected maintenance, staff deficiencies, and fighting over land and cash distribution scraps, a reasonable alternative again "to save the (no growth) city" is to raise revenue through higher fees and taxes. One thing we probably agree on, we are not in favor of raising taxes. However, I would be in favor of raising taxes if the tax increase were joined with a clear path to significant, sustainable economic development.
I think it's about the donuts.
Mart Ann? Tot Bray!
Hutch, you say you know Todd, but if you think he's some kind of polar opposite to Peter, I'm going to have to say you don't. Both men have spent years fighting any attempt at development that might bring desperately-needed tax dollars into Pacifica. The only difference that I've ever seen is that one wants city workers to pay for their economic irresponsibility and the other wants all Pacificans to pay.
I actually said I don't know Todd.
But I do know that no amount of developing would have covered the over extended outrageous pensions, benefits and salaries we're paying to city employees.
We don't want "city workers to pay for it all" we want to stop paying them amounts we can not afford. And it doesn't matter what other cities are paying. We are probably the poorest city in San Mateo County.
At least Todd sees that. So for me he's on my side.
Ummm, actually you said "I don't really know any of you. But I do know Todd."
Perhaps it makes it easier for you guys to concentrate if you just focus on one thing, but you and Todd need to open your eyes a little. Every dollar of revenue equals a dollar we wouldn't need to cut. That takes long-term thinking and this has now become a short-term problem, but we could have definitely solved many of our problems with some sensible development if people like Todd had not obstructed it.
Oh Anon 626, clever taking my statement out of context.
I said "I don't really know any of you. But I do know Todd. Steve and Lionel have all agreed about this one thing."
Nice try, but I've never met Todd, don't know him but I do agree with him about cutting employee wages and benefits.
I understand folks think I had something to do with stopping quarry development. This is not accurate. I campaigned to stop housing in the quarry, nothing more, nothing less. In the end I had but one vote to cast during two ballot measures, Measure E and Measure L. Neither ballot measure represented a development. A proposal can not be formally submitted to the city, legally, until the property has been deemed "reclaimed" by the state mining board.
There was an EIR for Measure E but it was a program EIR not a project EIR.
Sorry folks but to date neither I, Peter, PSD or any other person on your various hate lists has fought a development in the quarry. There has never been a real honest to God proposed development for that site because the property must first be reclaimed which, by the way, must go through a full environmental review and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) process all it's own.
These are truths. It's been flattering to read all your groaning uninformed hate mail day in and day out but there has never been a proposal for the quarry property to fight, just a couple of ballot measures to approve housing.
Oh good grief here we go with another rehash. It's the Pacifica curse. Make it stop!
Thanks for that Todd.
Now everyone can we talk about whats going on now. The past is over. I don't agree with Todd about the Quarry project, but that's over.
Todd, stop with the rhetorical BS. I know you well enough to know what your views are, and they're anti-development.
Very few people who oppose economic development in Pacifica admit that outright, because they know they'd look obstructionist. Therefore, they say they want "appropriate" or "sustainable" development. Of course, nothing proposed ever meets their definition of "appropriate" or "sustainable."
Or they say they're just opposed to a particular aspect of a project, knowing full well that if that aspect isn't allowed to go forward, the project dies.
@Todd: Instead of playing word games, learn to take accountability for your actions.
@Hutch: Learn to punctuate.
what's?
@Anon (833), well, well, aren't you a "piece of work" hiding under anonymous, while criticizing or "correcting" others for not measuring-up to your version of "perfect" reality.
Regardless of Todd's stated neutral view vs. his anti-growth actions, he does use his own name, you don't. Duh! Hutch communicates with issues he believes are important, and we all seem to be engaged with what he is saying (except for you on this comment of course).
And you, why are you concerned about the accountability and punctuation perfection of others when you, yourself are not accountable by name? You care about such details as language punctuation on comments, whereas others care about timely issues and ideas where all should welcome. Chilling!
You tell em Kathy. Was that "Piece of work" a hint to their identity? :)
Hutch, fortunately I made a typo on the 9:29am comment, not uncommon for me. "...others care about timely issues and ideas where all should be welcome."
Needless to say, language skills are relative, and secondary to information and the conversation. Further, I have a definite bias against petty attack comments. "Piece of work", definition #2 from the Urban Dictionary looks pretty good.
@Kathy: I'll make up a name if it makes you feel better.
Ad hominem attacks are used when people are incapable of refuting the logic of a position and instead resort to attacking the person who made it. I'm guessing that means you cannot deny the fact that Todd and the other NIMBYs have direct culpability when it comes to Pacifica's financial problems.
Again. All the development in the world wouldn't have protected us from being severely over extended. It is due to the unsustainable wages and benefits, not from non development.
I voted for the Quarry Project and was sad to see us miss out on that opportunity.
That said we de need to start approving projects. I hope the planned hotel and restaurant on Beach Blvd clears all the hurdles.
Folks, for whatever reason you feel the need to point fingers you must remember there has never been a proposed development for the quarry, just votes to allow housing.
As we all know housing does not pay for itself so by opposing housing in the quarry (something that would have required tens of millions of tax payer dollars to fund) I have been responsible for maintaining the city's financial health.
Meanwhile all you self professed pro growthers who supported E and L have been clamoring, unbeknownst to yourselves, for further tax payer debt and financial ruination of our town. Anyone of you who supported measures E and L were fiscally reckless and financial irresponsible while I was the opposite, fiscally sensible and financial responsible.
This is the truth, if you can handle it.
Really? Do you understand what "all the development in the world" means? You sound like one of those people who uses the word "literally" all the time, without apparently understanding what it means.
We probably need to cut salaries, particularly since it's our best short term, but there are lots of other ways to solve our financial mess. Being randomly dogmatic about one solution versus others is just silly.
Todd (1234), ur, we all live here and understand the anti-growth effort that has financially crippled this city. And, it doesn't matter how many times some of you say there was "no plan" to develop the quarry twice, it isn't true. The preliminary studies and the ballot measures were part of "the plan" (or proposal) twice (2002), 2006).
Gosh, even the General Plan (passed by the city, but without actual development) is "a plan". And, the 1980's city council requirement of a "vote of the people" if even one house is built on the 88 quarry acres was "a plan". Some could say the Rockaway Development Committee to "welcome developers" which included John Curtis and Dina Verby (Chair) was also a plan.
Tom (1247), nothing new, this city needs to promote growth. Alternatively, we have experienced many years of city services cut-back. Larger development projects have more financial and service destination potential and efficiencies. That would include Beach Boulevard to a lesser extent, and the quarry to a larger extent. Otherwise, (excluding 60% permanent "open space"), outside in-fill property additions and building replacement, there isn't much Pacifica land left to develop.
Tom Brady, Welcome to Pacifica. Perfect place to hide. Pacificans understand crushed hopes and dreams. Hey, wanna buy an old quarry?
Promote growth? Absolutely, but while we're waiting on Haley's Comet how about promoting good local government? This inept reponse to our financial meltdown is shameful. Where's the transparency, the due diligence, the honesty, the backbone to do the right thing?
Who the hell do you think you work for?
YEAH!!!
Right on Annon 4:07!!!!
This STINKS! It smells. It ain't Kosher. Not copasetic, ya know?
It's a flim flam. A bamboozle I tell you.
We're not going to take it no more!
This won't stand!
Off with their heads (figuratively)
They roll shameless. Haven't you noticed? It will continue til we file bankruptcy...which will be so hard on them. Big hugs all around.
Wow! anon@506 is channeling Rodney Dangerfield. It would take a dead comedian to find the humor in this situation. Aww, but I do wish Council had a court jester to go with all the other lackeys and apologists.
I'm sorry reality is not your thing Kathy et al. Good night!
Apparently in Todd's reality, he's pissed. Come back, Todd, come back.
The half cent sales tax measure is a band-aid to allow the City to continue to provide valuable services, while at the same time increase its reserves. All employee unions, during their last contract negotiations have frozen salaries and given many concessions, which have resulted in over a million dollar savings to the City. Salaries will continue to remain frozen and employees will be looked at for further concessions. You can't expect employees to shoulder the burden in one contract, it will take time, but it is occuring.
The sheriff's office is more expensive. Search the website for a copy of the San Carlos contract and you will see that the deputies total compensation is much more than your Pacifica Police Officers. The only way to do it cheaper is to give up things in the police department. There is not much to give up to begin with, so make your decision wisely. There are 35 full-time sworn police officer positions and 4 full-time non sworn and 2 part-time non-sworn positions. Do you really want to lose local control of your law enforcement, the historical and institutional knowledge that they have from the many years of service many of the police personnel have given to the City, while being one of the lowest paid agencies in the County?
Baloney! We don't have control of our police dept, the unions do and have had for some time. The city of Pacifica is no match for them. Any honest and unbiased analysis of the costs of the sheriffs vs the PD must include all costs not just base salaries. Base salaries are not the whole story and you know it. Contracting with the sheriffs can eliminate that gravy train of OT, provide more resources and opportunities for officers, greatly reduce the huge operating, admin and facility expenses. A multi-year contract would give us real control over a huge budget item and it could include hiring-back local officers.
This has worked in other cities and it will work here if we only have the backbone and the intelligence to go for it. The real savings are substantial.
"Gravy train of overtime". Obviously, you don't understand how the system works...let me educate you. Each annual budget has overtime built into it. It is a necessary evil unfortunately. When officers have to go to court on their time off, or when officers are mandated to work while others are sick or on vacation, the positions need to be covered. This in many cases is done with overtime. Trust me, even the Sheriff's Office has overtime. In fact, if you verify your information before speaking, you will see that one of the highest paid deputies in the Sheriff's Office made over $80,000 in overtime! It's on the web...look it up. No Pacifica Police Officer made anywhere near this figure. I don't mind disagreeing and having different points of view as long as you are doing it with factual information.
Ha, so you're telling me that every officer and almost every employee just happens to work the mx overtime?
Ha, it is not a necessary evil. How is it we have more officers than we had 5 years ago but they are working more overtime?
The city manager needs to put a moratorium on ALL overtime until we get this figured out.
Again, you are mistating facts. Five years ago the department had 53 employees. Today it has 40. You can't operate without overtime. No agency, whether it is the sheriff's office or any other agency, can operate without an overtime budget. In some cases, it is cheaper to pay overtime than to hire another employee to decrease overtime, because you will then need to pay benefits to the new employee. Again, I don't mind not agreeing, but let's make it factual.
"let's make it factual." " Five years ago the department had 53 employees"
Really? I said officers we have more "OFFICERS" now than 5 years ago, you said employees. Can you show us any numbers that prove we had more officers 5 years ago?
Of course city employees are going to fight an overtime freeze tooth and nail. That's 1/4 or more of their income.
Looks like the police campaign for the sales tax measure is underway. This town doesn't need another band-aid, another tax and it doesn't need its own police department if an excellent alternative is available with the county at substantially less cost. An alternative that could include many of our current personnel. This city needs to perform an honest, unbiased and comprehensive analysis of contracting with the Sheriff's Department asap and make the results public. More importantly, we need to start making smart decisions based on what we can afford while we still have the opportunity. We're still not serious about our situation.
I have no great allegiance to the local police or the sheriff's dept. I think either one can do the job. And contracts can be written to address specific concerns. And carefully spun arguments and defenses can go on ad nauseum. For me it's which one of these qualified organizations can do the job cheaper? That's what I want to know because I'm not voting for another tax to pay for something we can't afford. That nonsense is the kind of stupidity that has put us all in this position.
The lower-ranking officers would do fine with the sheriff's dept. and they know it. It's the supervisors who'd have a problem. But most of those guys can retire and collect their pensions of well over $100,000 per year and then use their contacts to consult, etc. and make more. Of course expect the entire PD will be united as they campaign in front of safeway.
Just a suggestion PPD and supporters, lose the arrogance and condescension in your tutorials. You're not fooling anyone with your facts and spin and that kind of attitude towards people who pay your salary isn't very smart.
I actually agree with whoever it is defending the police department on their overtime policies. From what I can tell, lots of overtime is very typical for any police department - not just Pacifica's. It's cheaper to have the current police work overtime than to hire more police.
The problem I have is that they have salaries and benefits that are comparable or better than private sector salaries AND get a good pension. People who don't get pensions resent paying increased taxes so that government employees do.
There's definitely something out of whack. Big salaries, plush benies and fat pensions. I really don't want to pay for it anymore.
Wouldn't OT be less with a larger pool of employees to schedule from-as with the county-and couldn't that concern be part of a contract? Pacifica's seems excessive but not unusual for small town police department. It's a dinosaur and faces extinction.
Public employee unions, includng police and fire, are just too powerful. Work rules, benefits, wages, pensions do not reflect the economic realities the rest of the workforce and the taxpayers deal with daily.
I have no confidence in Pacifica's ability to handle the unions. None.
Another reason to contract out police services to the county.
there are big non-labor costs involved in having a local police force.
those costs are spread over multiple cities when contracting with the county.
could save big$$$$$
I am actually leaning more towards outsourcing the police to the sheriff. It really does seam we are unable to control Pacifica PD. Maybe that is the way to go.
^ seem
Hutch..."just the facts" please. You continue to make blatant comments that are not corroborated or factual. Where do you get your information? Do you spend any time attempting to get accurate information or do you expect everyone else to do the research and provide it for you. The information is out there. All you have to do is look.
The Pacifica Police had 53.5 employees five years ago, 40 of those were sworn police officers, which is five more than today.
I am not here to argue with you, just to point out the facts. You continue to condemn the police department, but not based on factual and legitimate arguments. Go to the web and pull the contract between the Sheriff's Office and San Carlos and then tell me who gets paid more?
Steve, you seem to get it more so than most. Think back 10-15 years ago when the private sector, especially the dot.com'ers were rolling in money. The public sector didn't benefit from that, they continued along. Yes, the public sector salaries and benefits aren't bad, bud they have muddled along in the middle during the private good times and bad times. Now that there is this recession, the public sector is under the magnifying glass. They have a good pension, but pay into their pension, at least in Pacifica's case. Private sector employees have the right to pay into 401K's, IRA's, etc. Most employers in the private sector offer some form of medical. The public sector years ago was paid by the employer, but now the employee pays more than ever before in the City of Pacifica.
Things ARE changing for the public sector employees where they are paying more out of their own pockets for benefits and pension, but you can't reasonably expect that to all happen in one or two years. I think you will see a drastic difference over the next five years. The question will be, at what cost? Will it be more difficult to recruit quality and qualified individuals into those public sector positions?
@ Anon 958, Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Can you show us where you got those numbers from?
I am not "condemning" the police or any other city employees. We need a strong police force. We just can't afford paying 120-150K+ salaries anymore.
Can you show us where you found that overtime is "1/4 or more of their income"?
Hutch...go to the City of Pacifica website and pull the police department 2005-2006 annual report. Under the organizational chart, it will show you the personnel.
As far as salaries...for sake of argument, let's say I agree with you (only for sake of argument). If the sheriff total compensation is much higher (which it is) than the pacifica police, how is it going to save you money in regards to police officers working for you?
"If the sheriff total compensation is much higher (which it is) than the pacifica police, how is it going to save you money in regards to police officers working for you?"
Anon (1208), assuming what you say is true (neutral judgement), then why would the Financial Services Taskforce present that option as saving the city over $1 million dollars? (Of course, we think the city has presented outsourcing the police department as a major savings prior to doing the actual research, duh.)
To try and scare you into buying into their preferred solution: a tax increase, duh.
Sorry Anon 1208, but this chart on the PPD site shows we had 33 sworn officers in 2005-2006 Which is 2 less than what we have now.
http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2700
Anything else you want to school me about?
Hutch..."anything else you want to school me about". Why do you have to get so nasty. I am merely attempting to provide you with factual information to base your comments on. I respect whatever side of the fence you are on, as long as it is based on accurate information. Unlike you, it seems that if it doesn't agree with what you would like it to be, someone is trying to intentionally mislead you.
53.5 employees with 40 police officers.
1-Chief, 2-Captains, 27-officers, 2-traffic officers, 1-Support Services (this is a sergeant assigned to training, hiring, etc.), 4-detectives, 1-juvenile officer, 1-school resource officer, 1-crime prevention officer. That's forty.
How about we look a little closer at the two choices. Until we see an official analysis and proposal this entire discussion is just what we've heard or seen personally, ok? We'll save money with the sheriff's because it's not all about salaries and OT. There are many large hidden costs involved in having our own local police dept. Pacifica is paying big bucks for operations, maintenance, admin, vehicles, services, supplies etc for this little police department.Those costs go up faster than salaries and benefits and with even less scrutiny. The sheriffs dept not only benefits from economies of scale in purchasing and admin, they also spread out those costs over all the participating cities.
As far as salaries and OT, I'm sure we can find SMC sheriffs with OT but I'm also sure we can't find a Pacifica Police officer without OT. Those Pacifica base salaries may start out less than the sheriff's but with massive OT they
compete very well. Furthermore, the sheriff's dept will have a much larger pool of personnel to schedule from so OT can become the exceptiion here rather than the rule.
The contract with the sheriffs can be tweeked to include many things including current Pacifica officers. I think the low-ranking officers win either way and they know it while upper ranks have a lot to lose. And they know it.
Contracting with the sheriffs dept is the only good idea to come out of this puppet show. It will save money and protect funding for other programs that serve so many Pacificans. It is a game changer and for once we actually win! Wait for the facts but don't be fooled or scared by so-called public servants who in this issue seem not to have our best interests at heart.
anon128 you're probably right about the city trying to use the PD to scare us into the forever tax. Nonetheless, contracting with the SMC sheriffs is still the best idea and is probably inevitable. The cops, and the rest of city employees, can't take deep enough cuts fast enough to make a difference here. Not their fault we're in this mess but we are in it.I'd think the younger guys would welcome jobs with the county. Expect they'll put on quite a show to convince us.
You can say whatever you like. But your numbers don't jive and I provided a link as proof.
But this is just a diversion from the real issue. The city tried to push through more taxes and cuts in services without giving citizens any information about wages and benefits which are most of our expenses.
Post a Comment