The San Mateo Daily Journal/Heather Murtagh, 2/15/12. "Sheriff's office set to take over Millbrae police."
"Millbrae’s Police Department is set to close in early March when the
Sheriff’s Office takes over after the City Council approved transfer
agreements Tuesday evening. In November, the City Council voted to contract for services
provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. On Tuesday, the
council approved two transfer agreements to make it happen — an
agreement with the Millbrae Police Officers’ Association and one with
the county about property. The goal is for the county to officially take
over service at 12:01 a.m. Monday, March 5.Councilwoman Nadia Holober was the lone dissenting vote for the transfer of assets. She said she opposed the drop in service the new contract would bring to the city. Vice Mayor Gina Papan disagreed noting the city had previously understaffed the department.
Contracting with the county for police services will save
Millbrae an estimate $1.693 million in the first year. Those savings
will increase in future years over the five-year contract. The city’s current annual budget for the department is $4.258
million. When the budget is changed to include vehicles, safety
equipment, overhead costs and other costs, the annual budget is raised
to $7.27 million.The sheriff’s proposal of $4.56 million includes Millbrae’s own police chief and offers jobs for most employees currently in the department.
Millbrae will be given credit for some equipment while charged for others. Ultimately, the difference is an additional cost to Millbrae of $26,808, Police Chief Mark Raffaelli wrote in a staff report. Under the agreement with the police officers, employees will receive a one-time $700 allowance for uniforms and an offer of six-month severance pay, about $48,907.30 per employee, for those who are not hired by the county, according to a staff report by City Manager Marcia Raines. The agreement also outlines how vacation, seniority and compensatory time off will be handled." Read more, unrelated single-use bag ban.
Reference - City of Millbrae, CA, and general city-data. Prior 2/14/12 article.
Submitted by Jim Alex
Posted by Kathy Meeh
94 comments:
I'd like to see more numbers like these for Pacifica before I make a decision.
Wow, Millbrae will pay 6 month severance up to $48K for officers not hired. That's seems excessive.
Just get on with it Pacifica. The savings are a game-changer for this town. And, don't screw it up with overly generous parting gifts
for those off-boarding the train.
I've often wondered how many of our street cops really know what's going on in this town. They know how to set up speed traps and hand out tickets, that's for sure. It's been pointed out by many in this town that we spend thousands training these guys, they go through the police academy and get a couple of years under their belt, and go off to bigger and more exciting departments. All this historical police knowledge we're supposed to have probably resides in less that 25% of the force. Keep those guys. Those numbers were derived from a very carefully contrived poll.
You're so right, Bennie.
Had an interesting sit down yesterday with Chief Tasa to discuss outsourcing among other things. Outsourcing is something I'm DEAD SET against.
(BTW did you know that the current sheriff's contract has a guarantee that SMC deputies will be the highest paid deputies in the 9 county bay area region by 1%. It states in the contract that an evaluation of sheriff departments will be contracted out each year to establish the highest rate of pay and based on hose results the SMC sheriff will get an automatic raise to a level 1% higher than that? Neither did I).
There is no amount of math that can show any kind of saving to Pacifica by out sourcing our PD. None.
BUT, I do not support this 1/2 sales tax which will adversely effect the poorest in our community in order to ensure the $100K plus salaries of our PD. That idea is simply a return to Feudalism, Bugs Bunny style.
Our senior staff, department heads, fire and police need to start living in the real world and bite the wage reduction bullet. Sure it's a painful thing to do but brothers and sisters all of us non publicly funded workers have made and continue to make changes in our lifestyles.
"There is no amount of math that can show any kind of saving to Pacifica by out sourcing our PD. None." So the survey estimate that outsourcing the PD would save $1.5 million a year is false?
Bray, any meaningful cost analysis and comparison must include all the costs we bear for maintaining our local PD. It isn't all about the salaries although naturally the Pacifica PD will focus any discussion on that issue, just as they have with you. The savings are there and regionalization of vital services is inevitable in CA.
Your idea about salary cuts isn't new. It's just a repackaging of what is already going on at bargaining tables all over the state. It's too little, too late, and too slow. Bigger problems loom for cities like Pacifica.
Anon @ 9:07 I'll assume your are a police officer who understands the enormous pay raise you will receive by going county. You would be making an additional $30K a year at least with a guarantee to be the highest paid deputy in the county. So I understand the animosity toward those that would keep you from that bonanza and in addition want you to take the necessary wage reduction if Pacifica retains it's PD. Got it.
Whatever happens here there is no law keeping you from looking for a better paying gig elsewhere so be a big boy and make a move. Griping like a spoiled brat for a new tax that would impact the poorest in our community to sustain your $120,000 a year job is not an option. But it does make you look like a greedy narcsisit so bravo.
If you think adding taxes to the vast majority of residents who average less than 1/2 of what you earn is any kind of solution I must thank you for making my point that our senior staff, department heads, fire and police have zero empathy for the community, absolutely none and view us simply as an ATM.
That this issue has been coming for years and you all have hid behind the skirts of an uninformed council and public is on you all, not us.
Todd
Maybe you should have been a cop or city employee..
sounds like sour grapes
Bray,
Nope, I'm not a cop, not a city employee and I won't vote for more taxes of any kind for this city any time soon. My reasons include yours, as well as my absolute certainty that there are more cuts and streamlining to be done. That includes contracting with the SMC Sheriffs Department asap.
Your cost analysis and comparison is one-dimensional and flawed because the comparison of salaries is a handy attention-grabber but it doesn't tell nearly the whole story of the tremendous operating and administrative costs of operating a small, top-heavy, local police department. Todd, wait for the numbers and take a closer look. I believe you'll find that contracting out for police services will save big bucks and allow us to protect safety net and quality of life services for all Pacificans. We both want that.
^ I've actually heard public employees make such arrogant statements as this.
We have every right to bitch about city employees making 2 or 3 times what the average Pacifican makes.
And what about our seniors on a fixed income paying for exorbitant pensions and wages for public union member?
The s^%t has hit the fan. The money is drying up. Citier everywhere are facing mass layoffs, unsustainable wages and pensions, bankruptcy.
No I'm not jealous of that.
it's those salaries man, they get one and he doesn't
Why is everyone picking on the City employees? They make what they make because it is comparable to every other city employee in San Mateo County. Hutch and Bray are on the blog all day long so something tells me they do not work. $100,000 is not a lot of money these days and if you did not prepare for your retirement days, why blame the City employees because your money is tight? Lots of these city employees have worked for the city for over 25 and worked their way up to this rate. Why are you mad at them? They have already taken cuts, wage freezes, lost benefits and more. If the profession you were/are in did not give you these longterm pension benefits, who's fault is this? These people looked ahead to plan their future. They own homes in town and contribute to this city. The answer is to streamline services, freeze wages and get going with economic development in this town. Three meetings and no approval for the Assisted Living Center to begin construction. Nothing in the Quarry, proposal for the old wastewater treatment plant but a long way away from ground breaking. Lots of trails, both walking and biking though!
The Tribune published a list of salaries, and Pacifica was already consistently in the bottom quartile. Maybe it makes things simpler for you to understand when you focus on only one option, but you people need to unsaddle your one-trick pony. This city is in dire straits, and it's going to take more than just cuts to salaries that are already at the bottom of the barrel.
While I'm not crazy about outsourcing to the Sheriff's Department, other cities have decided that it saves them enough money to go that route. That's why I'm suspicious of Todd's claim that it won't save us any money.
Fish in a barrel? City employees are easy targets for people's anger, frustration and anxiety about the future. Still, after 5 years of economic turmoil and all the lost jobs, lost homes, and lost dreams, most people would love to be in that barrel-even on the bottom of it.
Steve, if you only look at the dollars it still makes no sense. I do not see any proof being provide that shows a dollar for dollar comparison of going county that high lights any savings. The only track I see is less personal on duty at any given time if we go county compared to our current PD.
And with a contract that guarantees the SMC sheriff deputies will make the most region wide by 1% I find it obscene we are even discussing this option. Please, the only way to make higher paid patrol staff save money is to have fewer of hem. I'm surprised you can't see that.
The only solution is a voluntary scaled wage reduction.
In reading Wagner/Stechbart's column in the Trib some weeks ago, they stated that the $1.5 million figure came from San Carlos police/sheriff agreements.
So if that's true, city staff took this figure from another community and pasted it onto our problem!
This points up what goes wrong when the local newspaper is not asking hard questions of staff and councilmembers. What is the truth about what these people are actually doing to solve the problem?
"The only solution is a voluntary scaled wage reduction."
You're like some kind of Rain Man. There are numerous solutions, each of which could contribute to solving our problems, but you've chosen to fixate on that one for some reason.
Anon @ 8:12 points out: "There are numerous solutions, each of which could contribute to solving our problems, but you've chosen to fixate on that one for some reason."
Beyond raising fees and taxes what are those numerous solutions, please?
How much money did the fire dept merger end up saving the city??
"Beyond raising fees and taxes what are those numerous solutions, please?"
Umm, try reading the title of the article upon which you are commenting. Then read the task force recommendations. You'll have to take your blinders off first, though.
"Beyond raising fees and taxes what are those numerous solutions, please?"
Allowing more development, which would bring in more tax revenues without raising the tax rates of those already here.
Admittedly that's a long term fix, but I won't vote to give the city any more money unless I see them tackling long-term revenue issues.
Todd Bray is the same person who said there would be too much traffic to bring any development into the quarry but now says there is too little traffic for widening highway one so ergo Todd Bray wants no development in the quarry to make the city money so he can stop bitching about the city employees. Oh I forgot, he is probably one of those people who isi not against the deveopment of the quarry but is waiting for the RIGHT PROJECT as we go RIGHT IN THE SEWER in pacifica. Oh yeah and he's against the sewer tax too!
Steve, name one development in the last decade that didn't go through? PLEASE!
Still waiting for real numbers on the sheriffs. Where are they? It's meant big savings for other cities so why hasn't our city-run task force been all over this? Built-in bias to protect their own? Afraid the next job to get outsourced could be theirs? You can bet on it!
A: Word games.
Q; What will Todd play regarding his opposition to development while Pacifica goes down the drain?
Todd, I don't keep a list, but off the top of my head - Quarry (twice,) Horizons, biodiesel plant, the original Harmony@1 proposal that was jerked around and shrunk by the Planning Commission to the point that nothing may be built, Fish & Bowl...
There was another housing development that was so jerked around by the Planning Commission that the guy gave up, but I can't remember its name. (Dave Colt's project?)
We didn't make use of our redevelopment zone, other than to issue bonds to be repaid based on anticipated tax revenues from development there. Nothing was allowed to be built, but we still have to pay back those bonds.
You were against Walgreens, and now you're fighting traffic improvements on Highway 1. I can't recall any economic development project that you were ever in favor of.
How many more possible commercial developments would have been proposed except for Pacifica's anti-economic development reputation?
Your approach has wrecked the city. Time for a new approach.
I can think of only one new commercial structure built in Pacifica in the last 10 years - the auto parts store in Pacific Manor.
What other city of 40,000 can say something like that? What other city of 5000 can say something like that?
Steve
Walgreens,the two commercial buildings on Oceana, Fresh & Easy,the two commercial units [first floor of the mixed uses on Palmentto],the Surf's spot [soon to open],The Beach Resort. I agree that it is not enough and I hope to see a lot more in the near future.
Steve, the "quarry" votes were for housing only, no development of any type has been proposed there while I've lived in Pacifica. Besides it is illegal to formally apply for any kind of quarry development through the planning department until the SMGB has deemed the quarry reclaimed.
Fish and bowl was before my time, the highway is not a development, and my issue with Walgreen's was not the building or business but the traffic pattern.
Sorry buddy you have no factual basis for the claim I'm anti development. None.
maybe not, but it just feels right, Todd
The omnipotent Carnac rests his case.
Tom, those projects weren't approved without big fights. My understanding is that Walgreens threatened to pull out because they were being jerked around so much. After the threat was made, the city panicked and quickly approved it.
The Houmams had to spend months and tens of thousands of extra dollars dealing with ridiculous opposition to their building from the same people who oppose everything.
I don't count new tenants moving into existing spaces as new commercial development. That's just treading water.
Does any new, from-the-ground-up commercial structure in town get approval without a fight?
You're playing rhetorical games, Todd. That shows me you have no arguments of substance.
Anything built in Pacifica is in spite of the efforts of the planning commission, city council and the NIMBYs. Then they try to take credit for what little gets built. Welcome to Pathetica.
Hahaha, Steve, I accept we will never agree on anything... ever, but you called me anti development and I challenged you on it. You gave samples and you are completely wrong. There is no rhetorical game play going on besides whatever it is you are doing inside your own head. Name calling is no an argument Steve or a solution.
"You were against Walgreens,..."
Steve, three people were against the plan as it was, maybe a record as applications go.
For me, it had nothing to do with the store, it was the incredibly stupid traffic plan that featrured parking spaces on Palmetto Ave.
I live in the area, I witness the blockage to traffic that occurs every day as a result of this decision.
So stupid is normal, and approved these days.
Heard the same thing re Walgreen's from a reliable city source. Just compare the before and after for that corner. What on earth was the problem?
Steve: I Don't remember a big fight over Walgreens. Details had to be worked out about traffic flow and the parking on Palmetto but that normal in most cities.
I agree with you that the Houman's project should have gone through as the Planning Commission originally approved it. I was P.C.liaison for both of the appeal hearings an stated clearly that the appeals should be denied.
I have told both the Planning director and the City Manager that the fee to appeal a project should be raised. Making sure people have access to the appeals process is one thing but having the Pacifica taxpayers subsidize that access is another. One hundred dollars might have been a lot of money twenty years ago but today it cost a lot more then that to process the paperwork,send out notices and hold a public hearing.
I counted Fresh & Easy because it's going into that mall lead to the mall's revolutionize.
I have seen several project come before the planning Commission that had a lot of public support an were approved with little or no fuss. Most did not get built because of money issues. I hope to see a lot more in the future.
There was no problem -- just the typical NIMBY whining and the just as typical attempt to make others pay for their obstructionism afterwards.
When the facts are presented, it becomes clear that Steve Sinai is the one playing rhetorical word games.
"Facts", Anon (3:32am)? Not in your corner. Obstructionist "word games" replaced the serious rhetoric and action needed in this city over the past 10 years. Unfortunate these same council members had knowledge of this, and chose to ignore facts.
Proof? The financial graph from the Financing City Services Task Force shows Pacifica economic free fall from 2002 to 2005, shifting down into a new low normal from 2006 until the present.
The big ticket item is developing the quarry for city economic benefit. Yet, quarry development has been opposed by majority city council members and their "we're okay" band of NIMBYS in 2002 and 2006.
Hence, we fight over the economic scraps of this disfunctional city. Come on NIMBYS, help this city. Stop bankrupting developers, and support solutions to keep this city functional.
Facts: quarry development was not opposed by city council. What stopped it was asking for voter approval for 355 housing units without a specific plan. Peebles said he would build commercial if voters did not approve 355 homes. He lied about that and about a lot of other things. He conned Pacifica. "Bankrupting developers?" Oh please. Peebles defaulted on his non-recourse loan and walked away with millions. He made a lot of money and never developed anything in the quarry. That was his plan all along. Get a clue.
Whenever someone starts off a phrase with "Fact(s)," you can be sure it isn't.
Kind of like the inevitable phrase, "I've got nothing against so-and-so" just before they start ripping into so-and-so.
Anon@10:36 - You are very imaginative. Do you write fantasy novels?
"..quarry development was not opposed by city council." (Anon 1036)
Sure, that why Peebles Corporation put all that money into advance research, public meetings, and advertising. Some NIMBY said Peebles spent $18 million. Wow, $18 million (or whatever it was), time, effort, corporate, city and citizen involvement with NO intent to build. In effect to do nothing. Isn't that an amazing statement?
When the housing component did not pass the city ballot, Peebles Corporation still intended to develop the business component. A city council sub-committee (Vreeland, Lancelle) was formed to "negotiate" with Peebles. Finally Peebles walked from those "negotiations".
Following the failed "negotiations", Councilmember Vreeland stated in the Tribune he was happy because "now we can develop the quarry the way we want to with private-public developments." Remember, the proposed biodiesel plant was an example of one of those private-public developments.
Prior to the ballot measure, I attended city council meetings where official letters from Peebles Corporation were not read or considered by city council. During the campaign most of us remember a city council that ducked support and "good will" presented by Peebles to develop that property. Council member Cal Hinton was the exception, who supported quarry development 2x (2002, 2006), and wrote a support letter to the public on behalf of the 2006 quarry development.
Second picture down City Council position on developing the quarry, 2006.
Peebles's loan was for $18 million. He spent half of that and walked away with the other half. His goal was to get approval for a project, then flip the property with the entitlements for $90 million. He put all the time and money in because the potential payoff was huge. He was selling a fantasy. All he had to do was get the ballot measure passed and he stood to make about $75 million in profit. When the ballot measure failed, all Peebles would propose to the city was a vague, general idea of a commercial project. He wanted the city to approve that before any specific project design. The city was smarter than that. They knew that if they approved only a very general idea, Peebles would take that and flip the property to some poor sucker who would then have to deal with all the regulatory issues, reclamation plan, etc. Peebles walked when he realized he couldn't put another con over on what he thought were these rubes who would believe anything he said. He's smart. He took the lesser return on his investment of time and somebody else's money and walked.
Anon (1230) about your comments, continuing developers are not that stupid, and the city at that time was clearly not that smart.
Todd and Lionel complain about the traffic on Palmetto and Manor because of the Walgreens but forget about the traffic on Highway One unless it is about construction in the quarry. They both know nothing will get built there unless the highway is widened but now since there is no project there is no problem. Maybe if these two got jobs pacifica would be able to move forward.
Anonymous 12:30, did Peebles tell you what his plan was? I doubt it. You just made up a story.
Peebles made up a big story. A lot of people believed it. But when Measure L failed, the fairy tale was revealed.
Remember how he said he'd build soccer fields even if Measure L lost? Just one of many stories he told.
"Remember how he said he'd build soccer fields even if Measure L lost?"
Nonsense. He never said that. You have nothing solid to stand on, so you keep making things up.
If you really believed what you were saying, you'd use your real name.
I don't dispute that that person is full of it, but whether or not they attach a name to ther comments is completely irrelevant.
People please stop fighting the last battle,we can not fix Pacifica's past.
What we all have to focus on is creating Pacifica's future.
The past is lot less challenging.
We have to acknowledge the screw-ups of the past before we can fix Pacifica.
And it's very easy for people to spout BS when they don't have to put their name behind their statement.
As long as people continue to believe in a false past, they will be unable to make informed decisions about the future.
We are doomed.
Now now, have faith.
You forgot to put a name behind your statement.
Anonymous said...
"Peebles made up a big story. A lot of people believed it. "
Peebles had a proven record of following through on promises and building quality developements in NYC, Miami etc. Pacifica was lucky to have such a person interested in developing in our little town. But the NIMBY's ruined it and now they say stuff like "there wasn't a plan" BS.
Hutch you are wrong. Peebles has a proven record of no such thing. None of his developments you reference were done without a huge financial commitment from the local municipalities and repeated law suits brought by the company against the local municipalities.
He had no plan for the quarry, he had a ballot measure to allow housing on the property, that's all. He spent 3.2 million dollars of other peoples money on his campaign and had folks like Steve, Kathy and obviously you convinced of some sort of development candyland.
Measure L is over, six years in the past now. The "NIMBY's" you point your fingers at participated in a political process that is protected. Too bad you don't live in a society where you can jail dissidents... that seems to be the tone you lot are lamenting the most.
Measure L is over. Peebles is gone. The property was foreclosed on by the private equity firm that fronted the money. They have an un-developable piece of property that should be donated to the federal government for an enormous tax break and move on themselves.
Hell of an idea Bray. Donate it to the GGNRA and then all the nimby dogwalkers could get tasered. Keep thinking, I think you can destroy what's left of this town all by yourself.
More open space is the last thing this town needs.
Property wasn't foreclosed on. Get the facts right, Bray.
There was a plan Todd.
You say the Quarry should be donated to the GGNRA? Why? Do you believe in private development at all? Are you going to oppose the Beach Blvd project too? What is wrong with allowing private development in the Quarry?
I don't want to argue about this Todd. You are not going to convince Kathy, Steve, me or anyone that there was no plan for the Quarry Project or that it wouldn't have been good for Pacifica. It was not us who were hoodwinked Todd, It was you by the likes of Pete Loeb.
Hutch, the property has so many regulatory issues the least of which is the state's requirement to reclaim the property from the damage of mining it which requires a CDP before a project can ever be submitted to the building .
I feel for you lot. You really have a wish for economic development in the quarry that you believe will help the city but this triple parcel property isn't one of those.
Semantically perhaps on paper Peebles had a "plan" for the quarry with all the bells and whistles you like to see with fanciful elevations and all but that is not the same as a proposal or project. So I guess technically everyone is right depending on their own understanding of words.
BUT, it is illegal to propose a project on that property until the state has signed off on the reclamation. That among the other regulatory issue has prevented and will continue to prevent anything from being proposed or built on the property anywhere near the size and scope you all would like to see. I'm sure it's maddening to you all but that's just the way it is.
Todd, I am not pushing for anything at the quarry. The chance to develop that parcel is past.
I'm more concerned that going forward we don't shoot down everything that comes along.
Are you going to oppose the Beach Blvd project too Todd?
Would you be in favor of any large development in Pacifica?
It seems like the tide is turning in favor of more development in Pacifica. I believe we have the votes to change the balance now.
Perhaps people like Peter Loeb are surrendering to senility or moving to Oregon?
Peebles Corporation. So far, Peebles Corporation just keeps building great developments, appropriate for their location and the community.
Regulatory issues, Todd (229)? State, coastal commission, mining, planning commission, city council. A smart developer can figure-out that one, considered in the price of the project. Peebles Corporation did some preliminary research, as would other interested developers. Also, without such definitive knowledge the city developed redevelopment plans for the quarry.
The best interest of this city is not served by the property holder gifting the 88 acre quarry property (probably mostly productive) to GGNRA "permanent open space". Such a suggestion is counterproductive to solving the structural economic problems of this city.
It might be helpful if the city and the quarry property holder would partner to do some of these regulatory findings. That suggestion of advance regulatory planning was made by our city manager, Steve Rhodes. I don't know the outcome, but doing that would resolve some of these outstanding geological questions.
Hard for some to believe but Pacifica missed the entire era of growth. It's over and all that's left is the small stuff like the assisted-living facility on Oddstad. The enviros are still working to sabotage that. This city is too broke to partner in any large development and that's the only way those things are being built. How about some affordable-housing for the Palmetto side of the OWWTP site? There's money out there for those projects. Or we can cling to our civic fantasies and end up with absolutely nothing.
"So far, Peebles Corporation just keeps building great developments." The Peebles web site lists 6 completed projects, all of them 10-20 years old. The 1 planned project hasn't shown any progress in the past 5 years.
Please, don't bore us with facts.
"The Peebles web site lists 6 completed projects.."
Anonymous 8:00 pm, huge projects taking several years to complete. But, you're way too lazy. Rather than whine, do your own research if you really care.
Peebles Corporation is a multi-billion dollar corporation, and R. Donahue Peebles lives in a much better neighborhood than you do. Try wikipedia, its free.
I can't even figure out what that means.
And I bet he's thanking his lucky stars every day that he didn't get bogged down in Pacifica CA at the height of the global recession. Did this town dodge the bullet of a miserably-timed project being built for a disappearing market? I don't know, but I'm sure Don Peebles dodged one. More power to him!
Ahem, Anon @ 10:28 PM there are no results on wikipedioa for Don Peebles, Peebles or Peebles Corp. Did you invent your research?
"..no results on wikipedia.."
Okay Todd (1224), I took-up your challenge to find "Don Peebles" or "Peebles Corporation" on Wikipedia. And either of these names easily lead to the following reference on the first google internet page: Wikipedia. Additionally, there are many webpages with articles plus the Peebles Corporation website. There is background, politics, real estate holdings etc. for people with actual interest and adequate internet search engines.
Regardless of prior redevelopment advantages, Pacifica missed a big opportunity to develop the quarry property in 2006. Other regional developments have occurred during the great recession from 2008. Had the quarry development moved forward, it would likely be out-of the regulation stage into construction by now. And, the city would be collecting all those additional fees and taxes. It would be so much better for all of us if this city could thrive rather than struggle.
I agree Kathy. Pacifica missed a great opportunity. Peebles had a good plan and he had an excellent record .
And plenty of projects that were started in 07-08 have been extremely successful in the Bay Area. Just look at Townsend St near the ballpark, there's dozens of condos that went up in that time period.
Meeh schools Bray once again
Meeh 1
Bray 0
The Wikipedia entry provides no support for the statement that "Peebles Corporation just keeps building great developments." Peebles hasn't built a development in over 10 years. The proposed Las Palmas development in Las Vegas has gone nowhere in the past 5 years.
Meeh 0
Anonymous 1
Yeah, Peeble's Corp has no credibility. Pacifica really dodges a bullet staving off that shyster.
I wonder if they would say that if he were white?
February 15th, 2012 - Don Peebles Appears on CNN
November 8th, 2011 - The New York Observer Interviews Don Peebles
September 14th, 2011 - Obama appoints Katrina Peebles to Kennedy Center Committee
February 1st, 2011 - TheGrio names Don Peebles to it's 100 History Makers in the Making
June 28th, 2011 - Black Enterprise ranks the Peebles Corporation #91 largest Black Business in Industrial Services
September 20, 2010 - Haute Living profiles Don Peebles and features him on Miami Haute 100 list
June 28, 2010 - Don Peebles Keynotes Soujourner-Douglas Graduation (Baltimore Sun)
Anon (1036), I provided easy access for Todd and you to find Peebles on Wikipedia. That was the requirement, job done.
"Great developments"? Some of these are viewable on the Peebles Corporation website. Your uninformed, lazy, negative bias speculation comments are of no interest to me. And, just to make you look more foolish, I am not interested in doing further research.
The appropriate, needed city development in the quarry did not happen thanks to anti-development people like you. I am not keep score on who wins points. Pacifica lost, we all lost.
Bray
show us the letter Peebles Co. sent you????
Big winner? Don Peebles, once again.
I fully expect someone to try to buy the quarry and develop something there.
To claim the quarry can't be developed because of regulatory issues is nothing more than a scare tactic meant to discourage developers.
The biggest impediment is a city council that is hostile to business and development.
Unfortunately, since those people's scare tactics have been so successful, Pacifica has missed out on the tax advantages we would have enjoyed on the RDA decades, and that ship has now sailed. Now we have to make choices like whether or not to fund the PRC because of their obstructionism. I don't know how they sleep at night.
"Unfortunately, since those people's scare tactics have been so successful, Pacifica has missed out on the tax advantages we would have enjoyed on the RDA decades, and that ship has now sailed."
Anon (620), you sure got that right!
I'm a Sheriff's Deputy who lives in Linda Mar and just stumbled on this thread.
Just a few comments:
1) All the statements about how outsourcing "could never work here" because (enter reason) has been done in San Carlos, Half Moon Bay and Millbrae. In the end, all the myths are "busted" and outsourcing DOES save money.
2)It is no doubt Chief Tasa is against outsourcing... He has A LOT to lose. He needs to reach age 50 as a city employee before he can get his lifetime medical. This is a significant benefit that we don't get at the County and he would lose the benefit if the department folded. I would take any criticism of outsourcing from the Chief with a grain of salt.
3) From talking to people "in the know", the delay on getting a cost to all of this isn't from the Sheriff's Office, it is from the city. The County figured out a long time ago what each deputy costs. The problem is the city doesn't know what it spends on police. I saw somewhere one person wrote a Deputy costs 240K and a Pacifica Officer 111K. That is a half truth. The truth is, when the county gives the price of a deputy, they include EVERY kind of cost you can imagine in that cost. The cost of the vehicle, salary, benefits, payroll, hr, Insurance (that's a big one) training, overtime, tires on the car, gas in the car, down to the bullets in his gun. Basically there are no surprises and it is truly a "Flat Rate". So you are sadly mistaken if you think the city can do that all for 111K per officer.
4) Our contract does make us equal to the highest paid SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT in the 9 bay area counties, NOT police departments. In fact, several police departments in San Mateo County pay significantly more than we do. For example, if my car gets broken into in the County Parking garage, the Redwood City Police Officer who takes the report makes significantly more than I do. If you compare our salary to police departments, we would be in the upper 1/3rd, far from the top. That being said, Think of what 500K gets you in San Mateo County Vs. Solano, Santa Clara, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The bottom line is, it costs more to live here.
As a Pacifica resident and a Deputy, I have had nothing but good experiences with the Pacifica Police Department. I talk with your officers all the time. I can tell you their moral is low.
I hope the outsourcing does go through to give the officers of Pacifica some stability in their life. I would also love to work in the town where I live, my wife works and my children go to school.
Thanks for some clarity Deputy.
If the total costs per officer include every thing as stated that is a big game changer for me.
Is there a document at the sheriffs office that can confirm the estimated cost per deputy includes the logistical expenses to support that officer?
I don't have the actual contract, but a quick search found this... it should be helpful.
San Carlos:
http://www.cityofsancarlos.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=685&TargetID=1
Half Moon Bay:
http://ci.half-moon-bay.ca.us/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=811&Itemid=68
I couldn't find anything about Millbrae.
Thank you Deputy for this information and resource. You've done what this crooked, scheming city with it's greed has refused to do even as this city goes down the drain. Their self-interest and incompetence is unbelievable. They have dragged their feet on the county proposal and meanwhile tried to poison the public's mind against what has always been a game-changer for Pacifica. Some of us have known all along that this was the option we needed to be looking at. Shame on Council and senior staff, including the senior officers of the Pacifa PD for their betrayal of the public trust whether intentional or through indifference.
I could vote for this but it's just another bandaid.
Our unfunded pension obligation is over 20 million http://royceprinting.com/jobs/FOSarchive/2010FOS/05_06_10_PacificaFOS.pdf
We need to get serious about cutting past, present as well as future pension obligations. This is pushing every city in California into possible bankruptcy.
It'll take a judge, Hutch.
Post a Comment