Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Reminder City Budget Meeting tonight 6pm, Wednesday April 11, 2012


Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor.  Or, view on local channel 26, also live feed internet www.pct26.com.  The meeting begins at 6 pm. Yes that's right 6pm.  This is a 1x "all departments" fiscal year 2012-13 General Fund city meeting. General Fund Budget, 63 pages.  Link to original article General Fund Budget meeting, 4/11/12. 

Posted by Kathy Meeh

28 comments:

Kathy Meeh said...

Viewing the Budget meeting tonight, lots of whining about city revenue decline from the State over 20 years. DeJarnatt remembers the city reserve began to have a problem when he came on city council 15 years ago (no surprise).

Apparently the city has run-out of 1x magic tricks in its quest to avoid structural solutions, namely economic development. Thus, the delay to tax or chop has been stayed until the November election.

This time the verbal threat is to the Resource Center not the police. Reality, the sales tax money goes into the city General Fund, so the Resource Center may be defunded, and the Police may be outsourced. As councilmembers DeJarnatt and Digree put it: "citizens may choose what they want to pay for?" (Vreeland used to say that). But, what happened to the money we already paid to fund essential city services? And where is our future?

Lionel Emde said...

Kathy,
The threat to the Resource Center was the same last time. Pete DeJarnatt stated that it should be cut, and with no delay because the "pain" should be felt.
Felt by who?

Anonymous said...

If the city cuts the Resource Center out entirely they may as well close their doors because no other funding source is going to want to fund something that cannot get a dime from the very city it serves. Where's council going with this? Fear tactics to get a tax passed or just another example of outsourcing to the county?

Kathy Meeh said...

"Pete DeJarnatt stated that it should be cut, and with no delay because the "pain" should be felt." (Lionel 1006)

Last year I remember DeJarnatt wanting to cut the Chamber $10,000, but cutting the Resource Center $83,000-- wow, that seems twisted. Then again, City council to Pacificans: Fund my tax, I will fund your Resource Center MAYBE. Feels like a lazy city council extortion-- a revenue source we'll never get rid of, along with more of the same.

Do you agree that moving forward with the Assisted Living Center is of value to the city? Should that happen, the project would bring-in city revenue to initiate, along with a stream of tax revenue in the future.

Anonymous said...

The City can somehow come up with endless money for consultants: $750,000 for the Old Wastewater Treatment site. One million bucks to rewrite the General plan.

And the City can come up with 100k for a dog park. But find funds for a center that gives out food - no can do!

Anonymous said...

Move ahead at warp speed on the assisted-living facility and see if we can't attract a few more. It's a real growth industry. Construction jobs, longterm jobs, city fees, taxes, collateral spending by employees, residents and visitors...bring it on.

Steve Sinai said...

The city doesn't have the money to support the Resource Center. You can thank the hippies for that.

Anonymous said...

Just the first of many cuts until the voters cry Uncle!

Anonymous said...

anon1104, Your numbers seem a little high. Got details?

Yoda said...

Invite Lucasfilms on over. We have 88 empty acres. Marin wants low income housing, we don't want housing. Perfect fit!

Hutch said...

It's disgusting that Digre & Dejarnett want to cut money to the poor.

We don't need more taxes or cuts in service. We need to follow the lead of other Ca cities cutting 10% and more from union contracts. If the unions dfon't go along we impose the cuts as the NLRB has said is legal if we reach an impasse.

todd bray said...

Steve continues to lament, "The city doesn't have the money to support the Resource Center. You can thank the hippies for that."

We have a payroll issue pure and simple. AB 506 can be used to solve our payroll issue.

Anonymous said...

Yoda, The neighbors in Lucas Valley don't want low-income housing but wouldn't it serve them right if that's what they got when LucasFilm sells the property? Kind of a parting shot!
Nothing will be built for years which is what the neighbors want. Later, watch for regular Marin style housing, low-density, with a few "affordable" units thrown in.

Anonymous said...

Hutch cutting "10% and more" is great if it can be done fast enough but it isn't a longterm solution to our longterm problem. Where's the revenue? Absolutely nothing has been done to produce revenue other than opening a couple small businesses which is offset by the closure of other small businesses.

Anonymous said...

Bray. Why don't you donate money to save the resource center.

The council you shilling for always found money for Vreelands trail projects.

Anonymous said...

DeJarnatt said a 10% city payroll reduction won't work, because of employee contracts. That was his comment at city council last night. Think a 10% payroll cut did occur to solve an emergence city cash problem in San Jose last year. But this is Pacifica.

Steve Sinai said...

Anyone in Pacifica's cluster of hippies that constantly work to keep development out of the quarry, actively oppose Highway 1 improvements, or reflexively oppose any proposed development - really have no right to comment on how the city spends what little money it has.

They are a big part of the problem. They're not part of the solution.

Anonymous said...

San Jose unions(police specifically)were ready, willing and able to take that cut to limit the number of jobs lost. They got the message loud and clear
from city leaders. Do you think our city leaders have a clue? Nothing but drama, talk, and politicking so far.

Hutch said...

Anonymous said...
"DeJarnatt said a 10% city payroll reduction won't work, because of employee contracts. That was his comment at city council last night."

Pete is an idiot. We're in the middle of negotiations right now with Police & Fire. What the hell is he talking about?

As far as getting what we want, just follow San Jose, Fresno and others. Demand a 15% cut, they refuse to negotiate, we impose the 10% wage cut.

As far as us needing revenues, yes this is true. But that's going to take a while. This will help right now.

And not to sound like a broken record, if you don't think wages and benefits are our main problem please look at the 20+ million and growing that we owe to Calpers for pensions.

http://royceprinting.com/jobs/FOSarchive/2010FOS/05_06_10_PacificaFOS.pdf

If not dealt with bankruptcy will be here soon.

Hutch said...

Pinole:
After months of negotiations, the Pinole City Council imposed pay cuts of 10 to 13 percent on police department sergeants, officers and dispatchers Tuesday. http://pinole.patch.com

Fresno
The county supervisors declared an impasse in contract talks late last year and imposed a 9% wage cut on union members.
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=8511851

todd bray said...

Hutch, we must go through the AB506 requirements before the state will allow Pacifica to file for a municipal bankruptcy.

Our council is sorely misinformed or just plain ignorant of possibilities open to them. Our senior staff is either misleading council or just plain ignorant themselves.

Add to this the lack of curiosity by either entity and we get what we are getting.

Anonymous said...

We're not at an impasse. We're negotiating and if you look at recent history, every negotiation so far has resulted in a new contract. That's not an impasse and in order to impose the city's last and best offer legally we must be at an impasse after negotiating for a reasonable period of time in good faith. Fail to do that and a judge can, and often does, say get back to the table. Who determines the city's position/offer? Council. How much faith do you have in them to do this? Are they even in favor of this strategy? They are paralyzed. IMO, they're in way over their heads. AB506 could give them the helping hand with the unions they so clearly and desperately need. We're going to be a failed-city sooner or later. Get on with it, take politics out of the decision-making, and start the recovery!

Hutch said...

Todd, 've been on negotiating committees (Union side) many times. Employers declaring an impasse is nothing new and it's really very simple.

The City doesn't need to worry about AB506 now. They need to demand about a 15% cut in wages and benefits.

The Union will baulk and refuse to negotiate. At that point we can make sure we're in compliance with the law and declare an impasse. But right now all we have to do is demand a very large cut. If we don't do that then nothing else matters.

Anonymous said...

Make that suggestion to Council, Hutch. Prepare for the BS.

Anonymous said...

No impasse in sight. The city continues to negotiate and reach new agreements.

Anonymous said...

45 million people received welfare benefits 2011

70% increase from 2007

New report finds food stamp claims are on the rise.

1 in 4 Americans on food stamps today.

Cost to working Americans is 100 billion dollars a year.

Early nineties 27 million were on food stamps. Now we are at 46.2 million. Obama expanded the eligibility. College students that could not find a job right out of school were allowed to apply.

Anonymous said...

"1 in 4 Americans on food stamps today." "Early nineties 27 million were on food stamps. Now we are at 46.2 million."

Something's wrong with these numbers. US population is about 312 million. If the figure of 46.2 million on food stamps is correct, that's about 15% or 1 in 7, not 1 in 4.

Kathy Meeh said...

"Early nineties 27 million were on food stamps" (Anonymous 1105)

And this isn't the early 1990's. There are more people in this country 20 years later, and the worldwide recession is much deeper. Better to feed people, rather than cause them to beg on the streets, and further exacerbate health and crime problems. Articles Wall Street Journal, 4/19/12, and Huffington Post, 8/3/11. Anon 11:53 am, gave the correct percentage on food stamps statistics: "about 15% or 1 in 7, not 1 in 4."

And not 100 billion, unless that includes distribution cost (?). From the WSJ article: "Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier." In the aftermath of this Recession, CBO expects the food stamp program to continue to grow through 2014. "CBO said the number of people receiving benefits is expected to fall after 2014 because the economy will be improving.... It estimated that 34 million people, or 1 in 10 U.S. residents, would receive SNAP benefits in 2022 and SNAP expenditures, at about $73 billion, will be among the highest of all non-health-related federal support programs for low-income households." Nothing new, a food stamps program has been available in this country, 73 years, since 5/16/1939