... not so sure about consultants and city employees.
Pacifica Tribune, Letters to the Editor, 2/6/13. "City Fees" by Therese M. Dyer
"Editor: Last week there was a
full page in the Pacifica Tribune contributed to cats by their owners,
all were very interesting but the one I found was most heartwarming was
the one by Patrica Cruz. I always knew she was a cat lover ; one only
has to visit her and see her collection of cats that surround her
workplace.
What I didn't know just how compassionate she was
toward these felines, but as the story goes she has fostered so many
kittens from the humane society and adopted so many of her own. The
article also mentions that Pacificans adopt 10 percent of cats from the
Humane Society .In 2010 we adopted 120.
| $450 annual city revenue |
So why am I writing this after it was already published? Because I attended a presentation recently about a comprehensive user fee study by the firm Willdan Financial Services (another waste of taxpayers' money.) This is to advise our city whether to increase fees from fire inspections to building fees. The one thing that caught my attention was an annual fee for cats at the suggested fee of $150 per cat per year. Well, I protested and so should you cat lovers, It's not written in stone yet so you all better show up before it is.
What's the rationale behind this? Maybe you didn't know but we have quite a few so called executives and department heads that make $200,000 and $100,000 and it costs each resident about $491 toward their salaries. I say slash the high salaries, lay off where needed (by implementing additional duties in their job descriptions and give it a new title) all businesses do it and it was done by our own school district when i was on the negotiating team for the classified employees.
I say keep the cats. We should compensate them for taking care of all those gophers. In other words, they earn their keep. What do you get from all those high salaried city employees: I'll let you answer that."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
5 comments:
Pacfica Tribune Letters to the Editor were of particular interest to me this week. This Letter reprint article was set-up this morning, and others remain in draft for posting this weekend.
I know the cat fee/permit issue has been discussed on the Cities lose State ERAF article. Still, FMV, Therese Dyer's Letter in its original form is worth posting.
And thanks for the direct (City) source information, Chris Fogel. Your researched comments elevate the already good and interesting conversation.
The fee has always been in place. People who advocate eliminating our few sources of revenue in our current financial situation are utterly irresponsible.
@1045 How much revenue was collected in cat fees last year? I'm all for anything that creates revenue. You seem to have some knowledge of our revenue. How much was collected in cat fees last year?
Who cares? How many do you have, and why are you trying to eliminate the fees?
930 Anon, so defensive! I don't want fees eliminated. I merely question how effective the city is at collecting these cat fees. We need every penny. I have no cats, so won't be paying. Is there some reason for secrecy?
Post a Comment