Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Cities lose annualized State of CA ERAF revenue, from January, 2014


The City of Pacifica has relied upon the approximate $700,000+ annualized revenue to balance its budget.  Now that funding is gone, except for smaller amounts received in 2015 and 2016.

Nothing coming but a truck
Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, Staff, 2/5/13.  "City Council challenged by unexpected loss of $1.4 million over next two years."

"In its meeting last week, the Financing City Task Force heard the latest in financial bad news to hit the city -- a loss of $1.4 million over the next two years due to the loss of ERAF (Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund). City staff had counted on receiving that money from the state because it had been a mainstay in the budget for years, but now faces a shortfall of $700,000 in each of the next two years.  ....  At a study session tomorrow, City Council is expected to discuss with task force members the options the task force developed to balance the city's budget, to gain revenue and to cut expenses. This will be the last scheduled meeting of the Financing City Services Task Force.

Revenue options include putting taxes on the ballot. Some of the options include a fire suppression assessment to gain $1 million a year, a revised utility users tax to generate $800,000 a year, a one-half cent sales tax on the Nov. 2013 ballot to collect $1 million a year, a potential $118 parcel tax to generate $1.2 million a year, or service reductions.  .... The final distributions will occur in January 2014 -- $815,000 (50 percent of 2012 and 10 percent of 2010), January 2015 -- $128,700 (10 percent of 2011) and finally January 2016 -- $152,940 (10 percent of the 2012).

Thanks again NIMBIES !
The study session begins at 6 p.m. tomorrow at City Council Chambers, 2212 Beach Blvd. It will be televised live on PCT-Channel 26.   Read article.  

Reference - City Study Session.  City Calendar, Thursday, February 7, 2013, 6 PM.  "Joint Study Session City Council and the Financing City Services Task Force,meeting  agenda.  Community television  Channel 26.

Reference - ERAF background information.   Educational Revenue Fund (ERAF), 1/08, "Overview". League of CA Cities, 8/12. "Fact Sheet:  The ERAF property tax shift." "The state has provided some funding to local governments that it considers mitigation of ERAF.  However, the vast majority of these funds are earmarked for particular purposes. ... In 1992, California voters approved Proposition 172, which provided sales tax funding for police, fire and other public safety programs.  Proposition 172 funds will provide about $2.8 billion to local governments in FY2012-13, leaving local citizens facing a $4 billion net ERAF gap in FY 2012-13." 

Posted by Kathy Meeh 

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

This funding scheme has been in decline for 6 years. Eveyone in the city gov't biz knew the funding was running out. The Calif League of Cities knew and told all Calif cities.
Pacifica knew, if they bothered to read League of Cities newsletters. Pacifica did not plan ahead and got nailed again. I don't care to pay more taxes because Pacifica once again had its head in the sand.

Anonymous said...

Head in the sand? You mean clowncil? Relax. They're just looking for plover eggs.

Anonymous said...

They knew. In Northrop's article she quotes Ritzma as saying the loss of ERAF revenue was included in this year's budget and in FCSTF 5 year plan. Knowing is one thing, doing something about it is something else. It isn't the "knowing" that's been the problem. It's the continuing failure to take action that dooms us as a city. Oh yes, the studies continue.

Anonymous said...

Head in the sand? No, head up their arse.

Anonymous said...

The hits just keep on coming, don't they? Make the cuts, outsource where you can. And don't expect any new tax measures to pass because people are fed up. New library? You have got to be kidding.

Anonymous said...

That is the new city manager Ritzma

Observer Otto said...

Ritzma talks, Ritzma makes shit up. Never believe what she says. She doesn't. Retirement will be sweet bliss for the manipulator of numbers.

Anonymous said...

She's years away from retirement.

Anonymous said...

She is months away from being city manager.

Anonymous said...

We are so screwed.

Anonymous said...

Go ahead Council give Ritzma the job. Just so long as pay and bennies are capped at $100k.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Go ahead Council give Ritzma the job. Just so long as pay and bennies are capped at $100k.

February 7, 2013 at 7:31 AM

She makes more then that now why would she take a pay cut. Rhodes makes $185k

Anonymous said...

Pay cut? To someone leading the city gravy train? Why would any city employee suffer a real paycut? After years of council's we're making big cuts bullshit, the real payroll number still is going up. All they "cut" are some future raises and a little of the cafeteria cash. And you can't even be sure that won't morph into something that doesn't show up on a W2. Has Council taken any cuts?Payroll is no longer of even much interest to the public with their short attention span and the constant parade of screw-ups in Pacifica. What a relief for council and senior staff!

Anonymous said...

Is the City really considering charging $150 annual fee for owning a cat? Was there a fee for dogs too?

PTP said...

Anom@4:56PM-

I think you misunderstood, Anon. I believe Council is considering putting on their own special "only in Pacifica" version of the runaway Broadway hit musical "CATS" at Mildred Owen Concert Hall at 150 bucks a pop.

Can't wait to see them in their bad cat costumes with Digre belting out "Memory".

Chris Fogel said...

Is the City really considering charging $150 annual fee for owning a cat?

No.

Anonymous said...

Based on Dyer's letter in the Tribune today; Wildan Financial Services did suggest to the City a $150 fee per cat per year. I just want to know if they suggested the fee for dogs too?

Anonymous said...

@550 geez, now I'm going to have nightmares for sure. big cats with council faces prowling through the audience trying to be feline. is nancy hall going to be in this show? i'm just not going to go to sleep ever again.

Chris Fogel said...

Wildan Financial Services did suggest to the City a $150 fee per cat per year.

No. They did not do this.

HERE is Willdan's report to the City.

Anonymous said...


February 8, 2013 at 2:02 AM

"Chris Fogel said...
Wildan Financial Services did suggest to the City a $150 fee per cat per year.

No. They did not do this.

HERE is Willdan's report to the City"

Thank you Chris. Maybe you didn't see it... The report lists on page 18 Building Division: Annual Animal Permit Fees Renewal of Small Animal Permits 5150.00.

The page list permit fees for all kinds of critters; pigeons to honeybees.

Anonymous said...

But there will be catbox walkthrough inspections at $150 per.

Chris Fogel said...

Maybe you didn't see it... The report lists on page 18 Building Division: Annual Animal Permit Fees Renewal of Small Animal Permits 5150.00.

Right back at you -- you missed the part where you only need a small animal permit in the first place if you have 5 or more small animals (very bottom of page 17).

Anonymous said...

Actually, current fee is $150 for 5or more small animals or 3 or more of the same genus.

Anonymous said...

So the woman that rescued 5 cats from the shelter has to pay the City $750 for her kindness.

Anonymous said...

No 1255. Check that report, again. Better yet, let's do a reality check. What's the likelihood this inept city would be efficient and effective in assessing and collecting such fees? Who's the cat counter? Is that a door-to-door census or reliant on neighbors reporting in to the gestapo? The city can't even get to the obvious stuff like junkers parked in the same spot for months. Now, there's a money-maker!
We're not going to make this city solvent through some cat tax. How much did this report cost? Fools.

Chris Fogel said...

If you want to have five or more cats and dogs, you need a permit. The permit is $150 for the first year and $75 each year afterwards to renew it. Full stop.

I don't know why everyone is getting upset about this all of a sudden -- the permit requirement and fee has been on the books here in Pacifica for many years (see here).

Anonymous said...

I will let you people register your dogs/cats at my house and address in San Bruno for $125 for the first year and $50 bucks.

Cash only.

No checks or credit cards.

Anonymous said...

It gets attention because it reminds us of how truly absurd our situation is here in Pathetica. We paid for another unnecessary report containing a number of purely symbolic fees commissioned by a useless city council.

Anonymous said...

Wow, a cat tax. That's another public relations stinker by council. Will that be the next consultant they hire...PR? Would that be that communications firm that was supposed to help them better communicate with the public? Good job people! Coming through loud and clear.

Anonymous said...

Cat police, plover cops--apparently the animals are out of control...signs of the impending Zombie Apocalypse for sure.