Take a look at this. Classic Orwellian Doublespeak. Without
raising" Nah, they're just expanding the base 500%. And all we're
doing is "amending" the existing tax.
The kicker is "other essential City services". Define essential please.
There is a $500 dollar cap on the existing tax. Add your PG&E bill,
telephone, cell phones, and heaven knows what else, and how close will
you get? There is no talk about caps, amount, duration, sunset, nothing. What exactly do they want? (Jim Wagner)
From Goodbe Research, Topline Report, 6/10/13, page 4 of 17, item 2.
City of Pacifica - 2013 Revenue Measure Feasibility Survey
| Uniformed Ballot Test | November, 2013 | June, 2014 | November, 2014 |
| Definitely
Yes | 27.1% | 31.2% | 30.5% |
| Probably Yes | 31.6% | 29.4% | 32.2% |
| Probably No | 10.5% | 12.5% | 10.5% |
| Definitely No | 16.5% | 14.5% | 15.3% |
| Don't Know or
No Answer | 14.3% | 12.4% | 11.5% |
| Total Yes | 58.7% | 60.6% | 62.6% |
| Total No | 27.0% | 27.0% | 25.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ballot question wording |
| Without
raising the current 6.5% rate, and to fund: |
| * fire
protection and emergency services, |
| * neighborhood police patrols, |
| * senior services, |
| *
maintenance of parks beaches and recreation programs |
| * street repair, and |
| * other essential City Services, |
|
| Shall an
ordinance be adopted to amend the City of Pacifica's Utility Users Tax adding
telecommunications |
| services,
requiring equal treatment regardless of technology used, maintaining senior
exemptions and adding |
independent
citizens oversight, with all funds to stay in Pacifica and no funds for
Sacramento?
Submitted by Jim Wagner
Posted by Kathy Meeh |
|
112 comments:
well, I can see why city council did not post this on the city website but used instead that censored two page snow job document.
Council will pull out all the tricks including this ballot statement full of lawyer talk.
What does this mean: "requiring equal treatment regardless of technology used"--everyone gets ripped off equally?
And it's forever, or, at least til another ballot measure to change it. Kumbaya baby! And thank you for your continued support.
geezlaweez, the wording of this thing ought to be illegal. talk about a smoke screen. they've got consumer protection laws governing every contract you might sign, including cell phones! how about the same for this kind of crap? particularly if they use the results to pimp a tax. bet a lot of the respondents had no idea what they were being asked or what it would cost them.
I actually would be open to a new tax. The main reason I opposed the previous ones was because I didn't trust the councils in office at the time.
But Jeez, the wording of that ordinance is total gibberish. No way would I vote for an ordinance that vague, nor would I vote for one without a five year or less expiration period.
I'd support a new tax with a time limit of no more than 5 years and a very clear and easy to understand basis. The city is marginally better run, although I don't really trust this lot anymore than the last. Time to stop kidding ourselves about other sources for more revenue. However, this UUT thing that's being proposed is a license to steal. Snow job covers it real well!
Uh oh, I feel another consultant coming on.
Sinai, FYI gibberish writers everywhere call foul!
This manipulation is inexcusable. The short term solution is to simply defeat the tax. The long term solution is to evaluate the behind the scenes winking, and tighten all city ethics rules regarding meetings, spending tax money and the like. If the city manager spent this money, his check signing authority has to be reduced to zero unless an emergency is present. Then we have to find out who knew about this and when...
Open and transparant council.
Ha!
Wow amazing but not surprising. The level of manipulation is abominable. Imagine if they placed it on the ballot using those words? At least there will be pros and cons and analysis if it does go to a vote.
I would also be interested to see how they framed all the questions, what times of day they called, and any other data.
I will not vote for any new taxes so that employees can make $6,000-$12,000 a month and more, This city needs to seriously reduce senior staff costs of the people making $100K to $200K first so we're more in line with other cities in the county.
I sum it up this way:
I tell the kids you get your allowence on Friday night, if you spend it before your next allowence money comes, tough!
You want more allowence money, you can do some extra work to pick up some extra money.
If the kids blow the money and sit with their hands out waiting for money, tough toodles.
The city council is the same, squander the money for years and keep coming back for more, more more!
There is is a high level of denial by staff. In a nutshell back in the last decade we had a nice bump in revenues due almost exclusively to the housing bubble. Properties that ha been paying but a few hundred dollars a year in property taxes once sold were now generating thousands in property taxes.
Around 2005 staff took advantage of this revenue boost to raise salaries across the board. However as we all know the bubble burst and so did the revenue.
There has yet to be an adjustment downward. Instead staff acts like they are owed.
In simple terms if the city has $10 it will spend $10. If it has $15 bucks it will spend $15. At issue is the city has gone back to having only $10, but wants to keep believing it has $15 so it wants to tax people to make up the difference which was a delusion to begin with as the revenue bump was due to a real estate bubble.
We'll see. If staff can convince enough well off people to agree to tax themselves and their neighbors wadda ya gonna do, hate your neighbor for something staff is perpetrating? Hardly
I'm not opposed to a tax because I think at some point the rhetoric has to stop and we get real. We tax payers are the only revenue source for the near term. I think a lot of people could be convinced of the same thing and vote for a tax with well-defined limits and fixed term. But this council has once again made a mess of something simple. They've gone and done it again! I won't vote for this thing. As someone earlier posted, it's a license to steal, forever.
The blame game will start soon. How convenient that Mr. Rhodes is leaving. His departing backside will be an easy target. But he's not the culprit. It's become painfully obvious that the clown car is a two-seater. That's the way they wanted it so they could get things done. Like this? Shame on you.
Bray, that's the best explanation you've ever made of your viewpoint. You explained the problem and it's source beautifully because you wanted to be clear. You wanted to be clear so people could understand the issue. You did not want to confuse or mislead. That makes all the difference. Council has or hires the writing skills to present material in easily understood terms if they wish to do so. Must we add 'ethically challenged' to the list of things council is dealing with?
Anonymous at 8:17am said...
"This manipulation is inexcusable. The short term solution is to simply defeat the tax. The long term solution is to evaluate the behind the scenes winking, and tighten all city ethics rules regarding meetings, spending tax money and the like. If the city manager spent this money, his check signing authority has to be reduced to zero unless an emergency is present. Then we have to find out who knew about this and when..."
What manipulation are you and others here talking about? Get a grip. Instead of whining on a blog, attend the city council meeting tomorrow night. The subject is on the agenda, all open and transparent, with the opportunity for public comment.
they can't pull back from this now. they'll have to blame Rhodes for everything past/present/future and get right to work on saving Pacifica!!! they'll gather the shills, get the consultants on the campaign, plant those subtle threats to vital services, make sure the groups most likely to vote are thoroughly sold, do a little brain-washing on the most troublesome opponents, and march people!!! bad Rhodes, bad Rhodes. it could pass.
I love how they start off by saying "Without raising the current 6.5% rate" Very misleading. Never once do they state clearly that they want to increase our taxes or how much it will cost us.
And since seniors were exempted I have a strong feeling that they made these calls during the day when they would reach more retired people.
wondered when "get a grip" would weigh in with the invite. check.
@1147 Maybe they're just inept. Peachy, so it's on the agenda, all open and transparent. Let's get it on the ballot asap so I can cast my no vote.
Todd, I've always believed your focus on blaming city employees for the city's problems is an attempt to distract people from noticing that the NIMBY's anti-development agenda starved the city of sustainable revenues.
Every city in the state ran into the same problems Pacifica did when the economy degenerated. But while most other cities were talking about laying off some portion of public servants, Pacifica was in such bad shape that it had to consider shutting down its whole police department.
I would also remind people that the sweet contracts city employees got, which I agree were overly generous, were approved the the previous NIMBY councils.
BTW - who the heck is on these citizens oversight committees, when do they meet, and have they ever objected to the way the city spends its money?
Anyone on this blog get a golden ticket to the invite only secret meeting with the secret committee?
I wonder if any of our council will be attending this thing.
I may have to be down at Sun Valley Market around 3 today to see the parade of "choses ones".
City Councils all over CA approved those types of sweetheart contracts back in the bubble. Could be that Bray's focus is a little bit of a smoke screen for the 'wretched excesses' of his friends, but why, in 2013, are we still stuck with this? It's clear what happened and why. I'm not advocating 10% cuts but year to year I don't see the numbers drop at all. The head count declines so we're getting less service and paying more for it. That's no recovery strategy. It's a continuation of the same policies, values and mistakes of those previous councils. How is it not? I really am not inclined to vote for a new tax to pay for mistakes this council, this one, has failed to address. The proof isn't in their rhetoric, it's in the numbers.
Sinai, if they do object they're gone! poof!
@1237 there they go now. baaaa baaaaa baaaaa.
todd bray said...
There is is a high level of denial In a nutshell back in the last decade we had a nice bump in revenues due almost exclusively to the housing bubble. Properties that ha been paying but a few hundred dollars a year in property taxes once sold were now generating thousands in property taxes.
Todd, Do you ever look at your tax bill. The sewer tax alone is more then just a couple hundred dollars. Take a look at the base sewer tax and get back to me. The city has to divy up the property tax money.
How to get into the secret meeting.
1. Find location
2. Watch for the white smoke.
3. Have the 3 passwords at the door.
4. Know the secret hand shake.
5. Have the secret decoder ring.
6. Bring lots of snacks and beer.
@1237 well, prior to the little shitstorm a max of 2 councilmembas could attend (Brown Act). I bet seats have become available. you go. no, you go. or maybe they'll put on their game faces and the mayor and pro tem will show up. take some pictures, would ya?
Gee, I wonder if they're going to clean-up that public dump site behind Park Mall. I mean, there they are, practically in it, a civic minded group of volunteers, ready to work for their city. Probably a couple of inspirational councilmembers on hand. I think picking up dirty diapers and rotten food would put them in the mood to raise taxes, right? Do it before the meeting.
anon 1253 didn't you catch that exchange at the last council hoohaw between Schlesinger and Rhodes? The sewer fee is not the property tax. Not not not. BTW, there are some oldtimer homeowners who pay just a few hundred in PROPERTY tax. The sewer fee is not not not a tax.
My captiva word proving I'm not a robot, and little else, was sheeps. Ungrammatical, I know, but on this day, at this hour, it's a sign people. From above.
Can little old Pacifica actually protect tax monies from big old Sacramento? Like it says at the end of the gibberish about this new tax? How's that work?
Anonymous 12:46pm said...
"City Councils all over CA approved those types of sweetheart contracts back in the bubble. Could be that Bray's focus is a little bit of a smoke screen for the 'wretched excesses' of his friends, but why, in 2013, are we still stuck with this? It's clear what happened and why. I'm not advocating 10% cuts but year to year I don't see the numbers drop at all. The head count declines so we're getting less service and paying more for it. That's no recovery strategy. It's a continuation of the same policies, values and mistakes of those previous councils. How is it not? I really am not inclined to vote for a new tax to pay for mistakes this council, this one, has failed to address. The proof isn't in their rhetoric, it's in the numbers."
The proof IS in the numbers. Don't the numbers for last year and the one in front of us show a balanced budget? And, yes, the head count has declined, pretty significantly.
Anonymous said...
Can little old Pacifica actually protect tax monies from big old Sacramento? Like it says at the end of the gibberish about this new tax? How's that work?
June 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...
It is called a sewer tax. Let the "state of the art" sewer plant fall apart. Don't do required maintence to the plant. Take plant money and put it into the general fund to pay bills. Then soak the taxpayers for more, more, more every year.
I almost forgot, set up an impossible way to protest the sewer rate increases.
Like they say in Vegas, the house almost always wins! Why? Cause they have the odds stacked in their favor.
Is this secret(not so secret) meeting like Pacific's version of the Bohemian Grove?
@242 Yeah, you're right. Not exactly what I meant, but you are correct! They got away with it for many years. What was it, about $700,000 per year siphoned off to spend on anything but the sewer system? It would still be going on if the state hadn't made it illegal. You can't leave money laying around with politicians in the house. Any politician.
anon 214 Check your numbers again. If the budget is balanced, the head count is down, and payroll expenditure is essentially unchanged, it just means we continue to spend too much of our city budget on payroll and on a shrinking workforce to deliver less and less service.
Balancing the budget has a nice ring to it, great campaign stuff whether for a candidate or a tax measure, but what's in the budget is equally important. The long term implications are enormous. Our situation is really no better than before. This council has failed to address payroll in a meaningful way. And of course, economic growth and new revenue remain "a long term proposition" which makes cutting payroll, not head count, even more critical.
And what if that fabled economic growth doesn't come or is quickly outstripped by payroll and benefit costs? That's a scenario we can't rule out. Sooner or later we must address the payroll problem or we commit ourselves to subsidizing it forever through taxes we haven't even heard of yet. Or watching this city disintegrate.
307 different guest list entirely although they might serve a little of that fine Mexican cerveza Bohemia and do a little sing-a-long. fully clothed, of course.
"... makes cutting payroll, not head count, even more critical"
Despite Todd beating that tired drum incessantly, that's actually only true if people are being over-compensated RELATIVE TO LIKE POSITIONS in neighboring communities. Otherwise, it makes more sense to reduce head count.
I have't seen any salary surveys to know which is the case, and different strategies are probably appropriate for different positions.
Payroll is a problem. This town got swept up in the free-spending ways of a lot of towns and our earlier councils sure didn't help matters. But Pacifica is not like a lot of other San Mateo towns or SF. We don't have their economies, their commercial and industrial base. And that's what it takes to pay these generous city salaries. We got nothing. Not even tourism unless you count the brown-baggers on the pier who don't spend here. And we gave away most of the land to build anything on. So to justify these salaries because we're in the Bay Area is ridiculous. We don't have the income, never did, probably never will. Rein them in now, correct the mistake, or get used to this mess. It can get worse.
@413 and you're beating the old tired drum about market wages and what neighboring towns pay. We're not other communities. We don't have their tax base and we never will. unless, of course we taxpayers keep stepping up to subsidize bigger salaries for a shrinking workforce that can't possibly deliver services for 40,000 people. cutting jobs means cutting service. it's not a substitute for trimming wages that are too high and payroll cost has not declined so it solves nothing. worried about a mass exodus of employees if wages are cut? even at more manageable salaries (I don't support draconian cuts) these are excellent jobs, particularly if the employee lives here--as so many do.
let's get real. we overpay. and we have no excuse for it in 2013. start there.
anon413 You could not be more wrong. These salaries are unsustainable without more and more taxes. How long do you think people will put up with that?
Every town usa pays there employees well.
The only people who complain about city salaries being so high, are the people who will not get off their asses and work.
Does anyone know if there is an opt out for seniors on this proposed tax?
413 Was the city overstaffed? Is it now? That would justify cutting jobs. Pacifica isn't and wasn't overstaffed and cutting jobs is not a long term solution to our payroll problem. When staffing levels are appropriate and jobs are eliminated, you just lose the ability to get the work done. I do believe we're seeing that in Pacifica. We certainly hear about it at every council meeting. And as others say, payroll costs have not gone down. It's not a fix and it means the services we all pay for don't get delivered.
The issue regarding payroll for me is very siple. If our employees had acted to save each others jobs a modest reduction in pay starting a few years ago would have achieved that. Instead we have witness an abusive all or nothing feeding frenzy that has depleted our work force because our work force is in charge of their compensation not the public.
For all the meetings about tax measures and pretending there is a process why hasn't council directed staff to introduce a vote for the people to reduce employee wages?
If such a thing is not currently in out state constitution we better put one there.
Oh and that self delusional RELATIVE TO COMP POSITIONS thing is truly sad. In the real world people don't get paid to work at their leisure. They get paid to produce a good or service that exceeds the expense of creating that product or service. Public employees do neither.
How can you blindly ignore the most basic tenets of a market economy? If people can make market salaries in Colma, San Bruno, or Daly City, why on earth would they accept less here? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
This is as simple as it gets, but I feel like I'm attempting to explain calculus to 5-year-olds.
@509 wow, ignorant and clueless. killer combo.
Wow Anon 509 & 559, so the hell with the poor and seniors making 20,000 a year that would have to pay these taxes so city workers can make bank?
And Pacifica is far from the lowest paid. Very far. We can sttill make at least 5% more in wage cuts and still be higher than SSF and other richer bigger cities.
BTW all Bay Area cities are continuing to negotiate big wage cuts. Not just the phoney ones like we made so far.
I don't mind what other people are making, just don't ask me to pay more to support it.
Hard to stop the gravy train when everybody's on board. I think a big part of the problem is this obsession with what other cities pay. We are not other cities. We want what they have but we can't pay for it. For decades we have gone our own way, fighting development, giving the GGNRA anything that wasn't nailed down, living in LaLa land. Fine, but now we're living with the results of that ideology and we are stuck with it. Our balance sheet doesn't support the same salaries of cities with a healthy tax base, cities who pursued growth. It just doesn't and it probably never will. Council knows this and they've got their hands out. Just like the ones before them and the ones to follow. It will never end unless tough, responsible and realistic changes are made.
@413 survey my ass. check out 1056 for some good old common sense instead of the cold mush you're peddling. city employee or one of their bosses?
559 Let's talk about free. These city employees are free to go for those salaries in another city if they feel they're being underpaid. That's also the free market. No one is irreplaceable. Even after modest, across the board reductions these salaries and benefits will still be very attractive. Life will go on and it will be better.
559 Let's give them a chance to tell us why making 3 to 5% less didn't drive them to seek jobs elsewhere!
several economic lessons here kids. Pacifica does not come anywhere near the property tax income,sales tax,lunch crowd, white collar office, biotech or high tech of any other county town save colma and e palo alto. And Colma has a ton of retail,cause they built it. We failed to act across so many economic segments. Therefore we ain't "like" them and can't pay their salaries. Two: if the grass is greener, every city employee would be gone.
510 Gosh, you mean like could you vote for the tax to keep that ambulance crew handy and then opt out of paying the tax? If Council could find a way to do that for you, they would because they're counting on, even targeting, your senior demographic to pass this thing. But, don't hold your breath.
559 uh, because they want a job, they live here, like the work, like the pace and the small town feel, they won't have to work with you?
Clicking your heels together and praying that people will work for less salary than they can get elsewhere is no strategy, Dorothy.
Un employment rate is still over 9% in California. Plenty of capable highly skilled people willing to take the jobs if our workers want to move on.
You are right 6:57, we can not afford to pay what rich cities like San Bruno and Colma are paying. But yet we pay more than many of these cities. Are we really better off than we were 30 years ago when we were paying much less than most of the Bay Area?
We need to make real cuts to the out of line wages and benefits.
Lowering city salaries? How could this work? Fiscal crisis (if we don't have one today, we will soon enough). Initiate a 3% cut to real wages across the board and freeze the salaries of current employees indefinitely. Drop the starting salaries and the pay steps for all new employees to a much more manageable level. As much as 10% lower. When the disgruntled frozen employees bolt for those higher paying jobs with those other cities (as if), or retire or move away, that job gets filled at the new lower wage.
Of course, it isn't this simple, but it isn't really all that complicated, either. This kind of thing has been done for years all over the country, in both public and private sectors. In Pacifica it requires the political will to make the change and the guts to face the unions. You know who you have to convince.
716 What say we give it a try because somebody dropped a house on the current plan and I'm not giving you any more money. Click on that!
There are wide variances in wages from one Bay Area city to the next. South San Francisco, Brisbane, Menlo Park and many other cities pay much less than Pacifica.
People stay in jobs for many reasons, convenience, safety, laziness. The higher the pay does not equate to better employees. Lowering pay does not always result in employee loss. Besides, there aren't that many open positions out there.
So yeah please negotiate lower union wages before you try and take my money please.
I'd fly with Dorothy.
Great idea! Let's grab some guy off the street to be the EMT when someone in your family needs one.
716 prayer has no place in the workplace. employer offers a salary. the employee or applicant either accepts or goes elsewhere. many factors other than money go into the decision to take a job. and as others have said here, no one is irreplaceable and there is no shortage of applicants for jobs with the salaries, benefits and pension!!!! that goes with city employment. have a little faith LOL.
@716 who's praying? they can come and go as they want. value them all but there's no need to be over-paying them because somebody on the same city payroll told us we had to.
"many other cities pay much less than Pacifica"
If that's true, then that's the only justification in reducing salaries. I haven't seen any proof of that, though.
Plenty of EMT's out of work 7:48. But keep pushing your 1980's union scare tactics.
748 Why that's exactly what we're all suggesting. And he'll take public transit to get there. Really, despite the tired rhetoric you've clearly bought into, the choice isn't between a skilled, overpaid Pacifica EMT/other city employee and the guy who fried your burger last week. We can still offer attractive salaries and excellent benefits to our skilled and professional city employees without bankrupting the city or the tax payers. Your argument is ridiculous.
Even East Palo Alto has Tesla and Ikea and a new hotel and more. For God's sake, East Palo Alto! How did this happen to us? How could it happen to us? And our council pats itself on the back while sticking its hand in our wallets and crowing about a balanced budget--now that takes nerve--and losing more public trust every time they open their mouths.
Here you go 7;57. So this is "average wages" some are higher some are lower. We need to look at individual salaries and adjust down where needed.
average city employee wages in 2011
$48,133 Pacifica
$43,868 Brisbane
$44,023 SSF
$47,988 San Carlos
$45,860 Menlo Park
$42,612 Newark
$38,377 Campbell
$37,184 Cupertino
$39,293 Morgan Hill
$42,612 Newark
http://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Cities/Cities.aspx
@757 Noooo, that's not the only justification for paying lower salaries. If you're going to compare salaries you need to also compare who's paying them and that means looking at their relative ability to pay. Our relative ability to pay is near the bottom of the scale, if not the bottom. We chose to make it so. Yet our salaries are at the top. This is unsustainable without someone else footing the bill, forever. Not interested.
It's not scare tactics; it's reality. People wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. Unless you're willing to stay at your job when there's a better paying one down the street, you should try to learn to live in the real world.
Our relative ability to pay has absolutely zero correlation with whether people will accept arbitrary salaries pulled out of your butt.
828 nonsense. there isn't a better paying job right down the road for most of these people. mnay of these folks live here and choose to work here for different reasons and a big one is the real short commute, being close to kids in school, etc. and, if they find a better job, well what's wrong with that? no one is irreplaceable and we all gotta do what we gotta do for ourselves and our families.
If those numbers aren't cherry-picked, then 8:19 is the only one making a valid argument for reducing salaries. Unless we are overpaying relative to other communities, the better option for Pacifica would be to reduce jobs.
To be clear, I think we should choose one of those options, so whoever suggests I'm a union shill is obviously an idiot. I just think some people (like Todd) are unable or unwilling to accept economic and market realities. This isn't Soviet Russia, and you can't just make up arbitrary salaries while ignoring the greater market.
828 In the real world Pacifica is paying unsustainable salaries to city employees. In the real world the city solution to that problem thus far is to cut jobs thereby cutting services to the people who pay the salaries. They have not cut the overall payroll cost by more than a hair, if at all. In the real world, knowing there's no new revenue on the way and being reluctant to take on labor, our city council has decided to scam the taxpayer's into paying more for less. We'll have to see how that plays out in the real world where most of us have to live within our means.
No one is suggesting that the city not live within its means. Cutting salaries if there are better options in nearby communities just means that we'll end up with the worse performing employees who can't seek employment elsewhere because nobody wants to hire them. If that's the case, the way to live within our means is to eliminate positions.
901 Butt absolutely no correlation is necessary. Accept the salary, don't accept the salary, somebody with the right qualifications will because it's in the appropriate range (although close to or at the bottom) and the SF Bay Area attracts plenty of job seekers from all over. Most importantly, we're spending public funds and it's what we can afford to pay.
8:19 Your average salaries do in fact appear to be cherry-picked. There are only four cities with lower average salaries in San Mateo county.
9:31 Why would people come to an area with one of the highest costs of living in the country for sub-market salaries?!? We'd end up with a bunch of city employees who cannot grasp basic mathematics.
Hey, there's the first good idea of the night! We should figure a way to recruit from people who post on this blog, since they apparently have no clue about how to add or subtract!
If you reduce jobs, you reduce service. This has been council's approach. They complain about understaffing at every meeting. It hasn't brought the payroll cost down. It doesn't solve the problem.
Are we paying for services or to keep salaries high for a dwindling group of employees? I think that's a valid question. Not popular with the unions, but valid. Public Employee Pension reform has brought about the two-tier system. Even in Pacifica. Newer employees receive a pension that costs the public less. Unions hated the idea. Perhaps it's time to pursue salary reform, particularly when we know a mistake was made in letting things get so far out of balance. It's done all the time in the private sector. We know what the range is for these positions in the greater Bay Area. We don't belong any where near the top. Of course this is heresy to the unions. They'd rather we just pay this tax and all the ones that will follow.
Only 4 cities in San Mateo paying less than Pacifica? That's a lot. And you have to consider the whole Bay Area. There are dozens of local cities paying less than Pacifica. And not true that the more you pay the better the employee. I think we all see that in our jobs. And just look at Ann Ritzma to disprove that one.
Overpaid or underpaid, something's got to change or they won't be paid at all. We're in some kind of surreal race between the bills coming in and new revenue sources coming on line. We're losing, badly, and council expects us to bridge the gap, again, between what's in the bank and what they've unwisely obligated us to pay for. Once again, we're the source for new revenue. It will never end.
Hey Anon 9:44 1000's of Pacificans survive on less than $15,000 a year. Many more on $30,000. Why should they be asked to pay more taxes so city workers can make 2, 3 or 4 times that much. All cities are reducing pay. The unions don't want to admit this but that is a fact. Millbrae just cut worker pay by 5%. Pacifica needs to make some real cuts not just fake ones like they have so far.
WaWawaaa, we'll get the dregs.
Only if you hire them. And that can and does happen even when you pay top dollar. The Bay Area always attracts job seekers. Qualified applicants aren't hard to come by. Contrary to some of the belligerent comments on here, no one is suggesting some totally arbitrary low-ball salary but we shouldn't be any where near the top. The Greater Bay Area provides a wide range within which to plan. Look at more than San Mateo County because people are willing to commute some distance for a city job with rewards not found in the private sector. A little turn-over planning wouldn't hurt either. Not so much as to be disruptive but to slow down that pay scale and spread that pension obligation among other cities, etc. Slightly
lower salaries need not mean anything in this applicant-rich area other than slightly lower salaries.
"1000's of Pacificans survive on less than $15,000 a year"
Apart from the fact that you just pulled that figure out of your butt, those mythical individuals have not invested the time to achieve the kind of training and certifications needed for a higher paying job. You can't just put a bagger from Safeway in a PD uniform.
"Only 4 cities in San Mateo paying less than Pacifica? That's a lot."
It's only a lot when you have no idea what you're talking about and don't recognize that there are at least 15 other cities in San Mateo County with higher average salaries.
@944 Go figure. Use your math skills. People have always come to the Bay Area. Most knowing how expensive it is and without a job. Never a shortage of job seekers at all levels. Pay a little less with city benefits and pension and you'll still have plenty of good applicants. Most of our city workers seem to be home-grown, 2nd generation, relatives, etc. That's about a lot more more than salary.
You know, lot of ideas and opinions on here, but why are we all so concerned over whether the city can find applicants for its jobs? There's a never-ending applicant parade in the Bay Area. Plus all the locals who want to work near home. It's the city's job to find the right people to fill the jobs. Whole bunch of people handling it...HR Director and staff, dept heads, guest panels. It's up to them. We don't need to do their job for them. What we should worry about is how they get paid. Can we afford these salaries? Are we willing to subsidize long term because it sure looks like we'll have to. If not, what do we want done with our money? That's our real problem, isn't it? The rest is a distraction.
@1018 low-hanging fruit. how do you propose we pay for all these higher paying positions, not just police but the whole crew? not 5 or 10 years from now, but this year and next year? seriously, what do you think?
@1021 wherever we fall on that list or a bigger list or no list at all, the fact remains we can't pay these salaries. forget the ranking. how do we pay for these people?
1021 I wonder how many have cut salaries for real, not Pacifica-style. And how many are facing the same disaster we are?
Again, what you people WANT to pay is irrelevant. We need to spend our limited salary budget on our best people and not waste it on the losers.
@1121 Unfortunately I think council would agree with your first sentence and include themselves in it. But what we and particularly, they, think about salaries is highly relevant today. Never have they had a better opportunity to put the brakes on and the best they can do is cut positions and even then barely stay even on the total cost. That is unsustainable. We pay for services with our tax dollars. Who is going to do the work if more jobs are cut? Where is the money to come from? What do you mean in your second sentence? Do you envision a tiny well-paid workforce doing everything? Eliminating some tasks and services? The losers in this are us, the taxpayers. Once again.
1121 real glad you're not running Pacifica.
$48,133 Pacifica
$43,868 Brisbane
$44,023 SSF
$47,988 San Carlos
$45,860 Menlo Park
$42,612 Newark
$38,377 Campbell
$37,184 Cupertino
$39,293 Morgan Hill
$42,612 Newark
All these cities have economies, business, commerce and do not have the "ecology is our economy" attitude.
Anonymous 9:07pm said...
"If those numbers aren't cherry-picked, then 8:19 is the only one making a valid argument for reducing salaries. Unless we are overpaying relative to other communities, the better option for Pacifica would be to reduce jobs.
To be clear, I think we should choose one of those options, so whoever suggests I'm a union shill is obviously an idiot."
Pacifica has already cut more than 50 positions over the past 9 years.
Fewer positions often results in higher average salaries as lower level workers are let go and their responsibilities are consolidated into the roles of their peers and managers. To suggest cutting positions based on generalities is short sighted and doesn't do much to move Pacifica forward.
1121 Pacifica can not afford to get "the best" workers as you say. But as we all know the highest paid are not always the best. Bottom line is there aren't that many jobs out there. Unemployment is still very high. Private sector jobs wages have been slashed. You want to takl market? No openings and a surplus of workers means lower wages. Yes it is a free market and it is telling us to cut wages just like every other city is doing.
You get what you pay for. If we pay less than they can earn elsewhere, we'll end up with a bunch of losers -- essentially the dregs that no one else wants. A better alternative is to pay fewer people closer to market rates (or else they'll leave anyway).
Revenue producing projects.
What a concept!
The attitude in this post, "Again, what you people WANT to pay is irrelevant. We need to spend our limited salary budget on our best people and not waste it on the losers." Is what the problem is. Publuc sector folks feel entitled and owed.
or on the so called "princess crews"
You need to learn the difference between attitude and the most basic economic laws.
Rantanon instructs, "You need to learn the difference between attitude and the most basic economic laws."
But does elaborate on what he's trying to say. Perhaps the Rantanon could lets us know what sort of economic laws require public employees to strong arm members of the public who make 4 time less than they do in order to avoid a reduction in their standard of living? I missed that economic theory one in school. I saw a similar one on HBO, but those guys were not public employees.
Anyone who promotes a "solution" that requires people to voluntarily forego salary that they could easily earn elsewhere for said "solution" to work has obviously been smoking their own pixie dust.
Basic economic law....don't spend more than you can afford on anything or anybody. Oh, of course, if you can get the public to foot the bill, again, you're home free.
@1120 and so do you. something current, maybe a refresher course?
Hey anon 1253, open your eyes. Every city is cutting wages. Plenty of cities are paying way less than Pacifica and they keep employees. There are not any cities hiring many employees. There are more people looking for work then there are job openings. So where would our employees go if we cut their wages? This is not the 80's. Wake up.
1253 Forget Bray. I want to know what you've been smoking? Money?
Firmly entrenched in the status quo and loving it?
1253 They may certainly go elsewhere with our gratitude and good wishes. Very few, if any, actually will. There will be no shortage of good candidates to take the open jobs.
These are city workers, not rare wines or start-up types. They know they've got a good deal even if we paid them a slightly lower salary that we could actually afford.
I love it. While all the Nero's(noobees, nimbys, and hippies) fiddled while Rome(Pacifica) burned now say.
Wow, we should have done something about that fire.
It was the firemens fault cause they asked for too much pay and we had to cut the number of firemen.
I love it too. We blame the whatevers for ruining the city with truly magnanimous sweetheart contracts but we just can't bring ourselves to fix it. It's on us, now, nobody else. This payroll mess is on this council and the us.
We're starting to get too many gibberish comments on this thread. Please make your comment at least minimally rational, or they won't get posted.
Post a Comment