Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Full Godbe UUT survey
Here is the full survey. Your poll will reflect what the entity funding it wants. If you're paying someone twenty five thousand dollars, you'll get the results you want. They did a similar poll before they floated the half cent sales tax 3 years ago. Positive numbers came back. 60% approval. If you remember, that lost by 2/3. This ballot that hasn't been written yet but has been talked about a lot will reach deep into your pockets.
www.fixpacifica.com/docs/GODBE_Survey.pdf
Blogmaster's note: This is a big file (over 21.6 MB, so it may take awhile to download.)
Submitted by Jim Wagner
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Can you share Jim, how the proposed ballot measure will "reach deep into your pockets"? What are your specific concerns? Sounds like Council will continue the current cap on businesses (at the current $500). Please, be specific. General fear mongering isn't helpful to educate us about your concerns.
The balls on these folks. Use $25,000 of our own money to figure out how to screw us into paying more taxes.
Yes! Notice the question about cutting employee wages before taxing us got a 52% favorable. That's the only one I believe.
The use of consultants is a cya move.
Well, the consultants said out sourcing the pd.
This council, or the previous councils never had the guts to make tough decisions.
great job on the poll doc post. Too bad the city (or the tribune) did not bother to post this for the public.
Goes to show you, ask a carefully crafted question and you always get the right answer. If they had asked: would you tax yourself if you knew the city had a $1.5 million surplus? Ahhhh, no.
Anon @ 8:10pm. "Well, the consultants said out sourcing the pd."
No, the consultant did not say outsource the pd. Please be factual.
ahem, the campaign is underway!
Since we appear to have a UUT Modernization expert on here, or at least someone with some subject knowledge, would you be so kind as to answer a serious question? How much is the estimate of what this tax will cost a Pacifica resident per year? Not a business. A resident with cell phone, texting, regular land line. I'm sure a number has been developed. I didn't hear it last night but that doesn't mean it wasn't mentioned. Thanks if you can answer that.
Anon 7:52 (or Councilperson_____). Nice try. This is an added TAX, that will cost Pacificans a lot of extra MONEY. That's not fear mongering, it's fact. So Jim is right.
If we vote yes on this this it's giving them the green light to continue hiding reports, paying for polls and trying to tax us.
I'm making it my goal in life to defeat this pile of crap.
Well, by all means post anonymously on some blog... That'll just make a huge difference.
How come comments were removed? And the comment about deep pockets in the story?
I'd like to know how much it will cost me per year? Resident, not business. I know someone on here knows. It's not a loaded question and I haven't decided how to vote.
Thanks.
Take your cell phone and land line (this would be your old fashioned regular phone service or internet phone or comcast phone or,...) bills and add then together. Multiple the total cell phone and land line bill by 6.5%.
For example, $75 cell phone + $25 home phone = $100 per month. $100 * 6.5% = $6.50 per month tax. Not even two cups of fancy coffee or for those a little more lively, a cocktail. Actual cell phone and land line bills vary, so calculate away!
Do not include your cable TV or internet service in the calculation, as from the sounds of last night's council conversation, those will not be included.
Over 62 years of age? Complete the exemption and no tax.
6.5% of your cellular and internet bill. Could cost average Pacifica resident $200+ per year more depending.
920, Nothing is quite as hilarious as your anonymous lectures to others about being anonymous. Just wanted to thank you for that, anonymously, of course.
"How come comments were removed?"
No comments under this article were removed.
945 and 946 Thank you for answering my question. Looks like about $100 per year for me. Perhaps $1000 over 10 years. We'll see.
Anon 9:46pm Internet is NOT included in the proposed update to the UUT. Telecommunication is what would be added: Land lines. Fax lines (if any of these are still left out there). Cell phones, including data usage, texting, voice communication, things that most have bundled on their cell phone bill.
oh this going to be fun.
Being a senior has it's advantages.
Senior coffee at McDonalds now stick all the youngin's with this new tax!
We have many small businesses in Pacifica. Many, if not most, live by their cell phones and land lines. At present, they are not being taxed. If their bills combined for land and cell are $300 a month they well be paying almost $250 a year. That's deep in their pocket in my opinion. Add this to the 6.5% they are already paying for their PG&E bills both at home and at their business. Now add the cell phone and land lines at home. Add a kid or two and their phones and streaming, texting, and whatever other data used and you could have another $400 or more a month in taxable use. $25 or more a month. Where are we, $600 dollars a year. Now ask yourself where that $100 cell phone bill comes from. I don't know too many families that only have $100 cell and phone bill combined. This is a truly regressive tax and will hurt those small businesses and struggling families trying to keep their heads above water.
I pay enough already on my cell and home phone I don't need the city raising my phone bills to pay a bunch of fat cats making big bucks.
"a cup of coffee" Boy the pundits are already here spinning away. You think we can't tell who you are 752, 829, 920, 945
ATT cell $99 unlimited text, data and calls.
$9.99 for each additional line.
My Momma told me, to shop around!
My cell bill is $210, home phone is a portion of $180 Comcast bill.
GET OUT OF MY WALLET PACIFICA! You need money? Cut your expenses.
The punch line of all this tax stuff is it will go directly into the pockets of our employees who make as much a 4 times what you do. More if you are on SSI disability, like 10 times more. This new UUT tax will take from the poor to pay the rich. It's right out of the dark ages when we, the people, were nothing more than Serfs.
I'm quite done with being considered an ATM machine for a senior staff and council that can't or wont understand the gravy days of the real estate bubble are over and compensation packages need to adjust downward.
"...right out of the dark ages..."
I don't really want to pay another $100-200/year either, but a case could be made that being ridiculously over-dramatic doesn't help the case.
I agree with both Jim & Todd. See, lightning didn't strike me down.
Many small business and residents can't afford to pay 100's more per year so that top managers can continue to make $100,000-$200,000.
Go back to the bargaining table and make some real cuts this time. 5% across the board like Millbrae just did would be a good start.
Revenue producing projects.
Until then, no more tax money.
PERS is refiguring how they charge the cities for pension obligations. I think they were using 8% anticipated return. I'd love to get 8% return on "safe" investments. Who knows what the city will get billed for but I'm getting an idea of how they are planning to pay for it.
If that's true about PERS charging back the city for cushy pensions it's time to file bankruptcy.
Trippin 11:20 AM, 8% is the same as the long term diversified investment portfolio expectation. 8% is based upon historical data, over a long term duration. 8% is the same percent used by Certified Financial Planners.
Took Amtrak home ngotanc SPacefrom Sacramento this week. Used the time, and Sinai's link to the Mercury report, to check for myself just where Pacifica falls in terms of salary for SMC. Looked at each city's top 15 salaries(used the total comp #) and checked the 17 SMC cities in the report against Pacifica. We pay less, significantly less, than 12. Virtually 'tied' with San Carlos, even though they have no city cops. If they had some, we'd move down another step on the list. We can definitely say we pay more than Woodside, Portola Valley and HMB--although it's a comparison flawed by the fact that all three have less than ten fulltime city employees.
I know we're not paying more than other cities. That argument is bogus! And I'm not joining Bray's 'stop income inequity' crusade any time soon.
Do we face reality and pay up, again, because we're the only new revenue source of any importance council expects for the next 10 years? After the hoopla of the past few years, there's real disappointment in that. And, probably more truth than we're used to getting. Look beyond both side's dog, pony and cop shows and make your decision. What do you want for your city? IMHO, that's what it boils down to.
Re my 113, Neither Menlo Park nor Millbrae were included in my little fact-finding project because they weren't included in the Merc's report.
At least Mary Ann used to apologize for raising fees and taxes!
Please don't let reality cloud your judgement, 1:13. Most of the people on this blog appear incapable of analyzing something objectively, and rather than facing our economic reality, they'd rather toss around ridiculously dramatic analogies and patently unrealistic "solutions".
In my opinion we need a few short-term solutions (targeted elimination of positions, fixed length revenue increases) that are eventually supplanted by long-term solutions (development, pension reform).
It's sadly ironic that some of the people who contributed to the city's economic downfall by obstructing any and all development are now the ones distracting us with "solutions" that cannot be implemented.
Menlo Park has Facebook and Millbrae has a new Safeway.
ECR (EL Camino Real) in Millbrae looks nice with all the new housing and mixed used properties.
Yeah Anon 139 everybody's crazy except you right?
You missed the most obvious options. One which we have made a little headway on but need to do more.
Further reduce wages and benefits. There's no need to cut positions, services or raise fees and taxes.
That's not "unrealistic" and it is a viable "solution"
Anon 1:13 taking the top 15 highest paid positions of each city is meaningless. You just wasted a lot of time.
Yeah 139 I hear you. There's really nothing like the facts to keep us on track to a solution. The rhetoric has become ridiculous on both sides. And it's only June. Revenue-producing development has always been the logical answer, but people aren't always logical about changing the towns they live in. For Pacifica, it's clearer every day that any development will be very long term in coming. Cutting positions? Short term fix and unsustainable, but the resulting loss of services might soften up the taxpayers. Fixed-length revenue infusions, like this UUT measure, do seem unavoidable while we try to get real economic development going.
Meanwhile, we get more dogs, ponies and cops, wealth redistribution crusaders, the math challenged, etc. and precious few facts. Must be the law of averages ha!
@128 you need an apology? would that make it all better? she's a tax and spender and will always hand the bill to the public. through a consultant, of course.
Hey 222, It was a quick, valid and very revealing look and well worth an hour. If it bothers you or you think more positions should be looked at, be my guest. Lots of info out there. We don't need to guess.
216 I'm going to bet that you welcomed the election of 4 of our 5councilmembers as the dawn of a new day for Pacifica. At least 3.
They clearly don't see further pay cuts as the path to solvency. They have the numbers and the advice, the pay comparisons, rankings, etc. and they are pushing a new tax as the solution. Ten year plan.
Vote for the UUT, or don't, but you need perspective on this payroll thing.
As posted elsewhere, the State site has a much better way to compare wages from city to city.
This isn't perfect because it includes part time workers but it's more acuarate than taking the top 15 people from each city.
http://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Cities/Cities.aspx
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
What the little Amtrak survey is saying is, if Pacifica isn't paying it's top 15 or 20 positions more than these other SMC cities pay their top 15 or 20 positions, what are the odds that Pacifica is paying more than those cities for "lower" positions? Pretty slim odds. Common sense approach. Not a detailed comparison, position by position, but, again, what are the odds?
Anon@3:20, as was explained before, that type of comparison is meaningless.
Please take a statistics class at Skyline.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
Here's another interesting thing to look at from the State site. Amount spent on wages per resident.
Pacifica $491
Daly City $475
San Carlos $250
Newark $361
Union City $296
Freemont $421
Dublin $177
San Leandro $373
San Pablo $376
Novato $312
Fairfax $328
San Anselmo $421
Larkspur $425
You can see many Bay Area cities which should be richer than Pacifica but are paying much less per resident.
http://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Cities/Cities.aspx
@320 No, you can't rely on averages for this question. Handy for realtors, pollsters (hiss), builders, etc. Too many unknown variables to skew the result make averages unsuitable for our purposes.
However, for the sake of argument and because I know you really believe you can, let's see if there's a correlation between the Amtrak "study" and averages and where the correlation exists. There are subtle things going on that may be interesting.
Of course, we'll be using the same cities. Ranking the same 17 SMC cities by average employee salary:
Hillsborough $83,984
Burlingame 75,162
East Palo Alto 70,503
Foster City 69,906
Colma 67,061
Belmont 66,680
Woodside 66,620
Daly City 65,814
San Bruno 60,784
Millbrae 60,509
San Bruno 60,784
Half Moon Bay 58,161
San Mateo 57,960
PACIFICA 48,133
San Carlos 47,988
S. San Fran 44,023
Brisbane 43,868
The cocktail hour has started at my house, but I think this is accurate, and interesting. Pacifica was #13 on Amtrak and #14 here. Go figure!
FYI, I haven't decided how to vote. I hate the idea of another tax, but the alternative could be hard on a lot of people. I want facts and I don't like bad info, from council or anyone. It's not at all personal. Everyone should care as much as you do.
Get thee to Skyline!!
If you didn't cherry pick data to back what you think should be done, you might gain some credibility.
@512 A statistics class would help, both to make an argument and question another's methods or conclusion.
451 the only surprise is SSF being at the bottom. below Pacifica. is that because they're the Industrial City, shared costs deals, or do they skimp on providing services to the 65,000
residents?
If you like those state reports like 320 and 426 then a statistics class is very useful. Don't they require it in CA high schools? Should.
320 and 426 you should work for Godbe. They're the pros on cherry-picking data. They can use you.
Post a Comment