www.fixpacifica.com/docs/UUTAnnouncement.pdf
Kathy O’Connell
City Clerk
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Ave.
Pacifica, CA 94044
(650) 738-7307
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Pacifica's Economic Plan
Submission and comment policy
Want to share an article or opinion? Unlike some other Pacifica blogs, Fix Pacifica won't bury viewpoints we disagree with. Send your submission, along with your name, to fixpacifica@gmail.com.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
Search This Blog
Recent Comments
Get this Recent Comments Widget
Historic Sharp Park Golf Course
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(754)
-
▼
July
(54)
- Water purity, protection from Pacificans and others
- Non-commercial use of drones, surfer site video
- Grand Jury report on recent outsourcing of police ...
- Devil's Slide park plans discussed in Moss Beach
- Paying the cost of infrastructure development in a...
- Sharp Park Golf Course / Alister MacKenzie Tournam...
- City calendar this week, July 29 - August 2, 2013
- Spending your money to tax you
- San Mateo County Measure A Sales tax, funding publ...
- "Our highway is our bottleneck"
- "No merit" highway 1 widening lawsuit moves forward
- San Mateo Grand Jury says County may not be so poo...
- City Council meeting tonight, Monday, July 22, 2013
- Bay area future, urban housing density and mass tr...
- Millbrae hopes to identify its future as a "young,...
- Managing wildlife - the California Gull problem
- School nutrition programs partner with local farmers
- Sea level rise impact public hearing, Half Moon Ba...
- City Council removal of Planning Commissioners and...
- Wagner on Langille (figuratively speaking)
- San Mateo Police Chief to speak in Pacifica, Satur...
- Definitely NO on the newly proposed Utility Users Tax
- City Council meeting, Monday, July 22. 2013
- City Response to Bohner/Loeb Lawsuit
- Documents regarding the Beach Boulevard Project
- Sharp Park Golf Course lawsuit decision
- Montara GGNRA property going to the dogs, how abou...
- Planning Commission Meeting, Monday July 15, 2013
- Economic development suggestion for Pacifica, we h...
- From the law offices of Hal Bohner
- Time value of money, how it works in the public se...
- Got money? Nope. Got idea to fix? Yep
- Pacifica council votes for ballot measure to prote...
- Federal Judge Awards Attorney's Fees (discounted 7...
- Planning Commission Agenda for 7/15/13
- Latest info on parking at Pacifica State Beach
- City Council meeting tonight, July 8, 2013
- Life lessons most of us mostly grow out of: lying
- Being conscious that deer forage for plant food
- Stop the Utility User's Tax (UUT) now, before it g...
- San Mateo Harbor commissioners gone rogue
- Redwood City, 75th annual July 4th parade
- City Council meeting, Monday, July 8, 2013
- City Alarm Fees
- July 4th, 2013, have a great day!
- No traffic, no problem; no school, no traffic
- No more 4th of July fireworks shows at Pillar Poin...
- Ordinary and professional heroes saving kids from ...
- Great white sharks, not so endangered after all
- Business, and knowing your dog and cat hints
- Alternative plan proposed for the quarry
- CA gas tax increased 3.5 cents today
- Regional solar project closer to construction
- Its hot, could be worse
-
▼
July
(54)
Visitors:
100 comments:
Interesting they mention everyone's comments but mine. So for the record I asked for a Five year sunset, a $500.00 cap for everyone not just businesses and a means tested exemption not just a blanket exemption for those 62 and older.
They said it would be to much trouble to manage either a cap for residents or a means based exemption.
So the people who are really struggling don't deserve a break but someone like me just has to show a drivers license.
Council had no trouble finding away to do means testing when they wanted to get rid of the senior discount on trash pick-up.
An why so much resistance on a cap for the average taxpayer unless they are afraid they won't make the Million plus if they set a cap.
Tom,
The paper has become a news letter and exclusion of decenting voices of well known advocated the norm for Jane. But with an editorial board that includes Julie Lancelle who is championing this new tax expect more exclusion.
Seems the comments quoted are only for those clearly for or against. You express support for the concept but not of the specific measure.
Wonder what the options are in the future to add a means test? Seems worthy to look into. The council did state on Monday that they had no numbers on what the impact would be for a means test and therefore noted they couldn't move forward with that.
Todd, This is a press release put out by the City not a Pacifica Tribune article. When I called Steve about my missing comments he said it was written by the consultant and reviewed by the City attorney.
I guess my ideas are just to dangerous to repeat, can't have the voter thinking that there might be another way to do this tax thing. A way that would be fair and honest.
Well, I suppose we can commiserate together, Tom; my comments weren't mentioned either.
Todd Said, "The paper has become a news letter and exclusion of decenting voices of well known advocated the norm for Jane. But with an editorial board that includes Julie Lancelle who is championing this new tax expect more exclusion."
Come on Todd. The Tribune Editorial Board also includes Mark Stechbart and Jim Wagner.
The article in the Tribune this morning seemed to carry a variety of opinions, including a statement attributed to Tom that he was: "galled" handpicked supporters had the benefit of a full presentation by the city's polling and campaign consultants.
Interesting as Tom was thought to be at the meeting that is being referred to.
@720 that reminds me. so, where is the chamber of commerce on this? the silence is deafening and quite uncharacteristic. is it to be a case of if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all ?
I thought both of your comments were great Tom & Chris. Now I wish I left work early and spoke. When Mike O'Neill asked for a $250 cap for everyone I thought some people were going to have a kitten.
Yes Chris they also left out your comments about the change in tone from a month ago, when the City Council was telling us that they had balanced the budget and increased the reserves. To last nights declaration of a fiscal emergency that only a new tax could solve.
In the midst of long-running anxiety about the budget, it's a good thing to take a moment to celebrate when one is presetned that is balanced. Hooray for that taking place. One single year doesn't take the pressure off of the future though. The five year budget projections have always shown a need to continue to find ways to increase revenues (and continued expense review). A single years balanced budget and the need for revenues aren't mutually exclusive.
Aren't they required by law to balance the budget every year? Of more interest to me, how did they do it? A few years ago it meant moving the beans from this pile to that pile, and, later, back again. Still the same amount of beans. Still broke. Government accounting is very forgiving.
I will support this tax. It covers everyone, will bring in lots of money in a time where economic hardship shows no slowing down. Thank You City Council. I will vote to support this tax.
Anon 11:19 It covers everyone ? Except those Sixty two and older a growing segment of the population.
Thank you City Council? Well,
1119, you're a better person than I, because, should it pass, I think it should be thank you Taxpayers, once again, for coming to the rescue. And when it proves inadequate, and it will, I hope to be done with Pacifica. C'mon home prices, climb!
2:31, you left Pacifica four years ago, and lost your house here to foreclosure. You were done with Pacifica long ago.
In the midst of long-running anxiety about the budget, it's a good thing to take a moment to celebrate when one is presetned that is balanced. Hooray for that taking place. One single year doesn't take the pressure off of the future though.
True. But what about two years of balanced budgets? And what about a general fund reserve that has increased from a then-projected $200,000 to over $1,800,000 during that period? I'm sorry, but I fail to see the impending fiscal emergency that threatens life and limb here that is a Proposition 218 requirement for the tax is to be placed on a ballot prior to November 2014.
Remember that in February 2012 City Council declared a fiscal emergency (to try to get a 1/2 cent sales tax on the summer ballot). Despite the failure of the measure to be placed on the ballot, the budget was balanced and, in fact, we had a surplus to place in the reserve to boot!
Proponents of the tax have told me that the declaration of a fiscal emergency is merely a formality. Well, that's playing pretty fast and loose with the legal definition of "emergency" as defined in the California Constitution for this purpose and I question the ethical principles behind the decision, if not the legality of the move.
If I'm naive and something is systemically wrong with the City's finances and we are somehow going to blow through our $1.8 million of reserves within a year or two, I would posit that priority number one would be for the City to demonstrate to its citizens that it can be trusted with managing the money it will receive by first fixing those systemic problems, because the annual $1M this measure would provide will be burned through faster than you can say "CalPERS."
The City is asking me to cut it a $1,400 check ($175/year x 8 years). I, in turn, am asking the City to show me it will manage my money prudently. If we can go from two years of balanced budgets with an increasing reserve of $1.8M one month, to a declaration of fiscal emergency the next, I'm not sure that evidence has been presented.
If, on the other hand, the declaration of a fiscal emergency is the City merely crying wolf in order to get the measure on an off-election year ballot with low voter turnout (*ding ding ding* this is the correct answer, by the way), then I don't like being played the fool, I don't feel like handing you $1,400 of my money, and I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way.
252 Other than the foreclosure part, it all sounds good. You and your wallet hang in there. They're going to need you and I've seen this movie before.
Well stated Chris. Just about everything to do with how this tax measure was brought forward smells like last weeks fish.
DingDingDing Fogle, That is exactly the scheme underway. Putting this measure up for vote in an off-year, low turn-out election, ie one without a council seat on the ballot, requires by law the declaration of a fiscal emergency. Shazaam! One fiscal emergency coming right up.
Many months of careful, very quiet planning went into this measure. Many dollars very quietly went into buying the best advice available on how to pull it off. Why keep it quiet? Got something to hide?
Unless you've got a soft spot for the "planners", this behavior hardly inspires trust.
Ok the award to the two people who have good old common sense on this blog.
Fogel
Clifford
So are we starting an organized effort to fight this tax? Two can play this game. Hey seniors the city wants to take your kids and grandkids money to pay kushy city salaries!
let's get some debates booked right now. Tribune, Pac Democrats, the blogs can sponsor one, Cable 26--who else?
The SMC election website, I think it's Shapethefuture.Vote!, has all kinds of helpful info for anyone interested in opposing a measure on the ballot. Click on the Election Calendar tab. There are several key requirements and deadlines.
For example, Aug 26 is the deadline to file primary arguments for and against. Aug 26-Sept 5 is the period for rebuttals to those arguments to be filed. There is also a provision to demand inaccurate or misleading info be deleted or amended. Might be just the spot to remind the voter that council can do anything they want with these unrestricted funds. All of this info accompanies the ballot to help the voter make an informed decision.
Oct 7 is the last day to request a mail-in ballot. Seniors love those.
Check it out!
I wonder abut the unintended consequences of reminding seniors & businesses of the exemptions and caps. One restaurant owner I talk to didn't know about the cap. They have a monthly PG&E bill of 2,300.00 which means a UUT of $1,794.00 a year. Needless to say they are going in to apply for the $500.00 cap. I hope they can get any over payment for this year back. Many seniors do not know that they are paying this tax and that all they have to do to get an exemption is to bring their PG&E bill and a drivers license to City Hall to get an exemption.
Tom
Ever hear the old saying
Don't shoot the messenger
As a long time tax paying citizen and homeowner I support this cell phone tax. It covers all who don't pay their fair share. Everyone has a cell phone. I want to protect and keep our police dept, fire dept, city streets maintained. I think all depts. do a fine job and are tax paying citizens that have family and could be your neighbor. You supported a tax for teachers, why not our police, fire and city streets? I clearly see a agenda here. You really don't want economic solvency for Pacifica. I support this tax.
Tom, that would be a hoot. The measure loses and then a mob of suddenly savvy seniors descends on City Hall claiming their exemption on the original UUT.
Pacifica City Council... hoisted on its own petard.
Chris Fogel, Respect you, your writing and concerns that you are raising. The budget and reserve have been an issue for many years and are projected to be so in the future. The City Council has worked very hard to get things to be "better", which was the result of a lot of cuts, the toll of which can be seen around the city. This past year the "discretionary" items such as half the Pacifica Resource Center funding, PCT coverage, library hours, were all on Hold for six months, a disruptive and unsettling position to be in for organizations that have limited resources themselves and a significant client base to provide service to. No one knows what monies will be available next year from the State, things have gotten by this year due to the distribution of ERAF funds. Will these continue? Unknown. While we are fortunate that the reserve has grown, a less than 7% reserve for a city is below what is considered to be prudent. Seem to recall conversation at Financing City Service Task Force Meetings and budget sessions, that a minimum should be 10 - 15%.
The current council is showing what you are asking for; they are working to manage the money, have made significant cuts, and are setting money aside for that inevitable rainy day / change in fortunes(law suit, additional state take backs, emergency repairs, and?)
Too many of us are living on the edge paycheck to paycheck with no reserves. It's hard for individuals and families. No way to run a city. Therefore I support this tax.
A strong majority of the seniors in Pacifica have lived here for a long time. They believe in this community. Many don't take the exemption and won't be taking the exemption. It's offered as an option for those that do need it. Those that don't need it more often than not do the right thing knowing the value of a healthy city economy.
1003 you have got to be kidding.
@1003 Oh, it's about getting renters to pay their fair share. They may not own a home but they have a cell phone. Got it. So will there be a homeowner exemption for me so I don't pay more than my fair share? Call me.
@1110 got any numbers to back up your statements?
Since the City makes no effort to inform people when they turn 62 that they no longer have to pay the tax nor is there a program to inform businesses about the $500.00 cap. This information is a shock to many who are happy to not have to pay a tax.
As for supporting the police,firefighters, seniors services our anything else this tax does not do that it goes into the general fund to be spent on what ever is the priority of the day CalPers, consultants, wages or just back filling for other lost revenue sources. None of this money is dedicated to any of the services you mention that is the big lie behind this tax.
Its the Fire assessment all over again. lots of promises about keeping our fire department strong once the money was in hand they closed one station an laid off firemen.
You are not being very patriotic. Like VP Joe Biden says and First Lady Michelle, 'someone's going to have to give up a piece of their pie and pay their fair share.' 'it's unpatriotic to not want to pay taxes to help out your community'
You did it for teachers , now do it for Senior Citizens, Firefighters and Peace Officers.
I am voting no because I don't trust this city council. This city council seems to be another rubber stamp council. They have to pay for the sins of the previous councils until they prove to me they are different. They have done alot of damage to the town for the last 30 years. I will vote no and walk in for the exception also.
The city has not many any significant cuts. In fact the amount we spend on wages has increased about $300,000.
And don't kid yourself. Seniors aren't taking the exemption because they don't know about it, not because they're "doing the right thing".
Bottom line vote no on this regressive tax. It will hut poor pacifica families barley getting by. And it will hurt small businesses which is the last thing we need.
Wages can't go down because the cost of living is higher. We cut wages, people lose their homes, can't shop, can't buy big items like cars. All , what you claim , will only damage our economy further exacerbate hardships for all. Lay offs continue. With more people losing homes, the revenue from property taxes is way down. Lots of people with cell phones - don't pay taxes, get paid cash for work, pimps, wanna-be-gangbangers, tax cheats need to pay their fair share. Homeowners are given the costly bill for teachers. This tax you will hardly notice.
Tom, I would rather the restrauntuer vote no on the taxI rather than hope is bill will be exempted to $500.
I don't have a cell phone. Is the assumption that everyone has a cell phone an added delusion of this campaign? The assertions of renters paying their fair share is funny. They do. Property owners who rent calculate taxes into rent... be very sure of that.
Come on Todd. The Tribune Editorial Board also includes Mark Stechbart and Jim Wagner.
The Tribune never called out the gang of no city council also.
The Tribune never called out the gang of no city council for bankruptcy the city and making the city infastructure look like a 3rd world county.
The only person who had the guts to call them out in the media was Julia Scott.
Yeah don't tell me renters don't pay their share. My rent went up $100 and my landords said it was because onf the increased sewer fee. That's $1200 a year for 2 years so far.
No more damn taxes. Me and my family will voite against it.
When a families expenses are unaffordable they look for a place to cut. They don't tell their boss "oh I can't afford to pay my maid $100,000 a year I need a raise."
Get real with the wage cuts especially the ones making over 100 thousand. The cuts you made so far are phony.
I'll stop with this lengthy comment, because I fear I'm simply repeating myself.
This past year the "discretionary" items such as half the Pacifica Resource Center funding, PCT coverage, library hours, were all on Hold for six months…
You left out the fact that these groups received the second half of their funding and Pacifica ended that year with a budget surplus. This year these groups were fully funded and Ann Ritzma stated to the Council in open session that we would end the year with another $500,000 surplus.
No one knows what monies will be available next year from the State, things have gotten by this year due to the distribution of ERAF funds.
In other words: we don’t have an immediate fiscal emergency as was declared last week, we’re just not exactly sure what may happen with state givebacks in the future.
But this has the case for many, many years and given the fact that Pacifica’s revenue has remained flat for an equal amount of time -- neither spiking up nor down -- it would be an argument that perhaps some more care and prudence should have been taken with regards to our expenditures and growth given that our revenue has been a known quantity for a long, long time.
The current council is showing what you are asking for; they are working to manage the money, have made significant cuts, and are setting money aside for that inevitable rainy day / change in fortunes(law suit, additional state take backs, emergency repairs, and?)
I agree with you, but you are making my point which is that there is no immediate fiscal emergency. But since the City is following the advice of campaign consultants rather than having an open conversation with its citizens, it has now hitched its fortunes to a declaration of fiscal emergency in order to maximize the chances of its passage.
It seems the City is willing to do almost anything to get this measure to pass and is now running with a doom and gloom scenario when the evidence just doesn’t support this outlook -- in fact, Council has, in recent years, chastised members of the community who held these doom and gloom views it,s now espousing. But the City really, really want this tax revenue and it’s unfortunate that this desire overrides an open and honest conversation we could be having about ERAF, our budget, and how we’re going to handle the upcoming changes to CalPERS as it moves towards 100% funding.
Instead, when the subject of the UUT came up as a regular agenda item on May 28, the Council was mute and said nothing despite the fact that it had been organizing a campaign to promote a ballot measure and had already spent $24,000 doing exactly this. Polling began two days later. Though it will appear to be highly charged, I ask an honest question: Isn’t this a lie by omission?
Too many of us are living on the edge paycheck to paycheck with no reserves. It's hard for individuals and families.
Exactly. Which is why families like mine may have a tough time with the idea of losing $1400 to the City.
Chris again you are spot on. Thanks for stating things so clearly.
Todd the Restaurant owner is going to vote against the new tax but he is already paying 3.5 X what he owes.
Anon 8:16 A.M. Pimps,wannabe gang-bangers that your tax base?
What's really phony is those claims council makes about all the jobs they've cut. Like that scripted bit between Ervin and Rhodes Monday night. Phony. How many times have we heard that bullshit? They take turns shoveling it. The jobs they're talking about are all the little part-time, on-call, low wage, no benefit positions. You can see them listed at the end of the 2010 or earlier state controller's report. Pb&R and Childcare for the most. Made no difference. Just cleaned up the payroll roster going forward. Any fulltime positions? Maybe a couple from retirement and/or consolidation. That's why we're still paying the same in payroll as before. Still paying the same! Ask how many fulltime. Even city employees roll their eyes when council brags how many positions have been cut. And they've had 5 years of acute money problems to make these cuts. They're the problem. Cut no real jobs and sure as hell cut no real salaries. And when they talk about what happens if the UUT doesn't pass, they never, never talk about cutting wages. Never. They expect the taxpayers to bail them out. Again. Not a chance.
Tom, tell that business owner to vote no on the modernization and to claim the cap on the original UUT. They're entitled to it and the city shouldn't get away with this scam!
Chris Fogel, what you say highlights for me that this is very much a trust issue with this council. They are the ones who have made it a trust issue by keeping their plans under the radar even when opportunity presented itself to be open and honest. And they spent taxpayer money on a consultant who probably advised them to keep it all quiet. Just tried to be too slick and manipulative for their own good.
With changes in CalPers and ERAF we will desperately need more money before long--when have we not needed money--but Council has screwed the pooch. They need to back off for now and come back with a measure for restricted funds
when they've proven their case. They've a ways to go with that. It'll take a supermajority (2/3rds) to pass, but so be it. Giving them unrestricted funds is madness!
Citizens of Pacifica voted this council in because they trust them to make decisions. Deal with it. Pay your taxes. I thought all you democrats loved paying your taxes? What happened? Oh. We have a New Council that looks like it actually is getting the people's work done. Balancing budgets. Putting people to work. My God, I think I saw men working in our streets repairing/replacing old pipes, lights, etc. Progress. Why do you want to put the breaks on progress? Because the truth is you love chaos. Get in the back of the bus. We don't want you leading anymore.
And as far as a renter paying more because the sewer rates went up, well that's your shit. Pay for it. Because your shit ain't free.
@11:34 you said, "The jobs they're talking about are all the little part-time, on-call, low wage, no benefit positions. You can see them listed at the end of the 2010 or earlier state controller's report. Pb&R and Childcare for the most. Made no difference. Just cleaned up the payroll roster going forward." Who the heck are you to say those jobs are not important? You people live in lala land. How dare you.
Yeah right 1242. Spin yourself into a point! As you well know, the subject is payroll dollars. Cutting those jobs made no difference to the payroll expenditure because they involved very few actual hours and very little money. Gave Council a handy, meaningless talking point, but didn't save the city a dime. Save your faux-outrage.
Yes you're right 12"42, those jobs were important to people who used those services. But instead of negotiating real concessions with the Unions it was easier to lay off part time workers. That screwed tax payers even more because now we get less services.
Before I pay a cent more in tax the city needs to make some real reductions without decreasing service any more.
And you're right 1234 They never talk about cutting wages as an option.
@1230 "Because your shit ain't free." Eloquent. You've found a commonality, something that connects us all. So much better than that "everybody has a cell phone" drool. May I suggest it as a campaign slogan for the measure? Oh hell, why waste such brilliance? Make it the city motto. No need to put it in latin. Keep it raw!
We can't cut wages right now because the cost of living in California is too high. It would be suicidal. A small tax is cheaper.
Chris
The city plays voodoo economics when they say they have a reserve. It is like a person having $5,000 in the checking account after payday and running around screaming I have $5,000 in reserves. Once you start paying bills and they are $4,800 you have $200 left.
This city has lived paycheck to paycheck just like some of the residents.
No new tax money from me.
Hutch, in this case it probably made no difference to the services and definitely not to the payroll. When cities need to say they cut jobs, PT and casual labor is the first place they go. The slack gets picked up and services continue unless a program is cut. Oldest trick in that book. They cut 10 names off a public roster and claim 10 cuts, but all 10 don't equal the cost or the output of one FT job. Unions and cities feeling public pressure love it! People who lost those jobs are simply pawns in a real old game.
And even now, when the city lists the consequences if the tax measure fails, that list doesn't include wage cuts. That's a problem because it should be first on the list IMO. Why isn't it? I believe a councilmember or two has even publicly said there'll be no more cuts. Now that we finally know they had a tax measure up their sleeve, I guess we can see why they felt comfy enough to make such a statement.
How dare they!
Oh bullcrap anon 130, cities all around us are cuttin wages big time Millbrae just made a real 5% cut across the board. If we lay off people it will hurt much worse than a small wage cut.
This tax will really hurt 1000's of families in Pacifica living paycheck to paycheck all so a 150 workers keep their high wages and benefits. I don't think so.
130 I prefer this version... We can't add another tax right now because the cost of living is too high. It would be suicidal. A small and real wage cut (the kind where all employees actually make less!!) to a city work force that hasn't seen any real wage cuts, would be better. Follow that wage cut with 3 years of COLA increases only and this version positively sings!
Yes 131, It's the old "it was true for the nanosecond in which I said it" trick. Looks like this new council has some of those old habits.
So how much would a family, or even better a young person would have to pay. If the UTT is adding cell phones, what percentage of a tax will be added to one person's cell phone bill? If the bill is 70.00 a month, what will the tax be? Anyone know?
Tax on the new stuff is the same rate as the tax on the old stuff. 6.5%. Compute!
The Tribune doesn't tell you senior rate is $22 bucks for the year vs $30 for everyone else.
538 Check page 8A near the bottom of the column of Tribune info. Right there $30 for me and $22 for seniors. It's a newspaper and they put the info in the paper. Makes sense to me. You were expecting a birthday card?
The Tribune doesn't tell you [the] senior rate is $22 bucks for a year vs $30 for everyone else.
An how is that relevant? In the case of this tax senior are being given a free ride while being told that the services that they want will be protected. An untruth since the funds from this tax will go into the General fund to be spent on what ever Council wants.
Chris Fogel Said "Exactly. Which is why families like mine may have a tough time with the idea of losing $1400 to the City."
Over EIGHT year and offering programs that will be available that you and your family can participate in.
For my vote, Yes, provides the opportunity for the city to move forward and to do things for individuals and families.
Anonymous 11:34 said...
"What's really phony is those claims council makes about all the jobs they've cut. Like that scripted bit between Ervin and Rhodes Monday night. Phony. How many times have we heard that bullshit? They take turns shoveling it. The jobs they're talking about are all the little part-time, on-call, low wage, no benefit positions. You can see them listed at the end of the 2010 or earlier state controller's report. Pb&R and Childcare for the most. Made no difference. Just cleaned up the payroll roster going forward. Any fulltime positions? Maybe a couple from retirement and/or consolidation. That's why we're still paying the same in payroll as before. Still paying the same! Ask how many fulltime. Even city employees roll their eyes when council brags how many positions have been cut. And they've had 5 years of acute money problems to make these cuts. They're the problem. Cut no real jobs and sure as hell cut no real salaries. And when they talk about what happens if the UUT doesn't pass, they never, never talk about cutting wages. Never. They expect the taxpayers to bail them out. Again. Not a chance."
What sad here is having positions that support kids and other programs being undervalued -- not "important" that they were cut. Also the desire to have people knocked down versus wanting to lift everyone up.
I do support continued review and examination of what city staff does and if it can be done more effectively. But also an advocate for having people being able to make a living that can be used to own homes, pay mortgages and buy things in Pacifica.
Anonymous said...
"Chris Fogel, what you say highlights for me that this is very much a trust issue with this council. They are the ones who have made it a trust issue by keeping their plans under the radar even when opportunity presented itself to be open and honest. And they spent taxpayer money on a consultant who probably advised them to keep it all quiet. Just tried to be too slick and manipulative for their own good.
With changes in CalPers and ERAF we will desperately need more money before long--when have we not needed money--but Council has screwed the pooch. They need to back off for now and come back with a measure for restricted funds
when they've proven their case. They've a ways to go with that. It'll take a supermajority (2/3rds) to pass, but so be it. Giving them unrestricted funds is madness!"
Do you attend council or other city meetings? Do you read meeting minutes? The state of the city and it's finances is hardly a secret.
The programs that are being talked about for continued support via the UUT are funded through the general fund. Why set stringent requirements and take away flexibility? That's what has put the State of California and other locales at such a disadvantage to not be flexible and support needs and programs as they come up.
@944 Reducing headcounts is the city's solution to the payroll problem, certainly not mine. It was ineffectual and meaningless since payroll dollars continue to go up. Their choice to cut primarily part-time and casual jobs gave them the raw declining headcount they wanted the public to see and did little else.
Most posters on here favor an across the board and meaningful pay cut. At this stage of the mess, it would have to be about 5% and followed by several years of no more than COLA increases. Other cities have done this. This would provide a real reduction in payroll expenditure as well as keep everyone working and services intact. Raises were very generous during the run-up to the recession. This across the board cut would be a small adjustment to offset just a little of the previous increases. Many Pacificans have weathered far worse.
It isn't about bringing anyone down. Quite the contrary. A real across the board pay cut will save jobs, it's fair, and it's years overdue. This tax measure is none of those things.
948 You ask "why set stringent requirements"? Thirty plus years of observation and involvement in this city, that's why. I see the fiscal disaster unfolding, but I will not vote to put unrestricted funds in the hands of this council.
There is simply no more room or time for bad money management and I won't vote for anything that creates an opportunity for it.
Only a few people in Pacifica, blame the Pacifica financial mess on city employees salaries.
The majority of them are under employed or unemployed and sit around and mope and bitch all day long.
Anonymous 1:12pm said... "...As you well know, the subject is payroll dollars. Cutting those jobs (PBR and Childcare) made no difference to the payroll expenditure because they involved very few actual hours and very little money. Gave Council a handy, meaningless talking point, but didn't save the city a dime."
City Council also cut the city attorney's position and outsourced police dispatch. Are these cuts also insignificant to you?
Good point, 6:36. Unfortunately, on this blog what they lack in numbers, they make up in volume. They must be unemployed or they wouldn't have time to spew the same anonymous garbage over and over and over.
Anonymous 11:25pm said "You ask "why set stringent requirements"? Thirty plus years of observation and involvement in this city, that's why. I see the fiscal disaster unfolding, but I will not vote to put unrestricted funds in the hands of this council.
There is simply no more room or time for bad money management and I won't vote for anything that creates an opportunity for it."
So really it's not that you don't trust this council, you don't trust any council, since 30 years of the past is being referenced. This seems to be part of what has crippled Pacifica, continually dredging up the past with out a forward vision. Don't like the council, cast your vote differently for the next election. In the meantime, please provide the opportunity for any council to have some flexibility with funds.
Business phone system, $250. Business cell phone service, $200. Home phone system, who knows, it's bundled right now. Cell home service, three smart phones, $200.
New tax, $507 ($500 max).
Brand new tax! And I would bet anyone, anyone, that the majority of this goes to backfill ERAF, CALPERS, and maintain wages. This whole mess is devious, under-handed, and non-transparent. It's a bullshit tax and a bullshit method to get to it. Big question, how did they come up with $1,075,000 as what they would net? Someone enlighten me. Please.
Here's your math: 63% increase in tax bills. No matter how council tries to sugar coat this modernization, or "level" 6.5% tax, council is broadening the range of this tax to create at $2.8million annual tax monster.
"The tax brings in about $1.7 million a year right now, said City Manager Stephen Rhodes. Expanding it for eight years to include land line and mobile phone usage would bring in an extra $1.075 million annually..."
From San Mateo Times, 7/9/13
When you want to pitch a ditch fit about city of Pacifica city workers pay check this out.
No fewer than 572 San Francisco city workers and executives made more than Gov. Jerry Brown last year.
More than 1,500 city workers made more than state Attorney General Kamala Harris.
And that's without overtime.
"That's pretty staggering," said Tom Dalzell, head of the California Citizens Compensation Commission, which sets pay for state lawmakers.
With a salary of $173,987, Brown makes about as much as a senior police sergeant in San Francisco, once premium pay for the cop's years of service, special training and the like are included.
At $151,127 a year, Harris is making less than many of the lawyers she used to oversee when she was San Francisco district attorney.
"I think you will find that in just about every major city or county in the state," Dalzell said.
That may be the case, but San Francisco is a true municipal gold mine when it comes to pay. The days when the headline-grabbing "$100,000 club" was made up of a handful of top managers and overtime earners are long gone.
Last year, city controller's records show, roughly a quarter of the city's 36,000 full- and part-time workers made more than $100,000 - without overtime.
And 195 workers and execs made more than $200,000.
The highest-paid was Police Chief Greg Suhr, who made $321,522. Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White came in second, at $314,759, followed by a slew of police and fire deputy chiefs.
Mayor Ed Lee checked in at No. 27, with $260,547.
This year's cash-out prize went to outgoing police Capt. John Goldberg, who got $245,999 for his unused sick and vacation time, bringing his yearly pay to $350,403.
Lee's reaction to the numbers?
"Whenever the city opens a contract, we look at comparable rates around the region," said spokeswoman Christine Falvey. "We're constantly looking (at) how much we are paying employees and finding good people, and balancing that with protecting the city's fiscal health."
http://redwoodcity-woodside.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/43-city-employees-made-more-than-250k
And in Redwood City.
http://sanbruno.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/34-city-employees-making-100k-or-more-new-records-show
and in San Bruno
911 said "So really it's not that you don't trust this council, you don't trust any council"
I did trust this council until they;
#1 took outsourcing off the table and
#2 started this secret campaign to screw taxpayers and used our money to do it.
They have been deceptive and dishonest. The sheepish way May Ann and Len say "we have no other options" "we HAVE made big cuts" "There's no more to cut"
I call BS on the whole piece of crap and I will not trust you with anymore money. Make some real cuts in wages then we'll talk.
@636 More taxes or make some real wage cuts? I choose wage cuts! Not because these employees are overpaid or there's too many of them, but because it's their turn. Nothing that makes up such a huge part of our budget can be ignored, or, as is the case in Pacifica, given a very ineffectual trim as in no trim at all. Situation is going to get worse. It's their turn.
911 Not a chance. Spin that any way you like. I'd vote for a tax if the use of the funds was restricted. You ask for more of my money? Well, it comes with conditions.
Employee salaries aren't out of line, but they are the biggest item in the budget. We cannot continue to ignore that. Council has simply not done enough to cut wages. That needs to be said until they do. This tax, even if it passes, will not be nearly enough to solve Pacifica's money problems. We need the impact of an across the board wage cut similar to those made in other cities.
I'm perfectly fine with wage and benefit freezes for a few years. With government revenues now increasing to the point that Bay Area government employees feel that they can strike, we may have missed the window of opportunity for a 5% cut.
I probably would have voted for the new tax had it been for five years or less, and there was a guarantee that salaries and pensions wouldn't rise by more than 1% per year over the next several years. But since council decided to implement the tax for eight years, and there are no assurances about where the money's going, I expect I'll vote no.
How is this campaign different than the failed pro-tax campaigns of the last several years? Voters felt betrayed by the fire parcel tax that was passed about 10 years ago because the city didn't use it for fire protection services. Saying this tax will be used to "protect police, fire and senior citizens," isn't going to resonate like it might have in the past.
@904 Outsourcing the city attorney and police dispatch a couple years ago were definitely smart moves. We'd be even worse off today if those controversial changes hadn't been made. How much did it save? Half a million per year?? Those one shot deals with the big returns are pretty much gone.
@ 636 How arrogant to say the only ones complaining about city wages are un or under employed. Half our population makes only $50,000 a year or less. This tax will put a tremendous strain on those families. Why should they be asked to suffer pay more taxes so city employees can continue to make over 100K a year. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against what they are getting paid as long as you don't ask me for more money to pay for it.
When it comes to city salaries, this town has been playing in a league way over its head for years. Struggling to play. We have no new revenue, might even lose some, absolutely nothing in the pipeline, and we can't keep up.
Sinai might be right about the window of opportunity closing on a 5% cut. Bart strike? Transit unions are nuttier than most. Certainly, if this tax fails, I think the window stays open for a little longer. Further down this road we're trapped on, an impending bankruptcy will force that window wide open. We could use some real leadership here.
636 Cutting their wages 5% across the board would save the jobs of our city employees. You know, so they don't join the ranks of the under-employed/unemployed you seem to be sneering at. Pass or fail, this tax isn't going to save their jobs for long. There's no development on the horizon. The soonest we might see something is Beach Blvd in 4 or 5 years with projected revenue of $500K per year. As the Mayor said Monday night in justifying this tax, we need 5 or 6 Beach Blvds. to stay healthy. If you've lived in Pacifica for a while, you know that's the equivalent of saying "we got nothing but you taxpayers." Lots of tax payers have had it with that idea. Cut wages. For real, this time.
Steve, you've said numerous times that once you got a better council, you would vote to give them some money to replace everything the state has stolen, or something like that. What has changed?
Maybe this council is not as good as he though. I know I feel betrayed, manipulated and out right lied to.
"Steve, you've said numerous times that once you got a better council, you would vote to give them some money to replace everything the state has stolen, or something like that. What has changed?"
Nothing's changed. (I'm pretty sure I never said anything about the state stealing the city's money - although that's basically what happened.)
After the previous NIMBY councils squandered the fire tax that I voted for, I said I wouldn't vote for any new taxes until the NIMBY majority was off council.
I actually like this council and am very open to approving some kind of new tax that acts as a bridge until the city crawls out of the financial hole the NIMBYS put it in. But that doesn't mean I'd give them money unconditionally for eight years.
The problem with the proposed tax is that it's not clear how the money's going to be used. Will most of the money be used for improvements in infrastructure and services, or for pay raises? Also, an eight year, rather than five year expiration, is a disincentive to getting anything done in the way of increasing the city's tax base. Everyone now on council will be termed-out, so they won't be around to accept responsibility for how the money was spent.
There have been several comments along the lines of "I won't vote for a tax without clear promises of what the tax would be used for". The problem is, due to prop 13, any tax measure that does specify what it would be spent on requires a 2/3 majority vote to pass, while a tax that goes to the general fund only needs 50% plus one vote. This bizarre requirement leads many municipalities to put a measure on the ballot that less voters want, because it has a better chance of winning.
Everyone who is under prop 13 loves it. The people who are not hate it and whine.
Many homeowners in Pacifica, and the state of California would have had to sell their homes due to the runaway property tax bills.
Cities have found ways around this like our cities sneaky sewer tax, which is higher then the base tax bill in most cases.
The tax shell game Ian Butler talks about at 9:09 is accurate. But rather than being the burden he implies, it is by city council design. They use a taxpayer funded poll developed in secret to find imagined hot buttons the public will buy into. Then council waves these "essential" city services back at the public to get them to bite on a 60% tax increase that has zero guarantee of funding the programs used as bait. In fact I bet the tax will fund employee salaries and pensions and nothing else. But we will only discover the truth long after the Nov 2013 election.
It's all about winning and none of it is about the truth.
When I say I want some assurances about where the tax money would go, I don't mean it in the sense that it has to be formally specified in the ballot. We've all seen that doesn't work anyway. The money that gets collected in taxes requiring a 2/3 vote ultimately frees up money in the general fund, so council gets to spend the new tax revenues any way they please.
I want council to stand up and publicly tell us what their priorities for the money are, in more detail beyond "to protect police, fire and senior services." I mostly want to make sure that 80%-90% of the money is use for infrastructure and service improvements, rather than salary and pension increases.
If they do that, then it becomes a matter of trust. I trust them for five years, but not eight.
Most posters on here know about the 2/3rds supermajority requirement on restricted funds. Perhaps Council trotted this thing out too soon. Whether it passes or fails, not far down the road we'll be scrambling again because it just isn't enough. Police outsourcing will come up again. IMO, Pacificans would vote for restricted funds to save their local cops. It's about the only thing that would get a 2/3rds majority. Free up some of the funds allocated to the PD for other use in the budget. Of course, Council would have to re-visit an outsourcing proposal openly and thoroughly as part of the process. If only.
Back in the real world, no unrestricted funds, and nothing for more than 5 years.
Council is asking for flexibility with these funds so they can respond to emergencies, re-order priorities as they want and such. It's not so much about trust for me as it is pragmatism and making sure that salaries and benefits do not become council's priority--because they are definitely not my priority. These things are more likely to happen when funds are unrestricted and finances are chronically stressed and they happen despite the very best of intentions.
Too late for it here, but restricting the funds gives the voter a much better assurance that whatever program they want protected will actually be protected. It becomes a legal priority that has to be taken care of regardless of Pacifica's crisis du jour. A lot of control can and should be written into the ballot language to eliminate wiggle room. We have no control over the general fund. Never have and never will. And the passage of time is the politician's best friend. They've moved on, the money's gone and the mess remains.
Of course this money will be used mostly for salaries, pensions and cushy benefits. That's 80% of our budget. Voting yes on this tax is giving them the signal that wages are fine and we sheep will keep paying. Cut 5% across the board and freeze wages & bennies for 5 years. Only then will I give them more money.
If they could do all that, they wouldn't need any money. Clicking your heels together and asking for fantasy solutions is not a strategy.
It's not a fantasy. Millbrae just did it. They can do it 4:17, they just don't have the will to cut their co-workers and friends wages. Maybe after we vote this oppressive tax down they'll rethink that.
417 neither is this tax as proposed
So the deadline to submit an argument of 300 words or less to this tax is Aug 16th, and the rebuttal deadline is the 26th.
Is there going to be any organized effort to campaign against this albatross?
Count me in.
Post a Comment