Pacifica Tribune, Letters to the Editor, 11/26/13. "A financially stable city direction is needed" by Bob Hutchinson."
| Negotiate city employee wages, and develop city revenue |
It is time for citizens to come before labor unions. There is no reason to cut services, lay off employees or de-fund non-profits. I know politicians are afraid of the "C" word, but the City needs to get serious in negotiating concessions from Unions. Over 80 managers and department heads are still making from $100,000 to $200,000. We have not really cut actual wages. Pacifica ranks 120 out of 480 California Cities for highest average wages. Look for yourself http://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Cities/Cities.aspx The amount spent on wages has gone up by over $330,000 in the past few years. While many Cities like Millbrae have made real cuts, they cut 10% in wages in the past 2 years.
We need to create revenue too, attract more business, increase residential units, allow more development, but that will take years to pay off. I respect and appreciate all our city employees and I am pro Union in general. But we just can't afford to maintain this level of expenditures. We can't continue to try and keep up with the Joneses. And the landslide vote against Measure V says voters have had enough.
Making small wage decreases now will help maintain all jobs and services. The city must make negotiating reductions and freezes a priority. But they are still afraid to even utter the words. Why do they still not even mention this as an option? Do they get it now?
I would also like to see the Tribune cover labor negotiations more closely. Tell us what's coming up, who's in negotiations and what they are asking for. Talk to the unions and the city. I see it reported in other cities newspapers, so I assume we can do it here too.
Write or call the Tribune and your Councilpersons and our new City Manager and let them know how you feel. ltinfow@ci.pacifica.ca.us, O'Neillm@ci.pacifica.ca.us, LenStonePacifica@gmail.com, nihartm@ci.pacifica.ca.us, ErvinK@ci.pacifica.ca.us, digres@ci.pacifica.ca.us, elarsen@bayareanewsgroup.com."
With permission by Bob Hutchinson to post the entire text.
----
Note: graphic from Miss Math Dork.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
45 comments:
snowball. hell.
Yawn.
City salaries are too high.
Yawn.
I guess if I worked at walmart for min wage I would be upset about everyone elses salary.
Our salaries are already in the bottom quartile in the county. Mindlessly repeating something ad nauseum does not somehow make it true.
Anon 1223- you're right, if we don't push them
Anon 701 - There's no Walmart around, get out more.
Anon 1001 - Yes, so why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over and over?
Any of you have the cojones to use your real names?
What is your solution for a short term fix? Sales tax?
Biggest part of the city budget is immune from cuts because of what other, financially healthier, SMC cities can pay? That appears to be the reasoning in use. Hutch may sound like a broken record and he insists on using some oddly chosen info to back up his argument, but the underlying issue is solid...we can't afford to pay this much in salaries and benefits. No real cuts have been made. We treat the whole payroll issue like some smelly social faux pas because the unions and the politicians have convinced us there is no acceptable alternative. Remember to thank them for the reduced services and layoffs and other "unintended consequences" coming our way. The only question is how long will we have to suffer the "tough love" treatment before they launch another tax measure that saves us and, coincidentally, protects their paychecks and retirements. Nothing short of bankruptcy breaks their stranglehold. Not the Great Recession and certainly not any of the deeply conflicted minds at City Hall.
1001 How about we go for last? Even that is more than we can afford.
701 You'd be overpaid.
Out of 20 other cities in San Mateo County Pacifica is higher or around the same average pay as 9 of them. Hardly ranking in the bottom quartile mr reapeaty.
Pacifica Average wages: $57,074
Brisbane Average wages: $45,493
SSF Average wages: $44,443
Millbrae Average wages: $60,509
San Bruno Average wages: $60,784
San Mateo Average wages: $57,960
San Carlos Average wages: $48,312
Attherton Average wages: $58,267
Menlo Park Average wages: $45,860
Portola Valley Average wages: $53,339
701 Walmart doesn't hire employees who yawn as much as you do.
There you go, Hutch. Stick to the SMC wage comparisons. Statewide is meaningless. People, we're paying a higher average salary than ritzy Portola Valley, Atherton and Menlo Park with their huge property taxes. It's even more outrageous that we pay virtually the same as San Mateo with their Hillsdale sales tax gold mine. The reality is we can't or won't generate revenue in this town. It's time to disconnect the Pacifica car on the gravy train!
1204 I'd rather see a 1% sales tax passed to solve our problem than this eternal realtors vs. enviros idiocy about development that isn't going to happen. Equally pointless to expect we can cut our way to solvency. A sales tax would at least hit visitors and that might spur us to maintain our visitor serving businesses and attractions. Maybe. Just get 'er done.
Cherry-pick data to try and spin your case much, 12:39? The facts don't lie, and 3/4 of the cities in SMC have higher average salaries than Pacifica. Constantly insinuating that city workers are overpaid is not only tiresome -- it's a bald-faced lie.
238 Overpaid? Who said overpaid? How odd that you choose to defend against something that wasn't alleged. The issue is that we are paying city employees more than we can afford. The proof is in the chronic shortfall between revenue and expenditures. Expenditures, of which city payroll and benefits are the biggest piece, continue to increase, while revenue does not keep pace. To ignore payroll costs is purely political. To spin your argument with hot-button words like overpaid, is also purely political. Maybe a little bit of self-interest, too?We need to make the argument about the numbers, the numbers here in Pacifica, not the politics. And we need to do it soon.
238 You are determined to ignore the cold, hard fact that Pacifica is not like those other SMC cities
all of which are paying these really very similar wages. Pacifica is broke and it isn't a temporary condition. It's chronic, now and future, and all the safety nets like the good old sewer fund and other one time cash windfalls are gone. Pacificans are slowly realizing we really are the only revenue source and cutting city salaries and benefits is an idea that appeals to many of us. Out of necessity and common sense.
238 tiresome is a dirt poor city, that can't or won't get its act together. For many years the per capita revenue trend for Pacifica has been #1, the lowest revenue of all 20 San Mateo County cities. Our low city revenue competitor, #2, East Palo Alto invited-in big box Ikea, which has help their revenue stream.
What is Pacifica city council doing right now to affect an overdue economic action plan? They attend meetings, pass city business, look for grants, attempted another DOA tax, and are working on a communications plan. But what happened to the economic development director they promised? And what is the status of properties which have potential for generating revenue and jobs?
Hutch points out a successful plan to generate city revenue includes 1) cost cutting, 2) investment in the future and 3) growth (development). That's a realistic strategy to affect the viability of this city, and that's also math that works!
So 238, you think dirt poor City of Pacifica wages should be competitive with San Mateo, and Atherton, rather than South San Francisco, Brisbane, Menlo Park, and San Carlos? How does that factor into your "cherry-picking" 10 of 20 cities, "bald-face lie" theory? To prove your point, you might want to show us the other 10 cities, with a 20 city average. (Hutch provided the information link on his article, and 1239 provided average wages from 10 cities). Then consider, Pacifica is the poorest city.
The comments above are nominally valid since development is what we really need. In our current situation, however, that's a complete red herring since developing an EPA-style Ikea is at least a decade-long proposition on the coast.
3:50, you say "To ignore payroll costs is purely political", when in fact I was doing exactly the opposite, and pointing out that our payroll costs are not at all out of line. They're in fact in the lower quartile of the county.
The people who are fixated purely on pay cuts are a bizarre combination of the "I disagree with your policies so I want to recall you" fringe and the "I will oppose any and all development" NIMBYs. Both groups of extremists are utterly opposed to any sort of compromise, so of course such a simplistic solution would be appealing to them. However, it ignores the fact that there are many tools at the city's disposal.
Some Rantanon posted this number as the average wage of Pacifica employees, Pacifica Average wages: $57,074. This number is only possible when you add in all the part time folks who work for Beach Parks and Rec as life guards and program interpretors that themselves average close to $2400 a year. In other words the number Rantanon posted is a false representation of the average wage of full time Pacifica employees, all 120 of them, which is actually well north of 100K a year, about double the average Rantanon would have you believe.
It still comes down to 86 Pacifica employees, the city manager, department heads, Fire and Police making between 120k at 200k or more a year.
It doesn't matter what juvenile prefix you add to "anon"... Those numbers come from a documented source, as opposed to the ones you pull from one of your orifices.
What a crock 731! You did get it half right with your tired old tool remark...there are many fools at Pacifica's disposal, although their numbers are dwindling every day. You go spin yourself into a point worrying about which quartile Pacifica salaries fall in. Go on now.
731 Pay attention and pretend you're not a mouthpiece for the city. Development is mostly myth, this council is inert, and Pacificans are waking up to the fact that whether city salaries are high, low or just right--we can't afford them, and we can't go on pretending that we can. Payroll is the city's biggest expenditure and it's growing. And the best you can offer is to invent some extremist fringe of Nimbys and recallers? Pathetic.
@731 Compromise? We all know that's the code word for you help me get mine and I'll help you get yours. Commonly heard at the bargaining table and city hall. Enough of this compromise shit.
Lots of people have paycheck envy.
Get up off your bandwidth wasting asses and go to work!
Simple!
"Enough of this compromise shit."
You sound like one of the tea party idiots who almost ruined the world's economy (and still might in a few months) by refusing to pay our debts.
731 you just don't get it.
#1 It doesn't matter if our compensation is less or more than other local cities. WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!
#2 Pacifica IS NOT in the bottom quartile. According to state numbers we are the same or higher average pay than 7 out of 20 cities. That puts us in the second quartile.
If all you can do is repeat the same thing over and over please go back to the city and get better instructions.
And 9:27 PM gives birth to the Publicemployeeanon franchise! Yippie!
Great letter. The No on V people often mentioned and reminded that the Fire Tax resulted in the layoff of respected and long tenured fire fighters. The Fire Assessment Tax may or may not have enabled Pacifica's entry into the North County Fire Authority JPA. I'd like to dovetail on that and shine a light in the direction of our fire services, comprising significant chunk of city's budget: Let's Look at the Fire JPA. Has it turned out to be a good value for Pacifica? Sharing a chief, deputy chiefs etc. working out? I heard that financially, Daly City is having problems as well, is this affecting the Fire JPA? How is morale? Do we need to or want to continue being in bed with Daly City? I am not in the fire service, but are there any active or retired Fire Service people working in Pacifica that can comment on the JPA?. We have SSF doing dispatch now. Could we get a better deal doing a JPA with SSF on Fire Service? An agreement like the NCFA JPA should not be static, or overlooked, we should always be looking and always managing it. I'm not sure that is happening. Look at the organizational table on the NCFA website: northcountyfire.org. Does Pacifica need to support such a large administrative organization? Am I the only one who is a little uncomfortable with this?
@904 Oh no! Not that! Are you related to 731? Are you sure I'm not a Nimby or a recaller? Part of 731's extreme fringe? Or how about one of the "many fools at the city's disposal"? Your deep down comfort with the status quo at City Hall is obvious and your response predictable. The issue is this city's payroll expense which was untouched during a deep recession and is now strangling this dying city. Biggest part of the budget and it's a sacred cow. Do you think Pacifica taxpayers are going to watch services and programs sacrificed to feed that sacred cow? Not for long. It's just an issue looking for the right leader. Wonder what the tipping point will be.
1035 Yeah, you're the only one and I can tell you really want to talk about it, right here and right now. You really, really do.
"It doesn't matter if our compensation is less or more"
It absolutely does if we care whether the employees are worth a damn. It makes better economic sense to eliminate positions than to pay everyone sub-market salaries. Why can't you grasp the simplest concepts of market economics?
1230 Why can't you grasp the fact that we are far from the bottom pay in SM county? Is it because you work or worked for the city?
All you old arguments don't hold up anymore.
Even if we cut 10% we would be far from the bottom in the county. And do you really think we can't find good people for $139,000 verses $149,000? I know you union types prefer layoffs to wage cutting. Never understood that. I thought you guys were brothers willing to suffer for the greater good?
At any rate, we still can't afford these pay rates no matter how many jobs we cut. And why should citizens suffer more with less service? We've seen huge tax increases over the past few years. Time for unions to give a little.
1230 Uh, maybe because the concept doesn't really apply here. It certainly applies in the competitive profit driven private sector job market, but not so much in the public sector where it's rather cosy and much more stable. And, as a rule, taxpayers are much less demanding than shareholders. Those are some of the reasons people pursue jobs in the public sector. That and the defined benefit pensions, generous benefits and predictable salaries. Where else ya gonna get that stuff these days? And some of those salaries...mama mia! No shortage of qualified candidates for public sector jobs and turn-over is normal. That isn't going to change even at salaries of 5-10% less and pensions that aren't town-killers. BTW, it's a hoot when you hit the "OMG burger-flippers" panic button whenever pay cuts are mentioned. Great shtick. Don't waste it.
1230 I'm a taxpayer paying your salary. Much as I care about you, we need to negotiate a new deal or we're kaput! That park idea just didn't work out. All we got was a bunch of open space--only we don't actually have it anymore. Spilled milk. Now, you take a little less and we're good. If you can't, well, God Bless, and drop us a line now and then from that new job you so easily found. Us? We're finally facing the this city's financial facts and we've got a chance now to save our town. That's all we wanted.
Anon @ 1:36, public unions/associations are not like real unions that do adjust to the market place to keep their membership working, even part time so the members remain qualified for healthcare.
Such a waste.
"adjust to the market place"
Since we're already near the bottom, that comment makes zero sense.
Sorry Publicemplyoeeanon at 4:00 PM. The comment reads:
Anon @ 1:36, public unions/associations are not like real unions that do adjust to the market place to keep their membership working, even part time so the members remain qualified for healthcare.
Perhaps it would make it's way past your bias if you represent it in it's original form not just what your able to admit to.
@4 Clearly, it's going to be news to you, but this town and its tax paying residents do not exist for the financial benefit of you and your brethren. We cannot continue to put your salaries and benefits above the survival of this town. When you refuse to accept Pacifica's fiscal reality, complain about your current standing in the salary range, and ask for more, and have the nerve to call the process a compromise, you go too far. Keep it up and you'll speed the inevitable resolution to this problem. That'll be bankruptcy.
What market place are you talking about? The job market? They've already adjusted down to the bottom of that market so WTF are you talking about?
Were are far from the bottom of the market anon 646. But good union talking points. Why don't you tell us what horse you have in this race? You sound like the robots trying to defennd measure V. Bottom line WE CAN NOT AFFORD THESE SALARIES. Period.
According to the table, Pacifica is 15 out of 20 in the county when it comes to average salary. I plugged the numbers into a spreadsheet, and found that when you include both average salary and average retirement and health costs, we're still 15 out of 20.
That puts us at the bottom of the 3rd quartile.
Still, this table probably isn't the best for comparing salaries. I get the sense that some towns have a higher proportion of part-time workers, which brings their average salaries down. SSF is an example.
It will be interesting to see what the 2012 numbers are in a few weeks. I have a feeling since we laid off mostly low paid part timers the average wage will go way up. Steve not to be picky but isn't 15 in the third quarter? Sixteen would be last, no? I'm not trying to be a wise ass.
However, the table is valid for observing that, in general, our salaries are not out of line with the region, and are in fact well under the average. I grow tired of attempting to explain the most elemental tenets of an economic marketplace, but if we don't want to degrade service, we should eliminate positions, rather than some magical cross-the-board cuts.
People who cannot discuss this without attacking their opponents as having some nefarious and secret agenda betray their wingnut-hood. What's even more idiotic is people anonymously attacking people for posting anonymously. The fact is that I work in the private sector and have no horse in this race (other than a frustrating desire to shine some light on basic economic principles). There's no way of knowing whether that's true, but if I was some union secret agent, anyone with couple of IQ points would recognize that I would not be proposing the elimination of positions.
1020, doesn't change the fact that we can not afford to pay these salaries. Since your IQ is so high what's your solution? More taxes? More development? Don't hold your breath.
So that leaves cut jobs or cut wages.
Keep in mind that the Peninsula is not an island surrounded by sharks. In the Bay Area there are dozens of cities paying the same or less as Pacifica.
Sorry Steve, my mistake about the bottom third.
Since the voters have rejected taxes and development takes too long, the best near-term solution is to choose targeted positions and services to cut. That involves making tough decisions, which isn't as simplistic and therefore as easy to demagogue as across-the-board wage cuts, so I'm not holding my breath. However, if someone puts on their big boy pants and makes the hard choices, we could focus on cutting with a scalpel rather than a cleaver.
Hopefully, the new city manager will be that person, and we won't end up with a local asinine version of the sequester.
The sequester is a perfect analogy.
Post a Comment