San Jose Mercury News/Bay Area News/Romona Giwargis, 6/4/15. "Ex-San Jose Mayor, other officials introduce statewide pension initiative."
 |
| City pensions Pac-Man vs. City Budget: No way out, budget turns red, crunch. |
.... "This is yet another destined-to-fail attempt to eliminate the retirement security of teachers, firefighters, school bus drivers and other public employees they have earned and agreed to in good faith at the bargaining table," Dave Low, chairman of Californians for Retirement Security, said in a prepared statement.
.... Thursday's announcement marked Chuck Reed's second attempt at a statewide initiative on pensions. Last year, Reed and his supporters proposed an initiative that would have allowed local governments to lower pension formulas for their workers' remaining years on the job. They withdrew it after Attorney General Kamala Harris, whose office approves the language signature-gatherers present to voters, described it in a way Reed felt would unfairly undermine support. A judge ruled the description was fair." Read article.
Related, comments from Jim Wagner with regard to pension funding in this City, statistics from the Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, 3/16/15. "Financial plan shows deficit in five years."
Because these
issues below will be debated as city pension share
keeps climbing: This from Trib---Pension
costs -- CalPERS rates are going up. The amount
the city will pay for its share of the police
pension will steadily rise over the next five
years from 32.3 percent
currently to 50.7 percent by 2019. The
amount the employees pay remains the same at 12
percent.
The city will pick up a steadily rising percent of the fire pension obligation from 27.6 percent this fiscal year to 40.3 percent in 2019-20. Borrowing from the wastewater treatment capital fund to smooth pension obligation bond payments, kept us afloat, but the city will begin to pay that back in 2017. The end result in five years is that Pacifica is expected to experience a deficit of about $1 million, or 9 percent, in 2019-20.
60 comments:
Pacifica doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a payroll problem. Senior staff, department heads, fire and police got to do something other than beg for more money. They need to reduce their compensation ... like the rest of the nations work force. It's a hard road to hoe, but what are you going to do? Tax folks that make a 1/4 of what you do so you can pretend your entitled?
2:42
Remember that when you have a medical emergency!
Coming from the guy who calls police and fire, "princess crews"
Mr Bray misses the point as he usually does. I highly respect the police and fire crews in this town. This is a matter of sustainability. People of your ilk that want nothing ever, never, have spiraled this city into a constant budget crisis. Our fire and police forces are worth every cent of what they earn and more. The problem is we can't afford it as a town. What is the answer? Smart, sustainable growth. Over 50% of our city is open space. Enough is enough. We need some revenue generators besides taxes to pay our personnel what they are worth, both now and at retirement.
Dear sweet PrincessAnon @ 4:39 PM, spoken like a true Princess Crew Member. To bad it's not like the good old days when you could leave someone dying in the streets if you felt they couldn't pay you, huh?
Bray, make nice with the unions. Endorsements and campaign contributions. November 2016 a heart beat away.
There is zero money to pay more pension costs. As these fire and police pensions approach at city payment share of $40K and $50k per fire & PD staffer per YEAR, city will ask for a tax ballot vote. This will happen in 2017 or 2018. Maybe earlier as the budget sinks. You will get to vote to pay fire & PD pensions rather than your 401K or other family budget obligations. Or we all vote NO and city rolls back pension offerings and puts all city employees in a 401K where they belong. This is not that complicated. We tell the city to stop agreeing to union contracts and massive pension payments the city cannot afford.
1:55
Who signed off on all these pay raises, salaries and pensions?
Hint: It was city council!
Blame them. Not the employees.
155 What's to stop city council from tapping the sewer fund to pay these obligations? There's no public vote on that. Hoping for reform candidates and campaign promises? Aren't we already on a two-tier pension system in Pacifica for all but public safety and senior staff? Public Safety Employees and their unions are the third rail. This town has been cutting for years and we're worse off than ever. More taxes are out of the question. Maybe we should try something else? Or, we can wait for a bad winter to finish us off.
"What's to stop city council from tapping the sewer fund to pay these obligations?"
Nothing. They're already doing this.
"What's to stop city council from tapping the sewer fund to pay these obligations?"
The 2006 Bighorn Decision by the California Supreme Court. Sewer fees can only be used for sewer-related purposes.
Why do you think city hall did not want a forensic audit?
Creative Municipal Finance.
The police department is really giving out chippy tickets.
Whenever city hall needs money they put in the call to the PD. Write more tickets!
Steve "Matlock" Sinai The City Manager has gotten around Bighorn by making an inter-fund loan from the sewer fund to the General Fund to cover the cost of the pension obligation bonds. We will be going into our second year of borrowing with this years budget(total so far $1.25 million out of a proposed $5 million)
What we need to do is amend the municipal code prohibiting such inter-fund loans as neither the council or management want to cut off the tap. Could we do it with the initiative process?
Sinai, funny you should say that. Several posters on here have previously mentioned Big Horn, anticipating it would protect the sewer fund. But, the city found a way around it. A loophole--maybe something about what the funds are used for. Who knows? Probably some trick they picked up at one of those infernal seminars. They'll tap that thing like a Vermont Sugar Maple. Best we can hope for is that they're as fiscally conservative and measured as real Vermonters, but then we wouldn't be in this mess, would we?
824 Tempting, but it would probably start the dominoes falling. Those pensions are guaranteed and one way or another Pacifica pays. Hey, maybe we'd finally qualify for bankruptcy? Or, in a
plot twist no one saw coming, council (a completely generic term) finds 5 million dollars and our unpolished diamond is good for another year or two.
824 Even if you could it's an uphill battle. Very few rate-payers even bother to protest the sewer rate increases when the city sends out those postcards. We just keep handing over the money which the city then spends on pension bond obligations. A public initiative on a complex issue would be an uphill battle all the way.
Or, this City could develop a sustainable stream of revenue from smart economic development, and the ongoing City revenue deficiency would be on its way to getting solved. The new City economic, financial team can help this City get there.
957, you're looking forward to city bankruptcy? Wow, that would be a seriously lame plan, and City bankruptcy usually comes due with a deficit billing for resident parcel owners.
Kathy, FYI, I'm looking forward to a miracle, not a bankruptcy. My earlier comment was in response to someone who wanted to stop the city from using inter-fund loans. The unintended consequences could be disastrous.
Yes, Kathy, the truth is sobering, we don't want to be bankrupt. But, To paraphrase Mary Ann and Karen: We need 5...or maybe 10 or even 15 Beach Boulevards. Where will they fit? Everybody says, "Not in my backyard". How can we change that?
Before you can make 5 maybe 10 or even 15 Beach Blvds
......... you need to make one.
We're been out-maneuvered by the city killers.
722, right. The Beach Blvd project is estimated to bring-in $500,000 city revenue, x 10 needed revenue example = $5 million.
An easy City fix to generate that kind of revenue (and to avoid playing "rob Peter to pay Paul" accounting) would be to develop the Quarry. Beyond that there is infill usage and redevelopment.
What would smart economic development look like? And where would it be in Pacifica?
The debacle going down at the Beach Blvd site is 100% of the city's making, nobody else. The insistence on a new library as an anchor (housing and hotels don't need an anchor tenant!) despite polling which shows it doesn't have the necessary support, and a noisy, stinky pump station on the property that they won't relocate due it being "too expensive" show why the city has no business meddling in the property and they should have put it up for sale to the highest bidder.
I guess we'll have some nice new linrary meeting rooms to hold our bankruptcy hearings in!
12:39....The single library strategy is inappropriate for a geographically balkanized city such as Pacifica.
Not so sure Anon @ 12:39, our new staffers haven't started on their learning curve yet. we'll all need to wait for them to hit dead end after dead end before they start updating their resumes. Property taxes, quarry development, etc... we've all seen it too many times before. And these ones don't listen any better than the last ones did before they all bailed
Toddler,
Why don't you and the rest of your "City Killer" friends stop creating all of these dead ends so Pacifica can have half a chance to survive. Is that asking too much from all of you smug, selfish, self righteous "I Got Mines"?
This city has a chance, but not with a clogged artery. If we are diagnosed with a clogged artery we get it fixed. It seems that some in Pacifica, the same group that has opposed everything ever to be proposed that would bring some much needed revenue, is now opposing fixing our clogged artery, Highway One. Why? No nothing, never, no how, no way. That's the gang of no. You think they would oppose fixing an artery in their own chest for one New York minute?! Yea, right. No way. Let's fix our highway. It's a safety issue and it makes sense.
1239 Item 6 on tonight's agenda lists this year's council goals. Number 9 is the new library. Love the way it's listed 9) Construct new library. That's very positive. Is that just putting on a happy face or are we closer to this folly than we think?
545 You really want to put all your eggs in that basket?
2:24
A guy who brings nothing into the city's bank account knows all about municipal finance.
Pacifica has crap luck. The quarry will probably become another Harmony-style project. Easier approval at every step. Extreme low density and high priced, half the 87 acres for open space. 50 mini-manses @ 5 mil each for a whopping $400K share of property tax for this city each year. No grubby commercial. And a few dozen new, well-heeled residents shopping elsewhere. The quarry? Check. It's developed!
Item 6 on tonight's agenda lists this year's council goals. Number 9 is the new library. Love the way it's listed 9) Construct new library. That's very positive. Is that just putting on a happy face or are we closer to this folly than we think?
We have lost the money we supposedly put aside for capital improvements to Palmetto Blvd. and don't know where it went or what it was used for. Nor does anyone seem to be in any particular hurry to find out. We can barely cover our bills as they are now -- and only by borrowing against the sewer fund. Things will only be getting worse as growth in outlays continues to outpace growth in revenue year-upon-year. We have discovered that we are missing $4.75 million that we will need to pay back. Despite all this, we've gone ahead and committed ourselves to purchasing the Colt Property and constructing a $5.5 million trail leading out of town by the year of our lord 2021. Polling conducted before all this came to light indicated that there wasn't enough support for a library construction bond measure to pass. Now that this Shit Monsoon has made landfall, the bond measure has been strangled in its crib, the crib has been burned, and the ashes scattered out among the Faralone Islands.
In other words, there will never ever EVER be a new library built on the Beach Boulevard property and to spend one iota of time acting, planning, or pretending otherwise is to occupy another dimension of reality.
7:58
Pacifica has crap management. Crap oversight!
859 A shit monsoon? Could there be a better description of the situation? I think not. So, really you think this is all for show. Sustain and perpetuate the illusion of bureaucratic normalcy, maintain the routine. Gee, council is like the string trio on the Titanic that played on as the ship sank beneath them. They're our little quintet playing their hearts out. Those crazy, wonderful kids.
Crap luck, crap management, crap oversight. In a shit monsoon. All the signs are present. World domination is next!
So, really you think this is all for show.
No. I think they're actually delusional enough to believe that they can convince the required 66% of us to vote for a library bond measure despite the ample evidence that this city is completely incompetent when it comes to managing money or projects.
We can't even maintain our streets or meet our current pension obligations without raiding other funds and they want to put $35 million on the taxpayer credit card for a projext that won't generate one cent of revenue!
834 I'd like to think you're right about this foolishness. Hope it is all delusion and fatuous ego, but you know how council is when they get a bee in their bonnet. When they really want something. Tinfow didn't float in with the tide. She's a library builder and she got it done without a bond measure. In fact, she got it done after Walnut Creek voters soundly defeated a library bond measure. Could that scenario happen here? I don't know, but I do think we're going to see a very compelling case built for a new single library. Bit by bit, using all the available tools and partners until there's just no other choice. End of the world? No, just more debt. But, it will permanently end any hope for creating significant revenue on Beach Blvd., if that idea was ever more than a smoke screen to get the library. The city won't use its own property as an economic spark to jump start that area, but it expects private money to jump in? And, no more Sanchez library--unless they work in a remodel of that facility as part of the sales pitch. Eh, why worry? Instead, take it all in and appreciate that this one issue neatly illustrates just how effed up this town really is.
8:34
That never stopped anything around town. The trails add how much to the city's bank account.\
C'mon. Every vibrant business district is anchored by a library. A seaside library. Tourists, shoppers, diners looking for seafood--it'll draw like a magnet. Maybe the library can sell maps? Or they can get a library card and check one out? Paid parking?
She's a library builder and she got it done without a bond measure. In fact, she got it done after Walnut Creek voters soundly defeated a library bond measure. Could that scenario happen here?
Sure can. They'll probably try a mix of lease revenue bonds, Friends of the Library bake sales, and inter-fund lending. None of which requires a public vote. And since they're lease revenue bonds as opposed to general obligation bonds (which would require a vote), the interest rate would be higher.
I'm not against a new library, but I am when our city is on life support. Should we break ground on anything, it should be for revenue generating projects before all else.
I'd love for someone on council to explain why the library is a prioritized goal of theirs and to describe the path forward. It doesn't have public support -- how's it gonna happen, folks?
812 Sobering to think it could happen without the public voting for it. Sometimes these Friends of the Library groups commit to more than bake sales. I'd also expect help and a strategic nudge from our partner the County Library System. No doubt they find our facilities substandard. Probably don't want us in their system dragging down the average and all. And it is their system, their hours, services, books, etc.
I love libraries, but this one would be an indulgent ego-trip, an extravagance we cannot afford. Worst of all, dividing up that property to include a public building that won't generate revenue just puts another nail in our coffin.
Why is it a priority? Political egos need tangible legacies. Align that need with a sense of entitlement among some residents, and the bureaucratic expertise of this CM, and you've got a perfect storm. And then we'll scramble for the funds to keep the doors open, just like Walnut Creek.
9:53-- Yep. You nailed it. Just like Walnut Creek, no way Pacifica could pony up the extra $ for the supplemental hours to keep a new library staffed full time.
The library is the only part of the planned use for the site that the coastal commission likes at all. Without it it has a snowballs chance in hell of passing.with it the site may not be marketable, not enough revenue potential to attract development money.
Tom, nothing of substance will ever be built if we're just going to roll over when the CCC sends a letter saying boo.
It's like back when Rhodes couldn't get paid parking done at Linda Mar beach; "Welp, I asked the CCC and they said no!" Nihart dressed him down and said to go back and try a little harder. Boom. It got done.
Seriously. Show some backbone and push back a little.
Interesting point, Tom. You think it comes as a surprise to council? This has always been about the library. The commercial pieces were added to make it more palatable to voters who
are certain to balk at a bond measure. Oh look Pacifica! It's economic development. Sure it is. The library is a separate parcel and can go ahead while what's left waits for a developer who thinks he can make money off the scraps. Or, the CCC may want more of the scraps to go with the library as a condition of approval. A nice big public plaza to go with that nice big public library. The CCC is all about the public and coastal access. Anyone think council would dump their library if given that ultimatum? You know, out of some newly found commitment to generating revenue off of city land or anywhere else for that matter? Snowball. Hell. How much money has been spent on these plans? First for the new city hall and now for this ruse? About a million. And, now, if the council brain trust has found a way to pull this off without a public vote, well, oh look Pacifica! I suggest they raise a couple bucks with some snazzy "Charter Member" library cards. Hijack the 'dogs playing poker' and plug in those council faces, or, how about one of them as a magician pulling Tinfow out of a hat. The spirit moved me.
Try Harder, groovy. Maybe Nihart could push back with a plan centered on a money making hotel and restaurant and enough public space around it to keep the CCC happy. No library, but maybe a few affordable housing units, a bike rental and a visitor center. You think she'd do that? Do ya? The city could make some real money. Would she do that?
How badly do we want Palmetto to be the new downtown? That's what this is all about. Need an anchor for that and council chose to make it a library. They'll build a case for that and it'll happen. The rest of the plan won't. A large hotel would have been a great anchor, too, and given us a million or more in annual revenue, but the CCC might never have agreed. So, no revenue for Pacifica on this play. Will Palmetto be a money maker FOR THE CITY? Uncertain, but
private property owners should be happy.
Try Harder
I have plenty of backbone but if you think either the CCC or the city council care one bit what I think you have less of a grip on reality then I do. I may be insane but I am not stupid.
IMHO this library issue may produce some very strange bedfellows in favor of it. Are you against development? Well, a public library might be the best you can hope for, for you it's the lesser of several possible evils, particularly if it's all that gets built on that site. Ever. Are you for development? Well, it may seem that a library would be a disappointment, but it's an anchor for the renaissance of Palmetto, etc. that you've been waiting for. Council desperately wants the library and the renaissance, and is asking one group to be realistic, and, the other, to trust. What's not to like?
1050 Nihart told Rhodes to try harder? Open a can of whup ass on the CCC? More like we finally accepted terms and conditions Rhodes had found onerous. Fine to have a backbone, but better if your boss has one, too.
Just ask yourself one question. What does a library do to meet those escalating pension costs mentioned at the top of this thread? Absolutely nothing. OK, so let's imagine a better future. How about that library as the Palmetto anchor for a new downtown? Still nothing, because there's nothing imaginary about those pension costs or the rest of the bills, or, for that matter, the cost of a new library. Council needs to solve the cash flow problem, not exacerbate it.
It's like back when Rhodes couldn't get paid parking done at Linda Mar beach; "Welp, I asked the CCC and they said no!" Nihart dressed him down and said to go back and try a little harder. Boom. It got done.
Rhodes, was applying to the California Coastal Commission when the California Department of Parks, was the agency to go to.
They were told this but chose to ignore the good advice.
Does anyone know why 5 Department of Fish & Game trucks were parked in front of the Police Station the other day?
Could it be the fish kill?
2:42
Who proof read your Letter to the Editor. We all know you didn't write it.
529 They needed both. Applied to both. You playing Curry-ball?
530 Fish & Game? Looking for the 5 million bucks.
2:42
If you keep saying the same nonsense over and over, do you actually start believing it's true?
6:05
Fish and Game is now Fish & Wildlife in California.
The game wardens have a better chance of explaining the missing $5 million bucks than the clueless at city hall!!
5:55
Go back and do your homework.
California Coastal Commission didn't have a say.
This was verified by the California Coastal Commission.
Would rather play Curry-Ball than pocket pool!!
835 I don't play either one. Tear yourself away just long enough to visit the CCC website www.coastal.ca.gov Go to the agenda archives and select November 2012. It was a 3 day meeting held in Santa Monica. You want the November 15 session and item 11a. That's the CCC approval of Pacifica's application for a parking fee program. As I recall, Mr. Rhodes represented this city at that meeting. You can even view a video of the meeting. The California State Department of Parks and Rec had already approved the paid parking program contingent upon Pacifica finishing its incomplete application for approval by the CCC. The application was incomplete because some of the conditions imposed by the CCC were problematic and had to be negotiated. No CCC approval? No program. Verdad.
Post a Comment