Saturday, February 26, 2011

City Council meeting February 28, 2011

City Council meeting agenda 2/28/2011.

Bernie Sifry called yesterday and suggested getting in the habit of reviewing the entire city council meeting agendas (including the detailed summary documents) as they occur. Thanks for that reminder, Bernie!  It takes a little longer to review the entire Agenda, but a much higher level of understanding city issues occurs.  For those who will only focus on selective issues of interest, you're still  ahead.  The 2/28/11 City Council meeting agenda is full of topical city "goodies" this time, particularly closed session, and consideration items 9 (summarized below), all of 7, 8 and 10.  

Closed session.
Itemized are 3 lawsuits, and 2 negotiations.  Item 5:  the Emde v. City of Pacifica and Recology of the Coast lawsuit is additionally itemized under Consideration, item #9, because it will be advanced as an approved lawsuit settlement.

Emde v. City of Pacifica and Recology of the Coast approved lawsuit settlement, Consideration, i
tem #9, summary report, pages 22 and 23. "The Agreement makes clear that the City's position is that  Proposition 218  does not apply to these rate increases and fees.  However, the City and Recology have agreed to provide additional notice to ratepayers of any future rate increases.  In addition, the City has agreed to cap the amount of franchise fees at $805,000 per fiscal year through December 31, 2017, eliminate a $10,000 per year contingency fee and limit its AB 939 Fees to $30,000 per fiscal year.  The City will also pay $55,500 to the Plaintiff's attorney as a negotiated sum for attorneys' fees and cost." ...

Fiscal Impact. 
"Cap on City's franchise fee revenue until 2017 which could result in reduction in revenue beginning in year 2012 (this could total $350,000 by 2017 assuming a 2% per year increase in the fee); reduction of anticipated contingency fee revenue by $10,000 per fiscal year; one-time payment of $55,500 in attorneys' fees and cost." 

There following,
mid-year budget review 2010/11, note item #7, page 18, 19, general fund Franchise Tax loss from solid waste (defined as garbage):  -$332,000. The entire item #7, city income and expense report, pages 16-18, is worth spending some time reviewing. 

City council agenda guide
Closed session. Items discussed and advanced among city council members and not open to the public until resolve at which time the public is advised, example (above) the Emde v. City of Pacifica and Recology of the Coast lawsuit. 
Consent Calendar.  Items usually passed-through (approved by city council as stated) unless objections occur from the community prior to the meeting, in which case an item may be moved in to Consideration  where the public may speak to the issue, and the same item will be discussed, may be debated by city council prior to approval, modification, delay or rejection.
Summary Reports. Detailed Agenda items, resolutions and reports (these documents follow the city council agenda). 

Posted by Kathy Meeh


todd bray said...

You can contact the city and have the agenda's emailed to you every two weeks.

Scotty said...

Camden always posts it on Patch too. Or "AOL Patch" as banned persons prefer to reference it.

Kathy Meeh said...

To request a pdf City Council meetings agenda notice emailed to you prior to city council meetings, contact Kathy O'Connell, City Clerk: O'

Alternatively, the City Council meetings agenda and calendar are posted on the City of Pacifica website, or the same

Kathy Meeh said...

Congratulations to Lionel! Not that the garbage fee disclosure and the limiting of certain city franchise fees fixes much in the mismanaged city of Pacifica, but there is recognition that these fees are inflated, and some savings will occur to all of us who pay this fee.

Scotty, from above lawsuit settlement "... the City has agreed to cap the amount of franchise fees at $805,000 per fiscal year through December 31, 2017, eliminate a $10,000 per year contingency fee and limit its AB 939 Fees to $30,000 per fiscal year."

"Crocodile tears to the city" as disclosed in the city budget report: the city will loose -332,000 for the duration of the settlement, from 2012-2017 (4 years).

Clearly money has to come from somewhere to run the city. City council for a long time has worked hard to find ways to gouge its citizens, businesses and contractors, while not providing a balanced city income through economic development.

Anonymous said...

I have no idea why the city bent over for a nuisance lawsuit that sets a precedent for every other legal parasite that sees Pacifica as easy pickins because it's cheaper to pay then defend. Is Ms. Quick's docket so full that she couldn't defend this? I wish they dragged the plaintiff through the courts racking up as much costs as possible, then counter suing for the frivolous lawsuit it was. Shame on those that encourage this type of tort abuse.

Lionel Emde said...

"Shame on those that encourage this type of tort abuse."
Funny comment. I hope you're not a lawyer.

Kathy, Thanks for posting the agenda, et al.
One may take the city's estimated losses with a huge pinch of salt. They have a 4 to 8 percent increase in the rates coming up real soon, yet the "estimated losses," are said to be 2 percent per year for the life of the contract.
Does anyone want to funnel more money to these geniuses??

Anonymous said...

Kudos to Lionel and anyone else who exposes the ineptitude and arrogance of these fools and their overpaid lackeys. I don't want to pay one more cent for their ridiculous pet projects, bloated salaries, cashed out benefits, bad decisions, etc. This city is in a death spiral. It's obvious and unrecoverable. Unrecoverable. Enough. Let it spin.

Anonymous said...

Lionel comes across as an empowered citizen with a drive to keep the taxpayers from getting ripped off. The city comes across as whiny bullies who are mad they can't take your lunch money any more to pay for their pet projects. boo hoo.

Emde 1
City of Pacifica 0

Anonymous said...

Just mailed the sucker. Voted No and feel great
come what may!

Kathy Meeh said...

Pacifica Patch articles regarding current city issues:

Follow-up to the city council meeting, 3/1/11 article.

Prior to city council meeting, 2/28/11 article.

Regarding Emde v. City of Pacifica and Recology, 2/28/11, last 3 paragraphs:

"I think this is a very good deal," said Emde. "I think it’s a major victory for the rate payers--the certainty that the city can't treat the contract like a cash cow."

The city asserts that it did not seek a settlement agreement because it believes that Prop. 218 should apply to these fees, but to save taxpayer money. It estimates that the imposition of Prop. 218 standards on these fees could result in a loss of city revenue of $350,000 by 2017.

"The city does not agree that our relationship with Recology qualifies as a 218 and our contract attorney has won these cases," said Pacifica Mayor Mary Ann Nihart in an email. "However as of Nov. we had already spent $90,000 in legal fees on this case. The council chose to settle because the legal fees to win could spiral into the Million dollar range - we simply can not afford to spend one more dime on this. Best estimate the case will cost us (you the taxpayer) $200,000 as is."

Anonymous said...

Thank goodness the Mayor is paying attention. At least someone is watching the dollars. I know it is not Mr. Emde. Who do you think will pay for the notices to be sent out? Recology? And then us? What happened to the free lawsuit? What happened to defending the people? You just cost us more money and higher garbage rates.

Anonymous said...

Wow, that last one sounded like a city staffer, maybe a councilmember or someone who works for Recology. Or it could be one of the bleating sheep public. They all sound the same.
Thank you Lionel for your intelligence and integrity.

Anonymous said...

Wow, that last one sounded like a person who wants to see this city and its services go down the drain. Or it could be one of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They all sound the same. Thank you Lionel for making the city's financial situation even worse.

Anonymous said...

Wow, unfortunately the city doesn't have a good reputation "talking" to people or even their franchise businesses. The city just shuts them out and goes to lawsuit. And you said Anonymous 3:14 PM?

Anonymous said...

Must have hit a nerve there. The truth is that we're already circling the drain and the only thing being offered is more pie in the sky. Come on suckers give us a little more money and things will be great. Sure, let's keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome. Tsktsk, it's Lionel's fault. What a bunch of shameless, self-serving bull. The inescapable reality of our very negative situation is that we must drastically cut spending and if government can't or won't do it then the voters must use every opportunity to guide them. Think it through, avoid the drama, and ask yourself how can we change, really change, the outcome for Pacifica. Be sure to vote.