Saturday, February 11, 2012

Financing city services proposed sales tax increase - part 1 of 2


Part 1 of this article re-post deals with the proposed sales tax increase, part 2 deals with the comparative review of highest paid San Mateo county salaries.  

Figuring-out city tax and fee solutions.
Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, 2/8/12. "Financing City Services Task Force ponders sunset clause for sales tax increase; reviews county salaries." "The Financing City Services Task Force didn't finalize anything during its meeting last Wednesday, but continued to chip away at the information available from city staff. The members discussed potentially setting an end date to the one-half-cent sales tax increase they recommended City Council approve, but the discussion did not end in a decision.

Meanwhile, the debate continued about whether or not it should be offered to the voters in June.
"I have big reservations about the sales tax in June," said Councilmember Mary Ann Nihart. "It is a Republican primary. We've started a good process. I don't want the police put in the same position the fire department was in -- an either/or position." Other task force members disagreed and said they wanted more time for the city to benefit from the extra revenue, especially with the state cutting back.

City staff provided the task force members with three potential scenarios that would all raise the revenue required to balance the budget. Task force members discussed them all, but did not lean one way or the other toward accepting any of them. A salary freeze and other employee compensation changes are included in each option and are valued at $3.7 million. "We are not contributing to COLA anymore," said director of administrative services Ann Ritzma. "That is a cut. If the cost of vision or health care goes up, that's out of pocket. We cap vacation accruals. They are also contributing to their pensions."

Option A would also eliminate Public Works supervisory positions and increase business license fees, the fireworks tax and implement a towing fee increase. It would apply the temporary occupancy tax (TOT) to vacation rentals, update building permit fees and assess a winterization inspection fee. It calls for the establishment of the one-half-cent sales tax on the June ballot. That option raises $1,338,572.

Option B calls for all the same fee increases that are in Option A, but with the outsourcing of the police department instead of the tax. That option raises $1,782,499.

Option C calls for all the fees in options A and B, but no police outsourcing and no tax, and adds reducing staff for swim team, eliminating funding for the Resource Center, the Visitors Center and Pacifica Community Television. Library hours will be reduced. Staff level will be reduced in the police department. Fees will be increased for swimming, swim team and teen program fees. That option raises $788,018.

Marty Anaya, executive director of Pacifica Community Television, faced with the possibility of losing city funding, asked the city manager to tell him how much revenue Pacifica receives from the cable company and to determine how much would be lost if subscribers are lost due to the cut.

Susan Vellone, representing the Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber is engaged in a campaign to bring more visitors to Pacifica, which is expected to generate additional revenue. City Manager Steve Rhodes said sales tax is up in Pacifica, in part due to the new Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market and Walgreens.

The economic development committee continues to meet to come up with ideas, but the next big revenue generator, the Beach Blvd. development, is not expected to be ready until 2016. Any development that could possibly be generated in the Quarry would not be done until 2018, task force member and economic development committee member Sue Vaterlaus said.

Task force members asked city staff to get as much information as possible about how much the county sheriff's office would cost long term to run police services for Pacifica. Representatives from the employee unions expressed their concerns. In the event the county sheriff's office takes over police services, other cities have written into their contracts a guarantee that all employees be hired into the new operation, said union representative Peter Finn. Police evidence technician Melissa Mondragon asked if the city intends to ask the sheriff to absorb all sworn and non-sworn personnel. "Three of our former dispatchers are currently unemployed. We don't want to take any more hits," she said. "We support the half-cent sales tax to protect all the valuable services," said Police Chief Jim Tasa. As the discussion ensued about using the extra sales tax revenue specifically to protect police services, Rhodes said that would change it to a measure requiring a two-thirds majority required to pass. "Also, the state may take something else away between now and then," he said. "There are lots of ways to achieve the goal of hiring everyone, but that will impact our price."

Financing City Services Taskforce Minutes, 2/1/12,  follow-up to the Financing city services Open House, 1/11/12.

Posted by Kathy Meeh

56 comments:

Hutch said...

These options are all crap!

The city needs to go back and do another survey. Only this time please be honest and include choices about the real cause of our predicament.

Wages and benefits.

Tom Clifford said...

I don't understand how the FCSTF can come up with such a solid sounding figure for option B [$1,782,499.00]when they are still waiting for information from the Sheriff's Department. We need to have real cost and know what that money will buy before we can make a decision. Best guess is not good enough.

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't Option B stand for bankruptcy??

Anonymous said...

Just one little question please. About the development in the quarry and on Beach Blvd. Is there a developer or is this just wishful thinking? I believe there's nothing in the pipeline and this stuff doesn't belong in any kind of financial plan. It almost sounds like the yarns Vreeland used to spin. Whatever happened to him?

Anonymous said...

Option B stands for Best So Far and even better when the city gets all the sheriff's number crunched.
It's a game changer.

Steve Sinai said...

"About the development in the quarry and on Beach Blvd. Is there a developer or is this just wishful thinking?"

There have been plenty of interested developers, but they all got chased away by the no-growth councils of the past, and their like-minded supporters such as Pacificans for Sustainable Development and the Sierra Club. The signal Pacifica has given developers is, "Don't bother coming up with a project. We'll fight you all the way."

If we can get rid of Digre, DeJarnatt and Vreeland, and replace them with folks who want to encourage economic development, I'm sure there are plenty of developers who'd be happy to get their hands on prime oceanfront real estate.

I'd vote for a tax increase if I saw tangible evidence that the city was opening itself to economic development. I said that several years ago during Measure D, and I have yet to see anything tangible.

Anonymous said...

DeJarnatt, Digre and Vreeland are the ones out front but they represent a deeply entrenched and active group of like-minded people who even in this economic disaster have no qualms about fighting development. They see it as a holy mission and as we've seen in Pacifica, they're good at it. They take a vow of poverty but it's for all of us.

Anonymous said...

First of all, Mariann and Len have noooo business doing commentary about this event. They are just liaisons, but yet they are directing the FTC. I cry foul!
Sell the WWTP and we can move forward without cutting vital services. It will not resolve the stuctural deficit, it may buy time to restructure and move in the right direction.

Anonymous said...

Oh anon at 819, you're not really still with the real estate solution? Does someone want to buy the OWWTP? Is it even listed? Aren't we busy in our dreamy little Pacifica way spending over $200,000 on a grand plan for that site to tell potential developers what to build and what might be approved? I think so. We missed the boat with this property. It has sailed. Might still be somebody out there who wants to build nice sea side apartments maybe condos and it's perfect for that. Surrounded by homes and apts. Slap a for sale sign on it and pray Beach Blvd doesn't disappear into the ocean.

Anonymous said...

Len actually comes across as capable of making good financial decisions. He's for outsourcing to the sheriffs and he's right. No silly dramatics with him. Pleasant surprise. It's always been Rhodes steering FCSTF. Seems like he could do better job getting financial info together and correct. Makes the whole thing look staged. Should have had the sheriffs financial info ready months ago. Good old Pacifica.

Anonymous said...

Len and MaryAnn better provide adult supervision to this misguided committee. The committe unanimously approved a tax ten days ago, before any solid savings from contracting to the sheriff were submitted or known by anyone. Those sheriff numbers are expected next week.
Can anyone explain to me why a city committee would so blindly jump on the tax bandwagon without the full facts before them?

Anonymous said...

Blame that assinine survey and the people behind it. Guess who that was? Sure FCS voted for a tax but they clearly have moved beyond that and are considering multiple options one of which is the SMC Sheriffs. I would assume the 1.7 million is a best guess done to keep the option alive while Rhodes gets the numbers he should have had months ago--he's not alone in the blame because Council directs him--hmm, and maybe they did? Anyhow the number is going to be better than 1.7 million and that should seal the deal for anyone with common sense. Still this being Pathetica common sense is not common and there are no guarantees the financially smart decision will be made by council. And, it's an election year. Does funny things to their backbones.

Anonymous said...

Started as a puppet show but maybe they'll cut the strings and actually make a difference. Hurry up and get all the numbers and then use them!
We're sinking fast.

Al Einstein said...

In the old days one would make a T-chart, put one set of options on the left and one on the right. Let's try it. Left side all the options to cut and raise taxes, on the right side put the option to contract out to Sheriff. Add total dollar saved per year per option. Now calculate how many people are negatively impacted by each. Left side, thousands. Right side,-------------maybe zero. Now, Pacifica, attempt to make a rational decision.

Hutch said...

I am actually starting to lean more towards the outsourcing option.

But that's still just a bandaid and it won't solve the long term problems Wages and benefits that are unsustainable.

http://fixpacifica.blogspot.com/2012/01/many-local-governments-will-face.html?showComment=1329127687157

Anonymous said...

"Len actually comes across as capable of making good financial decisions. He's for outsourcing to the sheriffs and he's right. No silly dramatics with him. Pleasant surprise. It's always been Rhodes steering FCSTF. Seems like he could do better job getting financial info together and correct. Makes the whole thing look staged. Should have had the sheriffs financial info ready months ago. Good old Pacifica."

I heard Len Stone say on two separate occasions that he is for getting real numbers from the Sheriff before making a decision… and that he doesn’t want to make a decision without the city “doing its homework”.
Finally someone on council has their head on strait.

Anonymous said...

I have heard Len say he is waiting for the Sheriff's numbers too. This guy runs his own business so he knows how a balance sheet works. This is the best person on City Council in years.

Anonymous said...

Contracting with the sheriffs is a no brainer and always has been. Key people have been aware of that for a while but really is anyone surprised they'd try to sell us a forever tax to keep the gravy train running? The police are eager to lead the campaign. Bring in the sheriffs and let's get on with it. This city has wasted enough money trying to be something it's not.

Anonymous said...

ano@248 I think Stone has done his own homework. That independence from the rest of the horde is refreshing. Surely he found it easy enough to see what we spend yearly on all the "back-office" police stuff before anyone even hits the streets. Expensive. Shared services means shared expenses. Great start!

Anonymous said...

Stone doesn't seem chummy with any of the others. And he seems slightly suspicious of all of them. Smart man! Business background but thinks for himself, compassionate streak, strong community ties, and no dramatics. Perfect for the times, so far.

Anonymous said...

Still, Len is just one vote. Even if Mary Ann goes along the real power is still with the 3 problem children.

I hope this recall moves forward. All we need is one success and the balance will shift.

Outsourcing the PD still won't solve our longterm underfunded pension problem.

Anonymous said...

Actually Maryann has said the same as Len on this one. She has been asking for Rhodes to get the numbers all along. She hasn't been very excited about all the rush to get a tax out there. At several finance meetings she pointed out that the committee is going down the same road they have already tried and she says enough is enough. The only one I hear pushing anything is Rhodes and I even overhead him arguing with her about his pushing the tax. I say senior staff are out of control and why not, they are the ones who benefit.

Kathy Meeh said...

Rhodes and I even overhead him arguing with her about his pushing the tax. I say senior staff are out of control and why not, they are the ones who benefit."

Anonymous (9:33), I question your motives and conclusions. Anyone can say anything under the hidden identity of Anonymous. I think Steve Rhodes is the one with the brain, who will continue to guide this city in the right direction if he possibly can. MaryAnn also has a good brain, and they usually work well together. If they have actually have a disagreement on the tax, oh well, don't we all disagree on some issues.

Survival of this city is at state. Earlier someone (Hutch I think) said sell the city Beach Boulevard property. Hopefully the city is working on that, and finding a buyer for the other larger property (quarry) as well. Hint to the city, don't tell our friend, Todd Bray.

Steve Sinai said...

"The only one I hear pushing anything is Rhodes and I even overhead him arguing with her about his pushing the tax."

I hope nobody actually believes this BS.

Anonymous said...

It's an election year and Nihart doesn't want a tax on the same ballot with her. Rhodes is well aware of the savings possible thru contracting with the SMC Sheriffs. Very well aware. This bunch was derailed by their own dopey survey and only now is exploring the one smart option, the SMC Sheriffs. Typical Pacifica
nonsense. One step forward, two backwards, all clasp hands and jump off the Pier.

Anonymous said...

Nihart and Stone both know that even passing a tax won't save the PD for very long. To their credit, that makes them nervous. Think about the backlash if people vote for a tax thinking it saves the PD and then it doesn't. Combine it with the PD shilling the idea and you have a possible political career-ender for anyone associated with it. Hard to disassociate if your name is on the same ballot as the tax or we lose the PD about the same time the 2014 election roles around-tho it isn't going to last that long tax or not. Oh yeah, outsourcing is looking better every day. They may just stumble across the right answer yet.

Anonymous said...

What, we should muzzle Bray if a developer approaches? Well that isn't going happen for years, but muzzle him anyway.

Nostradamus said...

Well, the meeting of the committee should be a hoot tomorrow nite. I would encourage all the anon's to attend. Bring one on those blue circles on a stick to hold up in front of your face!
Here's a scenerio: we stick our heads up our ass again, pass a tax, city goes broke anyway. Now we get taken over by the county, we get the sheriff and we have no say in government. Our decisions are made in RWC. If we don't control the contract with the sheriff now we will lose any opportunity to do so later. Think people, just think.

Anonymous said...

There isn't enough duct tape in the world to muzzle Bray!!!

Hutch said...

I'm all for developing the beach blvd property. I really like the plans. I think the way the city is aproching this might actually work, i.e., get some plans drawn up, get it all approved, THEN find a developer.

I really don't see how the environmentalists can oppose this. It's an abandoned sewer plant.

Oh yeah, the endangered green algae #3, daymn

Anonymous said...

fearmongerer. Let the Bank Rupts begin!!!

Anonymous said...

SMC Sheriff's Dept asap while we can still act like we have a choice.

Anonymous said...

Oh Hutch not you, too. This is just another way to waste $200,000 on pretty show and tell pictures.
The message is, sure we'll sell it but we don't really want you to build anything you can make any money off of. That's been Pacifica's message to developers for many years. Beach Blvd will fall in the ocean before anything gets built on the OWWTP.

Anonymous said...

Nostradamus, you old coot. Your scenario is going to be our reality in dopey old Pacifica. Just watch as our city leaders zero in with their laser-like vision on exactly the wrong answer and then snatch defeat from victory. We've seen it here time and time, again. You know, predicting the future in Pacifica is a pretty easy gig...you're wasting your skills.

Anonymous said...

Stockpile duct tape, just in case. Even Pacifica can't make coastal property worthless. Right?

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure the whole PD is shilling for the tax... Most of them will get a raise if we go with the Sheriffs Dept. I'd look closely at who is doing the shilling -- probably management and guys who would get demoted/not have job in the outsourcing. I doubt it's the line level guys and girls. They're probably hedging their bets to see if the SMC Sheriff offers all the line level people jobs.

Anonymous said...

I can't think of a bigger recipe for failure than allowing our city to decide how a beachfront property should be developed. Just a few years back, they thought we should convert that prime real estate into a completely revenue-free city hall.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely. Lower ranks will do fine with the sheriffs. Mgmt, not so much. But they can retire and collect those great pensions or use their contacts to consult or take other law enforcement jobs. Expect them all to stick together in the campaign but some of them can't lose either way.

Anonymous said...

Exactly! This is just more of the same old Pacifica mentality when it comes to development. As people started realizing how dire our situation is, Council needed to "do something" to show they weren't the problem or they had seen the light. Of course that means spend money and put out the BS for the public. Nothing has changed except the developers are gone. Spending $200,000 on this is irresponsible and disingenuous. Welcome to Pacifica.

John K said...

"Outsourcing the PD still won't solve our longterm underfunded pension problem."

True, we're on the hook for the pensions so far, but if we act now and get rid of the Pacifica PD, it will eliminate pensions to them going forward.

Seems like a no-brainer. There's got to be savings there.

Anonymous said...

I suppose the city wanted to prevent the usual torture developers face in this town by drawing them a $200K picture of what might be approved. Problem is that by doing that the city has highlited the anti-development attitude that still prevails in Pacifica and on Council. Amazing, but we still think someone will build something that doesn't make money for them. Probably has something to do with the lack of business exp on council. You're all alone Len but not for long!

Anonymous said...

"True, we're on the hook for the pensions so far, but if we act now and get rid of the Pacifica PD, it will eliminate pensions to them going forward." And replace them with pensions for sheriffs, which are more.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"I can't think of a bigger recipe for failure than allowing our city to decide how a beachfront property should be developed. Just a few years back, they thought we should convert that prime real estate into a completely revenue-free city hall."

------------------------

Exactly. That's why this plan is a huge improvement. Before the city wanted to waste that prime beach front property for their city hall. Now at least they are seriously investigating private use. There is nothing written in stone either. And who says that project is a money loser for the developer? If so the developer(s) will make amendments.

This is exactly the kind of development we need. A beach front restaurant, hotel, housing. It will bring more people into Pacifica spending money on a revitalized Palmetto. All you that are whining about anti development? What's the problem?

Anonymous said...

Grand Pacifica, tourist destination, shopper's mecca, foodie's favorite. Reality...About to embark on DIY public services, nearing insolvency, city council in-hiding, natives restless, but damn the dream lives on.

Anonymous said...

I'm ready for another half-empty hotel, failing restaurant, empty shops. The end of a revitalized Palmetto right in the middle of a C- residential neighborhood sounds like the perfect place. Make the speed limit on it 75 so the tourists don't notice the unrevitalized eyesores on the way in.
Is this property even on the market? I'm willing to bet developers know what to do with it if the city would just get out of the way.

Anonymous said...

Stick a fork in it. We're done.

Anonymous said...

"..this plan is a huge improvement. Before the city wanted to waste that prime beach front property for their city hall." (Anon 2/14, 9:22pm).

Hear, hear! Currently there is a rotting building and empty lot in this location. The professional planning takes into account the neighborhood, as well as some retail/commercial, all which will generate revenue.

Compare to the prior Taj Mahal Vreeland beach front city hall plan. Closer to $300,000 (2 EIRS) to prove almost zero income would be preferred in that stunning view location.

Anonymous said...

"..this plan is a huge improvement. Before the city wanted to waste that prime beach front property for their city hall." (Anon 2/14, 9:22pm).

Hear, hear! Currently there is a rotting building and empty lot in this location. The professional planning takes into account the neighborhood, as well as some retail/commercial, all which will generate revenue.

Compare to the prior Taj Mahal Vreeland beach front city hall plan. Closer to $300,000 (2 EIRS) to prove almost zero income would be preferred in that stunning view location.

Anonymous said...

Sure, this vision is definitely better than the Vreeland Shrine but why not just put the thing on the market and let the developers provide the vision? Bigger pool of potential buyers. Or is it really still about putting up obstacles and looking for the perfect project, ie, we're for development but just not your development? We've all seen this movie before.

Anonymous said...

They spent $300K on the Taj Mahal plan and now they say they're spending $200K on the latest official city vision. Half a million dollars in less than 5 years and it's still a smelly hole in the ground and at this rate will continue as such. Wanna go for a million? Wait for the survey.

Anonymous said...

@539anon there's a lot more involved than just comparing salaries and pensions. Those are only part of the bill for our local PD. This change is inevitable. Do it now and have some say or later and get what's left. Inevitable.

Hutch said...

Anonymous said...
Sure, this vision is definitely better than the Vreeland Shrine but why not just put the thing on the market and let the developers provide the vision?

I'm all for that. The problem is that the poor unsuspecting developer would be crushed financially by the anti progress segment of our little town. I think getting a general plan approved first is a good idea. THEN a developer can buy the property.

Anonymous said...

Except that what the morons on our council would approve would never be something that a developer wanted, and we would have just wasted another quarter mill.

Anonymous said...

That's the problem. This is still all about Pacifica being anti-development. Look at the Planning Commission for proof. So some of council wants to help the developer get approved by telling them what to build? Clueless, these people are clueless. Wasting $200K on this vision and apparently $300K on the earlier vision--over half a million dollars wasted. Developers have their own vision and their own budget.

Anonymous said...

So add this $200,000 to the tab of missed opportunities and wasted money run up by the Planning Commission. This next election opens the door to changing the stranglehold these people have had for too long. There may not be much development going on for another decade but those people need to be gone!

Thomas Clifford said...

Anonymous 4:35 Please list the project denied by the Planning Commission in the last six years.