Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor. Or, view on local channel 26, also live internet feed, pct26.com. The meeting begins at 7pm, or shortly there following. City Council updates on City website.
 |
| No worry its Pacifica, at least I won't hit a development |
B. Open session (7:00 pm)
Consent Calendar (pass through)
1. Approval of cash disbursements.
2. Approval of Minutes (meeting of 7/9/12).
3. Resolution: Measure A Call for Projects, San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA), Highway 1 widening, Westport Drive to Fassler Avenue, "Calera Parkway". No budget authority required.
4. Resolution: 2012 Storm drainage system master plan.
5. Resolution: Measure A call for Projects, San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA),
Route 1, San Pedro Creek Bridge replacement and creek widening project. Rescinding resolution No 25-2012. No budget authority required.
6. Amendment to finalize the Kermani Consulting Group disaster, hazard mitigation project agreement. $50,000 reimbursed 75% Federal, 25% State. Pages 18-22.
Special presentation - none.
Public hearing
7. Resolution accepting sewer service charges for fiscal year 2012-13, and filing of charges for collection by the County Controller.
8. Approve a General plan amendment for a 96 unit assisted living center proposed at 721 Oddstad Boulevard. Approval recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Consideration
9. Consider and review city municipal code amendments "limiting the number and duration of development project approval extensions." Resolution recommendations from the Planning Commission.
Adjourn
Posted by Kathy Meeh
39 comments:
Where's the report on outsourcing the PPD? The city has it, already discussed it in a closed session and gave it to the FCSTF for their 7/26 meeting. How about sharing it with the paying public? What are you afraid of? And spare us your bs about on-going union negotiatians and how the final decision will be made in public. Transparency problem! See what Pacifica Index has to say about it.
There is no report anon 246.
And this matter can't be discussed until they put it before the unions. IF they do.
Says who? Those consultants we paid for do not work via telepathy.
OK we're not calling it 'a report' and we didn't ask them to prepare 'a report' but that doesn't mean there's no report.
Hutch check your facts and your source.
There is a report, or data of some sort, about a potential change in policy, i.e., the proposal to possibly outsource the cops to either SSF or the county. Taxpayers paid for this report, and oit should have been made public as soon as councilmembers saw it at a public meeting.
http://pacifica.patch.com/articles/council-gets-first-peek-at-proposed-police-outsourcing-numbers
The fact that the city has decided to conceal it as a "labor negotiation" really clues us in to how out of touch this city goverment is with the Open Meetings Act.
It's absolute garbage, and illegal.
I guess council thinks they don't have to tell the annoying, questioning public about it. First they sat on the numbers for months, then turned it over to a consultant. Now the consultant's report, which is what the Trib has openly called it, is unavailable and on-going labor stuff is given as the reason although the finance task force will have it for their 7/26 public meeting at the police station. Is that some sort of trial run? See if the lions are hungry? Measure audience response? These people have picked up some of Vreeland's tricks. Look out!
Not so sure about the task force having a report next week or even the numbers which you'd think they could use and should have. But Council is wrong in hiding the consultant's results from the public. Just the kind of sneaky thing that backfires.
Yes! It must be another conspiracy!!! This time, by a bunch of people who lull us in by performing a civic duty. How devious!
Not sure who was lulled by whom but your enthusiasm for the whole thing is duly noted. Bet your popular.
Ok 1013 take a deep breath. Maybe one of your pills. Touch of hysteria?
And no more exclamation points for you this week.
If the report on outsourcing is done then release it to the public already. Put it in the Tribune, redact as needed. The public has a right to know now as does Patch and anyone else. I question the motives of people who squawk conspiracy theory about these things. You're wrong, just like the city is on this.
Lionel said "Taxpayers paid for this report, and oit should have been made public as soon as councilmembers saw it at a public meeting."
Don't you think "closed session" meetings have a valuable place city government? The whole point of closes session is to be able to evaluate data or establish parameters for the city’s negotiation strategy privately, thus not tipping Pacifica's hand to the other party. This is one of the reasons closed sessions are legal under CA law. Evaluating the details in public would compromise the cities position and would be of harm to Pacifica. No deals can be signed in private. But negotiations or discussing a negotiation strategy can and should be, just like the labor contracts process. There is nothing illegal about this and it is foolish and ignorant to call for the city to negotiate in public.
agenda for july 26 financing city services is up at http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5005.
One agenda item: review Task Force Options Recommendations. Anyone know what that means? They are really going out of their way to keep the public in the dark. Does this mean outsourcing will be fully discussed or are they having tea?
No attachments nor staff reports.
Anon? 836 pass that kool-aid around would you?
Doesn't anyone get the Tribune? On the front page, it said the report would be released.
What's the hurry? Let's give the unions time to extract a promise of no outsourcing in exchange for a few bucks off the top of their pile of gold. They know they have all kinds of ways to make it up. It'll tide us over til our white knight rides in, won't it?
If everyone wants to know what is going on at meetings then go to them and voice your opinion. See what the agenda items are all about instead of whining on the blogs.
"...instead of whining on the blogs."
Like you whining, Anon. What's a matter, eat one of those poison frogs?
Attend or don't attend, the information should be available to everyone.
That FCS task force agenda is a model of vagueness. Doesn't do much to grab anyone's interest.
Is that good or bad?
A more detailed Agenda may be found at Pacifica Index. See the Community News Sidebar on the front page.
Apologies in advance; the detailed agenda we referred to is for the City Council Goals Workshop, not the Financing City Services Task Force.
haha of course that one has an abundance of detail. Thanks anyhow
Pacifica Index.
"Don't you think "closed session" meetings have a valuable place city government? The whole point of closes session is to be able to evaluate data or establish parameters for the city’s negotiation strategy privately, thus not tipping Pacifica's hand to the other party. This is one of the reasons closed sessions are legal under CA law. Evaluating the details in public would compromise the cities position and would be of harm to Pacifica. No deals can be signed in private. But negotiations or discussing a negotiation strategy can and should be, just like the labor contracts process. There is nothing illegal about this and it is foolish and ignorant to call for the city to negotiate in public."
Actually, I think it would be a useful exercise to have the negotiations in a public forum, where everyone could get a sense of how we've gotten into such a financial mess, but that's not the law.
The law is, at least as regards "labor negotiations," that the city council and staff members give instruction to the negotiator who then negotiates with the concerned unions and/or parties to the negotiation.
What they apparently tried doing was to commission a report from a consultant, and then conceal it in a closed session discussion. The city attorney gave me a cockamamie explanation, saying that the Brown Act (CA Open Meetings Act) forbade the disclosure of who would be at the meeting, the subjects to be discussed,etc.
So the Brown Act is cited to conceal disclosure of a consultant's report at closed session (ILLEGAL) and the possible presence of the consultant (ILLEGAL) and then notice the public with no disclosure of either of these factors. (ILLEGAL)
You be the judge.
Lionel, didn't that stuff you quoted sound like somebody was fed their lines? You, however, think for yourself and I think you are correct about this illegal cover-up. It won't be the last. That stuff is like potato chips to politicians.
I agree Lionel, it would be better if union negotiations could be made public by the city. Unfortunately the way I understand it is that the unions can say anything they like in public but the city is barred from saying anything.
This sets up an unfair bargaining situation. We the people don't even know what our city negotiators are asking for.
These old protectionist laws need to change.
I understand that the City may save a few million the first 2-3 years. After that, the costs more than likely will be put on the backs of the homeowners.
This may be a qiuck "get out of the red" for a few years. We may save on paying the pension and helath care fees for the PD, but what will happen down the road? More structural deficit and taxes for the homeowners? Is this really an answer to our problems? Or a short term fix for the new Council leadership?
"This sets up an unfair bargaining situation. We the people don't even know what our city negotiators are asking for.'
'These old protectionist laws need to change."
They aren't that old. The state changed the laws regarding contract negotiations in the 1990's. Guess who instigated that.
Anon said " the City may save a few million the first 2-3 years. After that, the costs more than likely will be put on the backs of the homeowners."
I don't know why the savings wouldn't continue after a few years? We won't have the costs of equipment, vehicles, training and yeah pensions and wages.
Besides, if Pete Dejarnett is against it, it must be good for Pacifica.
Anon 8:10 all those costs will be figured into the contract price. There is no free lunch!!!
Reading all this is beyond comprehension. Why do you have city council people if you want to do all the negotiating in public? Who would want you to? What do any of you know about negotiating in the first place? Negotiating with a union is not as easy as you think. It is easy to stay in the background and complain but to have to do the work is another thing. If you don't like the way things are going then vote out the nonbusiness people and get people in who have more experience in this type of negotiation.
Negotiations in the private sector are in the news all the time. There's no reason governments can't do the same.
There's a world of difference between reporting negotiations in the news and conducting them. Negotiations are reported in the news for both the private and public sector. But both the private and public sector conduct their negotiations behind closed doors.
But in the private sector both sides are allowed to discuss negotiations in public. But with the City only the Unions can put their side out there. Now is that good for the people?
It's time to abolish these laws protecting the Unions at the expense of the taxpayer.
It's true, our city council can't even tell us what concessions they're asking for. At the very least once we present our offer to the unions it should be made public.
Negotiations in the public sector bear no resemblence to the private sector.
In the private sector, you have (if you're lucky) a union representing your interests, and who gets the best contract possible from the employer. It can be an adversarial situation.
In the public sector, such as municipal government, you have unions representing groups of workers, negotiating with top staffers, who themselves have an interest in an ever-upward spiral of wages and benefits. City councils give instruction to their negotiator, and somtimes have a financial interest in the same salary direction. City councils are supposed to represent the taxpayer at the table and in truth, there often is no one at that table for us.
I have negotiated on both sides and in both public and private. What happens in the room and before hand within the representative groups happens in private. Some pieces are leaked by the various sides to the press, but the press are not in the room. This is a negotiation strategy.
I am impressed that despite all this pressure from the public, this City Council is actually making sure they have all the facts and believe it is worth it before they put it front and center in a negotiations. Do worry there will be lots of public meetings as this goes forward. Go going City Council! Thank you
A real union negotiation is between two parties that together produce a good or service that creates wealth.
However a public union negotiation isn't anything like that. One set of public employees negotiate with another in closed session to cut up and divy out the collected tax pie while a third entity like our council approves the deal. We the public which are funding these salaries are not allowed in.
This is the difference to me at least. A real union deal generates wealth while a public one divies up the taxes generated by the wealth creating of a real union negotiation.
Post a Comment