Thursday, April 4, 2013

Reminder Police outsourcing report meeting, tonight 6 PM


Thursday, April 4th, 6 PM.  City Council Chambers, 2212 Beach Boulevard.  This meeting looks like it might be televised on Pacifica community television, channel 26.

Or,  Saturday, April 6th, 9:30 AM.   Mildred Owen Concert Hall, 1220 Linda Mar Boulevard, 1220 Linda Mar Boulevard.

Posted by Kathy Meeh

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

What's the point? It's been thru the spin-cycle, fluffed and folded.
Very appropriate that the second meeting is in a building where performances are staged for the public. Oh wait, so is tonight's.
Places, everyone, places. Raise the curtain. Take a bow.

Anonymous said...

How much did the fire merger really save. zero!

Leave it to this council to fail just like the rest of them.

Anonymous said...

raWe need to take negotiating power away from the city an for a commission who will be tough on the Unions.

Anonymous said...

It was not televised that I saw.Maybe I missed it. Sorry but some of us have to work hard to bring in our meager wages. We don't get home until 7.

So did anyone tell off Len and Mary Anne for putting off any possibility of us citizens considering outsourcing until next year?

Tom Clifford said...

The presentation was televised it started at 6 P.M. an ended a little after 7 P.M. As far as I could tell no Council Members were present. The City manager,City Attorney and the consultant ran the meeting.

Anonymous said...

Haha, that's our council for you. They should take care-particularly the 3 veterans-that in their shameless efforts to avoid responsibility, they do not make themselves irrelevant. Oh wait...they are irrelevant when it counts. Maybe they're going for ridiculous?

Tom Clifford said...

I have been informed that all five Council members were there. They sat out in the audience an the T.V. never showed them.

Anonymous said...

That explains the theme music from Hogan's Heroes playing at the end of the meeting. I swear I heard Sgt. Schultz saying "I know nothing. I see nothing. I'm not even here." Maybe council can make it their very own song. That or the intro from The Outer Limits?

Anonymous said...

Did anyone here posting attend either of the two meetings? For those working Mon - Friday, there was a second meeting Saturday morning (that sadly with all the conversation on this topic wasn't very well attended). It was a thorough and informative presentation of the independent analysis performed by the consulting firm. There was also ample time for public question and answers.

What was clear is that a full RFP is needed to really understand if one of the agencies can provide cost savings without significantly impacting level of service. While templates for RFPs are available to help move the process forward, it seemed clear that this isn't something that can be completed (nor should it be) prior to the coming year's budget being completed.

Anonymous said...

512 glad you enjoyed the presentation. let me guess what's next. more consultants, attorney/client privilege, playing shell games with the unions, a moratorium during election season. why bother? stop the charades! we'll probably be bankrupt by then or damn close. then the county will provide mandated police services with service levels decided by the county. council, your services are no longer required. go home.

Anonymous said...

@512 The whole thing is a farce.

Tom Clifford said...

The key to any savings based on the info provided was
1.The credit San Mateo County was willing to give Pacifica for the payments it is making For the Pension Obligation Bond.
2. The S.M.C. Sheriff staffing levels would be less then current Pacifica levels.

Once Pacifica pays the bond off the credit ends and the price for policing goes up.

Once you get to Fiscal year 2017-18 Pacifica cost go down [the bond is paid off] While S.M.C.Sheriff cost go up [No more bond payments to credit]

Long term it would be financially best for Pacifica to keep it's own police force.

Anonymous said...

Long term, having our own police force is probably not something we can afford. The cost of salaries and benefits will go up. We have no new sources of revenue and nothing planned. Other than perhaps a new tax. I suppose we will see a healthier trickle from the state if the economy keeps improving, but haven't we learned our lesson about being dependent on such things? Probably not. Pacifica is like the movie Groundhog Day.

Thomas Clifford said...

Long term the cost of salaries and benefits for the S.M.C.S. will be higher then Pacifica P.D. Police cost per Resident
Current:
Pacifica $233.00
S.M.C.S $324.00

Anonymous said...

@1052 Interesting, and both numbers will surely climb. The problem is that pretty quick here we won't be able to afford even the cheapie. Unable to pay our bills, including the cops, unless we implement real cuts to staff and services, a new and long term tax, collect more money from the state and county, suffer no disasters, lawsuits, or unforeseen events. Ready to do that, are we? Is there a choice? It's all that or bankruptcy. If we were really insolvent and couldn't make payroll, I suppose the county has an obligation to provide minimal police services.
I don't mention economic development because it is so far off as to be pure fantasy in Pacifica. With what lies ahead of us, we need to keep it real. We can't afford anymore fantasy...like the idea we have any good options left to us.

Steve Sinai said...

"It's all that or bankruptcy"

What's with this bankruptcy obsession? You sound like Chicken-Little.

Anonymous said...

@ Tom, I don't think those numbers don't take into account increased costs in Pacifica.

Thomas Clifford said...

Nor do they take into account any increase cost to S.M.C.S.
They are the numbers used in the report for comparison.
Both numbers were generated more then a year ago.

Anonymous said...

The fire department merger saved the city no money.

So why should this be any different.

Anonymous said...

I'll have the chicken.

Anonymous said...

@948 hell of an argument you've come up with. share with us your views on the Cypriot fiscal crisis.

Anonymous said...

Tom, those are estimates, guesses. I don't believe they are acurate.

The (expired) sheriffs proposal allowed for a 3% increase per year. That is reasonable.

We will have to renegotiate a new agreement. If you're that worried cost will go up that much then ask for a 10 or 15 year agreement this time with 3% increase each year.

Bottom line, we can't afford the PD. We need the exces $600,000 +++ we'll save otherwise we're facing bankruptsy.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Clifford said...
Long term the cost of salaries and benefits for the S.M.C.S. will be higher then Pacifica P.D. Police cost per Resident
Current:
Pacifica $233.00
S.M.C.S $324.00

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

Tom, those numbers are meaningless since the Sheriff Department takes care of the whole county. Things like helicopters, patrol cars, specialists, dispatch, management etc are spread countywide. Even though each Sheriff's Deputy salary is higher total expenditures for Pacifica are much less because costs are shared by the entire County. Deputies will not only be patrolling Pacifica but also Millbrae, HMB and other unincorporated areas of the County.

We will also get much better service for our buck. With all the added recourses at the Sheriff's disposal they will be ably to crack down on long existing drug houses in Pacifica.

Anonymous said...

what we're facing is a long slow ugly spiral to the bottom.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't believe anything this council puts out about police outsourcing. Too late.

Anonymous said...

Uh 1125 excuse me, but how exactly are those numbers meaningless? I agree with ya on possible better service and certainly more resources, but how is it the numbers are meaningless? Wouldn't Pacifica be paying?

Anonymous said...

Crack down? Pacifica don't want no stinking crack down.

Thomas Clifford said...

The number were based on the patrol functions of the S.M.C.S. which is the service we are looking to outsource. apples to apples but based on limited data because no formal proposal was asked for or given.