Monday, October 13, 2014

Reminder City Council meeting tonight, Monday, October 13, 2014


Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor.  Or, view on local television or live feed Pacificcoast.TV, (formerly pct26.com).  If you miss civic meetings, view on  PCT 26 You Tube!  The city council meeting begins at 7 p.m., or shortly there following.  City council updates and archives are available on the  City website.    

Fix Pacifica City Council meeting agenda, 10/13/14.       City Council meeting Agenda, 10/13/14. 

Posted by Kathy Meeh

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not voting for Therese Dyer, but am I the only one who finds it a little heavy-handed for the Mayor to respond to her comments when Therese has no chance for rebuttal? Either follow the usual practice of no comment or engage the woman in a debate.

Anonymous said...

665Therese is tough.She will ask and follow her guts where she needs to.
We need more people like Therese that cares and will continue to find answers.

Give her a chance and you will see that she would do the job.

Sue Digree needs to go.Enough of Digree. I trust Therese 100%.

Anonymous said...

I don't care how tough Therese is, the Mayor is making her look like a total crackpot.

Anonymous said...

I think Therese manages to do that all on her own.

Kathy Meeh said...

1114, Mayor Nihart sounded "like a total crackpot" when she said $4 million isn't missing from the General Fund. After all, the General Fund balanced, which Mayor Nihart reconfirmed with the General Manager.
The $4 million is from the "other funds". Its no big deal (as long as no one uses the "other funds", such as for the development of Beach Blvd (that wasn't mentioned of course). Plus the city may always borrow money from the WWTP construction fund-- and, what a good idea that was. See, no big deal. Rob Peter to pay Paul accounting has worked in this city for years.
And the question Therese asked about shredding public records was fair enough. Mayor Nihart explain there are memos identifying these shredded records in the City Agenda (as if everyone should know that, and as if everyone should not question the process).
1006, you have aptly observed and uncovered a pattern of response from Mayor Nihart that she has used at city council for years to chill some reasonable citizen complaints. (Yet, during introduced city council public hearings or consideration items, Mayor Nihart is frequently excellent at explaining issues).

Anonymous said...

I think Therese will gladly accept sympathy votes. Being bullied by a ridiculous Mayor with that back-breaking ego is a badge of honor.

Kathy Meeh said...

1238 (10/13), unfortunately your one-liner comment may be more about you: dull perception, and low level ethics-- especially if you viewed this part of the city council meeting.

Anonymous said...

" $4 million isn't missing from the General Fund. After all, the General Fund balanced"

Really? Does it really matter which F'n fund it's missing from? Does it?

These are the kinds of things Nihart says that's takes away all her credibility. She makes insane comments like she believes the public are all morons.

Here's some other's:

"We already cut wages 1.5 million"

"Outsourcing is still on the table"

"This is not a tax, it's a modernization"

Anonymous said...

1144 Just goes to show how hard it is to predict which candidate will turn into a shape-shifting, grinning and spinning hack politician. Six long years ago, who knew what she'd become?

Anonymous said...

Oh dear, that pesky Ape is riled up again over on Fix. Nails the Mayor's
"I'm done with the deficit" routine from last night's meeting. I thought her performance had shades of Marie Antoinette. Sort of a "Let them eat that deficit" dismissal of anyone who didn't buy into the charade of not this money, that money. Citizens of Paris/Pacifica, we're being shafted. Unlikely heroes will emerge.

Tom Clifford said...

The unaccounted for loss of $4 million from any City fund is a big deal. The loss of the $6 million loan to the R.D.A. is a bigger deal.
The missing $1.5 million street scape fund is a huge mystery that points to more money missing.

Maryann"s attempt to minimize the importance of the City's financial situation does not speak well of her.

Anonymous said...

She's got post-Pacifica City Council political plans. And people have real short memories.

Anonymous said...

"Stop talking about the $4 million budget deficit -- THERE ISN'T ONE!"

"This is this a public meeting, right?"

"If you earn $100,000, you're poor in this town."

Oh my friggin' gawd, who voted for these clowns???!!!



Anonymous said...

Well don't look at me 706!

Anonymous said...

Well SOMEBODY voted for them. C'mon now, who did it?

Anonymous said...

We're all a bunch of suckers for these frauds, time and time again.

Anonymous said...

Who was taking about the "unaccountable" $4,000,000.

Mary Ann's political future, is almost as nonexistent as everyone else's political future who hails from Pacifica.

Anonymous said...

316 Tell Mary Ann that. Sycophants and an enormous ego give you ideas. That ego wouldn't even let the kid's baseball team be the Parade Grand Marshals. They had to be honorary while she took center stage. Who does that? But she's so much better than the nimbys. Bwahahahaha.

Anonymous said...

Nihart's gonna run again in two years, probably on "I need four more years to continue working with the county for help with Pacifica's issues."

In the meantime, she'll keep throwing Pacificans under the bus twice a month as she focuses on her number one concern -- glad-handing the county and state level politicians in order to grease her future political career.

Don't believe me? Watch her practically pee herself when Horsley shows up at council. I've never seen someone so enamored.

Anonymous said...

937 Crude but so so true. No one fawns better. Creepy. Are you sure she can run again? I hate to open that old can of worms, but the woman is awful. The sooner she darkens some other doorstep the better.

Anonymous said...

937 If you're right, she'll base her campaign for higher office in 2020 on that Pedro Point Trail and a new library. Start on the plaques now. No wonder we have to do the trail. Those projects are her legacy. Typical political sleaze--solving the problems is hard, often unpopular work, so let's distract the people with happy talk and flash.

Anonymous said...

She can run again for sure.

Term limits passed in 2010 when Nihart was reelected. Still not sure if her 2010 reelection counts as a term under the ordinance, but in doesn't really matter because in either case, she can definitely run in 2014.

Anonymous said...

The question, "Will Maryanne run again?"
My concern. is she doing this for the health bennies?
She is getting up there in years and does not take care of her health. What would that cost her out of pocket?

Anonymous said...

1054 No, Nihart was first elected in 2008. Term limits passed in 2010, midway through her first term. She was re-elected in 2012. Her next election, if she can run again is 2016. I think the term limit ballot language addressed partial term and whether it counts towards term limits. I just can't recall the wording.

1119 She works for the feds. She should have great benies through them instead of using this broke-ass city's. Didn't council give up cash-in-lieu of benies a while back? I wonder if the feds have cash-in-lieu? She's a pretty pragmatic gal. Not a lot of idealism there.

Anonymous said...

12:18 yeow, i totally blew those dates.

You've got it right. Nihart can run 2 years from now for sure. Beyond that, who knows.

Anonymous said...

1248 Yeow! You sure she can run? Here's why I ask. From the ballot measure language of Measure V on Novemeber 2, 2010.....and further providing that if for any reason a person serves a partial term as a Pacifica City Councilmember in excess of two years that partial term shall be considered a full term for purposes of the term limit provision.

This situation has come up before in other cities. Probably AG and court opinions and such on file.

Anonymous said...

She can run in 2016 -- I'm 100% sure of this. Running in 2020 though? I have no idea.

Anonymous said...

154 Well, you're a ray of sunshine. How are you so sure about 2016? I want that half term counted! 2020? Not here baby. She can run her game for some other constituency. Faced with any credible opponent, she'd lose.

Anonymous said...

Should be interesting to see if she runs, after she and lenny tried to outsource the police. Doubt the unions will back her for endorsements and cash. Maybe that's why lenny didn't run. No $, no campaign.

Anonymous said...

Who was speaking at the podium when Mary Ann, had her finger pointing meltdown?

Anonymous said...

Ahhh, union people! Every time it gets tough for her , she puts on the crocodile tears. Sorry, but nada $$$.
She should have asked the wired in people within the community to help. Thought she could do it all herself and save the day. Autocrat!

Anonymous said...

She sees/hears Therese and she goes ape shit. Therese is awesome.

Anonymous said...

If she runs for anything, you can be sure all the financing and endorsement deals have been worked out first. No one's more pragmatic than the unions. Well, other than Mary Ann. Politics is all about forgiveness and taking care of your friends.

Anonymous said...

Can't recall 423. She kinda twitched and went glassy-eyed right before she blew. Little Lennie made some comment in agreement and there was no stopping her.

Anonymous said...

Nobody was at the podium.
Oral communications had just finished and her comments were before she moved on to the next item on the agenda.

Anonymous said...

the people who were standing in the back of the room know better. sumantics, before or after , the message was all the same. crocodile tears as usual.

Anonymous said...

It was after Theresa Dyer had spoken 3 or 4 times on deficits, fixed assets, etc. Nihart kind of looked over at the table where CM and attorney sit and said to no one in particular something like, I think there's enough there and I'm going to respond. Then her eyes rolled back in her head and away she went. Can't say for sure but it appeared some annoyance threshold had been discussed prior. She's got to speak up because she's been around long enough the crap sticks to her too. And we can't have that.

Anonymous said...

Me thinkith the Unions are tired of being embarrassed and taken advantage of by candidates that throw the unions under the bus during negotiations after they have been endorsed and have taken their monies. Terrible. BS 600pm. Nice try to cover for yourself or a friend

Anonymous said...

Therese Dyer had finished up her turn at the podium and then Mary Ann had her tantrum, addressing an empty podium.

Funny thing is, NO ONE had mentioned the missing four million dollars during public comment so WTF did the mayor decide to freak out all of a sudden? Who knows and who cares.

Doubly funny is the fact that her lecture was completely wrong and directly contradicted the city manager.

Her impromptu speech was also a violation of the rules and procedures of council.

Now, if only Nihart would put that same energy into figuring out what happened to all our money, we'd be all set, but instead she tried to lay a preemptive smackdown on the council challengers and aptly provided us all with a demonstration of the verb "to fail."

Stick to inventing meaningless community awards, Nihart, it's what you do best.

Anonymous said...

Yeah yeah yeah Nihart's a pompous fraud with serious drama queen tendencies, coo coo ka choo. But I wanna know more about 610's crocodiles and sumantics in the back of the room. Double-talk about money? That's Sumantics. 610, if you weren't being clever, you could be.

Anonymous said...

620 The unions are embarrassed by the candidates whose favors they try to buy? Caveat emptor! Think of the thousands of Pacificans embarrassed and
poorly served by these lunkheads.

Anonymous said...

Yeah I was going to say, isn't that a violation of their "rules"? I guess it's one thing when Tod S. breaks the rules but it's ok when they do it.

Anonymous said...

Marie Antoinette Madame Mayor Nihart decreed "Let them eat deficit!" And you know we will.

Anonymous said...

Buying green bananas is a major gamble for Therese!

Anonymous said...

Nice try to flush out the real wheels in town 6:45
We just want to see real leadership, not personal agendas. What's yours?

Anonymous said...

6:54--

If you've ever been to a council meeting you'll notice all the city department heads sit in the back of the room and shoot the shit with each other while the meeting goes on.

The council meetings themselves are useless and devoid of any substance. It's all a carefully choreographed charade with all the talking points, votes, decisions, etc. laid out before the ink is even dry on the agendas. Nothing anyone from the public says during a meeting will ever change its prearranged course.

Councilmembers get into TONS of trouble when they go off script and get all improvisational because they really, really suck at it and end up saying something REALLY stupid.

Anonymous said...

927 That's not news. I've always thought the relationship of staff to council was sort of like handlers to dogs in a dog show. Take that leash off and they chase their tails or engage in other unacceptable behavior. And every so often they make a mess. And the handlers see it all, clean it up and still trot around the ring with them.

Anonymous said...

No, no it's not news. That's the point. Nothing goes on either in the front or the back of that room.

The front shows up and follows their script. The back shows up because they're required to and they chat each other up, safely ignoring what's going on up front.

Anonymous said...

Department heads are there cause of a thing called OT. The taxpayers pay for that. Just like how the Police Chief is there at almost every meeting. Sometimes 2-3 cops are in the back of the meeting.

Anonymous said...

So I must ask the $64,000 dollar question yet again? How is this council any different than councils past?

Anonymous said...

Department heads are managerial positions. They do not get overtime.

Anonymous said...

Yawn, yeah, nothing changes-as the kids in the back of the room have noted. Shake it up. Elect Dyer and Dougherty. Maybe perky Spano because if ever a candidate was headed for this Council's behavior-mod doghouse, it's him. Dougherty's just a puppy and Therese ain't goin' in no doghouse. Oh, hell no.

Anonymous said...

706 The cops are there to maintain order. Because of the Cuckoos, you know? The ones in the audience. The Chief doesn't get OT so it's a good thing he shows up.

Anonymous said...

8:36

Go through the pay chart and see the overtime department heads make.

Your wrong again!

Anonymous said...

158 Some do and some don't. It depends on whether or not they meet the federal criteria for exempt employees. That's all about job description. A collective bargaining agreement that is more advantageous to the employee would trump that. In any event, you don't know when that OT you cite was earned. Doubtful the chief or anyone with Director in their title is paid OT. Ditto for the CM.

Anonymous said...

What do we mean by department head? A supervisor? A low-level working manager or co-ordinator? They are entitled to OT by law.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said, "Stop talking about the $4 million budget deficit -- THERE ISN'T ONE!"
"This is this a public meeting, right?"
"If you earn $100,000, you're poor in this town."
Oh my friggin' gawd, who voted for these clowns???!!!

A majority of citizens of Pacifica voted for them. As usual, when comments are taken out of context they don't represent what was being said. Sadly it is true that $100,000 is just enough to support a family of 4 in San Mateo County (per statistics).

Anonymous said...

413 And that $100K doesn't buy you much in SMC. Might be able to rent an apt or town house in the cheaper towns like Pacifica. Or maybe you got lucky and inherited the folks place or bought a while ago or go multi-generational. $100K won't go far. Part of the privilege of living in the Bay Area.

Anonymous said...

O'Neill's "This is a public meeting, right?" cost him some votes. Not his best moment.

Anonymous said...

5:11, 20% of Pacificans make less than $30K. Another 25% make bet $30-$50K. 20% more make $50-$80K.

I'd say that's a majority making way under $100K. These people are called the working class. Most get along just fine and survive by having multiple people working in a household.

Anonymous said...

535 Thank you, that's the point. The low-paid have to combine households, live with parents, work several jobs, take in a roomie because it takes at least $100K to get by in SMC. It's no surprise that many people in Pacifica, one of SMC less affluent towns, would have to combine incomes to get by. Doing just fine? Well, they're not on the street. Does the fact that so many individual Pacificans earn less than $100K mean that $100K is a big individual salary in Pacifica? Probably to you. Lots of people make a $100K and no they're not all public employees.

Anonymous said...

The dismissed Financial Task Committee (thanks to Marianne and Len, didn't like what they were advised) reported that the median income for Pacifica is over 90K!
Pacifica is more than just a working class.
Shhhhhh, don't tell anyone!

Kathy Meeh said...

Pacifica median household income (2012): $89,294; estimated per capita income $41,273. Source: City-data.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
5:11, 20% of Pacificans make less than $30K. Another 25% make bet $30-$50K. 20% more make $50-$80K.

I'd say that's a majority making way under $100K. These people are called the working class. Most get along just fine and survive by having multiple people working in a household."

As commented on by Anonymous 6:46pm, this is exactly the point. "survive by having multiple people working in a household." I hope for more for the citizens of my town - friends and neighbors - to do better than "survive". If we are looking for economic growth and development, individuals need to have the incomes to support going out to restaurants and local businesses, and that's not just getting a $1.00 menu item at McDonald's.

I support the city constantly reviewing the budget and looking for ways to be more efficient and productive. That doesn't include though tearing down individuals that work here and would like to live here.

Anonymous said...

Note use of the word household with that $89,294. The $41,273 per capita is
almost $20 per hour. Not McDonald's wages but not a lot in the Bay Area, particularly this side of the Bay. Lot of people sharing households.

Anonymous said...

That's right Kathy. And most households have at least 2 working adults.

Anonymous said...

646 you are out of touch with reality. There are plenty of families that do fine here on 50 or 60 K a year. I make 50, live by myself, save money, go out to eat, buy nice things, go on vacation. I'm lucky my housing cost is low.

I find that the more you make, many times the more you spend.

What is ludicrous is that people like Mary Ann don't know most of her subjects survive on much less that 100k. These are the people she keeps wanting to tax in order to pay these $100K+ city salaries.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line, $100K per year won't pay for much in the Bay Area, including "affordable" Pacifica--whether it's the single salary in a household or the combined earnings of several members of a household. Add kids, pets and transportation to housing and food and it gets stretched pretty thin pretty fast.

Anonymous said...

347 Who's out of touch? You say plenty of families do fine on $50-60K and then you seem to offer yourself as an example/proof, but you have low-housing cost and live alone on $50K. Might work for your personal demographic, but I don't think you represent the average Pacifican. A family trying to survive here on $50-60K, particularly without your low housing expense, skates on real thin ice. Probably with some form of subsidy and plenty of sacrifice.

Anonymous said...

So many pro sports athletes make millions and blow it all. I personally know a retired BofA teller who has more cash and stock than 80% of people in town! How? She shops sales drives a 20 year old Honda and lives within her means.

The problem isn't how much you make, but cash management.

If you don't believe me, read up on how many people live pay check to paycheck and are 2 missed pay checks away from being homeless.