On December 15, the council voted 3-2 to approve a motion to ask staff to return with information on a TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax), a parcel tax focusing on infrastructure needs that are critical to be addressed immediately, and more information on the sugar sweetened beverage tax.
The substitute motion was to focus on TOT and parcel tax. That motion, supported by Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson, subsequently failed.
Mayor Dan Wolk during his comments noted that “we have an exacting amount of defined needs that we need in the area of parks and rec.” In expressing his concerns “over going the route of a soda tax to fund those items, it seems like it might behoove the council to look at something like an increase in our parks tax by a certain small amount or moderate amount to be able to begin to pay for some of these items as opposed to going the route of a soda tax.”
“That would be something that I’d be interested in sort of seeing,” he said. He suggested a $50 increase in the parks tax to $99 “which would be a special tax and require two-thirds vote but it provide needed funds for our infrastructure.”
He added, “I don’t think we can shy away at this point from… I’m not willing to wait another year before putting something on the ballot.”
Ultimately the council would pass the motion pushing for, among other things, a parcel tax that focused on infrastructure needs rather than a parks tax.
But that hasn’t stopped the move now for a parks tax as a substitute for a soda tax.
A letter to the Enterprise pushes for a parks tax, and was authored by Billy Doughty, head swim coach, Davis Aquadarts, with support from Charlie Russell; Kellie O’Neill, president, Davis Tennis Club; and Elaine Roberts Musser.
They write, “On a potential revenue measure in June, we agree with Mayor Dan Wolk. We need a revenue measure that will be assured to go toward parks facilities, has proper oversight, has a proven track record of broad support without funded opposition, and can pass at the ballot box.”
They continue, “Although we appreciate the soda tax proponents’ efforts, we believe the better route this June is a modest ($50 to $75) increase in the existing annual parks tax, for six years, to fund outstanding parks facility needs, including the renovation of the tennis courts at Walnut Park, rebuilding Rainbow City, replacing aging equipment and playgrounds at all our parks, and reinvesting in Community Pool. This was essentially proposed by Mayor Wolk as an alternative to the soda tax.
“The tax would require a two-thirds vote, could be spent only on parks facilities, and would have oversight proposals like those suggested by the Finance and Budget Commission. Oversight also would be provided by the Recreation and Parks Commission,” they write. “There is no question we have a need to reinvest in our parks. The mayor has it right about what is the best tool. We support his efforts 100 percent and we hope the City Council will, too.”
Mayor Dan Wolk posted the link on his Facebook page with the note, “A great letter from key community members about our parks facilities proposal.”
This is an interesting development in that Elaine Roberts Musser spoke on December 15 and never mentioned a parks tax in her comments. Instead, she pushed forward the Finance and Budget Commission plan of accountability. Previously she had pushed for the Utility User Tax, emphasizing that we need to address critical needs first, specifically roads not parks.
In fact, in a second letter, she lamented the decision of the council by a 3-2 vote setting aside “a utility user tax with almost no explanation.”
She writes, “Instead, virtually all the discussion centered on a potential soda tax. I received an email from a citizen that encapsulated what many of us were wondering as we left the Community Chambers that night. The gist of the email was that this gentleman could not understand what happened. He noted the council directed staff eight to nine months ago to look at a utility users tax. Yet a soda tax seemed to spring out of nowhere.
“The city could not say how much money such a tax would bring in and what it would be used for. Nevertheless, the utility users tax was set aside without discussion, while staff was directed to explore the idea of a new soda tax.
“All of us in that room could palpably feel the city manager’s frustration at the direction the discussion took. Staff was being asked at the 11th hour to take on the extra task of exploring a brand-new tax, a type of tax that only one other city, Berkeley, has ever implemented,” she wrote.
“As Mayor Davis Wolk wisely opined, a soda tax is not likely to be approved by voters. If placed on the same ballot with other tax measures, a soda tax would endanger the approval of other less controversial tax measures, e.g., a parks tax increase, a parcel tax and a transient occupancy tax. Councilwoman Rochelle Swanson joined in that concern.”
She adds, “I have to question the wisdom of proposing a soda tax that would be extremely divisive to the community. Divisiveness was clearly evident that night in the Community Chambers. On the issue of the soda tax, small business owners in town were pitted against health activists. This is most unfortunate, when it is of the utmost importance for the city to showcase a business-friendly atmosphere. The success of the proposed well-planned innovation parks depends on it. Davis business owners shouldn’t have to wonder what beverage or food they sell eventually will be slapped with another ‘sin tax.’”
The soda tax is clearly not a proposal that would fund infrastructure needs. However, there is still the roughly $10 million in infrastructure costs that the city needs to cover, and parks is only a portion of that.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
There’s your answer, it came out of nowhere just like the soda tax.
I said this originally, a few people organize and all approach the council on the same night then bamm, all of a sudden we’re talking soda tax.
Strange things are afoot at 23 Russell Blvd
True, being more pronounced about 4 years ago…
” . . . a few people organize and all approach the council on the same night . . . ”
Those “few people” where a who’s who of Democrat political “has beens” — and a few “still ares” — and so-called health care activists. “Raising tax money for our agenda”.
“I said this originally, a few people organize and all approach the council on the same night then bamm, all of a sudden we’re talking soda tax.”
This is incorrect. Just because David has not yet printed an article on a subject, or it has not yet reached your radar screen does not mean that an issue has not been being considered by multiple groups including city leaders before your hypothetical small group of conspirators approaches the city council.
Now, now. You don’t like having words put in your mouth so don’t put them in mine. Where did I say “conspirators”? Funny that you would say it though.
Like the letter David cited where the writer wrote “Yet a soda tax seemed to spring out of nowhere” seems to be the feeling of many Davis residents. Yes, this came out of left field.
“Like the letter David cited where the writer wrote “Yet a soda tax seemed to spring out of nowhere” seems to be the feeling of many Davis residents. Yes, this came out of left field.”
That’s one person’s view – one person who wasn’t working on the soda tax.
That’s more than one person’s view, I’m sure it would be the view of most Davis residents.
BP
“a few people organize and all approach the council on the same night then bamm, all of a sudden we’re talking soda tax.”
“Conspiracy” can be defined as “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.”
You are correct. I do not like words being put into my mouth. However, I doubt that I would take exception to someone posting a more succinct synonym for what I had said. I will give you the illegal part. Surely no one believes that what the small group of former politicians did was illegal or that they had illegal intent, however, many including you I believe have made claims that this measure would be harmful.
Perhaps I overstated your meaning, but I do not believe that I put any “words in your mouth” that you had not already spoken.
I think some proper terms would be that was their stratagem, ground plan or design. Conspiracy is way to harsh of a word and denotes evil intent.
But ho hum, I’m sure you’ll have to have the last word and once again tell me what I meant.
Tia is correct. The groups had spent a lot of time putting together the Soda Tax proposal prior to December 1 when it was presented to council. Dan Wolk told me he had been working with those groups but suddenly flipped on December 15.
Can someone tell me whether it is possible to have an advisory vote on a parks tax? I am remembering the not so distant parks tax revenue going to (especially) firefighter raises. As others have stated repeatedly I am reluctant given our history and the recent MOU use of sales tax revenue
What would the $ crevenue comparison be between soda tax and a ~$50 increase in parks tax?
The way I understand it even if a new parks tax was stipulated to be spent only on our parks it would still free up other money for the council to give away to employees if they so choose. So what good does an advisory measure really do? Just money being taken out of the left pocket and being put into the right one.
Oh no, we didn’t give away the parks tax money to employees, that came out of a different pot of money.
Yes, you know how the political shell game is played.
I wish more people did. Here is how the typical “low awareness voter” thinks:
“Parks? I like parks.”
And that’s how you raise taxes.
In this case that would be harder to do. However, right now I’d be inclined to oppose the parks tax, I don’t like the games being played here. I also think while there are clearly parks infrastructure needs, the overall infrastructure needs are just as pressing and this does nothing to deal with them.
Yes, because tax money is fungible. You use “parks” to sell the tax because people like parks.
You don’t need an advisory vote on it because it would be a special tax and therefore they can directly stipulate where the money goes.
remind me whether this was done before?
BTW: I have had to log in this am each time I want to make a comment; are you discouraging comments?!
This was done with the last parks tax, it is done with the school parcel taxes, etc.
On the site issue: we made some changes to the site last week and there are several problems – the hit counter is disabled, the letters section is posting in the mainstream, and there appear to be caching issues as well which is probably why you are having to log back in. THey are gone until Monday, so we have to bear with it. Sorry.
“has a proven track record of broad support without funded opposition”
“when it is of the utmost importance for the city to showcase a business-friendly atmosphere.”
“Strange things are afoot at 23 Russell Blvd”
I don’t think that the two first quotes support anything strange at all going on. It looks like business as usual to me. What has happened here is that money has talked loud and clear. We have “funded opposition” so this means that we have to kowtow to the desires of the soda manufacturers. No thought whatsoever that with determined leadership on the part of our elected leaders a soda tax might be something that would be successful. No there, is instead the outright admission in this comment that money will prevail.
I am disgusted. Whether or not you believe on ideologic grounds that a tax, which anyone could avoid paying by the way, simply by not buying the non essential product, is a good idea….how can you not be disgusted by our bowing down to deep commercial pockets in order to provide a “business- friendly atmosphere” . Would any of you put your own family members health at risk in order to provide a “business-friendly atmosphere” ? Then why are we as a community so very ready to let commercial interests call the shots even when we know that there product is of no value, but merely a bad choice.
Sorry Tia, I was channeling my inner-1980s stealing from a prominent movie for my generation.
Alan
“One can also not “buy” what the soda industry is selling in terms of propaganda”
That statement is true as written, but unfortunately is not the way the world works. Maybe you personally are not swayed by the propaganda of the soda industry, but many others are.
This would be the equivalent of me saying “If everyone were a pacifist, as I am, we would never have any wars.” That is a true statement which I wish applied universally, but I am acutely aware that it does not And I, just like everyone else, pay with my taxes for the immoral actions of the killing that is part of war. It seems to me that you and a select number of individuals here are fighting tooth and nail against relatively benign taxes while buying into the real lies of our society or at least not opposing them.
The real lies of our society is the glorification of an unhealthy lifestyle. I oppose this, though I cannot alter our society. You stated that people had the choice not to pay the tax; and that’s not the way the world works either, many will buy soda anyway.
One can also not “buy” what the soda industry is selling in terms of propaganda, simply by not buying the non essential propaganda . . .
Tia: “What has happened is that money has talked loud and clear”
Tia, I would suggest that politics was equally loud in this scenario and that disgusts me just as much. The reversal discussion and vote by our mayor so well covered by DV but not by other media-how many of the electorate will have that info when it comes to the election?
I just realized that we need to tax your name!
Not a soda drinker so wouldn’t be taxed!
SODA is South Davis! When I first signed in the system capped all letters. Glad you got a chuckle.
SODA
In this instance I am completely in agreement with you. I do not think that there is a hair’s breadth of difference in our positions, I just called it by the name “money” while you called it by the name “politics”. I think that this whole sorry affair has been a matter of politics controlled by money.
“Would any of you put your own family members health at risk in order to provide a ‘business-friendly atmosphere’ ?”
Would anyone place their personal antipathy for change over the material and social needs of the greater community? It happens, I hear.
Biddlin
“Would anyone place their personal antipathy for change over the material and social needs of the greater community? It happens, I hear.”
Before one can ever decide that this is what is being doing, one would have to have unanimity of belief on what the “material and social needs” of the greater community actually are. I do not believe that we have that unanimity of values.
This is true. Some see managed growth of a community, including housing and revenue development, as a good and necessary thing. In the matter of housing, for example, your opposing values are quite transparent and self-serving. Now that’s not a criticism, just an observation. Your opposition to any meaningful growth in light industry or research facilities could be viewed as stifling the advancement of both the local economy and job opportunities.
I know you will respond that you are open to these things if only they meet your ever changing list of requirements, so I will end my poke at the hypocrisy of hyperbole.
Alan
“One can also not “buy” what the soda industry is selling in terms of propaganda”
That statement is true as written, but unfortunately is not the way the world works. Maybe you personally are not swayed by the propaganda of the soda industry, but many others are.
This would be the equivalent of me saying “If everyone were a pacifist, as I am, we would never have any wars.” That is a true statement which I wish applied universally, but I am acutely aware that it does not And I, just like everyone else, pay with my taxes for the immoral actions of the killing that is part of war. It seems to me that you and a select number of individuals here are fighting tooth and nail against relatively benign taxes while buying into the real lies of our society or at least not opposing them.
Biddlin
“your opposing values are quite transparent and self-serving. “
Only if you insist on adhering to your version of what my values are rather than accepting how I define them. So let’s take your example of my position on housing.
I am in agreement with Don Shor that we are in need of student housing. I have never opposed any of the apartment projects targeting students. I also believe that we are in need of low cost housing suitable for lower income workers in town. As I have said repeatedly in public, I would not be opposing the Trackside project if it were low cost housing. I firmly believe in providing spaces for those who are in need of affordable housing. What I do not favor is developments whose obvious goal is to make investment money for the already affluent or to house those who have plenty of money and can live anywhere in Davis that they choose if they are either willing to lower their standards a little and/or wait until something that meets their standards becomes available.
I fail to see how either of these positions is “self serving” since none of the positions I have taken are opposed to all growth, or would be likely to have any appreciable impact on the value of my two properties in Davis. Perhaps you can explain to me just how you see favoring housing for those actually in need over those who merely want more is self serving.
Define low-cost housing?
And I have to call you on this because going back and reading all your arguments against Trackside they would all apply to any “cost” housing. Are you attempting to paint yourself out of the corner you put yourself in opposing both peripheral AND dense infill development projects while claiming you are not a NIMBY?
Is low cost housing for students, or section 8? I would be curious. In Davis there are students using student loans to buy cars then apply for section 8. You have to wonder which type of “low income” person Davisites want in their little town.
As I have said in other venues where the Parks Tax has been touted, the authors of this Parks Tax idea have focused on Revenue . . . in effect saying “The City of Davis needs more money to spend.” The Finance and Budget Commission (FBC) unanimously passed a motion at our December meeting that strongly argues for a different approach. The FBC advice to Council was:
Rather than focusing on increasing revenues, the FBC believes the most pressing issue for the City of Davis is being honest about our costs … and taking definitive, proactive steps to control (and where possible reduce) those costs. Until we know “what we owe” it is premature to be talking about spending more.
The City of Davis needs to “pay its bills” when they are due. One look at the condition of the streets in Davis tells us all that the City has not been adequately been paying the bill for maintenance of our streets. Other necessary maintenance bills that have not been adequately paid are for bike paths, streets, sidewalks, park structures, pools, tennis courts, traffic signals, our urban forest, playgrounds, irrigation systems, fire stations, and city building maintenance.
You can’t “pay your bills” unless you know what those bills actually are. The era of ostriches with head in the sand needs to come to an end. The FBC advice to Council says we need to be honest about those bills before we start talking about additional revenue measures.
But Mayor Wolk said everything is looking rosy, our budget is balanced with a 15% reserve. Are you saying that Wolk is leaving out much of our needed costs in his state of the city address?
of course he is. he’s also leaving out of lot of the risk.
Duh! Everyone in town should’ve realized that when they read his op-ed. Unfortunately too many don’t follow this sort of stuff, don’t understand it or don’t care.
exactly right. but, remember it also gets to the issue of whether this is coming out of nowhere – most people just aren’t aware of the activities/ conversations going on.
He’s also leaving!
BP, in his words the mayor has focused on the actual Budget as proposed by Staff and approved by the Council. Since there currently is not enough money and/or resources to address all the City’s actual costs, the costs without funding have not been included in the Budget. As a result the Budget does not give a true picture of the City’s fiscal health.
In public comment on several occasions I have called for a change to the Budget documents to add an additional section below the current “active” Budget information. That additional section would list the additional costs that have been identified by the City, but not included in the “active” Budget because of a lack of funding and/or resources. Those “unfunded” would then be subtracted from the General Fund Reserve balance to show what the City’s true bottom-line actually is.
this is simple bait and switch. dan wants to define himself by being kid friendly. he supported the soda tax. the beverage industry pressured him, threatened him. in misathrop’s terms, he got rolled. so now he’s come up with the parks tax, which will get him the same bang for the buck even if it doesn’t address the health concerns of sugar beverage consumption. and even if it ignores roads and city building expenses on the revenue side.
“Dan wants to define himself as kid friendly.”
Oh the horror!
I do find it interesting that Greenwald wonders where a parks tax comes from even though there has been a steady drum beat for better sports facilities for quite a while. In fact, the idea for a sports complex goes all the way back to when Susie Boyd was on the council.
David is playing dumb here while taking the blood sugar money from Coke and Pepsi’s pro-diabetes lobbyists pretending that his doing so has no impact on his editorial slant. Its ludicrous. Of course the beverage industry doesn’t really care if there is a backlash. They want their money to be feared not loved and the beverage tax isn’t dead yet so they want to keep the pressure on something this article continues to do.
The city’s budget is currently balanced but the city doesn’t have the money for needed infrastructure. The question is how to get the money for the infrastructure needs of the city. A soda tax, as any sin tax, is a twofer generating income while discouraging unhealthy behavior.
When the city council got rolled by PG&E over a municipal utility the Davis Vanguard was barely critical when Brett Lee retreated, but now, when Dan Wolk is the one with cold feet its story worthy every day. Of course PG&E didn’t but ads at the Vanguard only at the Enterprise.
“Oh the horror!”
the horror isn’t that he wants to be kid friendly, it’s that he’s cynically manipulating the process to be kid friendly while killing the soda tax.
“When the city council got rolled by PG&E over a municipal utility the Davis Vanguard was barely critical ”
i don’t have the same recollection.
https://davisvanguard.org/2014/02/vanguard-commentary-city-to-bow-to-pressure-pull-back-on-pou/
https://davisvanguard.org/2014/09/analysis-did-council-overreact-when-they-killed-the-pou/
https://davisvanguard.org/2014/05/my-view-council-caves-to-public-pressure-on-pou/
Reading those three articles about DMUD you get a much milder tone than what we have seen attacking the mayor.
What is really interesting from those articles from last year is this tidbit from Greenwald:
“But the deficit in 2018 actually goes up higher – much higher, perhaps up to $7 or $8 million.”
Now Greenwald is crying wolf about about the 2022 budget. He was wrong then and he is probably wrong now. In fact he has been beating this austerity drum for years and yet the sky is yet to fall. That is not to say that Davis doesn’t need money to fund its needed infrastructure but Greenwald is always talking about budget catastrophes that never seem to come to pass. His predictive powers seem limited.
The deficit was handled through additional cuts plus the passage of the sales tax. That’s why the council put it on the ballot. If the sales tax goes away, the deficit comes back.
Yes, they raised revenue and cut costs. That is how its done. The problem is that Davis’ finances are manageable but instead you always want to make it like its the end of the world and bankruptcy is right around the corner. You have been doing this for years and yet your predictions of dire consequences haven’t come to fruition. And yes, when the last sales tax increase expires the budget goes red but it was sold as a bridge to economic development. The legitimate criticism is that we haven’t had the economic development we need but don’t blame the delay on the council blame it on Measure R. An honest accounting would be if we don’t have economic development we will need to renew the sales tax. If we don’t do either then the budget will go into the red in 6 years. Instead of giving the current and previous council credit for doing the heavy lifting that kept the city solvent including imposing contracts on two bargaining units you are critical of the council for giving 3% cola and the mayor for being a politician. Imagine that!
LOL, I didn’t see the banner advert until I disabled adblock.
I didn’t see it without adblock.
This is a good and related article in the Enterprise from Tom Elias. He covers what is expected… that the Democrats are starting to eat their own young as a result of budget impacts from their historical gorging on big fat pay and pensions to government workers for political favor.
I think 10 years from now we will note two-classes of government employees past and present. The older millionaire retirement club members, and the younger members that have a retirement plan similar to what the rest of the working world has. And my-oh-my won’t that class conflict to be fun to watch from the sidelines?!
Ironically I think government service will ultimately improve with an end to defined benefit pensions. Because a defined contribution retirement plan is mobile, poor performing employees… and those that find they are unmotivated and in the wrong career or job, can be sent packing to new jobs and careers that are a better fit… and the new hires will arrive with all that new employee energy, creatively and idealism that helps drive innovation that leads to improvements in service delivery. We should also have more movement between the private and public sector because of the lack of pension lock that occurs today. This will also help as public sector business is in significant need of an injection of private sector best practices.
And with a drop in the cost of city labor (because it equalizes with the general labor market) the city might begin to develop some reserves that can be spent on sports parks and road maintenance instead of paying so many high six figure pensions to 50-year olds.
Unless you’re counting the dimes as a figure, I don’t think we have any 6-figure retirees, at least not on an annual basis.
Aside from that and the gratuitous “blame the Democrats” paragraph, I agree with most of Frankly’s post. Corrupt money politics happens in both D- and R-dominated political subdivisions; since Davis is mostly D, that’s where the sleazy action crops up.
I think that a move to defined-contribution pensions will help, but it’s not a panacea. Overly-generous employer contributions to pension and/or health care will remain a way to hide unreasonable compensation under either system, so the most important thing is to institutionalize effective citizen oversight of the budget.
Just curious… Jim, what do you think is reasonable [not ‘overly generous’] compensation criteria for City employees:
salary (comparisons?)… [some would have a clerical worker and a professionally licensed/Department Head paid the same]
contributions to retirement, with or without FICA (SS) contributions…
medicare and/or other retiree medical beyond Medicare ‘basic’, if any…
Should it be the criteria (if any) for the self-employed? Other?
Would help me (and others) to understand “overly generous”…
Frankly, and others feel free to weigh in… not trying to pick on Jim…
“I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like.”
Since I’m not an expert — or even a talented amateur — when it comes to the art and science of employee compensation, I can only offer some observations that form an admittedly incomplete picture of the matter:
1. There is a difference in practice between most public agencies and most private firms when responding to financial constraints. Since staff costs typically account for a large proportion of an entity’s budget, most private companies are relatively quick to reduce staff costs when times get tight. Some favor the meat-axe approach — laying off non-essential employees at the first sign of a downturn — while others are willing to explore more egalitarian approaches like salary reductions first. But the bottom line drives the reduction, no matter how it’s accomplished. Public agencies, by contrast, tend to retain staff by looking first to backfilling revenue through additional taxes and fee increases. Being monopolies of a sort, they can pull this off much more easily than can a private firm. Thus there’s an economic advantage — job security — to public agency employment that isn’t accounted for in any budget. (The last decade has seen some extreme budgetary stresses that have produced some exceptions to this concept, but I believe that’s viewed as an aberration rather than a long-term change in practice.)
2. Private firms tend to favor wage/salary as the main employee reward, with health insurance and retirement contributions as perks. Public agency compensation — at least in California — is tilted much more toward the non-wage benefits. Thus when agency employees complain that they’re underpaid compared to their private-sector brethren, it may seem reasonable at first blush, but toss in the value of the benefits and things take on a very different look.
3. I don’t believe that retiree health care costs beyond Medicare should be be provided by public agencies. (If private companies want to do it, that’s their business.) The cost is too unpredictable, and it’s long been trending in only one direction.
4. I don’t believe that public agencies should offer defined-benefit pensions. Unpredictability is an issue with this, too, and it’s way too easy for politicians to make promises (or impose actuarial assumptions that aren’t realistic) that cost little now but cost a whole lot later when they’ve already moved on to higher office. It’s an accountability thing.
5. Re: self-employment: I’ve been doing it for over 20 years, and it’s been a wonderful, if somewhat wild, ride. The primary benefit for me has been the degree of autonomy; my son’s been playing baseball for over 10 years (currently a P.O. on the DHS varsity team), and in that time I’ve missed maybe 5 of his games. I get to decide when I go into the field, and when I stay in the office. (Except when I don’t get to decide, because like everyone else I have deadlines to meet.) I get to set my own hours, which means I can saunter down to Crepeville at 1:00 for lunch and saunter back at 2:30 or 3:00. (City Hall denizens probably see me passing by with some regularity. What they don’t see is when I’m at my desk after dinner until 11:00 or 12:00, but then I don’t have to go to Council meetings unless I want to.) Sometimes the money’s been very good, and sometimes it’s been, shall we say, a bit thin — it has, at times, varied by a factor of 2 from one year to the next. Out of whatever I manage to make I now pay about $24k per year for health insurance for my family of 3, and I haven’t made a retirement contribution or a 529 contribution since the downturn, which hit me in 2010. And I pay self-employment taxes that employees don’t have to pay. I’m staring at college costs next year, and it looks like we’ll be footing the bill without financial aid. (Gulp.) All things considered, I’d say that a senior City staffer — I’m not talking about a department head, but rather a Senior Civil Engineer or equivalent, will come out way ahead in retirement if you look only at the money. Self-employment is not for the faint of heart, nor for those who need the structure of defined hours and compensation. But if you can live with the uncertainties it’s a great way to go.
Bingo. Ditto. All of that. I’m just very grateful for the GI Bill. Tell your kid about the great educational options our military provides! after service, that is….
I would add to point #1 that the purpose of staff reduction is supposed to be to reduce overall payroll costs. So when I see that full-time equivalents were reduced by something like 20% and overall payroll costs didn’t go down, I wonder about how those cuts were implemented and what kind of oversight the process had from those public officials who are supposed to be doing due diligence.
Jim Frame: fair answers to what was asked as fair questions. May disagree on some aspects, but appreciate your considered reply.
Well done Jim. I don’t have a thing to add except also to include monetary value of paid time off benefits for city employees. They are an order of magnitude better than what is provided in the private sector, and with these benefits that mid-level city engineer can probably see as many of his son’s games as you can your son’s as a self-employed professional.
P.S. I miscounted my zeros when I said I didn’t think there were any 6-figure retirees. There are, of course, as was pointed out to me privately.
Easy to do, when some keep referring to “millionaire pensions”. Dunning refers to his income using the term, ‘floating decimal point’. No harm, no foul, Jim…
Many have speculated whether such a soda tax would be “successful” in meeting its “goals”.
If the goal and definition of success is to stop all soda consumption, the tax will bring in zero tax. The more “successful” it as for this goal, the less it will be generate revenue for the City.
If the goal and definition of success is to bring in tax money, it must completely fail in reducing consumption of soda. And some people will buy soda in bulk when visiting a nearby city, therefore possibly increasing their soda intake with the temptation of bulk quantities of soda in the house.
This is why a soda tax is F***-ing stupid.
Neither option presented above is correct. Reduction in consumption is the goal and definition of success, and some tax revenue comes along for the ride.
But I’m agnostic regarding the soda tax. The most significant aspect of the proposal for me is Dan’s flip-flop on the matter.
I concur with Jim’s assessment.
“. The most significant aspect of the proposal for me is Dan’s flip-flop on the”
This is the point too many are missing
So Jim, Matt and DP are all bent out of shape because the Mayor flip flopped but I wonder if any of you changed your support for the Mayor because of it?
Misanthrop, please go back and reread Jim’s post. He said, “I’m agnostic regarding the soda tax. The most significant aspect of the proposal for me is Dan’s flip-flop on the matter.”
A smidgen above agnostic is not the common definition of bent out of shape.
To answer your question, no, none of this has changed my support for the Mayor at all.
Well, yeah, OK, duh. Of course neither extreme will happen. The point is the two goals are exclusive of each other. Those who will keep buying soda will be paying taxes and not getting healthier. And as I’ve said before, health isn’t about soda, it’s about nutrition, and demonizing and taxing soda doesn’t resolve any one person’s overall lifestyle.
Uh, the way many have posited… all soda tax revenue would go “elsewhere” (not City GF) but to either County/State/private efforts for education/treatment… no indication that the City would recover election and/or administrative costs, much less actually see an increase in GF revenues.
Unless, of course, the advocates want to create new city position(s) [with all the pension, etc. liabilities] to carry out a new initiative.
Alan
“If the goal and definition of success is to stop all soda consumption, the tax will bring in zero tax. The more “successful” it as for this goal, the less it will be generate revenue for the City”
If this were to be the outcome, it would be a huge success. We could sit back and enjoy the benefits of a healthier population whose unnecessarily expensive medical bills we did not have to pay. Yes, there would be less money generated for the city, and a much healthier population.
Ever since I went in to medicine, I have felt that one of my major goals was to eliminate the need for my job. The more people that I could prevent from having an unwanted disease or adverse outcome, the less people I would be seeing and the less income doctors ( at least in the fee for service world would have). But that is what our mission should be even if it does not maximize our personal profits. This is another such situation. If lives are improved or saved, is it not worth decreasing funds to the city coffers ?
There is no soda tax, so there is no revenue to decrease.
The first parcel tax began when Lois Wolk was mayor. It was supposed to be a one-time stop gap that would subsequently be discontinued. It has never been discontinued. It merely became a means for funding the Parks & Rec department so the funds otherwise flowing to that department could be spent elsewhere. The sales tax was a similar ruse, as are the MRIC and Nishi projects which is why they bare no relationship to sound financial or community planning.
The City knows what it spends and seeks to balance that spending with taxes. The City does not know its costs of service, and it has no plan for managing its costs or controlling the growth in those costs. This is a necessary first step before asking for additional taxes. (Referring to taxes as revenue is fraudulent; revenue is earned by directly providing a good or service.) Furthermore, the City has absolutely no clue the number of employees it actually needs or the work those employees should actually be performing. This is elementary Watson! The public deserves a competently run City. This is a more important issue of accountability, for the Council and particularly for Dan Wolk.
Excellent post!!!
skeptical, revenue is the income that a business entity has from its normal business activities. In the private sector that revenue is usually from the sale of goods and/or services to customers, although investment earnings are also referred to as revenue. Many companies receive revenue from royalties and/or other fees.
The point skeptical makes in his/her second paragraph is too absolute to be factually true; however, if skeptical were to attend a Finance and Budget Commission (FBC) meeting (the second Monday of each month at 7:00pm in Council Chambers), he/she would find that the concern expressed by the FBC collectively and individually is quite close to the concerns skeptical has expressed here. The drum beat is the same, and it is based on the desire for an open, transparent, accountable City government that pays its bills on time and takes appropriate care of its assets and delivers high quality services to its residents and taxpayers.
. . . and our schools win, too!