The San Bruno Beacon

The San Bruno City Council and Government advertise San Bruno as "The City With a Heart". My opinion is, that insofar as San Bruno's residents are concerned, this is false advertising. In my opinion, San Bruno's City Council & government have no heart or mercy for San Bruno's residents when it comes to raising rates & fees on City services and providing San Bruno's residents with a fiscally stable City. The City of San Bruno has a chronic budget deficit of about $500,000 every year.

At the Tuesday, June 12th San Bruno City Council meeting, the City Council will probably rubber stamp a 7.23% rate increase for the San Bruno Garbage Company. The San Bruno Garbage company appears to be the beneficiary of never ending rounds of annual rate increases by this City Council. Last year, at the May 23, 2006 City Council meeting, this City Council rubber stamped another 3.22% rate increase requested by the San Bruno Garbage Company. At the June 28, 2005 San Bruno City Council meeting, the San Bruno Garbage Company was given a 3.386% rate increase by the San Bruno City Council.

San Bruno's residents are being hit, by the San Bruno City Council and Government, with the same type of never-ending rubber stamp rate increases for City of San Bruno Water Service and Consumption fees, Sewer Service Fees, Sewer Usage fees, and San Bruno Cable TV rates as well as the rates and fees charged for other City provided services. If you are a San Bruno resident, take a close look at your bill for water, sewer, and garbage services.

However, when it comes to management level City of San Bruno employees, the San Bruno City Council hands out taxpayer money like candy on Halloween to pay for salary increases, generous retirement plans, healthcare benefits, and other perks.

In a January 9, 2007 Daily Journal article, Mayor Franzella, stated, "I personally don't believe that employees should have to pay [for health insurance]". Of course he doesn't, he thinks San Bruno's residents & taxpayers should. No health insurance co-pays for City employees means that the budget deficit gets even worse. As of January 9, 2007, The Daily Journal reported that employees currently pay $450 monthly for health care. It was also reported that the new plan then under consideration would cover 100 percent of the individual cost and 80 percent for an individual and family. Is it any wonder why the City of San Bruno has a chronic budget deficit, and San Bruno's residents are continuously punished year after year with soaring rates and fees, when San Bruno has a Mayor who engages in this type political pandering to the City's public employees and their unions during an election year.

In the 07/06/2006 Daily Journal San Bruno Mayor Franzella said, "We're looking forward to next year (2007). If we did everything as well as we did last year then we'll be in the black." Franzella thinks things are doing well in San Bruno when the City has a chronic $500,000+ budget deficit. Franzella, the financial wizard (does Franzella have a college degree?), said this when the City of San Bruno had a $556,585 +/- deficit. This year, once again, as reported in the 05/14/2007 Daily Journal, "San Bruno is looking at another $500,000 deficit for the upcoming year".

To add insult to injury, the San Bruno City Council intends to raise the financial pain level on San Bruno's residents even higher. At their June 12, 2007 meeting they are going to decide whether they should put a parcel or sales tax measure on the ballot to pay for a new City Library. Of course; the City of San Bruno already has a library & there is a lot of debate about whether libraries are even necessary in the internet age. However, that is a discussion for another article.

The reason why San Bruno's residents are being drowned in never ending rate & fee increases on City sponsored services is because San Bruno's City Council and Government are out of control and refuse to put the brakes on spending. San Bruno should have a budget surplus to draw upon in an emergency; not a budget deficit that will surely lead the City down the path to bankruptcy if economic times turn from bad to worse. Think of the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year that San Bruno's taxpayers could save by shutting down the San Bruno Public Library. After all, there are libraries all over San Mateo County. Do we need a library in every one of San Mateo County's small cities? From an economic standpoint, the answer is clearly no. How about having a ballot measure to close San Bruno's Public Library?

At the March 27, 2007 San Bruno City Council meeting, San Bruno City Manager Connie Jackson excused herself from the part of the meeting discussing the City's Home Loan Program. She excused herself because she stated that she is the recipient of a "City loan".

Why is San Bruno City Manager Connie Jackson borrowing money from the City of San Bruno for personal purposes? What is the purpose of her "City loan"? How much does she owe the City of San Bruno? What are the terms of the loan?

According to the City of San Bruno Salary Schedule, the San Bruno City Manager (Connie Jackson) earns somewhere between $12,804 and $15,712 per month. In addition to her salary, Jackson receives a perk package that probably includes a hefty car allowance and/or virtually unlimited access to City vehicles, a generous medical / dental plan, a great retirement plan, expense account, and anything else she managed to get the fiscally irresponsible San Bruno City Council to sign off on when they hired her.

It isn't as if City Manager Jackson is an underpaid teacher who needs financial assistance so she can afford to live in the community where she works. Jackson's monthly earnings, estimated at somewhere between $12,804 and $15,712 per month, place her well above the median San Bruno family income of about $5,854 per month ($70,248 per year). Unless Jackson has horrible credit; her earnings, an expense account and car allowance would qualify her for a loan from almost any lending institution. Yet, San Bruno City Manager Jackson has turned the deficit ridden City of San Bruno, that she runs, into her personal bank.

Jackson was appointed as San Bruno's City Manager in 2003. The City of San Bruno has been running a chronic budget deficit in the $500,000 per year range and, in the words of San Bruno City Manager Connie Jackson herself at the June 12, 2007 San Bruno City Council meeting:

"As the [San Bruno] City Council is well aware, the City of San Bruno has experienced a serious reduction in its ongoing General Fund revenue stream since approximately the fiscal year 2002 - 2003".

Jackson has been San Bruno's City Manager for about 4 years. Now, after 4 years of having Jackson as San Bruno's City Manager, the financial situation in San Bruno is so bad that in addition to all of the other tax, rate, and fee hikes San Bruno's residents are being punished with; Jackson and the San Bruno City Council are pushing to put a 1/2 cent San Bruno Sales Tax Measure on the November 2007 ballot that will raise the price on most things that San Bruno residents buy and raise the financial misery index for San Bruno's residents to a whole new level. San Bruno's City Manager and Council want to raise the sales tax by 1/2 cent because they have already mismanaged the City of San Bruno to the point of chronic deficit spending and now want more taxpayer money to waste. Voting to approve a 1/2 cent sales tax in San Bruno in the November 2007 election, to give these fools more taxpayer money to waste, is like pouring gasoline on an out of control fire.

"As the City Council is well aware, the City of San Bruno has experienced a serious reduction in its ongoing general fund revenue stream since approximately the fiscal year 2002-2003 it is through prudent fiscal policy and aggressive budget management that the City has successfully maintained all necessary and basic City services in spite of the fact that across the board reductions have occurred in our budget deliberations ah to all City services and as a result, ah the City has been significantly impacted in both the quantity as well as the level of important services that it is able to provide."

In a nutshell, the answer to San Bruno's chronic budget deficit problem is to cut the City's cost of doing business. City Manager Jackson has had four years to make the cuts necessary to balance San Bruno's budget and create a budget surplus. She has failed to do so.

Jackson talks about using prudent fiscal policy and aggressive budget management to maintain all necessary and basic City services. Constant and punishing tax, rate, and fee increases on San Bruno's residents must be what Jackson is talking about when she talks about "aggressive budget management". Also, there is nothing "prudent" about this City Council's and/or Jackson's mismanagement of San Bruno's finances.

The City of San Bruno can maintain a higher level of City services for San Bruno's residents by reducing both the number of top management employees as well as the salary and benefit packages of the top management employees who remain. Simply stated, San Bruno's City government is an army with too many high paid generals sitting around in offices and not enough sergeants and privates on the streets providing necessary and essential City services to San Bruno's residents.

The City Council and Jackson have put the City of San Bruno is such a financial hole that they want San Bruno's voters to approve a 1/2 cent sales tax in the November 2007 election so the Council and City Manager will have more money to mismanage. Here are 3 ways that this 1/2 cent sales tax raises the financial misery index on San Bruno's residents and businesses: First, San Bruno's residents will have to pay higher taxes on most things they buy. Second, anyone who has taken a basic course in economics knows that the added sales tax will reduce the amount of sales tax revenues generated by San Bruno based businesses because shoppers will just shop somewhere else instead of paying the higher sales tax. The City of San Bruno will probably end up with less overall sales tax revenue than it had before the 1/2 cent increase in sales tax. Third, this sales tax is a regressive tax; lower income San Bruno residents are disproportionately impacted because they have to use a higher a percentage of their income to pay the sales tax.

Raising taxes, rates, and fees is not a solution; giving more money to a fiscally irresponsible City government enables more fiscal mismanagement.

San Bruno City Manager Jackson admits that she and the City Council knew that the City of San Bruno has experienced a serious reduction the City of San Bruno's ongoing general fund revenue stream since "approximately the fiscal year 2002-2003". Yet, San Bruno's City Council and Manager have refused to make the cuts in the City Budget that are necessary to balance San Bruno's budget and create a surplus. Approximately 80% of the City of San Bruno's Budget is used to pay for City employee salaries, benefits, and perks. The top management employees in San Bruno receive generous salaries, medical plans, retirement benefits, and perks.

Here's a list of the salaries paid to the City of San Bruno's top management level employees (these salaries do not include their expense accounts, car allowances, medical and life insurance benefits, retirement benefits, etc.):

You can expect, budget deficit or not, the above salaries will be increasing as this group pushes for ever higher salary and benefit packages.

As I mentioned in a previous paragraph, approximately 80% of San Bruno's City Budget is spent paying for salaries, perks, retirement plans and employee related costs. Therefore, the budget cuts need to be made in these areas. This City Council and Manager refuse to make the cuts in the budget that are necessary to balance San Bruno's budget and create a surplus or the budget would have been balanced and we would have had a surplus. Therefore, San Bruno's residents must face a never ending cycle of tax, rate, and fee increases.

An example of how you might start to cut the City of San Bruno's budget deficit and create a surplus would be to cut the salary and benefit packages for City of San Bruno's top management level employees, whose salaries are shown in the above list, by 25% - 40% and/or (with the exception of the Police Chief and Fire Chief) layoff the number of City of San Bruno Department Directors necessary to reduce the Department Director payroll by 25% - 40%. This is the type of solution that must be made to balance San Bruno's budget, create a surplus, and lower rates, fees, and taxes on San Bruno's residents.