Opinion: Pacifica—One Expensive Place to Live

By Lionel Emde, Riptide Correspondent

Venturing outside of our insular community, I happened upon the neighboring community of San Bruno, where city staff actually provides information to city council that (gasp!) is in context. What is that? It is knowing what other communities charge for basic services, for example.
 
So in perusing the San Bruno City Council agenda packet for March 13, 2012, I happened upon some interesting charts.

Pacifica, as illustrated on the chart Monthly Single Family Residential Sewer Rate Survey, Feb. 2012, pays the third-highest sewer rates in two counties (San Mateo and San Francisco).

With the current 11.14 percent increase proposed by the City of Pacifica, and an unknown increase that will be apparent next year, we could well vault into the number two spot.
 
In water rates, Pacifica is only fifth-highest in three counties (San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara). We're going to have to try harder in that category.
 
And then there are the garbage collection rates: Pacifica has the second-highest residential collection rates in San Mateo County, and has the highest commercial garbage collection rates. The lie being propagated is that because we have less commercial collection, we pay more. In fact, we subsidize garbage collection south of Devil's Slide, where residents of Montara, El Granada, and Moss Beach pay half as much as we do for garbage collection from the same company, trucks, and employees.
 
Maybe our opaque style of governance should change?

Comments

[todd bray]

Chris, read my post.

[Chris Porter]

Everyone, read my blog on Pacificablogspot.com.

Question to Todd: What do you base the 4 percent figure on?

[Lionel Emde]

It's pretty simple: Follow the money.

I accept that the midcoast has had better representation than Pacifica for its ratepayers. Look at what the two contrasting neighboring areas pay.

So Coastside Scavenger/Seacoast Disposal has these contracts for years, and despite collecting the highest rates in the county from Pacificans, they collapse, blaming it on the city, the recycle prices, anything but themselves. That's natural, I suppose, when management wants to cover its a@@ for its own incompetence.

But Pacificans pay the price, and our elected representatives let it go on. You can bet that your lower collection rates on the midcoast were at least partially paid for by your neighbors to the north.

[Carl May]

Lionel: For many years we have had, with a few exceptions, members of sanitary district boards on the midcoast who would be the envy of any large city in terms of intelligence, dedication, knowledge of district duties, knowledge of district facilities, knowledge of local zoning and other applicable laws, and ability to deal with other governments. We elect some of the same people, our neighbors, for term after term if they serve us well, so they acquire a wealth of experience in district matters. Their personal politics are all over the map, so that explains nothing about why they function as well as they do.

Time and again they have negotiated acceptable garbage deals for us -- at least acceptable compared to what Pacifica gets. It's part of what we expect them to do. MSD, now MWSD, negotiated purchase of the water system from one of the largest international corporations in existence--and the citizens of the district were given the opportunity to vote for the deal and the bond involved in the purchase that we must pay off. Time and again we have won our points at the state PUC, not the friendliest political body to small special districts. And directors of the midcoast special districts have to be good to function for district residents faced with over-the-hill absentee county government in Redwood City trying to have its way with the midcoast to please its developer cronies in SAMCEDA and other short-term greedy interests. (Can't imagine what our garbage rates would be if they were negotiated by the county.) For years the county, using the tool of LAFCO, has been trying to consolidate away our special districts to get them, and the concerns of our communities, out of the picture. But we hang on to them, recognizing that they are much better than anything suggested to replace them.

Local government -- it doesn't always work, but it is the only kind of government that ever works at all for individual (rate-paying) citizens these days. When a government gets big enough and covers a large enough population that it no longer must deal with the concerns and well-being of individual citizens rather than collective politicized forces, when members of government do not face their constituents while picking up their mail, you can be almost certain a place will begin to experience diseconomies of scale. Things cost more as government gets larger beyond a modest size. Part (and not always the major part) of the diseconomy involves city and county politicians who don't (and maybe can't) know enough about any one of the many areas they cover in office to be expert in what they need to know. So they can be had by their own staff, by their political supporters, or by any large private interest dealing with them and trying to maximize its profits. Plus, the campaign donations are helpful. The loser is the citizen left without a seat at the table.

[Mary Jana]

You know what they say about audits, "Garbage in, garbage out."

[todd bray]

Lionel: Chris posted here why the cost to the midcoast is lower. Carl et al can use that if their rates increase more than 4 percent. Pacifica can, too. Let's stay tuned.

[Lionel Emde]

"Start with the fact that Pacifica has a population more than three and a half times that of the two midcoast districts combined, as well as much more commercial activity..."
That's exactly the excuse made here for the highest garbage colection rates in the county, yet Montara, et al, have no commercial activity to speak of, and you all pay half what we do.

"The midcoast is only roughly half the distance to Ox Mountain landfill, no intermediate transfer station or steps needed if Recology is taking advantage of that big advantage in operating costs."
That's a fine theory, but you haven't any more proof of that than I do. Where's the audit tracking what this enterprise (I'll be charitable and not use the adjective that comes to mind) does with the trash?

I would suggest that you have no idea what you're in for in the supposed insularity of the midcoast, and that Recology will take you guys for every dollar possible. I hope you have ratepayer advocates on the boards there, rather than the compliant City Council we have here in Pacifica.

[Carl May]

No question, the midcoast districts will have to be careful during the next garbage contract negotiations with a much larger, non-local corporation. Montara and Moss Beach bought their water district from one of the world's largest corporations, so the kind of effort involved is somewhat familiar. Still, Lionel, you are casting about for explanations without supporting facts. I can understand that it is frustrating when one cannot have access to financial information essential for clarification, but that does not mean any speculation that comes to mind is correct.

Start with the fact Pacifica has a population more than three and a half times that of the two midcoast districts combined, as well as much more commercial activity, and you can quickly determine something in the neighborhood of 80 percent of the garbage/recycling volume and company activities to deal with it are in Pacifica. There are differences in the services provided, which may be part of the picture. The midcoast is only roughly half the distance to Ox Mountain landfill, no intermediate transfer station or steps needed if Recology is taking advantage of that big advantage in operating costs. And so on into other differences between Pacifica and the midcoast districts. We have more local government in our districts--the directors and staff are in contact with their fellow citizens in everyday life and not only at work or in district meetings--which fosters government for the people at least some of the time and not to government for itself and its cronies. Pacifica thinks of itself as "small," but it is of a size that results in a lot less overall contact between individual citizens and their municipal government and a size that generates multiple layers of politics that translate into multiple layers of money considerations.

Rather than worry about the midcoast contracts with Recology the next time they are up for renewal, I'd suggest relief could well be closer and more immediately at hand if you can get into the specifics of Recology's arrangements with Pacifica since the beginnings of its acquisition and into the city politics that result in the virtual rubber-stamping of rate escalations in recent years. Speculating no more wildly than you do, the details of Pacifica's deals with Recology and a qualified accounting firm with open access to Pacifica's and Recology's books would tell you where the smell that haunts you really comes from.

[Lionel Emde]

There was never an audit of Coastside Scavenger/Seacoast Disposal's books. Pacifica city officials at the time said so. As I stated previously, there is no public accounting of the mess created, which resulted in the company collapsing.

This is what Recology bought -- this mess. So tell me how much sense it makes that the same company, running the same trucks staffed by the same workers, would be driving ever farther down the coast for half the money?

But coincidentally, Pacifica's rates skyrocketed, with little or no oversight from our City Council. The money had to come from somewhere, with window-dressing audits, with careful disclaimers from the consultant, and it becomes more apparent what's happening. Like, glaringly so.

Pacifica's highest rates in the county subsidize money-losing/breakeven contracts like the midcoast. Watch out for your next contract negotiation.

[Carl May]

Lionel: You need to look up the definition of "subsidizing." If the garbage company is covering its costs (and, perhaps, making a profit) on the midcoast, then Pacifica is not subsidizing the pickup there, no matter what the difference in the rates between the two places. If the company is not covering its nut down there, then, yes, Pacificans would be subsidizing the midcoast communities if the company is using Pacifica fees to make up for losses on the midcoast. But you haven't provided any actual numbers showing that, and the repeated negotiated renewals of the midcoast contracts over many years by Seacoast would indicate the company was not stressed down there.

Seacoast was obviously stressed somehow in Pacifica, where it fell behind in payments due to the city. As near as I know, there was no similar debt to the midcoast communities. I do know that if I was ferreting out the reasons for the several substantial rate hikes in quick succession in Pacifica since Recology took over, I'd start with all deals, including the numbers, between the city and Recology during and since the acquisition and with any change in services in Pacifica during the same period that might be used to justify higher fees. Are ratepayers now paying off Seacoast's debt in addition to paying for current services? Apparently the audits you refer to are inadequate with regard to relevant data. Do you also have a copy of the current contract with Recology? That contract should spell out, in detail, how any rate hikes are to be justified and implemented. If you are being stonewalled on access to information -- as you say the "consultant" was (was this a qualified accounting firm?) -- then I'd say your real issue is probably with how the City of Pacifica has handled the entire concern. Corporations will be corporations, but city government is supposed to be looking out for the interests of its citizens.

[Lionel Emde]

Carl,
I'm aware that the two districts are separate. I'm also aware that people in those districts pay a hell of a lot less for garbage collection than the benighted population of Pacifica. Same company, same trucks, same employees. We're subsidizing your waste collection down there. Nothing personal, but it's pretty obvious.

[Chris Porter]

I am tired of being accused of lying. Mr. May can confirm the services he receives in midcoast. Lionel, when confronted with the true information, you cannot deal with it. Your theories are not truth but assumptions based on your own rants. Greenwaste collection in midcoast is a maximum of 4-30s every other week (3,120 gallons) while in Pacifica you receive one 64-gallon wheeled cart, with food waste included (3,328 gallons), and can get another 64-gallon cart for $3 a month. My final post.

P.S. I hugged Todd the other day!

[Carl May]

Lionel,

While your skepticism seems rational, you continue to misuse the word "subsidizing." Also, there is no "Montara/El Granada Sanitary" to call. The two separate midcoast districts involved are the Montara Water and Sanitary District and the Granada Sanitary District.

[Lionel Emde]

Chris Fogel:
Call Montara/El Granada Sanitary to get the contract agreement.
Only way to ascertain the truth here.

[Chris Fogel]

Thanks for coming here to reply, Ms. Porter.

[Chris Porter]

Again, this is my last post, because all I do is fuel Lionel's continual posting of completely incorrect information. To Mr. Fogel: Midcoast has no toters, no compost, limited recycling, no food waste and greenwaste every other week. Pacifica has greenwaste/food waste every week and a 96-gallon toter for all recycling, including all plastics, every other week. Midcoast runs four routes daily while Pacifica runs 11 daily. City costs are substantially less in midcoast as are office costs. Lionel, please get a grip and talk about subjects where you know what you are talking about. I have no financial interest in Recology except doing my job. A yearly outside audit is acceptable to the City of Pacifica but not you. Forgetting we were able to return nearly $130,000 to Pacifica last year in recycling sales?

[Lionel Emde]

"The services provided to the midcoast areas are substantially different from Pacifica's."

Answer: They are BETTER services than here, and half as much in price. More greenwaste pickup, more "bulky goods pickup." No crap "audits" that aren't real audits, as in Pacifica.

We are subsidizing their service.

And have a beautiful, blissful weekend.

[Chris fogel]

"The services provided to the midcoast areas are substantially different from Pacifica's."

Ms. Porter,

It might be helpful for those of us who don't know -- I count myself in this category -- precisely HOW the services south of the Slide are so different from those of Pacifica.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm genuinely curious about the answer.

Thanks for your time.

[todd bray]

I hugged Chris yesterday!

[Carl May]

"No tags have been mailed in three years. Greenwaste is every other week at the same level on your regular garbage day. Your dropoffs are the same. The website and your local district have all this info, so no need to worry."

The worry is not about the present situation in Montara and Moss Beach. Given Pacifica's frequently rising rates and different bin setup, the worry is about what happens the next time the contract comes up.

[Lionel Emde]

"...we have our own local water supply for Montara and Moss Beach, which is, overall, fairly expensive to customers due to the cost of purchase from the private corporation and the huge amount of deferred maintenance and necessary upgrades it left in its wake. But at least we are somewhat self-sustaining and not sucking one of the hind teats of Hetch Hetchy while at the mercy of the S.F. PUC.)"

Your district is number one in terms of expense, according to the
chart I looked at. Not too surprising, considering it's well water.

"Your comments are, as always, incorrect and getting extremely annoying, bordering on libelous. Relax and enjoy the sunshine."

Chris, How nice to hear from you! Your financial self-interest is always served by your denial of the truth. Huggies and kissies!

[Chris Porter]

As usual, Lionel and Todd know not much but want to pretend they do, and the "facts" are something they theorize. The services provided to the midcoast areas are substantially different from Pacifica's. Also, to Mr. May: You have bulky pickups still but need to call the office to set up the date. No tags have been mailed in three years. Greenwaste is every other week at the same level on your regular garbage day. Your dropoffs are the same. The website and your local district have all this info, so no need to worry. No one is subsidizing anyone and an outside audit is delivered to the City of Pacifica on a yearly basis. Your comments are, as always, incorrect and getting extremely annoying, bordering on libelous. Relax and enjoy the sunshine.

[Carl May]

Actually, Todd, there were, for many years, two midcoast sanitary (sewer) districts negotiating, separately, with Seacoast for garbage pickup and recycling--namely, the Granada Sanitary District (GSD) and the Montara Sanitary District (MSD). About a decade ago, maybe a bit less, the MSD, thanks to special legislation introduced by Kopp at the state level and an overwhelming vote by the citizens of the district, bought the private-company water system serving Montara and Moss Beach, becoming the Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD). (Unlike Pacifica/NCCWD and most other locales in the Bay Area, we have our own local water supply for Montara and Moss Beach, which is, overall, fairly expensive to customers due to the cost of purchase from the private corporation and the huge amount of deferred maintenance and necessary upgrades it left in its wake. But at least we are somewhat self-sustaining and not sucking one of the hind teats of Hetch Hetchy while at the mercy of the S.F. PUC.)

On a couple of occasions years apart, I was at the MSD meetings in which district directors approved the renewal of the contract with Seacoast. I also have known a number of directors over the years and discuss this kind of stuff with them. I can assure you the contracts with Seacoast were always seemingly straightforward and there was no whining from the Seacoast people about how they would lose money on the deals. And that's the point, isn't it? If they weren't losing money in these separate districts, then Pacifica wasn't subsidizing them. Ergo, my suggestions other factors may be in play in Pacifica.

Who knows how the midcoast situation will change with Recology. This year we did not get the tags that allowed us to put out two big pieces per year on regular garbage pickup days for no additional charge. I'm worried about our biweekly four-container greenwaste pickup and our two days per year where we can drop off all kinds of waste items at one of our local schools, both of these services also for no additional charge. If Recology tries to jack us up, we may end up with another garbage service, such as the one that serves Half Moon Bay.

[todd bray]

Carl: Lionel and I looked into it several years ago. There are two agencies to the south, one for water and one for garbage. It's a simple phone call to each if you'd like to do some question asking.

[Lionel Emde]

Carl,
No one has any idea if Coastside Scavenger/Seacoast Disposal made money on the contracts south of the slide. There never was a comprehensive audit of both companies' books. That came from both Pacifica and midcoast officials.

The "audits" conducted so far on Recology of the Coast in Pacifica have consisted of info handed to the consultant by Recology that "justified" the rate increases. The consultant was careful to put a disclaimer in the report giving his firm an out, because he saw no raw data from the company.