Posted by Michael, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on May 1, 2012 at 1:06 pm

"We don't think we have enough time to do the research and to see what the voters' sensitivities are," Emslie said. "We think that information is helpful in crafting the measure."

The government is buying time to figure out how best to "market" another tax increase. Instead of scheming over how to market a Bell, CA type revenue grab on the largely informed electorate of Palo Alto, why not address the huge abuses and giveaways that the government gives its own workers. Below again, is the most revelant document in local politics: the City payroll. Anyone who can't spot massive abuses here is probably a unionized city employee.

Web Link

Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 1, 2012 at 1:26 pm

"It is what it is."

What I gained from this article (yes I am hopeful), is that the council has realized that they do not have a solid foundation to go out and ask for a tax increase, bond or whatever.

Clearly, no matter what anyone wants to see cut or modified, the council cannot continue on the course it has been running. It is going to have to make some tough decisions and scale back variable costs and non-essential (i.e., safety) programs. It will also have to look at the future as to how to fund salaries and benefits under the next set of contracts and negotiations.

In other words, the city is going to have to demonstrate that it can make the right choices (for than one budget cycle I might add), if they have any hope to ask for a tax increase of any sort.

No pain (no change) = no gain.

Posted by what?, a resident of the St. Claire Gardens neighborhood, on May 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm

Can not stand the pain.truly,either way.

Posted by Park expenditures, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on May 1, 2012 at 3:28 pm

The city is spending huge sums upgrading many parks, and on planning for upgrading parks.

And a park for dogs, yes, a park for dogs.

Posted by Enough!!, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 1, 2012 at 9:17 pm

Michael, Thank you for your link! These numbers are absolutely outrageous! Lets all remember these numbers the next time they're trying to sell us tax increases and/or Bonds! They must think we are stupid!

Posted by John, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on May 1, 2012 at 10:37 pm

Let's see how we can sell a tax increase...we have to wait a year or two to get our act together. Sell it to the "stakeholders". SHOW OUR SACRIFICE by eliminating animal services and traffic enforcement. Sell the bay lands to car dealers for more revenue to pay for bloated wages pensions benefits.

Is this article out of the onion?

Taxpayers are not only being sheared, but bled dry.

Posted by C, a resident of another community, on May 1, 2012 at 11:06 pm

Should read like this "The government is buying time to figure out how to get enough signatures/votes for the upcoming tax measure" Sadly a city with close to 50% renters is doable! Yes it's coming and it doesn't require abit of common sense or logic behind it.

Posted by moi, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 10:31 am

Pro-family?

Palo Alto families include dogs.

Yes, I am implying that dogs are family members.

Hence, dog parks.

Woof Woof Thank You.

Posted by Jo Ann, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 10:56 am

The City KNOWS there's voter resistance to the tax increase. Good they dropped it.

Also, don't forget to mail in your written protest against the utility rate increases by June. It's important that they hear from us otherwise they'll keep increasing the rates each and every year like they've done in the past.

Posted by Kim S. , a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 10:58 am

You know that when our council make the cuts they'll choose things that mean the most to the tax payers (public safety, animal services). I bet if they got rid of the art committee that decides things like which fountain is the most aesthetically pleasing no one would notice. Just like Jerry Brown taking money from education and dragging his feet on pension changes.

Posted by pablo, a member of the Hoover School community, on May 2, 2012 at 2:27 pm

the biggest budget expenses are in public safety, those should be the target of cuts.

attack the big ticket items first.

Posted by Phil, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 3:15 pm

Not always the best route to take in reducing spending Pablo, referring to your suggested cuts in public safety. The police department for example is already operating with approximately 15% less personnel than they did even ten years ago. Many specialized teams have been eliminated entirely. We have to be cautious and thoughtful about this. Public safety is one of the foundations of our overall quality of life, and we need to provide the men and women who do the job with the personnel and assets it takes to operate effectively and safely.

Posted by Enough!, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 2, 2012 at 5:32 pm

Phil, You are right! Unfortunately, our city counsel members will not insert pressure on our city management to cut their own pension benefits . NO one is willing to do the right thing. Greed!! Sigh..

JO Ann, Is there a petition online for protesting the utility rate increase like the animal service petition?

Posted by common sense, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 3, 2012 at 9:30 am

In FY 2010, the city budget was $142 million.

For FY 2013, the city's proposed budget is $152 million - $10 million more to spend. Yet they are continuing to cut services in public safety. So where is this extra $10 million/year being spent? 1) as staff retires, the city is filling those open positions with higher salarys, 2) higher pension contributions, 3) higher medical contributions.

Any new tax would only go towards adding to the salaries, pensions & benefits of staff. Until the city does more to reduce those costs, passing any additional taxes will not solve the problem.

I also question the spending priorities; cutting public safety and animal services, while reallocating dollars to the following:

- city council budget is increased by 50% ($147,000) from FY 2012

- city manager budget is $2.58 million, up 9% from FY 2011 ($278,000)

- administrative services budget is up 10% from FY 2012 ($745,177)

- community services budget increased by $990,000 from FY 2012 (this covers parks, recreation)

- Human resources had a big increase from FY 2011 ($400,000)

- Library had a big increase from FY 2011 ($400,000)

- Public works an increas from FY 2012 of $1 million (do we need a zero waste coordinator, an urban forester, as well as an assistant to the city manager for sustainability in the city manager's office?)

Well you get the idea of where your money is being spent.