Maywood, California Fires all Employees, Becomes a 100% Contracted City

Discussion in 'Politics' started by phenomena, Jun 29, 2010.


    Sincere congratulations go to Maywood, California for firing all of its employees and contracting services to the local Sheriff's association and a neighboring city.

    The Los Angeles Times reports Maywood to lay off all city employees, dismantle Police Department

    The city of Maywood will lay off all city employees and begin contracting police services with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department effective July 1, officials said.

    In addition to contracting with the Sheriff's Department, the Maywood City Council voted unanimously Monday night to lay off an estimated 100 employees and contract with neighboring Bell, which will handle other city services such as finance, records management, parks and recreation, street maintenance and others. Maywood will be billed about $50,833 monthly, which officials said will save $164,375 annually.

    "We will become 100% a contracted city," said Angela Spaccia, Maywood's interim city manager. Deputies from the East Los Angeles Sheriff's Station will begin patrolling the 1.2-square-mile city by the end of the month, said Capt. Bruce Fogarty of the Sheriff's Contract Law Enforcement Bureau. The annual cost of providing those services for the small city is estimated at $3.6 million, Fogarty said.

    City Data shows the Population of Maywood, California is approximately 28,224 as of July 2008.

    I await cities of 250,000 or more to make the correct decision which is to fire all city employees and contract services to the lowest bidder.

    In this case, Maywood contracted with a neighboring city and the local Sheriff's association. That is a reasonable effort and I commend Maywood.

    &nbsp;<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' salign='l' flashvars='&amp;titleAvailable=true&amp;playerAvailable=true&amp;searchAvailable=false&amp;shareFlag=N&amp;singleURL=;;hostURL=;swfPath=;omAccount=tribglobal&amp;' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' menu='true' name='PaperVideoTest' bgcolor='#ffffff' devicefont='false' wmode='transparent' scale='showall' loop='true' play='true' pluginspage='' quality='high' src='' align='middle' height='450' width='300'></embed>
  2. So now the town has 100 more people out of work and they are paying neighboring towns to do their work for them. I wonder if they calculated how much they lost in tax revenue when figuring out how much they will save every year.

    Do these idiots not realize that you cant keep your revenue up when you send jobs away to other places.

    Less jobs= less spending in local economy = less tax revenue

    Not to mention it could possibly lead to more crime which they will then have to spend more money to hire more police from other cities which makes their payments more expensive and they dont save anything.

    Your economy doesnt get helped spending money in OTHER peoples towns.
  3. Do these idiots not realize that you cant keep your revenue up when you send jobs away to other places.


    In this instance, a town gets its revenue (sales tax, another source is property tax) from the county, as long as the contractors live within the county there shouldn't be a loss.

    ps. Our town contracted with the State Police , along with the county Sheriff, instead of forming our own PD. Works out well.
  4. Guess we'll see how the future of Maywood, CA fares...
  5. cstfx


    In NJ where there are nearly 600 individual communities with their own municiple "baggage" there is serious consideration to merging these towns if not in name but in services. We cannot have individual/duplicate services for each when a combination/sharing of services is far more practical. This type of shared services is a long time coming and can't wait to see it happening in other states as well.
  6. rew


    When the 100 people out of work are all government employees I guarantee that this saves the town more in salaries and benefits than it loses in tax revenue.
  7. Quite simply you are wrong on this one.