Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley, whose district includes Menlo Park, Atherton, Woodside and Portola Valley, is facing an electoral challenge from Dan Stegink, a computer programmer and planning commissioner for the city of Pacifica.

Mr. Stegink – who faults Mr. Horsley for having backed away from a 2009 campaign promise to work for an annual salary of $1 – said his chief concern as supervisor would be public employee pensions that have added $11,000 of debt to every household in the county. (He cited Stanford professor Joe Nation in providing that figure.) The county’s unfunded pension liabilities are a systemic problem that no one has addressed, he said.

(In a budget review issued Feb. 27, 2018, County Manager John Maltbie said the county is “on track to significantly slash its unfunded pension liability by 2023 and remains one of only a handful of counties in the state with AAA ratings from both Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s.”)

Mr. Horsley, who was first elected supervisor of District 3 in 2010, retired as county sheriff in 2007 after 35 years in law enforcement, including 14 years as San Mateo County sheriff. Between his retirement as sheriff and his election to the Board of Supervisors, he served a term on the Sequoia Healthcare District board. His law enforcement pension provides him an annual benefit from the county of $215,000.

When asked about the $1-a-year pledge upon announcing his decision in January 2013 to start taking his then-current $120,000 salary as supervisor, Mr. Horsley said, “I don’t know if I said it. I don’t remember.”

The decision to take a token salary, Mr. Horsley said in 2013, reflected what county officials were saying at the time: that the county had a “structural deficit” that “put us in an austerity position.”

Mr. Stegink said he “would not take a pension” if elected, and would serve just one term. “I’ll never have a vested interest” in a decision before the board, he said. “No broken promises, no double-dipping, no pension,” he said in his campaign statement.

He also vowed not to support raising taxes.

Asked about Regional Measure 3, which is on the June 5 ballot and would incrementally raise tolls by $3 on seven Bay Area bridges if approved by a simple majority of voters in nine counties, Mr. Stegink initially said he was “not necessarily” against it, but didn’t see “a compelling reason” to vote for it. Asked to describe the measure, he said he’d get back to the reporter.

In a subsequent email, Mr. Stegink seemed to recommend removing toll stations, calling them “a bottleneck that impedes traffic throughput and an anachronism from a pre-digital age.” As for paying $9 to cross a bridge in 2025, that is “what many working families pay every day to feed their kids,” he wrote.

Among Mr. Stegink’s other priorities, were he to be elected:

• Closing the Ox Mountain landfill in Half Moon Bay. “We’ll have to meet the capacity somehow,” he said when asked about alternatives. A cost comparison study for trash handling among cities in the county could be informative, he said.

• Banning commercial trucks on state Highway 92 between San Mateo and Half Moon Bay during commute hours. On 20 recent days, Mr. Stegink said, he counted more than 21 vehicles backed up behind slow-moving trucks. “They’re a huge constraint on traffic,” he said.

• Re-evaluate the infrastructure impacts of the storms of the winter of 2016-17, see if the aggregated damages add up to more than $53 million – which he said is a federal threshold – and if they do, seek relief from the federal government.

A sea wall in Pacifica developed eight holes between January and March, Mr. Stegink said. “I believe we would (reach $53 million) if we aggregated them across the county,” he said.

• Housing, affordable and otherwise. Mr. Stegink would work to establish a homeowner’s bill of rights that would expedite approval of home remodel projects that would not add more than 50 percent of the square footage of the existing home. Remodels frequently result in more bedrooms, he said. “I consider that increasing housing,” he said.

Mr. Stegink is married and has two children. He said he serves on several boards of directors as well as the Pacifica Planning Commission. His campaign website was not yet up and running as of March 16.

Most Popular

Join the Conversation

13 Comments

  1. This almost makes me ill. How to politicians get away with putting together a pension plan, which by-the-by includes them, and don’t properly fund it? And this goes on for years, putting the county into debt. Then that gets too high and out of control. Then they NEED to raise taxes to pay said debts.

    Do I have this right, give or take, along lines of general gist?

    Once again, they look to bridge tax increase. Now. Who do you suppose uses all these bridges the most, percentage wise? Yes, the workers who can’t afford to live in San Mateo County. I’ll bet it’s like 50-1. So they’re going to be the most adversely affected. Not the people and corporations and companies who employ them. Or will they give them another $3./day=$90./month?

    People need to see beyond their own circumstances and fight for those who need help by recognizing the cruelty of these ‘selective taxes” and other financial impositions and owning that responsibility.

    It’s time for the corporations who’ve had so much granted to them to pay up.

  2. Thank you Mr. Stegink for stepping in to try and remove from office someone so uncomfortable with admitting his former statements.
    You have my vote.

  3. Horsley is just another of the long list of corruptocrats in San Mateo County. I’d vote for Mickey Mouse before I’d vote for Horsley.

  4. San Mateo County District 3 Residents should thank Dan Stegink for offering you a choice.

    As far as Don Horsley’s statement Mr. Horsley said, “I don’t know if I said it. I don’t remember.”

    I do remember and you said it many times, You said it when you were sitting right next to me at candidate forums. That was the main reason I was so interested in you correcting your terrible decision to start collecting the salary 40 days before you ever announced it to the public on December 26th.

    I still have the e-mail from your Chief of Staff Chris Hunter, Friday Jan.11, 2013 4:16PM
    Subject: For Your Consideration
    Supervisor Don Horsley, President of San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, has decided to continue to voluntarily forgo his $120,000 annual salary for the remainder of his four year term in office. He has not received a salary for the first two years.

    In short time period that he did get off track he did receive approx. $29,000 which he never made any effort to pay back.

  5. Just want to keep the facts straight.

    When asked about the $1-a-year pledge upon announcing his decision in January 2013 to start taking his then-current $120,000 salary as supervisor,

    Don Horsley started receiving income in November of 2012, He didn’t tell the public about it until December 26, 2012 and he never mentioned he had already been collecting the money, On January 11, 2013 he issued Press Release that he is back on track.

  6. The average San Mateo County resident can only dream about income that Supervisor Don Horsley is getting.
    What happened to that $1.00, statement? LOL, but it is not funny?

  7. When and where and in what context did Dan Stegink make this remark about Sheriff Bolanos not completing his tee? Did he say it in front of a group of people or just to one person in a private conversation? If he said it privately, it means nothing if he won’t tell the public and reporters how he feels.

Leave a comment