Union facts web page

click here to read about the firefighters union.


click here to read about the police union.

Maps: San Gabriel River issues

This is the perfect way to spot issues on the bike path!

click here to see the SG River map. Use the contols in the upper right to zoom in on any problem areas

CA cop earned $175,000 in a year...not including pension and healthcare costs

How a San Jose cop earned $175,000 in one year
`SPECIAL PAYS' PUTTING BIG BUCKS IN POCKETS OF SOME CITY WORKERS
By John Woolfolk
San Jose Mercury News
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_5517589

Article Launched:3/25/07

The top annual salary for a San Jose police officer is $86,000. But one officer last year more than doubled that figure, earning a total of nearly $175,400.

How? Welcome to the world of "special pays," a combination of overtime, on-call work and other extras that put this officer among the 100 highest-paid of the city's 6,800 employees.

While the average Silicon Valley worker might marvel at such opportunities to boost one's salary, for a public employee it's all perfectly legal and above-board.

And the officer was hardly alone - one firefighter with an $84,000 salary was paid more than $163,000 last year, according to city records. While those are extreme examples, they show that for many city employees - in civilian as well as public safety jobs - their salary is just the beginning of their take-home pay.

San Jose's compensation structure includes 135 categories of extra pay, though no single employee can get them all.

The city's average employee salary and benefit costs have risen 45 percent since 2000 and recently come under heightened scrutiny. Mayor Chuck Reed, elected last year on a platform of fiscal responsibility, has noted that employee costs account for almost two-thirds of the city's nearly $1 billion operating budget.

And with a vow to eliminate recurring deficits, Reed has asked the city to look for ways to slow those growing costs as labor contracts come up for renewal.

Health care a factor

Employee Relations Director Alex Gurza said the various pay categories aren't primarily responsible for soaring employee costs, noting that most have been part of the compensation package for a decade or more. The biggest culprits, he says, are health care costs, steep pension payments and salary increases.

Still, the menu of salary extras illustrates the complexity facing city officials as they attempt to tackle runaway employee costs. Each uptick in the base salary rate can be magnified by special pays, which are often based on percentages of that base figure. City officials say those costs are tracked and taken into account when new labor contracts are negotiated.

Special pay beyond basic salary isn't unique to San Jose. Other cities offer similar provisions to their employees. Mountain View, for example, offers an extra $100 a month to bilingual officers and $50 a month for civilian employees who speak a second language. Mountain View canine officers get an additional 5 percent of salary to cover care for their police dogs.

But neighboring Santa Clara doesn't pay police extra for canine duty - their cops just get time off to spend on animal care and training. Santa Clara also doesn't offer extra pay for anti-terrorism training or higher levels of certification from the state Peace Officer Standards and Training organization, as San Jose does.

While extra cash for overtime, specialized training or foreign language skills might not raise many eyebrows, San Jose administrators have questioned the justification for at least some of the special pay.

City Manager Les White has asked that the city no longer pay a stipend to deputy managers for attending meetings of an advisory committee that oversees the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. That stipend added $800 to one deputy city manager's $160,000 base salary and $100 to the $189,000 base salary of the other who qualified for the payment.

"That's ending," said Tom Manheim, a spokesman for the city administration. "It didn't seem to make sense that city employees are paid extra to do their job."

Many of the pay categories, however, have been negotiated in union contracts and can't be so easily eliminated. Still others are recent additions. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the city council approved a new 5 percent pay booster for all police to attend an annual in-house anti-terrorist training. San Francisco later adopted a similar program.

No names divulged

Apart from a handful of top administrators, it's unknown which employees are making what in salary and pay extras. The city, citing privacy concerns, has refused to release employee pay information by name unless the California Supreme Court, which is weighing lawsuits seeking disclosure by the Mercury News and other newspapers, orders otherwise.

By far the costliest special-pay category is overtime - usually one-and-a-half times the regular pay rate. It cost San Jose a total of $21.5 million in the last fiscal year and has been controversial for years. Particularly when it comes to the city's thinly staffed police and fire departments, where extra hours often are required.

City officials have argued it's cheaper to pay overtime than to pay the salaries and benefits of additional cops and firefighters. But union leaders say that strategy leads to costly injuries in a city with the state's highest proportion of big-city public safety disability retirements. They'd prefer a bigger staff to big overtime paychecks. The city has recently begun adding small numbers of police and firefighters to ease the staffing shortage.

But not all overtime is tied to overwork. Firefighters, who work multiple 24-hour shifts in a 56-hour week, are automatically paid overtime for three of their 56 hours. What's more, those who take on "administrative assignment" roles while working regular business hours are paid an additional $36 a day to make up for the loss of overtime pay.

Toward top of list

"Premium pays" for special skills and assignments are another big source of income, particularly in public safety jobs. The city's $175,000 officer, whose base pay is $83,400, wouldn't have cracked the top 100 highest-paid on $47,864 in overtime alone. It took special pay for extra training, on-call premiums and the extra compensation for having a police dog to help bring the officer near the top of the list.

While most of those categories are unique to public safety jobs, certain skills or circumstances also allow civilian city employees to boost their paychecks. City employees who decline the city's health and dental coverage get paid the money the city would have spent on it. For housing director Leslye Krutko - who is married to another city official and could get coverage under his health plan - that was worth an extra $5,350.

Some employees also can cash in their unused vacation. So for the city's busy redevelopment manager, the top overall earner of 2006, that contributed $8,648 toward his total pay of $254,000.

And in increasingly multicultural San Jose, bilingual ability is a big plus. There's extra pay for those who demonstrate fluency in another language - that's worth $754 a year - and $286 more for those who can read and write as well in another tongue.

Employee union leaders bristle at the suggestion that any of their members' pay is unreasonable, noting for example that public employees aren't eligible for Social Security retirement or perks like stock options that are available to their private-sector peers.

Police and firefighters say that even in the self-proclaimed Safest Big City in America, their jobs are dangerous. Five firefighters and an officer were hurt in December when a burning downtown house exploded, and a rookie officer was fatally shot making a routine traffic stop in 2001.

Erik Larsen, president of the city's largest employee union representing 2,900 librarians, janitors and other workers, said many struggle to pay the bills in high-priced Silicon Valley. Top base salary for a senior water meter reader is $59,000 in a region where $59,400 qualifies as low-income.

"Let's not demonize public employees that live in a region that has the highest cost of living in the country," Larsen said.

Contact John Woolfolk at jwoolfolk@mercurynews.com or (408) 975-9346.

UNfunded liabilities $205,000 per employee in one district!!

Again the you know what has not yet hit the fan... Wait until the all the government entities have to comply within the next four years with a new accounting standard of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement, aka GASB 45...The taxpayers are going to get a serious prostate exam...

http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2007/03/24/n/HeadlineNews/NEWS-ROUNDUP/resources_bcn_html
SATURDAY NEWS ROUNDUP
CBS 5 - San Francisco,CA,USA

A Marin County grand jury this week said the county has a long-term health care liability of $378 million because of health care payments to retired employees.

The county likely won't be able to make the payments without raising taxes or cutting services, the jury found.

The civil grand jury questioned whether the health care benefits for retirees are vested and can't be taken away, or whether they are subject to change or elimination.

The panel also asked whether managers and elected officials who are eligible for retiree health care benefits are in a conflict of interest position when making decisions about those benefits.

The $378 million liability "is only a little less than the county's entire 2007 annual budget of $400 million, the grand jurors said.

Towns, cities, special districts and school districts are expected to report their un-funded liabilities, including present and future costs of pensions and retiree health care benefits, within the next four years under a new accounting standard of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 45, GASB 45, the panel noted.

"They (the unfunded liabilities) will be substantial,'' the panel reported. "One of 36 special districts, for example, estimated its liability in 2005 at around $8.6 million, or $205,000 per employee.''

The panel recommended the county, towns, cities and special districts determine whether the benefits are vested and inform employees of their findings.

Trash: city councils just dont get the run off issue

HELLO....can you read? The reason trash ends up in the rivers is two fold:

1. Most people are slobs and feel no guilt in chucking any kind of trash out their car window; (do you think paper cups just blow out of peoples hands? duh)

2. Cities refuse to understand that unless ALL cars are removed from ALL streets before sweeping (parking control issue) and ALL streets are swept ONCE per week, the trash problem will persist. Not only trash but toxic chemicals (oil, anti freeze etc.) that leak from crappy junk cars

Just look at the gutters in Lakewood on major streets near shopping centers. Major streets (or where trash is an issue) should be swept 3x a week.

WAKE UP CITIES!! This puzzle is easy to solve. You (ie the taxpayers) have to clean up after the slobs!!

Long Beach officials talk trash
Environment: Litter in the L.A. River is ending up in L.B.
By Tomio Geron, Staff writer
Article Launched: 03/23/2007


Tons of trash littered in the Los Angeles River end up in Long Beach. Here, the river is shown as it passes downtown. Long Beach City Council members met with Van Nuys officials and environmental experts Friday in a bid to address the issue collectively.(Steven Georges / Press-Telegram )

LONG BEACH - Tons of trash that wind up in the 51 miles of Los Angeles River all end up in one place: Long Beach.

To address the problem, Long Beach Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal and Assemblyman Lloyd Levine of Van Nuys held a forum Friday with local officials and environmental experts to search for solutions.

Lowenthal is interested in working with other municipalities along the river to assist them in their litter prevention efforts.

"If we strengthen other cities, it'll strengthen Long Beach," Lowenthal said.

Many residents have a willingness to stop littering and help clean up, said Melinda Barrett of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

What works to decrease litter, Barrett found, are community-based approaches, including putting up billboards, working with community groups, and educating children through schools.

Many children often educate their parents to the problem, she said.

Lowenthal said the city of Long Beach plans to involve six of its eight comprehensive high schools for two weeks around Earth Day to promote an anti-litter message and incorporate that into science classes and other school activities.

However, a statewide initiative is also
Advertisement
necessary make a strong impact, said Steven Aceti, executive director of the California Coastal Coalition.

"The state needs a comprehensive, highly-funded litter education program," he said. "Cities aren't going to be able to do it \."

Lowenthal emphasized the benefits of partnering between "unusual suspects" to achieve larger gains in stemming the trash tide.

Lowenthal cited the city's partnership with the Aquarium of the Pacific on anti-litter campaigns, which draw on the aquarium's expertise in environmental issues.

In addition to residents who litter, companies that produce packaging and other materials that end up in the water also bear responsibility, said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste.

"Certainly there's a behavior component, but that's not the primary problem," Murray said. "It's a materials problem. The majority of packaging is paper, but the main litter is plastic. Producers of materials need to bear greater responsibility for it."

Some small changes could help, Lowenthal noted, such as a dry cleaners accepting old hangers or giving cartons for customers to collect the hangers.

Levine said everyone bears responsibility. He said three sources of litter in rivers all need to be addressed: "pre-litter," or source reduction, such as compact disk "long boxes" that were successfully eliminated; consumer level waste, once people buy something, to prevent them from littering; and litter actually in the water.

Levine noted that he proposed a bill last year, which goes into effect this year, to force large stores to collect and recycle plastic bags.

Tomio Geron can be reached at tomio.geron@presstelegram.com or at (562) 499-1292.

Fireworks law change in Indiana

What is most interesting about the story below is that once again TNT Fireworks is right in the thick of things. Of course in Indiana they are arguing that they want a universal state law covering fireworks. Here in California the so called "patchwork system" created by hapless city counsels (which are quire easy the pander to) suits the fireworks companies just fine. I think the fireworks companies are soon going to be like the tobacco companies...no one needs their smoke.

Posted on Fri, Mar. 23, 2007

Fireworks change sets off hot debate
Industry worried about piecemeal laws

By Niki Kelly
The Journal Gazette
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/16959375.htm

INDIANAPOLIS – Residents weary of fireworks popping day and night might get relief under a bill passed Thursday that gives some local control to cities, towns and counties wishing to restrict the pyrotechnics.

The House Local Government Committee amended Senate Bill 9 Thursday and then approved it 9-3. It is now eligible for consideration by the full House.

Under Indiana law passed last year, Hoosiers can set off fireworks every day of the year until 11 p.m.from their own properties or properties they have permission to use. On many holidays, the festivities are permitted to continue until midnight.

The new law is a major departure from the old system of making Hoosiers promise to set off fireworks out of state, and included a tax on fireworks to pay for firefighter training and state disaster relief.

Under Senate Bill 9, the state law would be in force unless a county or municipality passes a local ordinance restricting when and where residents can use fireworks.

Even under a local ordinance, though, the state law protects the absolute right of residents to use fireworks eight days a year – July 2-7, Dec. 31 and Jan. 1.

The hours on those days would differ slightly, from 5 p.m. until 11 p.m., except on July 4, Dec. 31 and Jan. 1, when the hours would be from 10 a.m. to midnight or 1 a.m.

The measure also makes it clear that local police can enforce their own noise ordinances year-round. This language is in response to questions about whether the state law preempts local ordinances.

Those representing the fireworks industry complained about a patchwork of regulations the bill would create – as many as 700 if every single county, city and town in the state passed an ordinance.

“Talk about mass confusion,” said Tom Fruechtenicht, lobbyist for the Indiana Fireworks Distributors Association. “I think this law deserves time to work before you undo and restrict these things.”

Some speakers also noted that many of the problems experienced last summer are covered under the existing law if local police enforce it.

Examples include the use of loud cherry bombs or M80s (which are illegal under state and federal law) and shooting off fireworks at 3 a.m. Both violations could result in at least a citation.

But Rep. Win Moses, D-Fort Wayne, said police have other important duties.

“They are out trying to find burglars and murderers and rapists,” he said. “To divert them to fireworks is a difficult choice.”

Fireworks industry supporters also were unable to answer a crucial question from Rep. Jon Elrod, R-Indianapolis, who asked how he proves who burned his garage down when multiple neighbors are shooting off bottle rockets.

“That’s an evidentiary problem,” Fruechtenicht said.

Lisa Hays Murray, who represents TNT Fireworks, said that people tend to use more fireworks immediately after they are legalized and that she expects the novelty to wear off this summer.

But lawmakers were insistent that those living in dense urban areas be given some sort of tool to combat the problems of noise, garbage and danger.

nkelly@jg.net

Verizon March 2007 press release does not tell the whole story

Well LAAG pressed the verizon people on where our Lakewood Fios Fiber was and guess what. Only a small portion of Lakewood will get Fios fiber out of a Long Beach central office (the one near clark st. and carson st.). The Bellflower CO (our CO) will not get FIOS until 2008!! That is according the woman at Verizon in charge of fiber build out schedules. The Verizon FIOS rep. said that if we can get the city council to write a letter to Verizon that may speed things up in terms of getting things wired.

Kind of let down after being told being told we were going to get it in 4 weeks. You would think the Verizon people would have known or at least asked what Central Office LAAG was out of before giving me false hope!

Verizon Petition needed!

For Lakewood CA and Bellflower CA residents that would like to speed things up send us an email at UPDATES@LAAG.US and we will use your name (and address if you give us permission) to put together a sort of petition to the City to write to Verizon to see if we can get Verizon to put the Bellflower CA Central Office (which serves northern Lakewood and parts of Bellflower) on the early 2008 Fios upgrade list instead of late 2008 or 2009. LAAG is doing this at the suggestion of the Verizon people in the main Huntington Beach FiOS scheduling office. There is nothing stopping Verizon now on permits (as they obtained the statewide franchise rights in March 2008) and they told us they prefer areas (like Lakewood) with aerial as opposed to underground wiring (speeds up FIOS wiring) and areas with lots of single family homes as large multiple family dwelling units like apartments bog down the installations as they often require permits or private ownership consent for placement.

For more up to date Verizon FiOS news go here and do a search for Bellflower or Lakewood CA


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

Open Government

LAAG is pretty much fed up with Lakewood City Hall refusing to provide timely agendas at least 72 hours before the city council meetings. The law only requires that they post the agendas at city hall not on the website. How convenient for busy voters who work for a living. Just go down to city hall after work and look at the agenda. Same with city council meetings. Make sure they are not archived on the city's website so you cant just go see them when you want or skip ahead to the parts you are interested in. The best way to "slip" things past sleeping voters is to just not alert them to issues and do only the bare minimum as required by law (ie don't post stuff on the website or send out an email or you could end up with some angry voters at your meeting and they don't want that!)

As for the agendas this was brought to the city's attention as noted below but still the problem has not been fixed. For example as of 1/15/07 the current agenda posted on the website was 12/12/06. As of 3/17/07 the "most current" agenda posted on the site is dated 2/27/07. This is a big deal as the agenda is the only way busy residents can see what is going on and if they need to go to a meeting. That is the purpose of agendas.

LAAG has asked the Sheriff's department on 4 separate occasions for the last two months for crime statistics. No response at all. Neither the City nor the Sheriff's department want to back up their vague and grandiose statements about crime "reduction"

LAAG is working to resolve these and many other lack of transparency issues.

Parking: can we use citations to "re-educate"?

I almost fell out of my chair when I read the budget for the motorhome "re-education" campaign. Oh my GOD! $140,545 to put fliers on all the motor homes in Lakewood? Cant we use the same people that Dominoes Pizza and the real estate agents use to litter our doorstep with ads? Are they cheaper? Hey voters if you missed the election and the 35 newspaper stories on the motorhome parking issue in Lakewood were sorry but you're going to get a ticket. You deserve to get one for pure stupidity or living under a rock. Has the City Council lost all touch with reality?

The better part of the story (if believable) is that the city is currently spending $337,949 on parking enforcement? (And this does not include the do nothings at the Sheriff's dept. as they are too busy crime fighting to do parking). The only parking enforcement I have seen is on the few streets posted for no parking on sweeping days (like mine) I see the new white Honda Civic$ drive down the street and waive at the good people who slept in and did not get up time to move the car as the sweeper rolls by. No ticket! How nice! Great enforcement! On top of all that we are paying $337,949 for that service!! Here is a stupid question I am sure the city will not want to answer: Just what did the city collect in paid parking citations for the last 5 years? Something tells me its way south of $337,949. Also Lakewood somehow prides itself on the fact that it is a "complaint driven" parking citation system, meaning someone has to call the city to get a cite issued. That being the case $337,949 is even more outrageous. Good thing y'all just re-elected the two councilmen likely responsible for this long standing parking mess, now made even uglier by the waste of funds. We may need the fireworks companies to chip in here. LOL

Education effort will drive home new rules for RVs
By Karen Robes, Staff writer
Article Launched: 03/14/2007 10:26:27 PM PDT

The Lakewood City Council has approved a plan to educate residents about the new laws, set to take effect July 1, restricting street parking for RVs and trailers in the city. (Scott Smeltzer / Press-Telegram)

LAKEWOOD - There's something city officials want recreational vehicle and trailer owners to know, and they're planning to convey it in letters and on notices hung on RVs.

After July 1, Lakewood RV and trailer owners will face daily fines for parking on city streets without a permit.

The City Council earlier this week approved plans to educate residents, handle complaints and provide the staff and resources to enforce the new RV and trailer laws voters approved last November.

The city's annual operating budget for parking enforcement will be $478,494 - a $140,545 increase over last year.

The extra $140,545 includes the wages of the additional parking control officers, their uniforms and vehicle maintenance costs, said city spokesman Don Waldie.

There also are "one-time-only costs" of about $147,940, which includes public information costs ($20,056), the purchase of four new vehicles ($112,000), and additional equipment ($15,884).

Officials hope to get the more than 6,000 RV and trailers to voluntarily comply with the new rules and help lessen residents' requests for service.

"We're going to make every effort we can to make sure people are aware," Mayor Larry Van Nostran said. "We want to make it easier for people to abide by what the laws are going to be."

The new bans are among several efforts to quell concerns about the increasing number of RVs and trailers parked for long periods on city streets. For more than 30 years, the council has tried to balance the needs of RV and trailer owners and those who view the rigs and motorhomes as eyesores and traffic hazards.

The new laws require owners to obtain a maximum three-day permit to park on the street. Residents can get up to 16 permits annually but there must be at least a three-day gap between permits. The permits, which are free, can be downloaded online at www.lakewoodcity.org/

parking.

Beginning in April, the city will distribute hangers and mail letters to all RV and trailer owners registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The city will add 140 hours of enforcement time per week with two full-time and two part-time parking control officers.

The city will also have customer service liaisons and a part-time relief worker to handle resident service requests.

From July 1 through July 15, there will be a two-week warning period for offenders. After that, violators are subject to a daily $40 fine. A vehicle can be towed if five citations have been left unpaid, the grace period of 21 days has elapsed and notice to the DMV has been sent.

Karen Robes can be reached at karen.robes@presstelegram.com or (562) 499-1303.

Stockton CA Backyard fireworks ban likely

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070315/A_NEWS/703150340

By David Siders
Record Staff Writer
March 15, 2007 6:00 AM

STOCKTON - The city is likely to outlaw spinners, cone fountains and other backyard, or "safe and sane," fireworks this year.

A City Council panel on Wednesday recommended the full council adopt a formal ban, one firefighters believed existed and was enforced for years until finding last year the rule did not exist.

"It's a public safety issue," Police Chief Wayne Hose told the panel.

The full council rarely, if ever, overturns a recommendation of the council's legislative panel, the committee that considered the ban. Fireworks designated by the state to be safe and sane are legal unless a county or city adopts an ordinance outlawing them.

The panel rejected an appeal by a fireworks company and by local Christian school that sells safe and sane fireworks to raise money but has previously had to travel outside Stockton to sell them.

Safe and sane fireworks - typically those that do not fly or explode - are legal in Manteca, Ripon and Escalon but not in Tracy, Lodi and unincorporated San Joaquin County, according to a list compiled by fire officials last year.

Were the Stockton City Council to allow safe and sane fireworks, Deputy Fire Chief Dave Hafey warned that peddlers of fireworks that are not so designated - including illegal firecrackers and rockets - would sell them illegally near legitimate stands.

Other cities that have allowed safe and sane fireworks have been so troubled, officials said.

The Rev. Steve Kihlthau of Stockton Baptist Church said Stockton Baptist School has raised as much as $12,000 to $15,000 some summers selling safe and sane fireworks, most recently in the Stanislaus County town of Westley, where they are legal. That the fireworks are called "safe and sane," he said, suggests the state does not find them hazardous.

TNT Fireworks Inc.'s Louis Linney told the panel illegal fireworks sales hurt legitimate business and that TNT could work with cities to discourage misuse.

Councilman Clem Lee, a panel member, said that to allow fireworks would force police, who have more serious matters to deal with, to monitor the use of fireworks. "This is not what we need to saddle our guys with," he said.

He said to prohibit safe and sane fireworks would do no more than codify long-standing city policy.

The full council is likely to consider the matter this month or next.

The city's consideration of a fireworks ban follows by one month the city's announcement that its public fireworks show at Weber Point was too dangerous to go on. Fire officials have said they are looking for a different site.

Contact reporter David Siders at (209) 943-8580 or dsiders @recordnet.com. Visit his blog.