Napa Following Vallejo Into Bankruptcy ?

Napa Following Vallejo Into Bankruptcy ?

Posted in the Vallejo Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: May 08

Beautiful Vallejo

#1 Jul 2, 2008
Generous Pension Benefits Push Napa Toward Bankruptcy

They mention a Grand Jury slamming the Dixon School District, so the Times Herald could have covered this Nap topic, but didn't. Perhaps they didn't notice? Or were they too busy stacking the deck against Vallejo's City Manager? Times Herald doesn't seem to notice that other cities are having labor pains from ballooning, skyrocketing, fat, out-of-control salary and benefits of public employees. I'm not making this up, folks. It's well-documented by a Grand Jury in Napa.

A MYTH RATIONALIZES THE GENEROUS BENEFITS

"Supporters of governmental pension benefit increases (including City of Napa and Napa County officials) routinely argue that they are needed to attract a high quality workforce that is paid less than their private sector counterparts. Based on the surveys and studies mentioned below, this claim is simply not true nor is it sustainable. We have found nothing to demonstrate that Napa’s situation is any different."

“There is a persistent myth that generous pension and their benefits are needed to attract capable people to take government jobs. The fact is, surveys disclose that on average, the government agencies pay more in wages and salaries than the private sector but have not correspondingly reduced their pensions and other benefits.”

The Grand Jury was also critical of the fact that government employees can retire well before age 65. Public Safety personnel can retire at age 50 and other employees at age 55 and can receive pensions. This is true not only in Napa but throughout the State of California.

“Elected officials, administrators and union leadership all share a fiscal responsibility for the economic integrity of local government. The Grand Jury recognizes and respects that people need to earn a living wage; our report does not address wages directly. This report is about sustainability. Ballooning pension and related costs have the potential to draw monies from much needed public safety, roads work, and the general well being of the communities of Napa.”

The Grand Jury recommends that both the County and the City of Napa switch from a defined-benefit plan for pension benefits to defined-contribution plan for new employees. The defined-benefit plan not only makes it difficult for the governmental agency to budget an amount specified for this benefit but also puts all the risk of providing the benefit on the governmental agency and thus, the taxpayer. Further, the Grand Jury recommends the County and City work with the unions to reduce the terms of pension plans which allow an employee to retire well before age 65 at a high percentage of his/her working compensation. This early-age retirement also exacerbates the problem of retiree health benefits. Because of the generosity of these pensions, public employees retire with health benefits 5 to 10 years before they become eligible for Medicare. The County and the City should work to close this health benefit gap.
Elected officials, administrators and union leadership all share a fiscal responsibility for the economic integrity of local government. The Grand Jury recognizes and respects that people need to earn a living wage; our report does not address wages directly. This report is about sustainability. Ballooning pension and related costs have the potential to draw monies from much needed public safety, roads work, and the general well being of the communities of Napa County.

You can read the report at

http://tinyurl.com/64mm2a

Since: Mar 08

San Rafael, CA

#2 Jul 2, 2008
Does this sound strangely familiar? It seems the arguments made by the grand jury in Napa are PRECISELY the arguments I've been making for months. These pensions have the capacity to devour government revenues faster than they can be produced. If their existence isn't criminal, it surely is justification for great anger among residents who are paying for it all. Heads should roll at local, regional and state levels, since elected officials and administrators at every level are complicit in this fleecing of taxpayers.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'd warn folks this is not a small document so don't download it if you have a slow internet connection. Here is a link to a news story on this report from the Napa Vallejo Register...

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/20...
As Seen on TV

United States

#3 Jul 2, 2008
Kurt Henke is like King Midas. Everything he touches turns to
s h i t.
CasualObserver

Berkeley, CA

#4 Jul 2, 2008
Hmmm, it must suck for the police officers applying there.

What to do? What to do?

Hopefully, no one will file a WC claim for stress.

BTW, where is the list of cops going to Oakland?

Since: Feb 08

Vallejo, CA

#5 Jul 2, 2008
I have to say that while it sucks to see a community start to pick itself apart it allows a little hope in what we’re dealing with. I don’t know about you but there were times where I thought if we had what Napa has things would be different….just goes to show that we are more alike than we are different. They talk about needing to increase revenue and have everything that Vallejo doesn’t but wish we did.

The comments at the bottom of the article are full of the same kinds of statements that we have been making here yet we do not have the retail prowess or vintner population that Napa does. All I have to say is that is shows that we’re not the only ones out there with these types of issues and we’re not alone.

Since: Mar 08

San Rafael, CA

#6 Jul 2, 2008
In the article I link to above, Napa city staff speak about the revenues collected by that city commenting they don't have the sort of problem Vallejo does. There is no doubt that the current economic contraction has hit Vallejo harder, some of it having to do with the fact Vallejo has struggled to build a retail base, though most of it comes from plummeting home prices and reduced property tax revenue. Napa remains a favorite tourist destination and will likely always do better than Vallejo financially for that simple reason. It also has most of Vallejo's firefighters spending their big checks in Napa stores and buying expensive Napa real estate... ;-)

But the fact Napa is doing okay at the moment, still doesn't address the more fundamental question of whether tax payers should be footing the bill for a retirement package that is so far out of the reach of everyone else. The grand jury report points directly at the absurd argument that is clearly decades from reality that public employees deserve rich retirement benefits to compensate for lower salaries. Public employees are doing extremely well in the salary department AND have remarkably generous fringe benefit packages in addition to retirement benefit that take one's breath away. Police and fire employees retire with a full benefit at age 50 and then tell us a swan song about their shortened life span that results from the stress of their job. I say to that, stop drinking, get some exercise and schedule a few therapy sessions to learn to cope with stress. Other city employees retire with a full benefit at age 55, while the rest of us wait until we're 67 to get a full Social Security benefit. It just doesn't compute.

Frankly, these retirement programs exist because those who put them in place, whether from the management side or the elected official side, receive the same benefits themselves. They have no incentive to make the generosity of the benefits a political issue to highlight with their constituents. I'd be willing to wager that a survey done of Vallejo citizens would find NO ONE KNOWS that police and fire retire at age 50 or that other employees retire at age 55.

It is time for this gift of public funds to end...
Just Wondering

Fremont, CA

#7 Jul 3, 2008
T.P. day in and day out I read your comments on these blogs. To me it sounds like you are an inteligent person who knows a lot about this topic of bankruptcy and police salaries. You made a comment about out of control salary and benifits of public employees. Did you not reap the same benifit when you were a "public employee"? To me that is like the pot calling the kettle black. Are you willing to give back part of your retirement and benifit package that you obtained as a city employee? Just wondering...

Since: May 08

Beautiful Vallejo

#8 Jul 3, 2008
Just Wondering wrote:
T.P. day in and day out I read your comments on these blogs. To me it sounds like you are an inteligent person who knows a lot about this topic of bankruptcy and police salaries. You made a comment about out of control salary and benifits of public employees. Did you not reap the same benifit when you were a "public employee"? To me that is like the pot calling the kettle black. Are you willing to give back part of your retirement and benifit package that you obtained as a city employee? Just wondering...
You are happy with the existing contracts that have driven Vallejo to bankruptcy? Reads like you are confusing someone else for T.P., and you have no argument against the points being made?

It is the ballooning, skyrocketing, fat, out-of-control salary and benefits of public employees that have run this city into the ground. That's the mismanagement foisted off on taxpayers by previous city leaders. But now, with the help of the City Manager, City Council members are simply trying to undo the mismanagement of previous leaders, most of whom were sponsored by the employee unions. City leadership is trying to fix the problems, but some people don't like it, because they don't want Vallejo's problems fixed if the solution threatens those unsustainable gold-plated labor contracts.
Just Wondering

San Francisco, CA

#9 Jul 3, 2008
Golden Retirement wrote:
<quoted text>
You are happy with the existing contracts that have driven Vallejo to bankruptcy? Reads like you are confusing someone else for T.P., and you have no argument against the points being made?
It is the ballooning, skyrocketing, fat, out-of-control salary and benefits of public employees that have run this city into the ground. That's the mismanagement foisted off on taxpayers by previous city leaders. But now, with the help of the City Manager, City Council members are simply trying to undo the mismanagement of previous leaders, most of whom were sponsored by the employee unions. City leadership is trying to fix the problems, but some people don't like it, because they don't want Vallejo's problems fixed if the solution threatens those unsustainable gold-plated labor contracts.
Well put...but you still haven't answered my question.
anonymous

Vallejo, CA

#10 Jul 3, 2008
VALLEJO DOESN'T HAVE A RETAIL BASE BECAUSE THE IDIOTS ON THE COUNCIL FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS MADE ALL THESE STIPULATIONS FOR NEW BUSINESSES AND THESE BUSINESSES THROUGH THE COUNCIL A MIDDLE FINGER AND WENT TO FAIRFIELD, VACAVILLE AND SO ON.... WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A BOOKSTORE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. AND ALL THE WAL-MART NAYSAYERS WE LOST A LOT OF REVENUE WHEN THE PULLED OUT OF VALLEJO AND THE CITY MESSED AROUND AND NOW INSTEAD OF A SUPER WAL MART BEING HERE WHERE THE OLD KMART WAS WE HAVE A GIANT EMPTY LOT. THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE HUH?
Vallejo Visitor wrote:
In the article I link to above, Napa city staff speak about the revenues collected by that city commenting they don't have the sort of problem Vallejo does. There is no doubt that the current economic contraction has hit Vallejo harder, some of it having to do with the fact Vallejo has struggled to build a retail base, though most of it comes from plummeting home prices and reduced property tax revenue. Napa remains a favorite tourist destination and will likely always do better than Vallejo financially for that simple reason. It also has most of Vallejo's firefighters spending their big checks in Napa stores and buying expensive Napa real estate... ;-)
But the fact Napa is doing okay at the moment, still doesn't address the more fundamental question of whether tax payers should be footing the bill for a retirement package that is so far out of the reach of everyone else. The grand jury report points directly at the absurd argument that is clearly decades from reality that public employees deserve rich retirement benefits to compensate for lower salaries. Public employees are doing extremely well in the salary department AND have remarkably generous fringe benefit packages in addition to retirement benefit that take one's breath away. Police and fire employees retire with a full benefit at age 50 and then tell us a swan song about their shortened life span that results from the stress of their job. I say to that, stop drinking, get some exercise and schedule a few therapy sessions to learn to cope with stress. Other city employees retire with a full benefit at age 55, while the rest of us wait until we're 67 to get a full Social Security benefit. It just doesn't compute.
Frankly, these retirement programs exist because those who put them in place, whether from the management side or the elected official side, receive the same benefits themselves. They have no incentive to make the generosity of the benefits a political issue to highlight with their constituents. I'd be willing to wager that a survey done of Vallejo citizens would find NO ONE KNOWS that police and fire retire at age 50 or that other employees retire at age 55.
It is time for this gift of public funds to end...
IAFF abuse

AOL

#11 Jul 3, 2008
The following are the total compensation of PS officers in 2007 (does not include OT nor payouts). It includes Base Salary + Specialty Wages + Benefits + Pension. Bear in mind that the Vallejo taxpayers who have to pay this outrageous compensation make a total average compensation of less than $60,000 per year to FFs who have 70% downtime (mostly watch TV and sleep).

Notice IAFF’s Henke is #6, Cavanaugh is #39, Riley is #46, and VPOA’s Mustard is #149

1 $344,179 WEST, JOANN VPOA
2 $341,855 JACKSON, DAVID C VPOA
3 $339,408 MORRIS, LAMONTE K IAFF
4 $324,721 FALKENTHAL, GREGORY R IAFF
5 $302,915 DANDRIDGE, RAYMAND R IAFF
6 $302,712 HENKE, KURT P IAFF
7 $297,679 MONCIBAIS, GORDON C IAFF
8 $295,908 KELLEY, KEVIN M VPOA
9 $293,359 BECKER, RONALD W VPOA
10 $293,358 GARCIA, REGINALD T VPOA
11 $288,141 SALINAS, JOEL VPOA
12 $283,154 NICHELMAN, RICHARD E VPOA
13 $282,609 LIDDICOET, THOMAS M VPOA
14 $280,603 MORTENSON, ERIC VPOA
15 $263,372 O'CONNELL, JAMES A VPOA
16 $258,497 MACKENZIE, RICHARD E IAFF
17 $256,428 SARULLO, VINCENT J IAFF
18 $255,577 WHITE, GREGORY A IAFF
19 $254,696 LEE, LORI A VPOA
20 $253,086 WEAVER, KENNETH J VPOA
21 $250,901 BOSTON, JIMMIE A IAFF
22 $248,369 ROBERTSON, DOUGLAS T IAFF
23 $245,413 RIVERS, CHARLES R IAFF
24 $245,347 CATIIS, MAYNARD B IAFF
25 $244,664 JACKSON, RAYMOND W IAFF
26 $243,090 ROBINSON, HERMAN E VPOA
27 $241,736 DEROQUE, MICHAEL IAFF
28 $240,970 WALSH, PATRICK W IAFF
29 $240,046 SCHROEDER, KELLY VPOA
30 $239,655 HIGGINS, JAMES L IAFF
31 $238,505 LOVE, ALPHONZO L IAFF
32 $237,863 TENORIO, ABEL VPOA
33 $237,740 COELHO, KEVIN G VPOA
34 $235,604 ROGERS, LARRY VPOA
35 $235,399 HOEN, DAVID P VPOA
36 $234,797 FIELDS, SEAN IAFF
37 $234,223 BARRY, JOHN E IAFF
38 $234,046 MEYER, PAIGE W IAFF
39 $231,337 CAVANAUGH, ANN K IAFF
40 $230,192 DE JESUS, SIDNEY R VPOA
41 $229,681 BROOKS, MICHAEL IAFF
42 $229,226 PARK, KENNY VPOA
43 $227,278 BARBUZANO, JOHN A IAFF
44 $227,158 FLORENDO, RICARDO D VPOA
45 $226,999 BARTLETT, KEVIN J VPOA
46 $225,052 RILEY, JON D IAFF
47 $224,941 GORDON, STEVEN L VPOA
48 $224,896 IACONO, JOSEPH B VPOA
49 $224,856 MASSENKOFF, VICTOR B VPOA
50 $224,586 BENNIGSON, HARRY J VPOA
51 $224,442 HORTON, LEE R VPOA
52 $224,152 HENDERSHOT, DONALD E VPOA
53 $221,961 BASSETT, JEFFERY A VPOA
54 $219,956 TWEEDY, WILLIAM J IAFF
55 $219,340 NUUHIWA, JONAH IAFF
56 $219,268 LEITZKE, MELISSE M IAFF
57 $218,845 PERRYMAN, CURTIS B IAFF
58 $217,397 CARPENTER, MICHAEL B IAFF
59 $217,338 URRUTIA, DAVID A IAFF
60 $215,963 BAIZ, GILBERT C IAFF
61 $215,332 TAYLOR, FREDERICK IAFF
62 $214,317 SARNA, DANIEL L IAFF
63 $214,285 NICOL, MARK J VPOA
64 $212,923 EVERETT, GEORGE E IAFF
65 $212,673 SWANSON, CLYDE T IAFF
66 $212,552 BOHLIG, LARRY W IAFF
67 $212,176 STRANG, RICHARD M VPOA
68 $212,172 SHARPE, MARK S IAFF
69 $211,883 PERETTO, MATTHEW W VPOA
70 $210,357 REYES, ANTHONY V IAFF
71 $209,540 SUGGS, HILARD D IAFF
72 $208,308 BOERSMA, BARRY VPOA
73 $207,543 HERNDON, ROBERT C VPOA
74 $207,364 PAOLI, IVANO G IAFF
75 $207,198 BAUMGARTNER, KELLY J IAFF
76 $206,821 ENG, STANLEY H VPOA
77 $206,751 CULVERWELL, JAMES M IAFF
78 $204,354 VALENZUELA, JERRY A IAFF
79 $203,717 HARPOLD-DUNN, KATHRYN H IAFF
80 $202,530 BOTELLO, RICHARD A VPOA
IAFF abuse

AOL

#12 Jul 3, 2008
81 $202,264 MILLER, JOHN P VPOA
82 $201,207 BENNE, RICHARD IAFF
83 $200,709 REYNOLDS, ROBERT W VPOA
84 $200,693 CHEATHAM, STEVEN A VPOA
85 $200,617 POSTOLAKI, THEODORE J VPOA
86 $200,203 WILCOX, DOUGLAS N VPOA
87 $200,172 TATEM, CARL E VPOA
88 $199,874 WIZNER, RICKY N VPOA
89 $199,840 LEE, THOMAS R VPOA
90 $199,219 WHITNEY, JOHN P VPOA
91 $199,003 DE HERRERA, SCOTT A IAFF
92 $198,519 SMITH, JEFFREY B IAFF
93 $197,699 HILL, BENJAMIN IAFF
94 $197,414 LOFAS, JIM G VPOA
95 $197,246 STROM, ERIC B IAFF
96 $196,584 PEDRETTI, MARY F VPOA
97 $196,497 ALEXANDER, BRIAN L VPOA
98 $196,497 LIDDICOET, BRETT T VPOA
99 $196,496 KETCHUM, WYNATHEN VPOA
100 $196,027 CORE, SHAWN A IAFF
101 $195,519 MEREDITH, MATHEW A VPOA
102 $194,870 FOWLER, STEPHEN J VPOA
103 $194,188 ORTIZ, MICHAEL A IAFF
104 $194,147 HA, JOHN J IAFF
105 $193,693 WALKER, DUANE VPOA
106 $193,458 HARMER, ROBERT E VPOA
107 $193,157 GARCIA, JOHN A VPOA
108 $192,922 CUNNINGHAM, JOHN F VPOA
109 $192,380 HIGGINS, PATRICK S IAFF
110 $191,482 GOODNER, JASON S IAFF
111 $191,149 KOUTNIK, MICHAEL J VPOA
112 $190,766 STOCKLI, MITCHELL A IAFF
113 $190,422 BOOTHE, TIMOTHY E IAFF
114 $190,300 FORD, CHARLES G IAFF
115 $190,286 SPEARS-EVERETT, JOLENE R VPOA
116 $190,113 STROHMEYER, DYHANNE E IAFF
117 $189,351 TRIBBLE, R-G T VPOA
118 $189,176 RODRIGUEZ, FABIO VPOA
119 $189,099 MUNOZ, RAUL I VPOA
120 $188,760 POTTS, JASON G VPOA
121 $188,536 LIBBY, MARK R IAFF
122 $188,441 DOUGLAS, LLOYD A VPOA
123 $188,233 BRUE, THOMAS L IAFF
124 $188,197 FERRUCCI, JAMES K IAFF
125 $187,843 GOOGINS, PETER S IAFF
126 $187,563 KENT, STEVEN K VPOA
127 $187,493 KNIGHT, ROBERT T VPOA
128 $187,314 MADISON, VALERIE R VPOA
129 $187,046 BANKS, MARCUS D IAFF
130 $186,859 WAKEFIELD, HEATH C IAFF
131 $186,717 CAPOOT, JAMES L VPOA
132 $186,564 HICKEY, KEVIN M IAFF
133 $186,552 BOTTOMLEY, LESLIE J VPOA
134 $186,140 BADOUR, WILLIAM E VPOA
135 $185,709 BAUTISTA, JEROME B VPOA
136 $185,172 WANZIE, RICHARD M VPOA
137 $185,071 WOULFE, ROBERT C VPOA
138 $184,522 BRUNSON, JAMES P IAFF
139 $184,138 LUCERO, GILBERT VPOA
140 $183,991 HUFF, JEREMY M VPOA
141 $183,991 MC CARTHY, JOSEPH P VPOA
142 $183,991 CRUTCHER, BRYAN F VPOA
143 $183,565 MARCUS, GEORGE A VPOA
144 $183,468 SIMS, MICHAEL K IAFF
145 $183,388 FONG, SHARON A VPOA
146 $183,301 BULL, GERALD S VPOA
147 $183,241 HAMRICK, WILLIAM K VPOA
148 $183,189 RUSTICE, JAMES P IAFF
149 $183,185 MUSTARD, MATHEW VPOA
150 $182,525 MACKAY, ROBERT V VPOA
151 $182,348 LONG, KYLE D IAFF
152 $182,034 TRIBBLE, MICHAEL K VPOA
153 $181,760 CARAGAN, ALAN R VPOA
154 $181,467 LANE, JONATHAN D IAFF
155 $181,156 HUMPHREY, MICHAEL H IAFF
156 $180,731 BOWER, SHANE R VPOA
157 $180,601 BRAXTON, RONALD E VPOA
158 $180,515 ACFALLE, DANIEL C VPOA
159 $180,388 CEBALLOS, RICHARD M IAFF
160 $180,274 MOORE, GORDON K VPOA
IAFF abuse

AOL

#13 Jul 3, 2008
161 $180,260 QUESADA, RODOLFO V VPOA
162 $180,155 PHILLIPS, BRUCE E IAFF
163 $180,048 BURNETT, HAROLD R IAFF
164 $179,943 COSGROVE, KEVIN T VPOA
165 $179,081 HERNANDEZ, FELIPE VPOA
166 $178,839 SIMPSON, GEORGE P VPOA
167 $178,633 PUCCI, BRENT C VPOA
168 $178,633 MELVILLE, JAMES F VPOA
169 $177,807 GREENE, BARBARA A VPOA
170 $177,023 SMIRCICH, STEVEN M IAFF
171 $176,262 BATES, BRIAN K VPOA
172 $176,261 WENTZ, JASON M VPOA
173 $175,787 WONG, CRAIG K VPOA
174 $175,601 WYLIE, KYLE J VPOA
175 $175,544 CASTOR, JOSEPH F IAFF
176 $175,486 DARDEN, STEPHEN L VPOA
177 $174,862 PURNELL, ROBERT VPOA
178 $173,560 MESSINA, PEPPINO VPOA
179 $173,554 DIEZ, ERICK F IAFF
180 $172,905 CAITHAM, JOSHUA M VPOA
181 $171,086 FENZL, MATTHEW E IAFF
182 $170,880 WALKER, SHARON Y VPOA
183 $170,741 CHOY, MATTHEW D IAFF
184 $169,849 JOSEPH, DUSTIN B VPOA
185 $169,784 LOFAS, LOUIE G VPOA
186 $169,500 RAMRAKHA, SANJAY VPOA
187 $168,044 THOMPSON, JOHN B IAFF
188 $167,410 EHMAN, JOHN E VPOA
189 $167,361 FARRINGTON, JUSTIN F VPOA
190 $166,866 NICHELINI, MICHAEL W VPOA
191 $166,573 MCCREA, MATTHEW A VPOA
192 $166,557 WELSH, JASON R IAFF
193 $166,448 BOYCE, WAYLON M VPOA
194 $165,721 GARRICK, BRENTON A VPOA
195 $165,618 MUSTARD, DAVID M VPOA
196 $164,192 ABNEY, STACIE E VPOA
197 $163,838 RAMSAY, DREW A VPOA
198 $163,567 WARDLOW, ROBERT M VPOA
199 $162,915 CLARK, WILLIAM B VPOA
200 $162,802 SCOTT, JASON S VPOA
201 $162,286 KERR, ROBERT A VPOA
202 $162,239 MARTIN, DENNIS H IAFF
203 $161,533 KENNEY, SEAN G VPOA
204 $161,089 GONZALES, ARTHUR A IAFF
205 $160,467 DEAN, CARL W VPOA
206 $159,180 GREENBERG, ROBERT W VPOA
207 $157,048 BAUER, JASON S VPOA
208 $156,911 BARRIENTOS, EDWARD A VPOA
209 $156,444 MUNOZ, JAVIER VPOA
210 $156,412 DINSDALE, DONALD J IAFF
211 $156,347 BELLUOMINI, KEVIN F IAFF
212 $156,297 YATES, SCOTT A VPOA
213 $156,110 ESTUDILLO, BRIAN L VPOA
214 $155,076 BOYD, JOHN N VPOA
215 $153,554 POYSER, TERRY W VPOA
216 $151,825 SIMMONS, MANSFIELD S IAFF
217 $151,546 BASSETT, MARK A VPOA
218 $151,094 TIFFANY, DWAYNE VPOA
219 $149,605 ULAGA, KLEMEN VPOA
220 $148,386 TAI, JEFFREY R VPOA
221 $148,275 TOLENTINO, RITZIE A VPOA
222 $147,349 THOMPSON, MARK J VPOA
223 $146,513 HARDIMAN, VAUGHN L IAFF
224 $146,085 NO, THERESA VPOA
225 $144,080 VILLALOBOS, JOSE G VPOA
226 $140,332 DUNN, PATRICK M IAFF
227 $138,770 NICHOLS, TIMOTHY R VPOA
228 $137,178 LIONEL, MICHAEL A IAFF
229 $133,378 WILSON, FLOYD G IAFF
230 $129,191 COLEMAN, JOSHUA J VPOA
231 $129,007 MCCARTHY, KEVIN K VPOA
232 $127,190 COBURN, JEFFREY S VPOA
233 $125,966 TAYLOR, FIDEL L VPOA
Interesting

Napa, CA

#14 Jul 3, 2008
IAFF abuse wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/2007120 ...
“What they make”
“The cost of pension and other benefits equals 76 percent of a Santa Rosa police officer's pay, 69 percent for firefighting personnel, city officials said.”
Based on the above statement in the article, I used 75% for Vallejo’s PS cost of pension and benefits.
IAFF abuse listed all of the names of police and fire personnel and what he calulated as their total compensation. These numbers, according to him, were calculated by the method he describes above. These numbers are completely bogus, as explained below.
I believe that your method is extremely flawed, for the following reasons:
First what PERS percentage did you use? It is likely very different from Santa Rosa's. Does the employer or employee pay the employee's PERS contribution? Vallejo employees pay 9% of their gross salary to PERS. Santa Rosa may pay that for the employee. Did you check?
Second, many benefits cost a flat rate. They are not a percentage of income, as you calculated. No matter what one makes, dental insurance costs one amount. This inaccuracy is huge on your part.
Third, Santa Rosa's benefit package may or may not be substantially different than Vallejo's. Did you even check? And who knows what they pay for them v. Vallejo?
So, as a result, your numbers are completely fabricated, and totally inacurate. It is disingenuous and, considering the fact that you posted everyone's names with them, I suspect it is potentially libelous as well. Rather than guessing and posting completely false and such potentially inflammatory information, why didn't you just ask the City of Vallejo for the numbers? I think its because you're more interested in turning public opinion against the city's Public Safety employees than telling the truth. Shame on you!
Eric

United States

#15 Jul 3, 2008
wow, seeing those wages is truly disgusting. no wonder the city filed bankruptcy
South Vallejo Veteran

San Jose, CA

#16 Jul 3, 2008
Vallejo Visitor wrote:
Does this sound strangely familiar? It seems the arguments made by the grand jury in Napa are PRECISELY the arguments I've been making for months. These pensions have the capacity to devour government revenues faster than they can be produced. If their existence isn't criminal, it surely is justification for great anger among residents who are paying for it all. Heads should roll at local, regional and state levels, since elected officials and administrators at every level are complicit in this fleecing of taxpayers.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'd warn folks this is not a small document so don't download it if you have a slow internet connection. Here is a link to a news story on this report from the Napa Vallejo Register...
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/20...
VV, you are a LEGEND in your own mind. So intelligent. Thank GOD we have you reminding us all how smart you are! Nerd! As for the PSU's, I am sorry our City has failed miserably to increase revenues and quit giving away our dollars to feel good programs. I do believe you may have to once again reduce your salaries and help more with your benefits. I understand this may casue you to move on to a more stable community so I wish you well and hope one day you'll hear how well Vallejo is doing again..
South Vallejo Veteran

San Jose, CA

#17 Jul 3, 2008
Vallejo Citizens, you need to quit listening to the snakes on these blogs and at VIB. They are intent on ruining our City. I have lived in South Vallejo for more than 40 years and have seen our City go from a war zone to a place you can actually take evening walks without fear. Our leaders have done nothing to keep this City viable. Our elected officials shook hands with our employees, offering them pay and benefits we couldn't afford. Now it hits the fan and they bash the employees. Our safety workers are leaving, and why wouldn't they, I would. Our City leaders will eventually leave too, leaving us in a war zone once again. I will do everything I can to make sure not one member of this current council is re- elected, not one. I may not have too many years left on this great earth, but I still have plenty of fight left in me and the battle has begun!
Trashman

San Jose, CA

#18 Jul 3, 2008
Hi Stephanie, your little game with inflated fabricated numbers won't work. You already lied to a federal judge about not disclosing $339million in city assets. Thats called perjury and its a felony.
IAFF abuse wrote:
The following are the total compensation of PS officers in 2007 (does not include OT nor payouts). It includes Base Salary + Specialty Wages + Benefits + Pension. Bear in mind that the Vallejo taxpayers who have to pay this outrageous compensation make a total average compensation of less than $60,000 per year to FFs who have 70% downtime (mostly watch TV and sleep).
Notice IAFF’s Henke is #6, Cavanaugh is #39, Riley is #46, and VPOA’s Mustard is #149
1 $344,179 WEST, JOANN VPOA
2 $341,855 JACKSON, DAVID C VPOA
3 $339,408 MORRIS, LAMONTE K IAFF
4 $324,721 FALKENTHAL, GREGORY R IAFF
5 $302,915 DANDRIDGE, RAYMAND R IAFF
6 $302,712 HENKE, KURT P IAFF
7 $297,679 MONCIBAIS, GORDON C IAFF
8 $295,908 KELLEY, KEVIN M VPOA
9 $293,359 BECKER, RONALD W VPOA
10 $293,358 GARCIA, REGINALD T VPOA
11 $288,141 SALINAS, JOEL VPOA
12 $283,154 NICHELMAN, RICHARD E VPOA
13 $282,609 LIDDICOET, THOMAS M VPOA
14 $280,603 MORTENSON, ERIC VPOA
15 $263,372 O'CONNELL, JAMES A VPOA
16 $258,497 MACKENZIE, RICHARD E IAFF
17 $256,428 SARULLO, VINCENT J IAFF
18 $255,577 WHITE, GREGORY A IAFF
19 $254,696 LEE, LORI A VPOA
20 $253,086 WEAVER, KENNETH J VPOA
21 $250,901 BOSTON, JIMMIE A IAFF
22 $248,369 ROBERTSON, DOUGLAS T IAFF
23 $245,413 RIVERS, CHARLES R IAFF
24 $245,347 CATIIS, MAYNARD B IAFF
25 $244,664 JACKSON, RAYMOND W IAFF
26 $243,090 ROBINSON, HERMAN E VPOA
27 $241,736 DEROQUE, MICHAEL IAFF
28 $240,970 WALSH, PATRICK W IAFF
29 $240,046 SCHROEDER, KELLY VPOA
30 $239,655 HIGGINS, JAMES L IAFF
31 $238,505 LOVE, ALPHONZO L IAFF
32 $237,863 TENORIO, ABEL VPOA
33 $237,740 COELHO, KEVIN G VPOA
34 $235,604 ROGERS, LARRY VPOA
35 $235,399 HOEN, DAVID P VPOA
36 $234,797 FIELDS, SEAN IAFF
37 $234,223 BARRY, JOHN E IAFF
38 $234,046 MEYER, PAIGE W IAFF
39 $231,337 CAVANAUGH, ANN K IAFF
40 $230,192 DE JESUS, SIDNEY R VPOA
41 $229,681 BROOKS, MICHAEL IAFF
42 $229,226 PARK, KENNY VPOA
43 $227,278 BARBUZANO, JOHN A IAFF
44 $227,158 FLORENDO, RICARDO D VPOA
45 $226,999 BARTLETT, KEVIN J VPOA
46 $225,052 RILEY, JON D IAFF
47 $224,941 GORDON, STEVEN L VPOA
48 $224,896 IACONO, JOSEPH B VPOA
49 $224,856 MASSENKOFF, VICTOR B VPOA
50 $224,586 BENNIGSON, HARRY J VPOA
51 $224,442 HORTON, LEE R VPOA
52 $224,152 HENDERSHOT, DONALD E VPOA
53 $221,961 BASSETT, JEFFERY A VPOA
54 $219,956 TWEEDY, WILLIAM J IAFF
55 $219,340 NUUHIWA, JONAH IAFF
56 $219,268 LEITZKE, MELISSE M IAFF
57 $218,845 PERRYMAN, CURTIS B IAFF
58 $217,397 CARPENTER, MICHAEL B IAFF
59 $217,338 URRUTIA, DAVID A IAFF
60 $215,963 BAIZ, GILBERT C IAFF
61 $215,332 TAYLOR, FREDERICK IAFF
62 $214,317 SARNA, DANIEL L IAFF
63 $214,285 NICOL, MARK J VPOA
64 $212,923 EVERETT, GEORGE E IAFF
65 $212,673 SWANSON, CLYDE T IAFF
66 $212,552 BOHLIG, LARRY W IAFF
67 $212,176 STRANG, RICHARD M VPOA
68 $212,172 SHARPE, MARK S IAFF
69 $211,883 PERETTO, MATTHEW W VPOA
70 $210,357 REYES, ANTHONY V IAFF
71 $209,540 SUGGS, HILARD D IAFF
72 $208,308 BOERSMA, BARRY VPOA
73 $207,543 HERNDON, ROBERT C VPOA
74 $207,364 PAOLI, IVANO G IAFF
75 $207,198 BAUMGARTNER, KELLY J IAFF
76 $206,821 ENG, STANLEY H VPOA
77 $206,751 CULVERWELL, JAMES M IAFF
78 $204,354 VALENZUELA, JERRY A IAFF
79 $203,717 HARPOLD-DUNN, KATHRYN H IAFF
80 $202,530 BOTELLO, RICHARD A VPOA
On Fire

Napa, CA

#19 Jul 3, 2008
South Vallejo Veteran wrote:
Vallejo Citizens, you need to quit listening to the snakes on these blogs and at VIB. They are intent on ruining our City. I have lived in South Vallejo for more than 40 years and have seen our City go from a war zone to a place you can actually take evening walks without fear. Our leaders have done nothing to keep this City viable. Our elected officials shook hands with our employees, offering them pay and benefits we couldn't afford. Now it hits the fan and they bash the employees. Our safety workers are leaving, and why wouldn't they, I would. Our City leaders will eventually leave too, leaving us in a war zone once again. I will do everything I can to make sure not one member of this current council is re- elected, not one. I may not have too many years left on this great earth, but I still have plenty of fight left in me and the battle has begun!
Hate to tell you but South Vallejo has been a war zone long before the city filed bankruptcy and long before the PD started bailing for greener pastures. Did you join the other people in the So. Vljo neighborhood association when they were protesting the closure of the substation? No I don't think so. Have you ever participated in their numerous cleanups? Probably not. We you part of the group that was fighting to get a grocery store in their neck of the woods? There have been many people in So. Vljo. that have kept up the fight to make their neighborhood a better place to live but I doubt you were ever one of them.

No you simply like to complain and glad to hear that you've visited VIB. It just might broaden your narrow view of what is going on in town.
Saul Goode

United States

#21 Jul 3, 2008
It's all Henke's fault.

He's got to go.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vallejo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Joseph P. Feller: Get real on Wal-Mart 25 min Kurshan Village I... 2
Vallejo city manager's pay ranks 3rd in Bay Are... 28 min Kurshan Village I... 3
Major Changes Coming To California Public Utili... 4 hr Anonymous 1
News June 23 Vallejo A&E Source Restaurant Review: L... 4 hr Kbsunnyside 1
Anne Carr: VMT/Orcem and Vallejo's gullibility 6 hr Tofflers_Mom 10
GVRD to solicit comments about future projects 10 hr Anonymous 1
Solano County recognized for financial reporting 10 hr Anonymous 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Vallejo Mortgages