I don't have a problem with the police getting raises although 9 percent over 3 years is a lot more than most private sector workers will see. The police have to deal with the worst of our communities and it is a stressful job. I just want public employees to contribute into their own pension retirement savings plan just like I have to paid into social security. What I do have concerns about are creeping raises for most of the executive and management levels of city government departments which have salaries already far exceeding the pay scale of other cities and private companies for similar positions. It is somewhat astounding if you read the numbers.

@wilma: "I don't have a problem with the police getting raises although 9 percent over 3 years is a lot more than most private sector workers will see."

Well, even if that is true I don't recall anyone here complaining that police and other public employee salaries were not keeping pace with private sector salaries during the boom years.

The bottom line is that we are not giving police raises just out of charity, just as your employer doesn't give you a raise just out of charity. Employers give raises because they want to retain talent, and because they know that that talent will eventually jump ship if the pay and benefits become uncompetitive with what's available elsewhere.

Contrary to popular belief, we do contribute to our own pensions. I also pay over $800 per month for my "benefits" while my private sector friends pay next to nothing. That's not to mention that most get some type of 401K matching and bonuses. And let's not forget those folks that went from private sector to public as a second career. Any Social Security benfits they earned will be cut by two thirds, thanks to the Windfall Elimination Provision.

There are different perks and disadvantages for different industries.

To the prior commenters. I am agreeing with you that raises are good. Fact is, many in the private sector have not seen these types of incremental increases. No need to be defensive.

How many PPD officers quit each year to get hired elsewhere for money? None?

Carlos: "How many PPD officers quit each year to get hired elsewhere for money? None?"

I hope it's none.

Damon,

How do our police officers compensation compare to other cities? Are we higher? Way higher? Do we recruit the best and brightest from other cities or just interview candidates out of the academy?

wilma, did you even read the whole article? While yes, baseline wages will increase 9% over the three years, they will also be paying an additional 1.5% toward their pensions, so that 9% over 3 years, just dropped to 7.5% over three years and this is after their previous 3 year contract where not only did they not see any baseline pay increases, they started paying 9% into their pensions. so over the last three years and the next three years, they're still down 1.5% over that six year span.

You can expect them to be out in force now, every weekday morning, writing specious traffic tickets to taxpayers on their way to work to pay for their raise. Drive safe and obey the law and starve them of their extra pay!

"Gill said that because of the recession and across-the-board belt tightening in City Hall, unionized police officers had no cost-of-living wage increases during the three-year contract in effect from 2011 to 2014."

That isn't true. Debra Gill, the city's newly-promoted director of Human Resources/Labor Relations, should understand why I'm making that statement. Just because something isn't classified as a cost-of-living raise doesn't mean past contract provisions don't provide additional income/cost-of-living increases well above the any cost of living index.

I'm surprised the City of Pleasanton Management is still embracing their complete lack of transparency.

Theatrics of take a bit here, give a bit there, all the while upping the 'base' rate for retirement calculations!
I'm still waiting for a 'minimum' of years requirement as chief in both fire & police contracts. It seems the revolving door of rotating chiefs spins pretty fast, to get everybody a shot at higher 'chief' pay for a blip in time, to up retirement calculations. They think we're so rich with funds, and too dumb to notice. Not!

Pete,

Pleasanton is definitely not "higher" or "way higher" than other local cities as you may presume, considering it is probably the most financially secure city in the area.

Prior to this raise, Pleasanton PD's pay rate was lower than several other cities (just about every other city) in the bay area(San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Brentwood, Antioch, Fremont, San Francisco, Oakland, Alameda, Hayward, Emeryville, Berkeley, Richmond, Santa Clara, Redwood City, Milpitas, Mountain View, Newark, Manteca, Concord just to name a few)Yes, all those cities actually have a higher base pay than Pleasanton. Even BART Officers take home more with their incentives.

With this raise, PPD is just about in the middle as far as pay is concerned with those comparable cities.

@Public Employee, the Windfall Elimination Provision only applies to government employees who worked for agencies that opt'd them out of paying into the Social Security Administration program as well as their government pension deduction.

From the 1930s when the SSA was established until the early 1980s, government entities had the right to opt out of the SSA and could establish their own pension plans.

Personally I have worked previously in the private sector for over 25 years and now for over 15 years for a county agency. As a public employee, I have always paid the normal 6.2% social security, 1.5% Medicare and 7.0% CalPERS pension and so my social benefit will not be reduced by the Windfall Elimination Provision. My Social Security benefits will only be reduced by $133.33 to compensate for the monthly CalPers reduction of taxable income while working and paying under both systems.

In our organization, people who were hired prior to the 1984 when the SSA changed and required most government agencies to have new employees contribute to Social Security, the old employees had a one time chance to opt out with the understanding that they would have reduced SSA benefits when they retired (the Windfall Elimination Provision).

One friend who is a retired teacher, does not qualify for Social Security, since teachers only paid into the California STRS pension and zero to the SSA.

Read more in SNOPES: Web Link

@Taxpayer, in the case of CalPERS, there was a 2013 Pension Reform Act passed. Now an employee has to stay in their highest paid job for 36 consecutive months (unless they retired before December 31, 2012.) This prevents the high "spiking" of benefits you mentioned in your post. Also if an employee started after January 1, 2013, they have to wait until they are 67 (instead of 62) to reach their maximum CalPERS benefit. They also cannot be re-hired as a "consultant" or take another CalPERS job for at least 6 months after retirement date.

For more information on the 2013 Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013, see

Web Link

There is a lot of misinformation that has been floating around for years, so to be factual, we all need to educate ourselves.

Dear Resident, you are a wealth of information. I also have 10.5 years in CalPers but 20 years paying SSI. The city agency I worked for opted out of paying into SSI so my hit from WEP will be higher, but isn't the maximum monthly WEP deduction $300.00? Also, I thought if you work and pay SSI for 30 years, you are then exempted from any WEP deduction.
I agee wholeheartedly that there is misinformation. Each city or county agency has its own CalPers contract so to speak, with some agencies being much more lucrative to retire with, while others not so much. Of course the pension reforms you cited still apply to all. Pleasanton is lucrative and is the holy grail amongst public sector agencies to work for. Currently in the private sector, I paid 6.2% SSI, 1.45% Medicare, SDI at 1.0% = 8.65% towards retirement (pension if you will), plus a combined Calif/Fed bonus supplemental wage tax of 10.23 and 25% respectively. So you can see, the discussion of "benefits" and salary are apples and oranges. I look only at salaries when discussing public employee raises and whether they are consistent with market.

Just look to San Jose PD to see what happens when you don't take care of your people. That department has been decimated thanks to the rabid Tea Partiers.

I've lived here for a very long time and have never been pulled over by Pleasanton PD. If you got a traffic ticket, maybe you deserved it? I see stupid, dangerous drivers all the time. I wish they'd write more tickets.

There seems to be concern from employees that they cannot get social security. I think the best solution is to get rid of the public employee pension system and convert all public employees to social security. That would solve that problem.

B,

I have to call bs on you. The mayor and council were democrats and they had to cut benefits because they were so lucrative that the city was going to go into receivership. Google it

Pete, the city leadership were indeed democrats, but the anti-pension pressure has come from the Tea Partiers. The leadership had the choice to raise the money to take care of their people through the crisis, or cave to the austerity seekers. They caved. Now they're stuck with a substandard, understaffed department.

b -- Since when do Democrats "cave" to Tea Party desires, especially in the solidly left wing Bay Area? Please keep the blame on the left.

I'd like to see high performing Officers get a 4.5% raise while under-performing get 0-1.5%. Leaving 2-4% for middle of the road. Is that possible under our archaic public employee union system?

I assume this raise is on top of the step raises the officers automatically receive for longevity.

I have no issues with the salaries the officer make. However, it is interesting to look at the Pleasanton salaries and see the positions that make more than a police officer:
Jr Accountant
Sr Accountant
Building Inspector
Building Inspector Lead
Sr Building Inspector
Sr Code Enforcement Officer
Engineering Assistant 1
Engineering Assistant 2
Assoc Civic Engineer
Assoc Utility Engineer
Engineering Technician 2
Engineering Technician 3
Traffic Engineer Tech 2
Traffic Engineer Tech 3
Environmental Compliance Supv.
Lead Equip Mechanic
GIS Coordinator
Gis Technician 2
Housing Specialist
Landscape Architect
Landscape Architect Asst.
Senior Librarian
Lead Ops Services Maint Supervisor
Park Maint supervisor
Plan Check Engineer
Assistant Planner
Assoc Planner
Assoc Transportation Planner
Sr Planner
Public Works Inspector
Lead Public Works Inspector
Sr Plan Checker
Streets Supervisor
Support Services Supervisor
Lead Utilities System Operator

I think it is time to do something about the non-public safety salaries

@Steven: "I'd like to see high performing Officers get a 4.5% raise while under-performing get 0-1.5%. Leaving 2-4% for middle of the road. Is that possible under our archaic public employee union system?"

Are you grading on a curve, or do you accept the possibility that many or most of the officers may be "high performers"? After all, I assume that we do engage in some selectivity in choosing who is eligible to become a Pleasanton Police officer in the first place.

It's always done on a curve. If you work in the private sector, in a non-union job, you should be familiar with this.

I work with mostly high performing people. Most of the slackers have already been laid off during the last 6 years. However, we are all ranked against one another, and during this year's raises, high performers were given 3-4%, lower performers 1-3%, and the few underperformers 0%. We are NEVER given blanket raises.

Even if the difference is slight, high performers need to be recognized and given higher raises.

@Steven: "It's always done on a curve. If you work in the private sector, in a non-union job, you should be familiar with this."

No, it's not. You're making an unwarranted blanket statement. It's true that forced curve ranking is practiced by a number of businesses, most notoriously by Microsoft which took a lot of flak and ridicule for using a forced curve ranking system to ruthlessly weed out so-called "underperformers" even though nearly everyone who makes it through Microsoft's rigorous, multiple-stage interviewing and evaluation process is a high quality employee. Ruthless forced curved ranking is more often used by businesses who do not take proper care to evaluate employees before hiring them in the first place.

Damon,

What fairytale land are you living in? Companies complete annual performance appraisals on their employees. Then they compare employees and give raises based on performance. Top performers get paid more, low performers get paid less.

Please name an actual company that pays exempt employees based upon their resume and how well they interviewed. You are obviously working in higher education or the public sector.

Here's an experiment you can run that's probably pretty simple. I'm not really talking about retail, but they run things pretty much the same as most private businesses. Go to the mall and ask several managers whether they base raises on performance.

Damon --

After some web research, I'll walk back some of my comments. Companies ARE moving away from the use of a bell curve. However, they are simply replacing it with different ways of evaluating performance. For instance, at Microsoft, the new system includes more of a focus on teamwork and collaboration, more timely feedback and more flexibility for managers to hand out rewards as they see fit, as long as they stay within budget.

So, it is still a curve. It is just not using performance appraisals. Performance still determines compensation.

Steven, that would be fair that higher performing officers get paid more. But in reality higher performing officers are going to end up getting promoted, thus getting paid more.

And what would classify as higher performing for an officer?

Steven, the system you just mentioned sounds ripe for subjective favoritism. fellate the boss and you'll get a nice bonus/raise.

how do you rate a police officer? give raises based on tickets/arrests? i don't think anyone wants that. Do you place a higher value on people skills/public interaction? how do you measure that? Do you base it on accuracy at the gun range? Physical fitness? How does that factor in with respect to the different sexes?

It's disappointing that so few people understand the difference between cost of living adjustments, salary enhancements, and additional costs/perks related to unfunded pension liabilities & underfunded retiree health care costs. For those of you concerned about "only" 3 percent raise increases which will occur in each of the next three years, you do not understand how fast these compensation numbers are increasing. City management isn't doing taxpayers any favors - they are only componding the problem while making Pleasanton the city every other safety union uses in their comparable salary survey formula to justify increased compensation in their cities.

Pleasanton is leading by bad example.

To Steven,

I have been subjected to drafting my own performance appraisals and writing appraisals for others for the past 30 years in both the military and private industry so I am absolutely astounded that there are people that don't understand the concept. A high performing police officer would be someone who shows up ready for work every day. They would complete all paperwork without being asked and volunteer to help others when needed. He or she would lead efforts to help the community and develop ways to improve the police force. I'm not a police officer, so I don't know how they could make themselves stand out, but perhaps they would come up with a way to track crimes better, or reduce accidents. Frankly, the high performers would typically stand out as essential to the force.

@Steven: " However, they are simply replacing it with different ways of evaluating performance. For instance, at Microsoft, the new system includes more of a focus on teamwork and collaboration, more timely feedback and more flexibility for managers to hand out rewards as they see fit, as long as they stay within budget. So, it is still a curve. It is just not using performance appraisals. Performance still determines compensation."

Steve, I don't think you still get what was wrong with Microsoft's employee evaluation system. The problem wasn't so much with what particular metrics they were using. The problem was that it was a "forced" curve ranking system, in which a certain fraction of people had to be given poor evaluations in order to enforce a rigid bell curve.

Hugh --

Of course it's ripe for favoritism, and the best way to become your bosses favorite is to make their job easy. High performers ask how high before their boss says jump. They look ahead and try to reduce any pain coming at their boss. They become essential to their organization. Of course, for police officers, it likely starts at maintaining physical fitness, and executing their basic job well, but to become a high performer, you need to demonstrate leadership and do other things to stand out and make your boss' life easier.

"Posted by b

Just look to San Jose PD to see what happens when you don't take care of your people. That department has been decimated thanks to the rabid Tea Partiers."

Your unfounded paranoia aside, b, the SJPD hasn't been ravaged by anyone other than their own Police Union. Unfortunately many police unions have the ability to control hiring, or control the public perception that they can't find qualified candidates. Hiring practices have become a police union bargaining chip related to contract negotiations. I think San Francisco recently had 7000 applicants for a few hundred jobs.

Of course that has nothing to do with the City of Pleasanton fudging the numbers as it relates to RAPIDLY ESCALATING emplyee costs. And that is exactly what city management is doing, to the detriment of surrounding communities - many of which aren't as financially fortunate as Pleasanton.

I gag evertime I read read the Pleasanton Weekly and here what city hall claims are the INCREASED CONTRACT numbers because I know they do NOT come close to representing the INCREASED COST numbers. I'm still waiting for the CM to start telling the truth.

Damon,

I work for a very large company right now that does exactly that. They aren't forced to give bad appraisals, but they ARE limited in top performing appraisals. Most everyone else is in the middle. The bad appraisals are given to the truly bad players. And everyone that I know in other local high tech companies have appraisals with the same limited top spots.

Steven, does your company contribute the equivalant of 50 percent of your salary toward your retirement plan, and then guarantee a 7.5% rate of return on those dollars? Has your company also agreed to increase that 50 percent contribution rate to 75% of your salary?

That is essentially what's happening with the public employee safety unions,all local government employees really, and that doesn't include the cost of retiree medical benefits. Those dollars come from the general Fund, which is funded by taxpayers that don't receive anything close to these Cadillac benefits. Those costs are in addition to generous salary's.

Arnold,

Actually my employer contributes about 20% for a pension and matches 4% on a 401K. However, I'm sure our politicians have sold us out once again. I think public employee unions don't make it easy, and the lack of any profit motive makes it impossible to reign in costs related to salaries and benefits. I'm surprised public employees aren't all making $200,000/year with 100% pensions because I really don't know why not. What is the limiting factor for future promises of pensions and salary?

I think the only limit is that the amount needs to sound realistic when reported in the paper, and the increases need to be separated by enough time for people to forget the previous increases.

I am repulsed by the 'retroactive' excesses, and the union excess throughout our city employee system. Retain talent? get serious. Thousands stand in lines for public union jobs in cities far beneath Pleasanton on a range of issues. Resident, surely you were not commenting with a straight face about wet behind the ears babes now being hired will endure some minor budgetary changes in 65 years, and will also have to wait 60 mo before they'll be able to double-dip in government jobs. aw I'll add, most of us will 'be gone' in 65 yrs.. We need to 'tighten up' a bit before then.
I'm no teapartier, but I'm certain tea party had zero to do with San Jose over-kill excesses that could not continue, nor Richmond's excesses, nor the collapse of Detroit living with excesses and 'patronage' practices of unions electing their puppets, elected puppets returning favors, etc, etc, etc, until it all collapses... like too much snow on the rooftop caving in!! Let's just say, 65 years is NO fix! Too little, too late!

@lll, your 'list' illustrates' just how far of course we are to have so many over-the-top salaries. Bells were likely sounding for those cities that got in trouble...but, they didn't listen or practice sound financial practices.
The exponential budgetary expansion numbers of the next 30 years, are already in place. Stand back..

Steven, your comments are interesting:

1) "I think public employee unions don't make it easy, and the lack of any profit motive makes it impossible to reign in costs related to salaries and benefits."

- Steven, what do you mean by "easy" and "lack of any profit motive makes it impossible to reign in costs related to salaries and benefits."?


2) "What is the limiting factor for future promises of pensions and salary?"

- I used to think it was the General Fund. Now I'm not so sure given that cities have raised fees for just about everything, promoted increased sales taxes, redirected funding meant for infrastructure toward pensions & retiree health care costs, or just flat out deferred costs. And now school district budgets are about to get hammered as well - to fund pension schemes that were ill advised from the start.

So, to answer your question, I guess the limiting factor is the amount of money taxpayers are willing to pay in the form increased taxes & fees to cover the exorbinant costs elected officials have promised to their political donors. And by that I mean the Hundreds of Billions of dollars the Public owes(?)the public employee unions, according to the public employee unions.

In simple terms, should we just continue to pay more taxpayer dollars to fund unaffordable six figure pensions while continuing to pay our public employees the highest wages in the nation, or should we start demonstrating fiscal restraint before our school system deteriorates beyond repair and pot-holes start swallowing entire motorcycles.

We also need a City Management that is both honest and transparent.

@Taxpayer - retired public employees who return to work will continue to pay into the retirement system while working. They will not get two retirement allotments when they retire for the second time. They will be paid whatever salary they are owed for the job for which they returned to work. When they retire, their current retirement may be readjusted upward to the new base if they work over 3 years in a higher paid position than they retired from -- the same goes for Social Security retirees if they retire and continue to work.

@Arnold - can you provide documentation and your link to your claims about [government agencies that] "contribute the equivalant of 50 percent of your salary toward your retirement plan, and then guarantee a 7.5% rate of return on those dollars?" Also the claim that [government agencies have] also agreed to increase that 50 percent contribution rate to75% of your salary?"

"That is essentially what's happening with the public employee safety unions,all local government employees really, and that doesn't include the cost of retiree medical benefits. Those dollars come from the general Fund, which is funded by taxpayers that don't receive anything close to these Cadillac benefits. Those costs are in addition to generous salary's."

I would love to see concrete evidence of your claims as well as comparison between public employees' and private sector employees' salaries (correct spelling) for similar positions to substantiate the "generous" adjective you used.

Public agencies can vary in salaries and benefits, but I have yet to see one that provides "50 percent of your salary toward your retirement plan" or "guarantee[s] a 7.5% rate of return on those dollars" so it will be interesting to see the source of your information.

Police should be paid more than the other Pleasanton positions listed. Really???? It is a shame. This blog has been all over the map but in sum, here is the fix. Government workers can not retire until 62 with their FRA being the same as SSA. In fact, abolish CalPers altogether as a previous post suggested. If public workers are so disadvantaged in benefits, then they should be happy to get the same SSA benefits as the private sector. Once those reforms are made, their salaries need to be aligned with a median of public and private counterparts. Let them keep the unions for salary negotiations and personnel grievances, if necessary, but no more special perks.

Posted by Resident says:

"@Arnold - can you provide documentation and your link to your claims about [government agencies that] "contribute the equivalent of 50 percent of your salary toward your retirement plan, and then guarantee a 7.5% rate of return on those dollars?" Also the claim that [government agencies have] also agreed to increase that 50 percent contribution rate to75% of your salary?"

Resident: they don't contribute 50% of my salary toward my pension, nor do they guarantee me a 7.5% rate of return on my contributions. I have neither a guaranteed pension nor a guaranteed rate of return. Your comments are confusing at best. The truth is these excessive benefits are obscene, unfair, and our public employee unions have been very engaged in stealing our tax dollars. That goes double for the Pleasanton City Staff which has been promoting increased wages and benefits while pretending to make sacrafices.



- The increased costs of services are a direct result of rapidly escalating pension costs. The normal cost of these pensions is 16% of salary for public safety employees. The current, actual cost, is greater than 50% of salary. And it is going to be 75% of salary very soon, and probably more because the City of Pleasanton keeps increasing compensation which increases the cost of pensions, and many other benefits costs.

The Mayor, and especially the City Manager, haven't been doing the tax payers any favors. From what I can tell they are doing nothing-nothing but working with the unions to hide the true cost of additional benefits and wage increases.

They are lying about the cost of the contracts. And that isn't a lie!