"Overall, the contract will cost of the city approximately $1.85 million through fiscal 2016/17."

- Not true. The city continues to fail to acknowledge the rapidly increasing cost of both unfunded pension debt and under funded health care liability. By adding annual 3% raises which also compounds the value of pensions, sick leave, and vacation leave, the actual cost of each 1% of payroll actually cost 1.43 percent. That compounds rapidly.

For some reason Nelson Fiahlo isn't willing to be honest with taxpayers.


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

- Not! That is what the City manager claimed while promoting a lie. While the Police contract may have excluded what's known as "cost of living increases" it found other ways to provide increased compensation to their members. For every percent of salary these employees had to pay toward their own pension plans they also received an offsetting salary increase…

To add insult to injury the City of Pleasanton (CITY MANAGER), while claiming little in the way of increased cost for the contract he supported, approved an additional two weeks of Vacation for all police employees - while never mentioning it in the Pleasanton Weekly or his comments during council meetings. The contract the city claims didn't provide any cost of living allowances did something underhanded. When you provide 2 additional weeks of vacation to every employee that equates to an additional 4 percent salary increase. Because the PD is a 24/7 operation those additional two weeks are paid at time and one half (it equates to a SIX percent increase in total pay for working the same hours).

My issue is with the City of Pleasanton and their failure to be completely honest. For instance, pension costs are expected to rise by 50 percent. Nowhere is that mentioned in the contract cost - “the contract will cost the city approximately $1.85 million through fiscal 2016/17."

The actual cost will probably be 3-4 times what the city claims. That isn’t transparency!

If the CM can’t be honest should he be allowed to continue in his current position?

"The City Council voted 4-0 last night to accept a new three-year contract with the Pleasanton Police Officers' Association, granting 3% pay increases in each of the three years starting this year and through June 2017"

I can't help but wonder if these four people actually understand what they've committed taxpayers to. I doubt it. Do they understand the current contract for both the Pleasanton Public Safety Unions represents the TOP 1% of pay in the entire Nation?

@Arnold: "Do they understand the current contract for both the Pleasanton Public Safety Unions represents the TOP 1% of pay in the entire Nation?"

Exactly what are you saying? That the total compensation package for members of the police department is in the top 1% of all other police departments in the nation? How did you come up with that figure?

Well that soun

I guess this means that poli

Yes, Damon, I am saying the total compensation for Pleasanton PD does represent the top 1 percent in the nation. We can start with California paying Public Safety the highest wages in the nation. From there we can use the many state databases at our disposal to conclude/calculate that Pleasanton Police/Fire is/are among the "one per centers".

Apparently City Management doesn't see it that way. Maybe it has something to do with them needing to approve the compensation of others in order to justify their own raises. Can they deny the other bargaining groups raises they themselves want? IMO, that is a big issue when it comes to city MANAGEMENT/GOVERNMENT and their obvious conflict of interest. It has become increasingly rare that tax payer interests are placed first.

Unfortunately the only transparency, as it relates to contracts negotiated amongst all those with something to gain (City Management/Bargaining Groups), is that they’re each scratching the back of the other.

So, if I'm a cop in most anywhere suburbia out of state and can hire on for $45,000 and buy a 3 bedroom 2 bath for $75,000 to $150,000 or move to Pleasanton and hire on for $70,000 and pay $500,000 to $700,000 for that same house....well, maybe top 1% in pay ain't looking so great

A Pleasanton Cop starts with a compensation package well over 100K. The average Pleasanton Cop is earning over 180K, and can retire at age 50. That includes a pension worth over 100K by time of retirement, and lifetime medical benefits in some cases. The initial cost of a PD officer is above the median FAMILY income of Pleasanton residents.

Their retirement earnings and benefits will far exceed their 'working' years. Unbelievable!

@Arnold: "Yes, Damon, I am saying the total compensation for Pleasanton PD does represent the top 1 percent in the nation. "

Well, that's quite a claim. I recently glanced at some wage comparison website (I forget the name) and it indicated that Pleasanton police officers earned about the same as their peers in surrounding cities (e.g., San Ramon, Danville, Livermore). Is that true or not? If that is true then we're paying our police officers the fair market rate. If you say our Pleasanton police officers are earning significantly more than their peers in surrounding communities, please provide the proof to back up your claim.

I think that I found somewhere that a starting Pleasanton police officer makes about $50K annually. Is that an accurate figure or if not what is it? $50K annually to live and work in the tri-valley doesn't sound like a tremendous amount. A
So, when you say that a Pleasanton cop starts out with a compensation package of well over $100K, you're including retirement and medical benefits, right?

"I think that I found somewhere that a starting Pleasanton police officer makes about $50K annually. Is that an accurate figure or if not what is it? $50K annually to live and work in the tri-valley doesn't sound like a tremendous amount."

A Starting Pleasanton police officer makes a package of over 120K. They receive 5% raises in each of the first five years, plus the 3% COLA. So for the first five years of this persons carer he/she will receive annual raises of eight percent at a minimum (extra pay for education etc.. begins to kick in around year five to increase compensation even further). If this employee receives a promotion the FIVE percent raises kick in for the next five years and the COLA wages (currently 3 percent annually)are added to that number.

The officers also receive an additional two weeks vacation thanks to the generosity, and slight of hand, of the City manager. Because the PENSION issue has been so mismanaged a PD captain will receive close to 100K per year contributed to his/her pension fund. That is on top of his/her 200K salary, which doesn't include overtime - which costs more because the city of Pleasanton gave employees an additional two weeks of vacation during the last contract (that doesn't come free), and those hours not worked are paid at time and one half to the person that does work. And then the person that didn't work works for the person that filled his/her shifts. There is no extra level of service - just regular hours paid at Time and One Half (an additional cost to tax payers).

@Arnold : "A Starting Pleasanton police officer makes a package of over 120K"

Yes, but you can also say the same thing about starting Livermore police officers and starting San Ramon police officers. I checked on the Transparent Califronia website and virtually all of their police officers have total compensation packages of over $120K. It does no good to bring up statistics saying why you think that Pleasanton police are overpaid: If police in surrounding communities are drawing roughly equivalent total compensation packages, then all your arguments focussing on Pleasanton compensation packages are wasted. Like any employer Pleasanton has to pay the market rate for employees, right?

I have no time to fact-check all your assertions, but then again I don't need to since the bottom-line question is this: Are the total compensation packages that we offer to police officers out of line with those of surrounding communities? I don't see any evidence that that is the case in browsing through the Transparent California website. BTW, you still haven't provided any evidence to back up your claim that "the total compensation for Pleasanton PD does represent the top 1 percent in the nation. " Since the total compensation packages of people in the Pleasanton police department appear to be in line with those of surrounding communities, I find it hard to believe this claim.