Indexes
February 9th, 2010
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Lodi City Council delays decision on eight proposed layoffs
At the Lodi City Council budget discussion Wednesday night, the focus was on eight layoffs proposed by the city if four unions do not reach an agreement with the city before June 30.
Without agreements, three firefighters, one battalion chief, two maintenance workers, one senior administrative clerk in the fire department and one purchasing tech will be laid off. In addition, one building inspector will be laid off regardless of the negotiations.
The council voted 3-2 to wait to vote on the budget until a special meeting at 7 p.m. June 10 to give bargaining groups more time to work with city staff on agreements that will avoid layoffs. Councilwomen JoAnne Mounce and Susan Hitchcock and Mayor Larry Hansen voted to wait.
Councilman Phil Katzakian and Bob Johnson said they would prefer to approve the budget Wednesday.
Councilwoman JoAnne Mounce said she would not support approving the budget Wednesday night because she felt she does not have good information, and she is upset by staff reductions in firefighting and code enforcement.
Councilwoman Susan Hitchcock said that at her school, Clairmont Elementary, staff will be cut through layoffs, and she is amazed that there is a possibility the city could find a solution without cutting personnel.
While he supported an extension, Hansen said that if city staff and unions cannot reach decisions on the agreements, he will move forward with layoffs at the next meeting.
City staff said that they went to each union group with a dollar figure of how much they need to cut in pay and benefits. City Attorney Steve Schwabauer said the city offered options of how the unions can cut their budgets, and asked for suggestions.
Union leaders argued that city staff has not been responsive to suggestions from bargaining groups, and have not been clear on how much needs to be cut.
The two unions representing the fire department have not reached an agreement with the city, so four layoffs are being recommended.
Lodi Professional Firefighters Secretary Brad Doell said he thought the union has offered suggestions on how to meet the amount the city asked for in negotiations.
He said the union is waiting to see if two employees will accept the city's two-year retirement credit which has been provided as an incentive to retire early.
Hansen said that he is frustrated because the layoffs could have been avoided if the unions had agreed to city staff's proposals.
"Rather than take some temporary compensations, it appears to me your strategy is to fill the council chambers, play on the emotions and see if the council will back down," Hansen said.
Fire Battalion Chief Ron Heberle said he does not know why the city staff has mentioned layoffs, because he thought negotiations were still going on.
"We are looking for information before we make a decision. ... I just don't want you to have the flavor that, no, we are going to dig in your heels and lay people off."
Firefighter Mike Alegre said the city cannot cut firefighter personnel without a drastic change in services.
"We're all talking about numbers and line items, but what this boils down to is guys on the streets ... Soon, it is going to snowball and someone is going to die," he said.
The maintenance and operators union has agreed to six furlough days for the year. Because this union is not making more concessions, City Manager Blair King said there will be two to three layoffs.
General Services has not reached an agreement.
One of the main questions that union leader Mark Ruggiero wants answered is why two unions he represents, which are the maintenance and operators and general services, has been decreased from about 225 employees four years ago to most likely 172 to 173 employees next year.
"Everybody knows everybody is broke," Ruggiero said before the meeting. "But that being said, the city is not in as bad shape as other places. If they really wanted to save jobs, they'd be more creative."
He said the union has suggested that the city look at cell phone expenses, employees taking vehicles home, reducing overtime in Public Works and starting a flea market similar to the one in Galt in order to generate revenue.
Contact reporter Maggie Creamer at maggiec@lodinews.com or read her blog City Buzz.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
sam wrote on Jun 5, 2009 5:39 PM:
With this new 1/2 million, it pretty much guaranteed that the county supervisors are NOT going to let it go through... even after Lodi spends another 1/2 million.
I do know for a fact that the landowners are not 100% behind it.
So, Lodi will flush another $1/2 million if they try to push this new plan.
What a waste of taxpayers money. "
2much wrote on Jun 5, 2009 12:21 PM:
And I agree with Lodidian that there is a lot of wasted money and stupidly in the City, but stuff like the money used to pay for turf, fixing the Grape Bowl, and the biggest waste of money, the greenbelt, sadly the money use for that can’t be used for salaries. Another government flaw. "
reading wrote on Jun 5, 2009 11:37 AM:
No kidding? There's a recession going on??
I'm not sure what the (continual) beef is with the employees are, other than they appear to stick together. If they are taking cuts like the rest of us (are you?)...then I have to assume they're doing their part.
My question is at what point do we continue to pay for stupidity (greenbelt, turf, WID) over basic needed stuff? Cut the "wants" and preserve the "needs"....should be a no brainer. "
reading wrote on Jun 5, 2009 11:21 AM:
EXCELLENT points!...and much better stated than mine.
Obviously the spending habits of the CC are the true eye opener for you as well. "
lodidian wrote on Jun 5, 2009 10:31 AM:
I believe there would be money to provide adequate and essential city services if money had not been spent on pet projects such as WID water purchases, artificial turf at the grapebowl, the greenbelt initiative, and my pet peave--- healthcare and retirement benefits for city council members.
Should the healthcare and retirement benefits program for our part-time "volunteer elected officials" be eliminated? I think so!
Should the city try to re-negotiate the WID water bank fiasco? I think so.
Did the city approve spending a million dollars on research and design of a water treatment plant we cannot afford to build. I believe so.
Should we be investing money to upgrade the grapebowl in hopes it will attract concerts and make money? I don't think so!
Did the city approve spending a half million dollars toward the greenbelt idea? I believe so.
The money is gone or "earmarked" for pet projects, and now city management has fewer options, "tools" to balance the budget. It seems they chose to cut services and wack city employees rather than these pet projects or cc benefits. "
2much wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:27 AM:
As for the fireman’s dog & pony show at the council. OK, so the smart problem solvers have math issues. It was made abundantly clear by the end of the council meeting exactly how much money needs to be reduced from their budget in order to makes ends meet. What are the excuses going to be if they continue refuse to make concessions, it kind of counteracts the comments made by the guys that claim they LOVE this City. "
ameriCAN wrote on Jun 4, 2009 10:07 PM:
reading wrote on Jun 4, 2009 8:41 PM:
Don't waste so much energy dreaming up personal attacks. Pay attention to the fact that if you are a Lodi homeowner, we ALREADY PAY a "user fee".
That's the point. Our tax money needs to cover basic city services 100% of the time, because believe me, if you haven't paid attention the last few years....the CC WILL find somewhere else to spend our money. "
Scrutiny wrote on Jun 4, 2009 8:19 PM:
reading wrote on Jun 4, 2009 7:29 PM:
Maybe you're an apartment dweller.
I pay my own propery taxes to the tune of 6K a year on my own, Thank You very much. Part of that goes to fund basic city services, which need to be left intact in dire times. If you want to donate money to the city for some of the stupid crap WE have been paying for in the last decade....that is your choice.
Lets just say BFE is a very remote location. I'm sure you'll figure it out. "
Scrutiny wrote on Jun 4, 2009 7:09 PM:
wtf wrote on Jun 4, 2009 7:07 PM:
reading wrote on Jun 4, 2009 6:49 PM:
Speak for yourself! Move to BFE if you want a longer response! The last time I had to call 911 for a family member the FD was there in minutes with their medical equip while it took the ambulance quite a bit longer as they are always very busy elsewhere.
I pay a very fat property tax bill and I want my local FD (and PD, streets, ect) left intact! The CC needs to remember it is OUR money they piss away on useless items (greenbelt, lawsuits, ect) This money should be used for basic needs, PD, Fire, Streets! "
Scrutiny wrote on Jun 4, 2009 6:25 PM:
ameriCAN wrote on Jun 4, 2009 3:18 PM:
Neo wrote on Jun 4, 2009 3:11 PM:
Hook N' Ladder wrote on Jun 4, 2009 3:03 PM:
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Jun 4, 2009 2:20 PM:
Bravo, Larry! Bravo!
Lodidian- I agree 110%. "
lodidian wrote on Jun 4, 2009 8:39 AM:
I have asked Mr. King and each council member to help me understand why we pay council members healthcare insurance premiums and contibute to their retirement fund. Two responded with political comments but neither of them answered the question.
Eliminating this little goodie could save at least one job. Who knows how many other little goodies could be eliminated before wacking employees? "
wtf wrote on Jun 4, 2009 7:59 AM:
peek wrote on Jun 4, 2009 7:54 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.