HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12192006 - D.3 -
''TO� ..
Contra BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '••,,,
FROM: JOHN CULLEN, County Administrator o j-�v --
C oSta
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2006 •'� - ,-�'�
A -UK- County
SUBJECT: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SALARY ORDINANCE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Ordinance No. 2006-70 to adjust the compensation for members of the Board of
Supervisors and for elected County officers.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total annualized increased cost of this salary and benefit package is approximately
$300,333 for all five Board of Supervisors positions. This fiscal year's cost is estimated to be
$100,111 and will be paid for in this year's budget with additional revenue.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ® YES SIGNATURE:
QAECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ❑ RECOMM D TION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
D-APPROVE ❑OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BO D ON I
APPROVED AS COMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
G�UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Cg 1 ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
AYES: NOES: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED: DECEMBER 19,2006
VNCANT SEA-r: 'D15T91CT
Contact: JOHN CULLEN(925.335-1080) JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: CHIEF CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPVS
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
COUNTY COUNSEL By. eputy
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEMBERS A7
BACKGROUND:
In follow-up to the December 5, 2006 Board of Supervisors discussion regarding salary
comparisons among boards of supervisors, the Board of Supervisors directed the County
Administrator and County Counsel to prepare an ordinance that would adjust the board of
Supervisors base monthly salary to be as close as possible to the mean of Bay Area counties.
This comparison was selected after a review of the December 5 material (attached), which
compares Contra Costa County against the 14 most populous counties in California; the Bay
Area counties; and the nine-county"all employee" labor market. The use of the Bay Area
comparables was selected as a benchmark because it resulted in the lowest adjustments to
match comparable counties. The Board of Supervisors also directed that the ordinance include
Deferred Compensation provisions that apply to elected Department Heads, car allowance with
mileage reimbursement, and the July 1, 2007 cost-of-living adjustment granted to all County
employees.
In summary, the ordinance provides for a Board of Supervisors base monthly salary increase;<,'
from $4,993 to $7,964; Deferred Compensation for all elected County officers from $6;000 to
$12,000 annually; and Auto Allowance from $550 to $600 per month. 4
The ordinance was introduced on December 12, 2006 and public testimony was received:
GPS
S}
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-70
(Compensation for Elected County Officers)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical
footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance
Code):
SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance amends Sections 24-26.006 and 24-26.008 of the
County Ordinance Code to modify compensation provisions for members of the Board of
Supervisors and other elected county officers.
SECTION II. Section 24-26.006 of the County. Ordinance Code is amended to read:
24-26.006 Supervisors. a)Each supervisor, for service as such, shall receive a
base monthly salary at the following monthly rates as specified in the Contra Costa
County pay series schedule:
(1)From February 17, 2007 through June 30, 2007, a monthly salary of$7,964;
(2)From and after July 1, 2007, a monthly salary of$8,123.28.
(b)Additionally, each supervisor shall receive reimbursement for reasonable
expenses necessarily incurred in the conduct of such office; such other benefits as are
provided other classified or exempt management employees; eligibility for a eighty-five
dollar monthly county contribution to the county's deferred compensation plan in the
same manner as other management employees; and an automobile allowance of six
hundred dollars per month,plus all mileage, at the rate per mile allowed by the Internal
Revenue Service as a deductible expense. Receipt of the automobile allowance requires
that a private automobile be furnished for county business. (Ords. 2006-70 § 2, 99-57 § 1,
98-15, 94-10, 93-38, 92-48, 92-17, 89-77, 87-101, 85-63, 84-55, 84-34, 81-68, 81-5, 79-
52, 79-35, § 3, 78-47 § 2, 77-68 §§ 1 &2, 76-59, 75-36, 74-49; prior Code § 2431.2; Ord.
70-68; Const. XI § 1(b), Gov. Code, § 25123.5, Elec. Code, § 9143).
SECTION M. Section 24-26.008 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read:
24-26.008 Elected county officers.
As compensation for not accruing paid vacation credit, including its
retirement benefits, each elected county officer shall be provided twelve thousand
dollars as a deferred compensation contribution that will be added to the elected
county officer's deferred compensation account effective July V of each year
(commencing July 1, 2007). If, after July 1,but before June 30, of the next
succeeding year, for any reason, the elected county officer's occupancy of office
terminates or expires, the elected county officer shall be entitled to a deferred
compensation account contribution prorated from July I"to include the time
period the elected county officer served prior to the next June 30". Further, if, for
any reason, all or part of such deferred compensation contribution cannot be made
into the deferred compensation account, the elected county officer shall be
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-70
1
entitled to an equivalent lump sum payment. None of the county's twelve
thousand dollar contribution may be used to establish eligibility and qualification
to receive the additional eighty-five dollar monthly deferred compensation
incentive otherwise provided by the county. (Ords. 2006-70 § 2, 99-57 § 1.)
SECTION III. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 60 days after passage,
and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of the supervisors voting
for and against it in the t:�o W,fWA C®S 12r 11 M E S , a newspaper
published in this County.
PASSED ON C)(-Pby the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: JOHN CULLEN, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors o hair
and County Administrator
[SEAL]
Depu
ssM:S
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-70
2
Z5
O O O M 000 Co LO O O
0 O O 1- 1- N r (0 00 O
O
i.. O O cl (O 1` 1\ r to c c
N O O sY � N O
( O a`�
O _ _ - v _ F
C r r r T
O a
1Z
m
0 0 0 0 0 °' o rn ~
0 0 0 0 0 L o ce) $
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i J
m
O O r O r N 00 c
0 O ti t
N O to (M d 0) to
m r v (o N Cl) v 00
N N to r
EH fi} (A 69 6
x
E613, _
E c a c c ro c
v
E E E + m
` O + CL
A d 0 T a a � � Q C E
yd 0 00 0 Cl N E N
4w N Cl
LO
CO) 0 ti C) E
m a_
O d T
C O
V rn
E ea 0
V Q a _ o
LO v
Q mco c1 I- +o60, (fl Oo 60U
o
co 0 LO
0 z a �
A
•�C 601 00) (A. 'v a
d m �
U C? V y
20
0
a m TE O O OT O
cc
T
O `L a �. m 'in c
m z ('n �' Ea o m o
O O O u) E CD
e o o V a a
0d0 cco W
N
to �ep� CL
N
(�0 O D w ti tD Oaf (tD m Q 40 f 0) ti gn N 0)
CD ci
g y 4 oi 41 40). 6-. th, N 4 C
N
:y
3 a
O OM
N (aN "a
O N O C0 U o
Qp vE vE r
_ U N C O c O (D cn
O o
OdC7f U(o
R O w U E c ZVN (a Q 0U 0
EO N
L 9Z 0 0 v ca
E O cc c c @ O_ Q
A�
c >
N ca O (6 N N O co O LLJ W O O f0
(n U) (1) Cl) (A Z U o E o E 0 .9
`o
m
0 OO O ti
O OO
OM O h O
O ON (
n - O
2 O N iO O N f- r� r O $ m
C O tdq 0 � N O� � N O a
Q r M r r r r D
m
OO OOOOO pco
t0 O
O O Q q
O H
m
OOOO O O O nC O O O N M
'O O O O O N M 00 M Pew} c7
N Lf) M N r 613 N r
fA tf3 fi} tf� EH d4 EA
Y
to _
N
H V w O CE + >'
3 N L
c 00
40/ 0 O O (V N E O_
N a p c fR EA m E
C OS CL
a
= 0
d m �' c
Q. )
_ �_ 0 C> a)
E V tD 5 3 m 0 E O M O 3 LO O E
V V o Q o
V a O+ � M �64 61% � co �
i U
toO O
61>
rn c a 619,
z d O 3 7 3 3 a
N a) O O V
Q Ot O O O O O _ O G C
m
U
0 O O O O = N O 0." 0 w
d d 0) m m Of A >+ 0
Im Cl. CL a CL
O O O O O E N N
0 0 o eE
co co cOo 000 to Q U
.D
to
lot
C
N
CL
c = o C C 0 w o o Wt a CL
ti C
v+ w vs to a>
C
N
U) a
O O p N Cl)
ca Ti N
a) M
C (D j N
a) E a> E
M
C 03 c p C O c
01 O O U (D O U a
U a> m a> ami m U w U 2 8,
t0 � U m O O Q d C 1 N 0 p ns
a) CA Cs C C O Z U N U O N
E C a) C C 'C C cd U C Q 0 C > C > m
N 9 m O w w O m O W w O O
O cn U) CO COcn 0 M o E E o J
0
c
C LO O
+' NOMOOO O OO Oo M CO O c
Cl)C14 O O N N O Cb M t,: N T M O
O O O O� LO LO O n N O0 On N
CD
a
d M � r r M e- r- .-
m
v
n
O 0 0 0 0 0 O c� O CA O CO O t+ '
O O 0 0 O O M O CO — O 00 O q'
0 o O o 0 o 0) o o O o o - o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 ci� o o Co 0 o N o
O o 0 0 0 o O O O M O O O fl-
O O O O O Co O O N r- O h O M
M O O O O CO O O 1- CO O P- O M
m f` O O CA M CO O O ao n O CD O
MM C31 to st r N N M M ct
O V N M N 0 M " r- . N — •`•
N ER EA El? 64 EA V). ER ER Vk 6% EA Ela EJ4 6%
ER
Y
E m
a
ap L L 0
O G O O O E .' O O
d Q E E Ey m E E + a
O 0- w
,r zs a m o m m O E o m O o 0 o O m t
CL EA Cl Q. O T H9 CD C1 W, Ef} V). EH EA C1 C 7
3 � O O N co 004 n 04 H9 1- 0) E cL
4w U D U 0 T 0 ` E
mm CL C 3
C
O V T «
0
d V m
0) tm m
�_
$
m 0 a O � O O O v 0
O E N O rl- 0 O to r- CO O E E
V to 3 613� F-- (O CO CO M r � N r- 0 to
CL Q O 09. EPr + m EA is EA ER 6s FR V), f1 + +
Ln v
0 .1 LO Z Q� 609
N C
++ m m m m m O
N CL C o ' ?r. o o IPA
f o o o v
O a O O y V V V V V O 3 V R ' O O e
=° a V `0 0 0 0 `o d m a m flys O 0 d 'if N
cc 'a c ' 4 c .: a fY m M W � O
O d LL �! m m m m m T T (/� ® T A y� 9. T �^ O
CL a a a a a k _ > Q .c U
to 3 .N ca 14- vN. w w N N N N N (% En y
a/ Cf O O O O O
ui
CD
o o e o
aQ0 coo coo a0o coo N U
v
c
m
E2i
N O w r•' 14 e" M ti M O N o Q
w lli 0 O O O to 0 M O lA O df !• N ti
01 N to CA Co to CA m m if CO co
O N cm 0 O O O ow co CO ti to CD 4 CA e! CfD OD M O
to d! 6fY ff! Y! !R ER !
V1 A !A ER Nl ER tfT CA ER to 1� h
c
vi
N
Z
m a
0 0 C m M
m o U O ° c :a m m m � o
0) ccm y m N to cr 0 Z m m N
c rn 0 U n ai rn `� m c c ca E m ca U Q Q 0 E ami E c �,
3 m a� E m c '- - a`�i m m -o3 m w p 0 c 0 •N a
U w m c > m O m u- LL Y 0 c � yU NU 2
0 � tmn ¢ m v) v� �j ami U aa)i U 'o m
cn
c > c > m c
- o - o m
ELECTED DEPARTMENT HEAD SALARY
OCTOBER 2006
SALARY
ASSESSOR $11,744.06
CLERK-RECORDER $109043.31
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER $119744.06
DISTRICT ATTORNEY $149301.79
SHERIFF $159282.74
TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR $119651.41
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS $ 49993.00
ADDENDUM to D.3
December 19, 2006
On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered adopting Ordinance No. 2006-70 to adjust the
compensation for members of the Board of Supervisors and for elected County officers.
Chair Gioia called for public comment. The following people spoke in opposition to the
proposed Ordinance:
Rollie Katz, Public Employees Union Local 1 (also submitted a signed petition);
Chandra Day, Contra Costa County employee;
Margaret Harris, Contra Costa County employee;
Lauren Unruh, Pleasant Hill resident.
E-mail correspondence was received from the following people in opposition to the proposed
Ordinance:
HaL Bailey, resident of Alamo;
"Suzanne", Pacheco resident;
Michael F. Sarabia, Bay Point resident;
Mike Brown, Martinez resident.
The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed Ordinance:
Ethan Veneklasen, Contra Costa Council;
Mike Boghrer, Deputy Sheriffs Association
E-mail correspondence was received from the following people in support to the proposed
Ordinance:
Ralph Hoffman, resident of District III.
Supervisor Glover said he would look to the Board for interest in considering the abolishment of
those stipends that Supervisors receive for their service on the Boards of Flood Control,
Redevelopment, and the Housing Authority.
Supervisor Piepho suggested researching the history of those three Board assignments in order to
give proposed changes thorough consideration. She further noted there is an additional member
who serves on the Housing Authority Board, and that person is not a Supervisor.
Chair Gioia, commenting on the Ordinance, said the intention was to enable current and future
Supervisors to be able to devote time to the Board as their full-time job.
By a unanimous vote with none absent and the District IV seat vacant, the Board of Supervisors
took the following action:
ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2006-70 to adjust the compensation for members of the Board of
Supervisors and for elected County officers, and DIRECTED staff to return to the Board on
January 16, 2007 with background on the stipends that the Board members receive for serving on
the Boards of Flood Control, Redevelopment, and the Housing Authority.
o
a
tin
CID
Iz, CD
o
r-
o Q-
i
O
O t'1 tt vG. P-
d•„
6
o
�„ co � `n �• d �
0
O � V•,'
p;, a
d
(•1 `�¢�. "� � yrs
o °,y
to ✓
as � � � �•
c�
0
co �, d
7A
c�
Lp n
tv CO C)
o TA
cp
to
rl
ccl�
o
N
� O
uo 0
x
N �
oaf _
zt
c�
°
CD o �s
0
o Q
go
to
t�-
o �
o
o-
w
p� o � •-�, v, ca
C4 4 K7—
UQ
cr
cr
ro
c�
o t:3 Gr
Q
� N cra
o caro 3
� a
5.
d tx LN
'� CDT.
fD
�•t
"Hal Bailey" To: <jpenn@cob.cccounty.us> �l f
<halbailey@mphb.net> cc: <kkeane@cctimes.com>, "'Dolores Ciardelli"'
<dciardelli@danvilleweekly.com>, <editor@alamotoday.com>,
12/18/2006 08:19 AM <dan.noyes@abc.com>
Subject: Submission of Comment: Item D3, Board of Supervisors Agenda,
December 19, 2006
D.3 CONSIDER adopting Ordinance No. 2006-70 to adjust the compensation for
members of the Board of Supervisors and for elected County officers. (100% General
Fund) (John Cullen, County Administrator) (All Districts)
The current polling results being electronically circulated among communities and neighborhoods
throughout Contra Costa County provide 78% opposition to approval of raises as noted above and at least
73% of residents per district oppose the current supervisor continuing as representative of Contra Costa
County district residents. It is the responsibility of supervisors to represent the will, interests and advisory
of cities, communities, neighborhoods and residents and polling results indicate that individually and as a
board the current supervisors have failed.
Current supervisors are referred to as"tyrants and dictators in their self serving abuse of Contra Costans"
and in District III's Delta and San Ramon Valley neighborhoods a formal recall effort is being drafted.
Thus, as the board of supervisors considers final approval of another agenda item broadly opposed in
Contra Costa County, it would be considerate to understand the impact on supervisors' personal
reputation and opportunities for further political office. Supervisors' image and reputations have been
reduced by sarcasm as volumes of e-mail in community and neighborhood distribution repeat, "all is the
work of Merry Mary Quite Contrary, Handin Gloveorpocket, John Jolly Roger, Gay Leigh
Ukulele, and Bonnie Sue Comelately. "
It should be the mutual concern of Contra Costa County supervisors and voters to insure that individual
and board actions reflect the will, interests and advisory of Contra Costans, and to that end, it would be
prudent for supervisors to suspend approval of this ordinance and refer it to the Grand Jury or other
appropriate review authority to determine voter approval or disapproval. It is very clear that approval of
this ordinance without review will end all five supervisors' political careers.
AS courtesy research and commentary,
Hal Bailey
Alamo CA 94507-1075
+1.925.943.1170
Member, CDSI Research Fellowship
<ccO @contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>
net> cc:
12/12/2006 01:40 PM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht
m
Username: Suzanne
UserAddress: Pacheco
UserTel:
UserEmail: suzzannebl82@aol.com
AgendaDate: 12/12/06
Option; D.1
AgendaItem:
Remote Name: 207 .200.116.68
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9 .0; Windows NT 5 .1;
Sv1)
Date: 12 Dec 2006
Time: 13:40:03
Comments:
It is my understanding that CCC Supervisors are elected officials. How can CCC
Supervisors justify giving themselves a 60% raise? What is the average cost of
living raise given to average workers? None of you will have my vote next
year. Most government offices are top heavy, instead of cutting out school
programs, cut the salary of the top officials! ! ! ! NOW that is progress.
Understand where I am coming from! ! !
<cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>
net> cc:
12/13/2006 01:15 PM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht
m
Username: Michael F. Sarabia
UserAddress: P. 0. Box 5156, Bay Point, CA 94565
UserTel: 925.709-0751
UserEmail: mchlsrrb@aol.com
AgendaDate: 12/12/06
Option: Selected
AgendaItem: D.2
Remote Name: 64.12.122.196
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; America Online Browser
1.6-embedded; rev1.6; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Date: 13 Dec 2006
Time: 13:15:13
Comments:
There is an ideological split in our common value system between, on the one
hand, all personal financial matters and, on the other hand, when it comes to
the salaries of our Civil Service Leaders, particularly our County Board of
Supervisors.
It makes no sense to pay the LEAST "we can get away with" for the relatively
few people on which we all depend for the most important critical decisions
regarding our security, health, education, environment protection, etc.
It makes no sense to keep salaries so low that any private institution that
requires a license, approval or permit could find it cheaper to finance the
election of someone they want and trust to do their bidding and leave people
in the dark as to their motives; people not selected for their concern and
support for Democracy, Education, clean water and the Environment.
It is unwise, makes no sense, and is at least potentially, dangerous to
allow a group with a common self-interest to take over the governance of the
state, county or city for the private benefit of a few.
This would be a return to the Robber Barons days of the late 1800s that Teddy
Roosevelt fought.
If, on the other hand, the Board of Supervisors salaries were high enough,
many more would consider running for these positions and only those with
established records would have an advantage in a competition where the amount
spend in advertising often determines results.
Therefore, I believe, it is incumbent on the incumbents to protect the future
of all of us in Contra Costa County and the Delta water, therefore the future
of water for 26 Million Californians, by approving for themselves the highest
rate of salary increases they consider prudent.
These salary increases should continue until they match the salaries of the
highest paid College Dean in the State University System or, at least,
$350, 000 per year in total compensation.
When a business wants control of land worth a Billion dollars, they will
resort to whatever is necessary to get whatever approval or licence is
required.
Contra Costa County, with land worth 100s of Billions, needs a Board of
Supervisors willing to do what is best for ALL the people in the county and
there is no known way to determine the character of a person than by their
previous performance particulary in regards to Education, Democracy,
Environment issues, etc.
(I personally regard the BOS sessions the most instructive graduate seminars
on Democracy, Civility, Tolerance, Polite Speech, Human Relations, etc. , I
have ever attended. I thank you for your patient attention. MFS)
The credibility of paid TV "sound bytes" may some day be lost but, maybe, not
yet. While people may not be bought, or stay bought, TV commercials are for
sale.
You owe to you, and, many of us believe and hope, to us too, to stay true to
yourselves and, courageously, put your future at risk and increase your
salaries as fast as prudent before the new Robber Barons, whoever they may be,
take over Contra Costa County.
I would personally like to see future pay increases real soon.
.Remember, there is no known way to determine the character of a person than by
their previous performance, everything else may be illusory.
<cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>
net> cc:
12/16/2006 09:01 AM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacom ments_fo rm.ht
m
Username: Mike Brown
UserAddress: 410 Arroyo Dr Martinez
UserTel:
UserEmail: .
AgendaDate:
Option: D.1
AgendaItem: .
Remote Name: 69 .236.172.192
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET
CLR 1.1.4322; yplus 5.1.04b)
Date: 16 Dec 2006
Time: 09:01:21
Comments:
Pay raise digusting.
Not public intrest but selfintrest.
<ccO@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>
net> cc:
12/18/2006 08:24 AM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
http://www.cc.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht
m
Username: Ralph Hoffmann
UserAddress: Contra Costa County, District III
UserTel: 925-831-8201
UserEmail: ralph_ralph@sbcglobal.net
AgendaDate: _ 12/19/06
Option: Selected
AgendaItem: D.3
Remote Name: 71.134.252.98
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; YPC 3 .2 .0;
.NET CLR 1.1.4322; yplus 5.1.04b)
Date: 18 Dec 2006
Time: 08:24:41
Comments:
Amending my previous comments to you, upon hearing public testimony and
written letters in the media, I wish to comment in favor of adopting Ordinance
No. 2006-70.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE OUTRAGED
THAT MEMBERS OF THE.BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE PREPARING TO RAISE
THEIR SALARIES BY APPROXITEY 60%. . THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES PARTICIULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE BOARD'S POSITION
THROUGHOUT OUR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT
AFFORD REASONABLE PAY INCREASES FOR RANK AND FILE WORKERS.
NAME SIGNATURE TITLE / JOB DEPT.
S
�""l ✓� h. !� i V L Jn
� 2 �s /W
4A44k:
f7JQ�
npdc'a -A/wr/pldCM0
NAt/ fAA
Fs�• OU I
Gir�� W Nrw - +s
I'IQY OAd f r Cle A-)� n1 I-H-
/-N
--S
-
--S - - / I � �
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE OUTRAGED
THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE PREPARING TO RAISE
THEIR SALARIES BY APPROXINI�.ATEY 60%. THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES PARTICIULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE BOARD'S POSITION
THROUGHOUT OUR CONTRACT NEGOTATIONS THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT
AFFORD REASONABLE PAY INCREASES FOR RANK AND FILE WORKERS.
NAME SIGNATURE TITLE / JOB DEPT.
`JCA �Jcc
%f ea seru ca-�S
Caa�rie,Oooconoof� S W. 11
�-
�� NLflICA L-
CA-
L A A-
o
1���
1M s Ser
)rj MA
�1 er� rh✓�c?�C v'�
N
a Q- 0 ,art eta_,
1
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE OUTRAGED
THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE PREPARING TO RAISE
THEIR SALARIES BY APPROXIM)(ATEY 60%. THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES PARTICIULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE BOARD'S POSITION
THROUGHOUT OUR CONTRACT NEGOTATIONS THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT
AFFORD REASONABLE PAY INCREASES FOR RANK AND FILE WORKERS.
NAME SIGNATURE TITLE / JOB DEPT.
oz/o?�;z
c - ( vis L2 k1w
A S7-4 -Af��
vr,c�-r
�+
1
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE OUTRAGED
THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE PREPARING TO RAISE
THEIR SALARIES BY APPROXIM)ATEY 60%. THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES PARTICIULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE BOARD'S POSITION
THROUGHOUT OUR CONTRACT NEGOTATIONS THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT
AFFORD REASONABLE PAY INCREASES FOR RANK AND FILE WORKERS.
NAME SIGNATURE TITLE / JOB DEPT.
ea
2 3 ��N r GPS �hor!'mti c
�v
V-0)MA
-r-
ax'574A/77/vo azz-� al� uq 0 N
D kA
Aut A'\/A\N F,
1
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE OUTRAGED
THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE PREPARING TO RAISE
THEIR SALARIES BY APPROXIlV�ATEY 60%. THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES PARTICIULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE BOARD'S POSITION
THROUGHOUT OUR CONTRACT NEGOTATIONS THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT
AFFORD REASONABLE PAY INCREASES FOR RANK AND FILE WORKERS.
NAME SIGNATURE TITLE / JOB DEPT.
J�
i '
nam a-yl� Lg-�mb
�C UA
,L-Dl�wY^
I-A AJC.Q G• e�t S h, t{l��/ -y
h �
(A'''� �j� - ✓r�l�ter, N3' ���,-ma
1
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE OUTRAGED
THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE PREPARING TO RAISE
THEIR SALARIES BY APPROXI4ATEY 01/o} THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES PARTICIULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE BOARD'S POSITION
THROUGHOUT OUR CONTRACT NEGOTATIONS THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT
AFFORD REASONABLE PAY INCREASES FOR RANK AND FILE WORKERS.
NAME SIGNATURE TITLE /JOB DEPT.
'TV-u_H_A_ L-E-
M-AAEL A-zFvti"O
46-C11YA All-aiw x /Awl- C
1
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE OUTRAGED
THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE PREPARING TO RAISE
THEIR SALARIES BY APPROXIMLATEY 60%. THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES PARTICIULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE BOARD'S POSITION
THROUGHOUT OUR CONTRACT NEGOTATIONS THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT
AFFORD REASONABLE PAY INCREASES FOR RANK AND FILE WORKERS.
NAME SIGNATURE TITLE / JOB DEPT.
amilmommomomml
PLIG
i
ZLI
I�le
ol
_) J
�4
W.WrL Dowm I- 0i
J
J�(*,Q- FQjo_r P�jb1,c
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE OUTRAGED
THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE PREPARING TO RAISE
THEIR SALARIES BY APPROXIMLATEY 60%. THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES PARTICIULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE BOARD'S POSITION
THROUGHOUT OUR CONTRACT NEGOTATIONS THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT
AFFORD REASONABLE PAY INCREASES FOR RANK AND FILE WORKERS.
NAME SIGNATURE TITLE / JOB DEPT.
L t n a V,d-Q,.rs dV\ _ PLLb
lVIUL'Sd-t�a "DQf-e-(/t
PA 6)ie- I >?I,
Q-c4 ��-
&1
� 1 (c,
Wn
�C
l�
63TK� 0
�Iy I yl 4 r� GVHAT7-�
�-I IN L,'1-3 77710-70A- c>'b 1)c-,C,-
A
V lao
F'-e
1
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE OUTRAGED
THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE PREPARING TO RAISE
THEIR SALARIES BY APPROXIMLATEY 60%. THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES PARTICIULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE BOARD'S POSITION
THROUGHOUT OUR CONTRACT NEGOTATIONS THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT
AFFORD REASONABLE PAY INCREASES FOR RANK AND FILE WORKERS.
NAME SIGNATURE TITLE / JOB DEPT.
�4-1
3
01-- b`�
tv
1
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE OUTRAGED
THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE PREPARING TO RAISE
THEIR SALARIES BY APPROXIMLATEY 60%. THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES PARTICIULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE BOARD'S POSITION
THROUGHOUT OUR CONTRACT NEGOTATIONS THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT
AFFORD REASONABLE PAY INCREASES FOR RANK AND FILE WORKERS.
NAME SIGNATURE TITLE / JOB DEPT.
,tel c 1e,-�-� s
Lee
• _, ate.
cWlVA-
� S0
y k-,j
iJ 9-0-hab
terry
Rat M CAeq-a-- 6Jn-a-. VF ,q�k"
46CD-ko-�' Rtt�- �Z� p r P,'We,
aer
i
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE OUTRAGED
THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE PREPARING TO RAISE
THEIR SALARIES BY APPROXIMLATEY 60%. THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES PARTICIULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE BOARD'S POSITION
TI4ROUGHOUT OUR CONTRACT NEGOTATIONS THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT
AFFORD REASONABLE PAY INCREASES FOR RANK AND FILE WORKERS.
NAME SIGNATURE TITLE / JOB DEPT.
A-0 y ��
C�y�
C s GSodo
CTT-
�-r
ACCO
Jane Pennington To: cctlegals@cctimes.com
12/19/2006 04:06 PM cc:
Subject: request to publish Ordinance 2006-70
Hi Anaisha
Please publish the Ordinance forwarded here one time in the next available edition.
Thank you,
Jane Pennington
925-335-1908
L
Electeds Compensation Ord-12-12-06.doc
€t Jane Pennington,Chief Clerk
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i
phone: 925.335.1908
fax: 425,335.1913
9259438359
DEC 19 2006 16 : 04 FR CONTRA COSTA TIMES 9259436359 TO 98351913 P . 81i01
nest to publish Ordinance 2006-70
Subject: request to publish Ordinance 2006-70
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:13:22 -0800
From: Anashia Lloyd <cetlegals@cctimes.com>
Organization: Contra Costa Newspapers, Inc.
To: JPenn@cob.cccounty.us
THIS E-MAIL CONTAINS PERTINENT INFORMATION; PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY
IN ITS ENTIRETY,
PLEASE NO rE;All of our offices will be closed Christmas Day, December 25, 2006 and New Year's
Day, January 1, 2007
Good Afternoon. Please be advised that I cannot schedule the legal notice without your specifying
in which newspaper(s)you would like the notice to publish, as we do represent several and no
assumptions can be made. Please advise.
Only e-mail to ecticgals(d�cctirnes.com regarding Control Costa Times, Concord Transcript, or
Contra Costa Sun legal notices.
TRIS E-MAIL will also be faxed to your attention @ (925) 335-1913. Thanks!
ANASHIA LLOYD
Legal Advertising Coordinator
(925) 943-8019
(925) 943-8359 — fax
Contra Costa Times
ATTNT: Legal Dept. l
P.O. Box 4718
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 —
cctlegals-@cctimes.com
12/19/06 4:13 PM
* TOTAL PPGE . 01 **